YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE

ANTIQUITIES OF ISEAEL

THE

ANTIQUITIES OP ISEAEL

BY

HEINRICH EWALD,

LATE PROFESSOB OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINQEX.

TRANSLATED from the GERMAN

HENEY SHAEN SOLLY, M.A.

BOSTON:
LOCKWOOD, BEOOKS, AND CO.
381 WASHINGTON STREET.
1876.

CQZ3

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

The 'Antiquities op Israel ' was primarily intended by its
Author to be an Appendix to the Second Volume of the
* History of Israel.' Some of its assumptions will, therefore,
hardly be understood by the reader who takes it up with
out previous acquaintance with the History. This applies
especially to the titles of the Old Testament sources on
which Ewald draws, and the dates which he assigns to
their composition. Those, however, who do not care to
study the entire History, will find, in Volume I. pp. 61-197,
a section fully explaining what is meant by the Book of
Origins, the Book of Covenants, and the several Narrators
of the Primitive History.
But the present work is far more than a mere appendix.
It is an independent treatise on the contents of the Penta
teuch, having, as its main object,, to reduce the hetero
geneous and bewildering mass of laws to an orderly system,
— a unity which can be grasped by the understanding and
retained by the memorj', and Avhich shall exhibit the facts
in their living connection with the history of the nation.
The reputation which the book has long enjoyed on the
^Continent is cliiefly due to its acknowledged success in
l&ttaining this object.
; In presenting this work to an English public, the trans-
\ ktor's first duty is gratefully to acknowledge the assistance

VI preface.
which has been rendered him by Professor Dillmann,
Eector of the University of Berlin, who has revised all the
proof-sheets, and whose conscientious scrutiny, while it has
served as a constant check on the translator's inclination
to paraphrase instead of translating, will afford the real
student no inconsiderable guarantee that Ewald's meaning
is correctly rendered on all important points. Still the
difficulty of translating. Ewald is so great, that the translator
can hardly hope to have attained uniform success ; he only
asks that the work may be judged as a whole, and will be
sincerely grateful to any critic who will enable him either
to correct inaccuracies, or to improve the style without
altering the meaning.
The translation has been made from the Third (and
latest) Edition of the original, published in 1866 ; but all
the additions and alterations which the author intended to
appear in any subsequent edition have been incorporated
here ; on the other hand, one or two allusions to modern
politics have been omitted, as they have from the History.
The marginal paging gives the pages of the Second Edition,,
which is the one referred to in Ewald's History and the
English translation of the Prophets : pages 156-159 have
been placed between pp. 360 and 361. At the end of the
volume will be found a plan of the Tabernacle, added with
the hope of making the verbal description more intelligible,
but it must be used only to elucidate, not to supplement,
the text. Anything that it makes determinate which the
text leaves indeterminate cannot claim the support of
Ewald's authority. The Index also is an addition ; but the
Table of Contents is a careful reproduction of the author's
own, and may materially assist the reader to understand
the plan and unity of the work. All the Biblical references
have been verified, and not a few corrected. They refer

preface. vn
to the Hebrew text ; where that differs from the notation of'
our Authorised Version (' A.V.') the latter is inserted in
square brackets. These brackets are also used to distinguish
three or four similar additions made by the translator. In
references to German works the letter s. stands before the
number of the page ; when the work is not German, the
letter p. occupies a similar place ; the letters bk. before
a Biblical reference correspond to the B. (Buch), which
Ewald and others employ to intimate that the passage re
ferred to is not the work of its reputed author.
The translator begs also to thank the various friends,,
especially the last Editor of the History, Professor J. E.
Carpenter, M.A., for the assistance which has been so freely-
rendered him during the past two years.
Padiham : February 1876.

CONTENTS.

PAQE:
Translator's Preface ....... t

INTRODUCTION.
The Laws and Customs of the Theocracy in its Transition
to the Monarchy .......

FIRST SECTION.
The One Side : Human Effort and Action towards God . . 12-
I. Sacked Utterances :

1. The Sacred Utterances expressed Ly Words
a. Prayer, and what is allied to it
b. The Oath and Adjuration .
c. The Vow ....
2. The Saered Utterances expressed hy Sacrifices
a. The Sacrifices of Property .
A. The Table-offering

14 14 16
21 2325
27

B. The Fire-offering ...... 28
i. The Materials of the Food-offering . . 31
The Blood and Entrails . . . .35
ii. The General Procedure with Sacrifice hy Fire . . 42
Ui. The Individual Fire-o*fferings and their respective sig
nificance :
The Whole- or Burnt-offering . . 46
The Thank-offering and its Varieties . . .50
The Expiatory- and Guilt-offerings . . 55
Purification- and Consecration-offerings, Treaty-offerings 67
The Effects and Issues of the Food-offerings . . 69>

X

CONTENTS.

¦Section I. The One Side : Human Effort and Action towards
G OD — continued.

C Simple Sacred Gifts . . .
The Consecrated Gift ....
The Ban-gift (Ban-offering)
Redemption of Consecrated Gifts
b. Corporal Offerings and Sacrifices of Bodily Pleasures .
i. Fasting and Similar Matters
ii. The Nazirites ....
iii. Circumcision .
c. The Offering of Rest : the Sabbath
The Sacred Utterances expressed by Purifications and Consecrations
The Sacraments of Jahveh ....

II.

The Sacred Externals ......
Sacred Men .....
Sacred Times. The Perpetual Light and Sacrifice
The Sacred Appliances, Places, and Buildings
III. The Procedure or Divine Service in the Community .

PAGE 71
7175 79
81
81 84
8997
107108
111
112 113
117 130

SECOND SECTION.

'The Other Side : The Divine
Righteousness

Demands for Holiness and

The Power of Inflicting Punishment
I. The Sanctity Inherent in Natcre .....
1. What is Essentially Repulsive or Unclean
a. What is Unclean for Food .....
b. What is too Unclean and Unholy, or else too Holy to be touched
c. Material Impurities in Human Beings, and Elsewhere .
2. Unnatural Combinations .....
Unnatural Mutilation and Disfigurement of the Body ,
3. Consideration for Nature .....
-II. The Sanctity Inherent in Human Beings .
1. The Sanctity of Human Life
The Law of Corporal and Moral Integrity ,
The Sanctity of Property
u. Fixed and Movable Property
b. The Law of Borrowing and Lending
c. Protection of Property by Law .
2. The Sanctity of the Homo
a. The Relation between Parents and Children
6. The Relation between Man and Wife
c. The Relation between Slaves, their Owners, and Free Men
3. The Sanctity attaching to Foreigners ....

134 136
142 144
146149155
160 163
166
167 168
175176 177181
185187188
190
210
216

Section II. The Other Side : The Divine Demands for
Holiness and Righteousness — continued. PAGE
211. The Sanctity Inherent in Jahveh and his Kingdom . . . 220
1. The Sanctity of Jahveh and Veneration for him . . . 220
The Sanctity of Truth in the Kingdom . . . . 220
The Opposition to every Form of Heathen Idolatry . . . 222
2. The Sanctity of the Nation . . . . . . 229
The Vassals of the Nation. The Laws of War . . .234
Membership in the Community . . . . . . 237
3. The Sanctity of the Kingdom ...... 239

THIRD SECTION.
The Connection between the Two Sides by means op the
Organisation of the Kingdom . . . . . 241
I. Tab Nation and its Leaders ...... 241
1. The National Assembly . . . . . . 241
2. The Overseers and Judges ...... 253
3. The Prince of the Nation . . . . . . 254
II. Special Powers and Professions in the Nation . . . 256
Production aud Trade . . . . . . 256
Prophecy ......... 258
The Priesthood . . . . . . . . 260
X. Its General Relation to the Nation ..... 260
2. Sphere and Nature of the Sacerdotal Functions . . . 269
a. The Regular Priests . . . . . .273
b. The Inferior Priests Or the Levites . . . 281
c. The High-Priest . . . . . .288
3. Maintenance of the Priests and the Sanctuary . . . . 298
The First-Fruits and the Tithes . . . . .298
III. The Kingdom: Its Unity and its Agencies . . . . 307
1. The Government .....••• 307
2. The Administration of Justice . . . . . . 310
The Legal Modes of Punishment ..... 314
3. The Sacred Tent . . . • • • . . 317

FOURTH SECTION.
How both Sides were Supplemented in the Course op Time :
The Great Sabbath-Cycle . . . . . . 334
The Division of Time among the Ancient Nation . . . 339
1. The Sabbatical Month and the Seven Annual Festivals . . . 348

a. The Traces of Pre-Mosaic Festivals ,

348

Xll CONTENTS.
Section IV. How Both Sides were Supplemented in the Course
¦of Time : The Great Sabbath-Cycle — continued. PAGE
b. The Festivals Established by Mosos . . . . . 354
c. The Three Annual Pilgrimages ..... 366
2. The Sabbath-year . . . . . . . 369
3. The Year of Jubilee ....... 372:
Conclusion ......... 381
The Human Kingdom . . . . . . . . 381

Index

Errata.
Page 14, line 8, for Indian, read Hindoo.
„ 15, „ 4, „ Indians, ,, Hindoos.
>. 16, „ 9. „ Indians, „ Hindoos.
„ 305, note 4, „ Mischna, ,, Mishnah.

383

Plan op Tabernacle . . . . . . . 387

THE
ANTIQUITIES OE ISEAEL.

INTRODUCTION.
The Laws and Customs op the Theocracy in its
Transition to the Monarchy.1
At the peaceful and elevated centre of the whole history, we
purpose making a considerable pause, to learn more closely how
the highest life of the ancient nation gradually found a way
into all its lower springs of action, and how it sought to
establish itself permanently in a variety of legal institutions.
To understand this thoroughly and firmly is absolutely in
dispensable for a correct apprehension of the complete history ;
and the present opportunity is in every respect the most suit
able for explaining it.
I* For it was not till the peaceful elevation of the last years
of David, and of the succeeding rule of Solomon was attained,
that the laws and institutions of the Theocracy could expand to
their full extent. Not till then could they entwine themselves so
closely with the whole national life as we find was the case in
the next centuries, and which in essentials lasted unaltered
during all their subsequent course. Only in those periods of
a nation's life which are blessed with peace will its better
customs and usages assume the most permanent forms, when
the germs have had a long time, stormy and violent though
it may have been, to strike deep into the soil. What would
have resulted from all the institutions and. customs of the
Mosaic Theocracy if the storms of the period of the Judges had :
1 Comp. History of Israel, vol. iii. p. 202.
B

2 THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS
not been followed by the sunny days of David and Solomon ?
Ancient Israel was now for the first time firmly established in
the country, and the finer manifestations of its life under the
Theocracy, now also first assumed the forms which they ever
after essentially retained.
This fact is confirmed by their literature. The important
remains of the Book of Origins, dating from just this exalted
period, supply us with the most complete and vivid descriptions
of the laws of the Theocracy which we possess. The more
strongly a greatly altered age tended to introduce modifications,
the more scrupulously did the author of this Book ' seek to
preserve the remembrance of the laws of the Theocracy as they
had existed and been developed from the august days of Moses.
He was of course primarily not a legislator, but a writer of
history ; but his anxiety is evident to contribute all he can to
save and establish the genuine old theocratic laws, so that his
work is imbued with the true legislative spirit. For this purpose
he strictly limited himself to the laws of the ancient Theocracy,
without regarding those of the Monarchy, which was as yet too
new to become the object of historical explanation and lengthy
description. Moreover, to preserve by its side as much as
possible of the old customs and principles of the Theocracy,
and establish them for all future times, appeared a sufficiently
important aim. It was still not too late to make a more com
plete collection of these ancient laws and legal germs, and to
give an explanation of them ; and no one has done this more
satisfactorily than our author. Nor can there be anything at
once more foolish and more unjust than to suppose that the
laws and regulations of the Theocracy described in this book
had no genuine historical basis, or did not in the main come
down from Moses as their ultimate source. We have indeed
no guarantee that each little section of the usages here de
scribed as legal came in that exact form direct from Moses.
Many details may have been more fully worked out in the time
of Joshua or later still, and would appear so sacred that the
author would now never think of separating them from the rest.
In what cases this has occurred will be explained more fully
below. But to deny their historical basis, and their ultimate
origin in Moses, is nothing less than completely to misunder
stand, on the one side, the soul of ancient literature, and on
the other, both the inmost essence and the grand connection of
the most important laws.2
1 Hist i. p. 82. _ many from twenty to forty, nay, even ten
1 As, alas, was very common m Ger- years ago. The best refutation of such

OF THE THEOCRACY. 3
Accordingly we proceed everywhere on the broad and secure
foundation furnished by the Book of Origins, composed at this
very period. Nothing can give us such vivid representations of ¦
details, nothing can promise us so trustworthy a historical
starting-point, as the precious relics of this book. But we shall
always compare with them the remaining earlier and later
sources ; tracing back the origin and meaning of the usages to
the earliest days of the community, or still further into the
remotest primitive times ; and also directing our glance forwards
to the later, especially the Deuteronomic, development. If the
usages prevalent in the brightest periods of the whole history
are understood, as well as the way in which their ancient
origin is to be regarded, it will be easy to survey the compara
tively trifling changes which they underwent in the later days
towards the end of this history ; and this in most cases can be
touched upon in no more suitable place than is afforded by the
present work. On the other hand, the entirely new develop
ments of later centuries, from the origin of the human monarchy
in Israel and subsequently, can only be discussed when we come
to those periods, and are explained in detail at the proper
places in the third volume, from page 204 onwards, and in the
succeeding volumes of the history.
2. If it were necessary to describe here the condition of 4
the ancient nation in every respect, this discussion would have
to be tolerably minute. But useful as it may be to know,
amongst other things, how the ancient Israelites were dressed,
or what sort of dwellings they had, yet we find that just in
these matters of ordinary human life, the nation had few or no
peculiarities, and still less set an example in them to other
races. The ordinary clothing and manner of living of the men
and women of Israel were, with trifling exceptions, of which
some are mentioned below, the same as those of the nations
then dwelling in that part of the world, and as still exist there
very little altered. On this account in the Bible, too, very little
comparatively is said on these matters, and the starting-point
for all discussion in this province is a knowledge of the present
condition of these lands and nations.
There is much besides of what was peculiar to the people of
misunderstandings is given in the whole has been now revived in a somewhat more
discussion which follows. — I leave this serious fashion only by K. H. Graf in
remark from the first edition still standing his treatise Die geschichtHctien Biicher des
(1866). Apart from the scholars of our Alten Testaments, Leipsic, 1866. How
days who do not go on historical princi- little foundation there is for this is shown
pies, the earliest general doubt of De in the criticism of it in the Gottingen.
Wette, Gramberg, Bohlen, and others, Gelehrten Anzeigen, 1866.

4 ' THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS
Israel, and has far more importance for our object, which is
explained at scattered but suitable places in the history, or is
touched upon below only in passing.
What specially concern us are the institutions, considered
as a whole, which existed in the ancient nation either by law or
by public custom ; or the life of the nation so far as it was
determined and ruled by the truths and impulses of Jahveism
which were stirring in it. Only what belongs to this has full
significance for our purpose ; but this significance is shared
by even the smallest and apparently most insignificant thing,
so far as the power of Jahveism contributed to make it exactly
what it was, and thus confirms the principle that a powerful
religion always completely penetrates the whole of the national
life. And because a large portion of the history of Israel
turns upon these institutions, it is this side of the antiquities
of the nation respecting which we possess comparatively the
richest sources of information, great as may be the carefulness
6 required to understand many of the details aright.
When, however, we consider the particulars of even so
limited a province as this, we meet with phenomena so exces
sively numerous and varied, that it appears difficult to describe
them' according to any arrangement which shall correspond to
their essence and internal connection. In the ordinary text
books on antiquities, the most superficial, and therefore the most
capricious and irregular, arrangements prevail ; for they are
content merely to handle certain principal subjects one after
another. But as we are about specially to describe here such
customs and institutions as were either created or put into
more definite shape under the predominant influence of the
higher religion, we cannot have much doubt as to the proper
arrangement of our varied matter. All religion consists in a
living relation between God and man, a striving of man to
raise himself up to God and so draw Him down to himself,
God yet ever remaining sublimely exalted, his Ruler and
Governor. The conception of true religion expresses itself
throughout the Old Testament ' in the short phrase, ' Israel
my people and I their God.' When the reciprocal relation
between the nation and the true God, as it ought to exist
according to this phrase, is perfect, then is all religion in that
community perfect, for there can be no longer discord between
man and God. But in the course of history we see only
striving after this perfection ; though this mere striving, when
1 Comp. Hist. ii. 136 [first, ed.i. 559].

OF THE THEOCRACY. fi
it is earnest and engrosses the whole energy, as was for the
most part the case in Israel, secures a firm basis for progress
in true religion. Man, then, on his side attempts everything
to obtain the favour of his God. In every religion there arises
in the course of its history a body of recognised and sanctified
human efforts and institutions, which hope to secure without
intermission the divine nearness and favour. It was, however, 6
in Israel, where everything divinely-human, that is, religious,
strove to reach the highest perfection, that the most perfect body
of this kind was formed. But independent of all these human
efforts, and of those which true religion recognises and pro
tects by its own sanctity, there are the divine demands for
perfect righteousness; dema.nds which man ought to satisfy,
and which he is very far from so doing merely by the above
efforts ; because these only lead him to the point at which ha
should begin satisfying them truly, and are therefore only the
ways to heaven, and like other ways (methods) can be easily
worn into holes. We have therefore a twofold subject to discuss
in order and throughout its whole sphere : the human efforts
and actions which Jahveism allowed in order to attain unto
the true God, and the divine demands for true righteousness
which it placed before man. In every case, of course, our
treatment will have special reference to the actual customs and
institutions which arose and were maintained among the people.
—These two sides ofthe national life have indeed very different
starting-points, and can even come easily into collision. But
still there is a connection between them, and both have their
seat in the kingdom and government, as the needful unity of
national hfe, which links together all its various efforts, and
must in its turn be maintained by special institutions. — And
when a religion is really the highest and mo3t perfect possible
— as is Christianity — these two sides of the essence of all
religion are in such perfect harmony within the firm ring of
the unity of the kingdom, that the human efforts which it
enjoins always lead again to the divine demands, and these
to the right efforts ; and it is thus that this religion ever shows
its insurpassable perfection. But when a religion although
true is yet defective, as was the case with Jahveism, this
deficiency makes itself felt alike in the human efforts and in 7
the divine demands, and gives rise to a feeling of ceaseless dis
satisfaction with the Present and its arrangements, and hence
to a continuous series of fresh institutions which shall supply,
at any rate for the time being, the want which always exists,
and therefore always grows. The discussion of these institu-

6 THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS
tions aiming at the satisfaction of this felt want will form our
concluding section ; and it will lead up to the wider question
whether the old Theocracy, as far as regards its customs and
institutions, could have a perpetual existence in the special form
in which it was founded under Moses. This will be followed,
naturally, by the further discussion, whether the new institu
tions added by the human monarchy did or did not supply a
stronger guarantee for its continuance unchanged.1
3. We have, then, chiefly to consider here, only that
portion of the Antiquities of Israel which is stamped with its
most characteristic life, and in which that spirit was revealed
which operated in it as in no other nation of the old world.
From this spirit there sprang not a few institutions of a truly
creative character, which in their whole formation and style
bear, so to speak, a peculiar stamp, so genuinely Mosaic and
also so universally diffused, that they could have come into
existence nowhere but within the community of ' the people of
8 Jahveh,' and there even at no other time but the exalted
days of Moses and Joshua. That among the various institu
tions and customs existing in ancient Israel there were some
of genuine Mosaic origin, is a fact of high historical value ; and
to prove all this accurately in detail is not the least important
aim of the following analysis.
The object of the great legislator was not to ordain a long
series of new laws, and violently overthrow all that he found
existing, but before everything to implant in the community
the fear of the true God. The fundamental thought which he
brought into the world and ineradicably fixed in the people of
Israel in the first instance, was as a drop thrown into the wide
ocean of the whole ancient world, although of infinite power, and
destined gradually to penetrate all that was foreign to itself.
Its consequences, so far as they belong here, are as follows : —
Many customs and practices which had previously existed
in the nation were retained in Jahveism, and were modified
sooner or later by its influence if they could be reconciled with
its spirit; or were in the course of time more and more
suppressed if they were essentially opposed to it. The proof
1 The two sides which form the basis is altogether unsuitable for use, if the
of the whole arrangement here are evi- needful unity of the state is not to be
dently in many respects the same as is destroyed. The distinction made here
given by a division into things ' sacred ' is given only because the Bible demands
(sacra) and 'secular' (civilici), hut it is it, but I hold the thought Iving at its
equally clear that I do not draw this dis- foundation to be perfectly correct as
tinction so incorrectly and xrafortunately well as indispensable for our religion' and
as is done by the Papists and many politics. " h
Protestants. Moreover, the term ' civilia '

OF THE THEOCRACY. 7
of all this is due here, and inasmuch as many of these ancient
customs carry us back to the larger circles of nations, under
which Israel was comprised, either by descent or training,
previous to the founding of Jahveism, these traces of the con
nection of Israel with other ancient nations, which are most
instructive for the purposes of history, must be here carefully
examined. The legislation of Israel falls moreover in a period of very
remote antiquity, all the peculiar features of which still existed
among the nations which developed themselves the earliest.
Antiquity as such has a most characteristic spirit — aud this
spirit ruled the world before the gradual advance of Jahveism, 9
and of Christianity, which ensued as its goal and perfection,
raised to power a completely different spirit, such as was alone
capable of laying a sure foundation for a new era. As there
fore there prevailed in the world when Jahveism was founded
a spirit quite different from that which it vigorously manifested
itself, the influence of the earlier spirit on Jahveism was from
the first very considerable. Many customs and practices which
had their origin in this spirit, still retained their place, some
of them at first without even being called in question ; but
besides this the new views, institutions, and laws during that
primitive creative period, were in many cases deeply imbued
with that spirit which had hitherto ruled unchallenged. Ac
cordingly we find amongst the institutions and practices of
the community of Jahveh which sprang up and were legalised
during the earliest times, very much that has an exact counter
part in those of all ancient nations, especially of such as stood
on the same level of general culture ; and great care is needed
not to confuse the similarities which flowed only from the
whole spirit of Antiquity, with those touched on above which
sprang, from the closer connection of Israel with a particular
circle of nations. Countless similarities may be traced back to
the life of the whole ancient world, but to trace these count
less similarities is of far less importance than to understand
somewhat better the essence of Antiquity as distinguished from
our own times. The following are some of its main character
istics having special reference to our present subject.
Man, with all his sensitive endowments, stood much closer
to creation (or Nature), felt more as a child towards what was
living, and animated even what was dead with his ingenuous
sympathy. He was the more exposed to the impressions of
Nature, in proportion as he received less aid, on the one hand,
from a religion standing far above her, and on the other, from

8 THE LAWS AND -CUSTOMS
10 a thorough investigation, and at the same time unsympathetic
examination of her. But no less fresh and lively was the
feeling of man for what was Divine ; for this always^ lurks
behind Nature and himself, and thus the feeling for it will
always vary according to the kind of feeling entertained towards
Nature and towards man.
The national customs, institutions, and laws were accordingly
full of a keen though properly only passive sympathy for the
animate and inanimate non-human world, of deep impressions
of Nature, of grand attempts of men to draw her into a part
nership of joy and sorrow with themselves.1 All this repeats
itself, moreover, with regard to the Divine.
But in spite of his standing so near to Nature, and as far
as that went feeling himself gay and satisfied in her, yet, just
because he knew so little of her, man cherished an almost
blind terror of all her unusual phenomena, and so far felt to
wards her utterly strange and fearful. But he trembled yet
more before all that was Divine, lying concealed behind her
and behind himself. For he had also had experience of its
strength and force, but attained respecting it little true and
trustworthy knowledge.
To overcome this terror and the apparent hostility alike of
Nature and of God, and to attain and uphold a special religion
wherever the need of it was felt, was infinitely harder for Anti
quity than it is for us. This accounts for the number of most
elaborate regulations, of burdensome laws, and of harsh correc
tives, of which it is difficult for us to frame a correct represen
tation. An essential addition to these circumstances is the fact, that
whatever Antiquity had once seized upon, it undertook with a
youthful power and unjaded strength, with a magnificent con-
n sistency and simplicity, and with an openness and uprightness
which are only too often found wanting in later times, and
wherein it remains an eternal model for our own apparently or
really more intricate relations. And as man stood altogether
much nearer to Nature, his youthful open-hearted impulses
drove him to express by outward signs, as strongly and appro
priately as possible, his feelings and the deep meaning of his
efforts and actions ; particularly as the truths which thus
sought for manifestation in the most forcible signs, were now
for the first time looking for a lasting home on the earth.
1 Compare also conceptions and ex- Ps. xxxvi. 7 [6]; Jonah iii. 7,8; iv. 11. 
pressions suggesting such thoughts ; Hos. Hab. ii. 17 ; Jer. xxvii. 5, 6 ; xxviii 14.
ii. 20 [221, iv. 3 ; Jer. xii. 4 ; Zeph. i. 3 ;

OF THE THEOCRACY. 9
Hence we find so much'thathas symbolical meaning impressing
itself through striking signs, and further leaving its mark in
public customs and institutions.
4. As the explanation of these signs (Symbols) will form a
main section of this work, it will be advantageous to consider
more closely at this place their general nature and essen
tial meaning. The sign has reference only to the thought
existing in man, and therefore, strictly speaking, also to the
words which he utters or might utter. It is nothing in itself,
however elaborate it may be ; but its meaning, its origin, and
the need for it, exist only in the soul of man, which seeks to find
expression in it. Now as human thought finds its most perfect
expression in speech, the first question concerns the relation of
the sign to speech, especially as it subsisted in the earliest days
of humanity. We shall see that the sign can precede human
speech, and in the earliest times for the most part actually did
so. For thoughts which powerfully stir men and struggle to
come forth out of their minds into the world, are already there
before any words, and they may so take possession of the entire
man, that all he does and is, may express them most completely
and forcibly before the words come which shall make thein
plain. In prayer, e.g., it may be customary with one nation to
stretch forth the hands towards heaven, with another to fold
them; but this physical revelation, this sign of what moves
the human soul, precedes and does not wait upon the words.
Nor do words always satisfy. In this very case they seem too
weak and too imperfect to express the whole soul of man that
seeks to find an outlet. Its contents are of course infinite, and
all words are but attempts to exhaust it. Or the words may
be too thin, too inefficient, and too fleeting, to be able to give
lasting satisfaction ; and this would be especially felt as long as
they could not be easily and permanently fixed in writing, com
prehensible and accessible to all. Now, as all these causes co
operated most powerfully in just the earliest periods of humanity,
such significant or symbolical actions of necessity arose then,
in vast numbers, and took the most rigid forms, as an un
designed accompaniment and supplement of human speech,
and served also for a long time as a needful witness, in the
place of the art of writing, and the written documents which
had not yet come into existence. The forms they assumed in
each nation differed almost as much as their speech, with
which their course ran parallel. . But still, like human speech,
they have but one common source, and like languages assumed
these varied forms in accordance with the origin and histoiy of

10 THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS
the nation. But from the very beginning they had an important
significance and a place which nothing else could fill. , They
entwined themselves inseparably with the whole life of the
nation, and won a permanency comparable only with that of
human speech itself.
The most frequent occasion for them arose in all the inter
course and relations between man and God, where their signi
ficance is greatest and their employment even indispensable.
Here all human words, however beautiful and perfect, remain
for ever too weak and incomplete.
But they were also indispensable in human intercourse,
especially as long as writing was little used. What, e.g.
would be the good of one man binding another by an oath so
long as this consisted of mere words ? Words rustle past like
the wind, and only when the one has indicated to the other by
the most unmistakable signs the punishment which will fali
on perjury, is there much hope that they will make a deeper
impression and remain inviolate. But in truth both the im
pression and the emphasis of these symbolical actions rest
ultimately on this — viz. that man considered, and acted on the
belief, that they were executed not only before the witness of
men where this was possible, but above all before the eyes of
God himself.
Thus signs of this sort originated abundantly in primitive
times, and kept their place even through the great changes
of later days, though often they were for the most part retained
only in current phrases. In this case it is often difficult to
recognise their exact original significance : nevertheless it must
be everywhere sought after as long as suitable means for the
investigation exist. Even the sanctity and the frequent use of
certain numbers, such as, amongst the Israelites, 5 or 10, or in
a different way, 3, and more than all the rest, 7, are connected
with the magic power of many such signs.
5. It is, moreover, a matter of course that the later docu
ments, even when springing from the life of the ancient nation,
are only to be used with the greatest caution, in dealing with
these genuine Mosaic institutions and customs. There is
nothing on which the Jewish schools employed themselves so
zealously as the explanation and application of the laws of the
Pentateuch ; and this was the case both among the Hellenists
and in the new Jerusalem, and again with a fresh outburst of
zeal after its destruction. In the numerous writings of Philo,
we possess the most copious testimonies to the Hellenistic
method of interpretation ; in those of Josephus, tolerably fre-

OF THE THEOCRACY. 11
quent examples of the style at Jerusalem ; and in the Mishnah
and Talmud, the whole length and breadth of the exposition
of the post-Christian schools. But how little do all these later
sources help us to understand correctly the true sense of the
old laws ! How much that is totally foreign do they mix up
with it ! As has been shown elsewhere,1 the life of the ancient
nation experienced too severe a disturbance and break from
the first destruction of Jerusalem, and it was gradually rebuilt
on a new and too much altered foundation, for it to retain
easily a trustworthy understanding of the old laws. Of the
far severer consequences of the second destruction enough has
also been said elsewhere.2 Neither after the first, nor still less
after the second destruction, did a science arise which is satis
factory for purposes of pure historical investigation. And the
Talmud aids us least of all, for the historical sense in general,
and in particular the true feeling for the essence and spirit of
antiquity, are here already in the uttermost confusion and dark
ness. Long before the Christian era many of the more culti
vated heathens had already been inquiring from curiosity about
the customs and usages of this nation, and had sought to in
vestigate more narrowly what seemed to them to be remarkable,
and these endeavours continued to increase down to the second
century after Christ.3 But neither these, nor the Jews or
Samaritans, who ought to have been their teachers, succeeded
in attaining more correct views.
But many fragments of ancient customs and usages, of
which we now, it may be, find no trace in the older works, may
have been retained through all these later times, the frequency
of their occurrence being proportionate to the antiquity of these
times ; and so far all the various later documents are useful for
our purpose, whenever we can be sure of finding in them such
scattered, morsels. Still, for the whr le picture and for all its main
features, we must rely on the oldest sources alone, whether they
are to be found in the Pentateuch or elsewhere.
1 Hist. v. or iv. ofthe German ed. authors as Tacitus or Plutarch ; especially
2 Hist. vii. of the German ed. the latter's Comic, disput. iv. 4, 4-6, 2.
3 This appears most clearly from such

12 HUMAN EFFORT AND ACTION

FIRST SECTION.
THE ONE SIDE ; OR, HUMAN EFFORT AND ACTION
TOWARDS GOD.
The above remarks — from page 7 onwards — on the earliest
kind of dread (religio), find at once a special application in
connection with the side of Antiquity which we must first con
sider. For undeniably correct as was the representation of
the true God which Jahveism brought into the world, yet Israel
at first, along with the whole ancient world, suffered the most
painful dread of the wrath and of the chastisements of God. In
deed, this painful dread, common to all genuine Antiquity, was
augmented in the community of Israel; partly because the
general conception of God was there apprehended far more
deeply and seriously, so that the anger and punishments of this
true God naturally produced far truer and more lasting
feelings there than among the heathen ; but also because in
the days succeeding those of Joshua the nation soon found
itself again in such sore distress of all sorts, that its deep
dread in the presence of the true God became more painful,
and the fear grew keener of losing him and his guidance. Even
12 in the Book of Origins, which was written during a period of
great happiness and most joyous national life, this key-note of
the life of the community in its early days is heard right
through. ' This or that must be done that no great wrath, no
punishment, come upon Israel,' is the frequent utterance, even
when to us the occasion seems trifling, of its stern legislative
voice,1 and in the most instructive and vivid narratives it
describes emphatically how often and how heavily such an all-
annihilating punishment of Jahveh had come upon the commu
nity.2 So difficult was it to enlighten this old gloomy fear of
men, and make it yield to the glorified belief in pure love,
of which the immortal germ was, of course, already supplied
in the fundamental capacities and truths of the community of
Israel. This great dread, peculiar to Antiquity, of everything
' Lev. x. 6 ; Num. i. 53, xviii. 5 ; Ex. 46 seq.], xxv. 4 seq. ; xxxi. 16. Comp.
xn. 13, xxx. 12 ; Num. vm. 19. 2 Kings iii. 27, and many similar narra-
2 Num. xvi. 4,5; xvii. 11 seq. [xvi. tives not contained in the Book of Origins.

TOWARDS GOD. ' 13
divine,1 exercised an important influence on the formation of
the Old Testament customs and institutions concerning human
action towards God ; and it explains why it is precisely on this
side that the antiquities of Israel bear the greatest resemblance
to those of heathen nations. But here again the early com
munity did not disown the fundamental truths of Jahveism, so
that in this way the points of these heathen customs and insti
tutions were already blunted. And while the general spirit
of the past still widely prevailed, there grew up imperceptibly
here, a new spirit, opposed to all previously existing means
of influencing God, and forming the commencement of an
imperishable institution.
If now we pass in review all the sacred endeavours and acts
of men which had the special aim of pressing in upon the
Deity, and winning his favour, or drawing forth from him
advice and revelation, we see that they are either complete
with words alone, in some one or other of their infinitely 13
various forms ; or else that they pass over into something
stronger, the surrender of one's own property, and so become a
sacrifice, to use the word in its widest signification. There
are further the purifications, bodily and otherwise, which are
preparations for sacred words or deeds.
Moreover, they are readily connected with certain vessels,
places, times, or persons, which seem specially adapted to ex
cite, to strengthen, or to satisfy them.
These times, places, and persons can in themselves be very
numerous, and similarly these endeavours may be infinitely
various, whether it be as words, or as sacrifices, that they have
found expression and become prevalent usages. But particular
ones amongst them may acquire a peculiar sanctity, above that
of many others, and become Sacraments. Whether there ex
isted such in Jahveism, and how all the different usages in it
were developed, must now be discussed in detail. As the
whole province in consequence of its religious character is
sacred, we can draw a short and clear distinction between the
utterances by means of sacred words, and those by means of
sacred gifts, or sacrifice. For all other significant gestures or
actions which find a place here are seen, when closely con
sidered, to be only an accompaniment of the words or the
sacrifice, or else a preparation for them.
But it is only in human society and in a community which
has a settled religion, that all these endeavours and actions
1 This was retained longest among the Romans of all the nations of Antiquity
known to us.

14 SACRED UTTERANCES.
towards God are found united together with extreme vigour
and durability. This combined action, accordingly, as the
highest aim within our reach here, will in the last place finally
engage our attention.

I. Sacred Utterances.
1. Those by means of words.
a. Prayer and what is allied to it.
The ancient nation knew no fixed form of prayer, no Indian
Gayatri, no Lord's Prayer, no First Surah. The sacred words
on which the new community of Israel was founded were,
before everything, oracles which served as laws ; no community
has been founded so exclusively through the supremacy of the
Oracle, as Israel. We find, indeed, in addition, many sacred
14 words, phrases, and refrains of prayers, which were repeated
both regularly by the priest in the assembled community, and
often, too, less formally ; and these undoubtedly come down
from the creative times of the primitive community.1 But of
these some belonged to the priests alone, and others were
repeated with so little formality, that we cannot recognise in
them any fixed form of prayer for the whole community. We
must therefore acknowledge that here, too, Jahveism, although
laying an imperishable foundation of true religion, 3>-et did not
at once appear with its most perfect expressions and models,
for it is pre-eminently in prayer that this perfection must show
itself. With all the greater freedom and strength, did the
practice and the wondrous might of true prayer gradually arise
on this incomplete but sure foundation. Century after century
did it produce ever richer and riper fruit, which finally,
during the last period of the annals of Israel, appears in the
Psalter in the clear light of history.
Still less did ancient Israel know of the perpetual repe
tition of certain sacred words, and of the evil art of accom
plishing a sacred work by such repetition. Rather would this
have been looked upon as heathenish in the earlier days of
Israel's religion ; 2 and not till the centuries under the Hagio-
cracy, is any inclination to it manifested.3 — Nor do we
observe much that is special or remarkable in the ordinary
1 Hut. ii. 20, 21 [first ed. i. 443-4], s Comp. Hist. v. 367 and [of the Ger-
. 2 Comp. Is. i. 15. man fd.] vi. 152.

PRAYER. 15
customs of that period connected with prayer. The posture of
the suppliant varied much according to his tone of feeling;1
but it was not the folding of the hands, the traditional custom
among the ancient Indians and Germans, that was most
common, but the eager stretching of them out towards heaven.2
— Whether the countenance was then, as in later times, turned
during prayer towards the place of the great sanctuary, we
do not know.3 It is, however, improbable, as the unity of the
sanctuary was not yet so firmly established in the earliest times,
and its locality was easily changed.
In the blessing, or prayer desiring the good of some being,
which is so often mentioned, and is a clear token of the
spiritual vitality of Jahveism, the laying of the hand on the head
of the person to be blessed appears to have been, wherever pos
sible, an invariable practice. On this point more will be found
below in the description ofthe general procedure of the sacrifice.
The exact opposite of the blessing, the curse, appears
indeed almost as frequently in the history of the nation, not
only amongst the lower, but also amongst the upper classes, and
not only in momentary excitement in songs,4 but also closely 15
connected with religion itself. It is as though the latter
could only be rescued from the extraordinary hindrances which
it encountered, by some such convulsive revolt of thought, word,
or even deed. But yet we must notice a difference in this
matter according to the date. In the earliest days of the
community, that which appeared absolutely incompatible with
the true religion, whether it was an inanimate object, an
animal, or a human being, was not merely cursed, but was
rather sacrificed to Jahveh himself, so that he might destroy it ;
on which point more will be said below under the ban-offering.
The ban, and with it the ban-curse, had their direct origin in
the very violent and warlike spirit which prevailed unchecked
during the early days of the community. As in the course of
centuries, the power of the ban became weakened, and its use
less common, while yet Jahveism in the very heart of the
nation fell into the most alarming distraction and dismember
ment, the force of the mere verbal curse became so much the
stronger; and Deuteronomy accordingly makes the people
1 As some thing quite unusual, the of tho Indians.
posture of Elijah at prayer is described 3 The Qibla, according to the Moslem
1 Kings xviii. 42. expression. Comp. Hist. v. 23.
2 Ex. ix. 29, 33 ; Is. i. 15 ; lxv. 2 ; 4 Though it is found in the songs, it
1 Kings viii. 22, 38 ; Ps. xxviii. 2 : Lam. i. first appears more strongly during the
17, ii. 19, iii. 41 ; and still later Ps. xliv. tremendous internal' religious warfare of
2l'r201, cxliii. 6; Ezra ix. 5; 1 Tim. ii. 8. the later times. See Die Dichtcr dee
e~- Alten Bundes, vol. i. b. s. 238, third ed.
Comp. on the other hand the TTT'^'T^T *

16 SACRED UTTEKAJNUiSS.
alternately pronounce on themselves the curse for non-observ
ance and the blessing for observance of the Law, and thereby
mutually bind themselves with respect to it, the Levites taking
the lead.1 Moreover we naturaUy find in the earlier period
the belief that a curse spoken by a priest at the sacred place
would be efficacious. But a legal application of this took
place only in the most urgent and apparently unavoidable
cases,2 while no trace is to be found of the belief of the
ancient Indians in the never-ceasing influence of a curse once
spoken by priests (Brahmins).3
16 StiU less did the ancient religion allow the use of words
of imprecation and magic to avert some evil or procure some
good ; such as exist in the Avesta and even yet in the Koran.4
Jahveism down to the later centuries was partly too young
and vigorous, partly too healthy all through, and too sensible
for this, so long as the power of the living oracle which had
founded it maintained itself there. The oldest legal utterances
already vigorously repudiated every kind of magic.5
b. The Oath and Adjuration.
We find no scruples about the employment of the oath ; on
the contrary seeing that in the earliest days humanity had for
the first time to become accustomed to a mutual reverence for
truth and fidelity, it was natural that its use should be the more
frequent ; and the means and signs by which it was expressed
the more forcible. There are three kinds in particular to be
distinguished here.
1. There is the simple kind, when a private individual be
lieves that he must confirm something in a sacred manner bv his
own spontaneous action. That he should then call upon the* God
whom he believed to be the true one, and wish that he might be
punished by him, if he consciously spoke falsely, was so much
1 Deut. xxvii. 11-26; Josh. viii. unusually numerous names for it which
30_35xt x. occur in the 01d Testament, many of
2 Numb. v. 11-31. Comp. below which, but not all, are collected together
under the matters relating to marriage. in the passage Deut. xviii. 10, 11. But
3 On the contrary a very true judg- as all kinds were equally illegal in Israel, ,
ment is passed on the empty curse, Prov. the frequent interchange of one Hebrew
x?v>- ?; , Balaam's history, too, related by name for another became customarv • and
the Fifth Narrator of the Primitive his- this is for us one of the main causes of
tory takes here quite the correct view, the obscurity of the original meaning A
T rfv!""-r- n, t. , f«ner explanation of the particular expres-
* In this it is thrown quite to the end, sions, however, belongs rather to a work
in the last two Surahs^ on the religion of the Bible. Comp. my ¦
'Lev. xix. 26; Ex. xxi, 17 [18]. Die Theologie des Alten und Neuen B undl,
Magic must have assumed early the most Leips. 1871, vol. i. s. 234 seq
diverse forms, as can be seen from the

THE OATH AND ADJURATION. 17
a matter of course, that in the Hebrew, as it lies before us, the
punishment imprecated is for the most part only briefly in
dicated,1 not expressed and narrowly defined. Yet at least in 17
ordinary conversation this indication was invariably given.
To raise the right hand, as though in a challenge, to heaven,2
was so universal a custom among the Semitic nations, that in
some of their languages ' the right hand ' is used as equiva
lent to oath,3 in others a verb ' to swear ' is derived from
it ; 4 whilst in Hebrew ' to raise one's hand ' was quite a common
phrase for ' to swear.' Along with the name of God, the
person swearing would at the same time designate his other
attributes, his power and greatness, or whatever else of the
essence of this God appeared to him at the moment of swear
ing of special significance. One of the shortest and finest of
asseverative phrases is that of the last king of Judah : ' As
Jahveh lives, who has created for us this soul ! ' 5 — In the inter
course of common life it gradually became customary to weaken
the force of this voluntary oath, by swearing merely by a valued
friend, or by some honoured man, either alone or along with
God.6 But even during the time of the kings Israel allowed is
itself to go no further with this process of attenuation.
But even the former stronger style of oath was, according to
traces from other quarters, far stronger stiU originaUy ; so true
is it that it cost the most gigantic efforts to get men at all
accustomed, in the growth of the mutual relations of life, to re
spect truth and abhor perj ury. A relic of the most distant times
is to be found in Hebrew, and in this alone of Semitic languages,7
in a word for the apparently simple idea of swearing, which
yet originally meant clearly enough, ' to bind oneself by seven
• How definitely they can be named, more rarely alone, 1 Sam. i. 26. During
and what fearful penalties were impre- the early glory of the Monarchy the oath
cated, is shown once in the great example, by the life of the king came into vogue.
Job xxxi. ; and such repeated and in- but this was assuredly never recognised
creasing self-imprecations best explain by the law. The evil habit was much
the meaning of the phrase ' so do God further developed by the time of the New
to me and so do he further,' which, accor- Testament, though at the same time with
ding to Hist. i. 133 note 3, occurs so fre- adreadof the use of the name Jahveh. See
quentiy in the Books of Kings, and from my Die drei ersten Evangelien, s. 215.
which the poetical application, Ps. exx. 3, Here, too, the three great eras of this
can be understood. whole history can be most definitely sepa-
2 Gen. xiv. 22 ; Ex. vi. 8 ; Deut. xxxii. rated.
40, and elsewhere. 7 The way in which the chief Semitic
3 jn Arabic . , languages separate from one another in
litf ••' .. . regard to this conception of swearing is
4 In Syriac and Deut. xxxn. 5, n)3T\ very remarkable. The Aramaic has
Comp. Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch, s. IGOd. 1vq_,, the Arabic has rbii, which is found
• Thre^VoftheBooksofKings. also in Hebrew, though with a modified
GeneraUy, it stands after the name of God, waning, and als° w«U. wl»ch * the

18 SACRED UTTERANCES.
(things),' and therefore presupposes an extraordinarily cere
monious kind of oath. In early days the person swearing
deemed it necessary according to this, to call upon seven things
as witnesses of his declaration, or as enduring monuments of the
truth. It might be seven men whom he invoked, or seven gods,.
or else he might touch seven sacred objects, or take seven steps
to a sacred stone.1 If from special causes it were desired to
make the oath yet more impressive (more solemn), e.g. in order
to ratify a treaty, seven gifts also were taken, e.g. sacrificial
animals, and the one most interested in the safe keeping of the
treaty sought by the presentation of these to bind the other
party more firmly to himself and to the oath, just as might be
done by any acceptable gift. An instance of this out of the
19 patriarchal times of Abraham is once actually related in the
Book of Covenants.2 This point will be more fully discussed
below under Sacrifices. In the ordinary life of Israel indeed,
this usage appears to have gone out of custom from the time
of Moses ; but the word which has remained the regular ex
pression for swearing, still bears testimony not only to the
primitive sanctity of the number seven, but also to the extra
ordinary degree of ceremony requisite in primitive times to
secure on aU sides a permanent recognition of a true decla
ration. To this must be added that in the earliest times man
aheady felt most keenly the necessity of making as conspicuous
as possible, in the most varied but always teUing ways, the
penalties which would be incurred by breach of oath or promise.
A somewhat strong physical encounter of the two parties
pledging themselves, a blow, a cutting, even a hilling, were .
employed.3 The broken pieces or halves would remind each of
the two parties of the common obligation, to fulfil which he
chief word, and probably too, gives the nant took from the other, made the con-
kernel of the idea, as well as U, with tract TOOre binding, Gen. xxxiii. 8-15.—
the above modified evil meank£ The J^J^n™ ^ ^ t^lTl^™ m™l
Ethiopic has vmhala, which is the same h°p1\? W J"m ' ^W™^
r time in the Wadi-Muna (Mina) near
as J^o, and tahalafa, with the modified Mecca, seven stones are now thrown
evil meaning related to \i.\~~ With where formerly seven idols stood. See
it. ui ....... n c i -^ i Burckhardt's Travels in Arabia, ii 57
the Hebrew jntM, the Sanskrit cap .has (61 of ^ gvo_ d) c2P\hl
perhaps an extremely ancient connection Shanrastani,s Kim MJal * *™
' This last was customary amongst Cu^f™ *
the ancient Indians in concluding treaties. a tt ' „„ .,, -, . , ...
Comp. A. Weber's Indische Studien,?. 321 ^JF^ £" °?° °ff 'Pf* vhich
ogo reach down from the most primitive times
* 2 Gen. xxi. 27-31. The thought in mto th°S6 some^t later, such as ^3
verse 30 is especially noteworthy. It was JV}3' °PKLa re^vsiv, fcedus icere, ferire,
an extremely early assumption, that » phrases which differ much from our ein
gift which one party concluding the cove- biindniss schliessen.

THE OATH AND ADJURATION. 19
on his side had bound himself.1 The blood would suggest the
death deserved by him who broke his oath, a point on which
more will be said below under Sacrifices at treaties.
The word dlah denoted this stronger form of swearing ac
companied by a mention of the penalty, but because the act
easily degenerated, especially in common life, and led to heed
less or even false oaths,2 the word not unfrequently bore a
modified bad meaning. With this is connected the fact that
in more cautious speech the express mention of the punishment
was, as stated above, avoided by preference.
2. But to avoid uttering the dlah was impossible when the
oath became adjuration, i.e. when it was used to compel an
other to confess a truth or observe a command. Then the
punishments imprecated from heaven would undoubtedly be
always expressed in the strongest language. It would, there
fore, be in such instances that the dlah would find its most
frequent legal application. Two principal cases of this were
possible. A man might desire to bind or compel another by
swearing in respect to his own private affairs, in which case,
when the kingdom was in a settled state, the aid of the priestly
authority would be invoked,3 if such an oath was not to become 20
a mere silent imprecation.4 During the time of the patriarchs,
when aU these usages were still practised in much stronger
forms, the person who desired to bind another to the strictest
truth used to make the latter lay his hand under his own hip ;
on that part of the body, therefore, out of which, according
to ancient ideas, posterity proceeded,5 and which so far pos
sessed in the homely notions of primitive days a certain
sanctity. Thus he would refer the latter to the whole of
posterity at once, and to its revenge should he break his
promise.6 — In the second place this formal adjuration found
1 Comp. Al. Castren's ethnologic lee- an oath when complete would stand thus :
tures on the Altaic races, 116-7. Bas- n?XH nj??K>. 1 Kings viii- 31-
tian's Beise nach St. Salvador in Congo T V^s ^'described Job xxxi. 30.
(1859), 153-4, 236. Livingstone's Travels 5 -^-(i 'NX*, 'which came out of his
in Africa, ii., and more below under Sac- ": "" , . . .  .
.„ J ' '. loins, is a frequent description of posterity
rmces at treaties, of which we cannot fail to he reminded,
« Hence n}* can also denote heedless ^ ^. ^ . ^ . g
and false swearing, Hos. iv. 2 ; Zach. v. 3 ; a Qm- xx;v, 2, 9 ; xlvii. 29, comp. xxiv.
comp. ver. 4, viii. 17. In Ecc. ix. 2, 41 The custom here depicted is certainly
$%$} has quite this meaning, which al- a very peculiar one, and only, in modern
ready calls to mind the well-known ex- times among the Egyptian Bedouins and
pression, Matt. v. 37 ; James v. 12. But the Kaffirs has anything parallel heeu
also among the most ancient Greeks, discovered. See Adventures of Colon: I
Horkos, son of Eris, already appears even Somerset in Cajfraria, Lond. 1858. The
as a dreaded evil God. Hesiod's Theog. usage is also found now among the lower
ver. 231 sq. comp 783-806. classes in Turkestan. See Vamberys
3 A good example of this occurs Num. Beisen there, s. 49 (1865).
v. 21, 22, from which we can see that such
c2

20 SACRED UTTERANCES.
an important application in public national life, when every
effort was to be made for the discovery of a criminal, hitherto
undetected. In such a case it is plain that the strongest oaths
and imprecations would be uttered aloud by a priest or some
other authority against all who might in any way whatever
share the guilty secret. In a community like that of Israel,
where in its best, and generally in the earlier times, a discipline
of such unusual strictness prevailed, it is impossible to over
estimate the potency and awfulness, and in most cases the
efficacy, of such public oaths.1 It is likely that on occasion
of such oaths it was the traditional habit to repeat out of
history instances of the fearful destruction of guilty persons in
order to terrify and deter, and so bring into the words of the
curse past ' names ' of unhappy memory. Too frequent aUu-
21 sion to this custom is made in somewhat later times for us to
doubt that it often found application in the cases lying before
us.2 But in the early nation, true to the simplicity of its re
ligion, the ordinary phrase used in the public legal procedure
was only this : The person supposed to be guilty was caUed
upon to acknowledge the truth or to do this or that, paying
honour and giving praise to Jahveh, God of Israel.3
The short word with which the person spoken to answered all
such sacred addresses, including these adjurations, was the
familiar amen, a little word which properly corresponds only to
our yes ! and which subsequently found the most diverse appli
cations, but which in the use here explained goes back to the
earliest times of the community.4
3. When finally the oath was employed in making contracts
and alliances, each ofthe two contracting parties made the other
1 Cases of this kind are presupposed, now Uhland's Volkslieder (1866), s. 269
Lev. v. 1 ; Prov. xxix. 24 ; a similar one sq. 365 sq.
1 Sam. xiv. 24. An ancient sacred phrase 2 Comp. Jer. xxix. 18,22; xiii. 18;
of the kind may in particular be traced xliv. 8, 12, 22; xlix. 13; bk. Is. lxv. 15
in Mai. ii. 12, comp. Jer. xi. 3. This 16; Ps. cii. 9 [8]; Zach.' viii. 13. Con-
again enables us to explain such images versely in cases of somewhat longer and
as occur in Jer. xxiii. 10; Zach. v. 3; more precise blessings they liked to repeat
Mai. ii. 2. Josephus in his Life, c. 53, the names of those who had been richly
speaks of the recourse to (ppucai5ecrTa,To< blessed in former generations, Gen. xii. 2,
opKoi (which is so characteristic of his 3 ; xlviii. 20. But to what an' extent
time, but only betrays its spiritual later times learned to despise the ancient
poverty) ; but among the Heathen we find oaths is seen in Deut. xxix. 18 [19].
the words of very long and strong oaths 3 Josh. vii. 19, where the ancient half
even on public monuments. Corp. Jus. poetical language is still retained. It is
Grmc. ii. p. 410, 628 sq. Comp. further freely repeated Ezr. x. 11 (Ezr.' Apocr.
A. Danz. Der sacral". Schuz im romischen ix. 8), John ix. 24.
Rechtsverkehr, Jena, 1857. The important 4 According to the Book of Origins
part played by the dirae among the Num. v. 22. Comp. Die Dichter des Alten
Greeks and Romans is well known, and Bundes, i.a. s. 247, 8.
in regard to the Old Germans, comp.

THE VOW. 21
utter aloud the words of the contract which concerned him,1
these mutual promises being accompanied by similar oaths and
imprecations. But if, as might easily be the case when the
more important matters of state were concerned, one of the
two parties was much more powerful than the other, the former
considered himself above taking even the solemn oath, and
'brought' (according to the standing phrase) only the latter
' into the oath of imprecation,' i.e. the oath uttered with solemn
imprecations.2 Monuments of stone were erected as eternal
witnesses, even in times when writing was already in use, and
aUusion is not unfrequently made to this fact in the oldest
history of Israel.3 Meals partaken of together both before and
after the oath of alliance were also customary in the oldest
times;4 and it will be shown below how naturally sacrifices 22
and alliances would be joined on to this.
c. The Vow.
The vow, in its original form, must not be regarded as the
thought of a future performance conceived steadfastly but
only in sUence. It was spoken out loud before aU the world,
along with the most solemn invocation of God, as a sacred pur
pose, which a person swore by God he was determined to fulfil.'5
It could only refer to something sacred, i.e. to doing something
directly for God in order to win his favour. In order to obtain
from God some good thing, the want of which he felt with pain
ful keenness, a man desired to give up on his part something
dear to himself; but because his own weakness made him de
spair of being able to make this sacrifice, or at least because it
could not be made immediately, he bound himself through an
oath to God spoken out clearly and with the utmost serious
ness, that he would fulfil it. This naturally inspired him with
a strength which had previously failed him, and which, perhaps,
without this spasmodic flight he would never have possessed.6
1 The clearest description of this is that every one would at once clearly
found Deut. xxvi. 17-19, and here occurs understand its meaning, Num. xxx. 5, 8,
the technical expression for it, TISSH 9; 12-16.
, . I;: '•'' fi What is contained in the Bible on
prop, to make some one say, i.e. promise, , - „ . - ,,  „T„ia;„aj
iv m, t i mm Hi ' the subiect of vows is further explained
something. The actual oath then follows, , ° J ,  ¦, r_„t;„,.
° ' • oo oo n „ i„„ bv the very numerous and varied votive
^ ;^'28TlP' ^xi i%4 P inscriptions^ on Phoenician and Punic
Gen xxv i. 28-31 xxx.. 44-54 _ monuments which have been discovered
oQ- Wl, ;To" ' C°mP' ' ' i« o„r days, and are being continually
o» , ssea. x. au. __ more ana more perfectly decyphered.
Gen xx^P45 S "' ( P' > ' °omp. EnUifferJg der \euPunischen
4 ^ 3- ., , . , . . . inschriften, Gott. 1852. and lately also the
* Gen. mi. 54, which explains also J ' ¦ KJthagischc
the more exalted representation, Ex. xxiv. ^ ^^ MumtdJtte phonikiscl in-
' • It is plain too from the description «W*« (G5tt. 1864), s. 30 sq.

22 SACRED UTTERANCES.
The vow was at first therefore the strongest possible utter
ance of sacred spontaneous impulses, by means of appropriate
words. Accordingly during the first centuries of the community
it was directed towards the entire mighty problem which then
faced the people : viz. to live for the first time wholly within
the religion which had been given it, and within its national
development, and to supplement what was yet wanting by
exerting the most deep-seated powers of body and of soul.
Hence, as at that time the very hardest of demands was made
on man, nothing less being required than a thorough inward
change so that he should become capable of supplementing this
great want, the subject of the vow was generaUy something
extraordinarily hard to perform, or something that could not
be calculated upon and was fuU of mystery. But it also stimu-
23 lated the most deep-seated energies, and it appeared in the
greatest strength, and with the most important historical con
sequences, among the whole nation just at the time when that
want was felt most keenly.1 After this deficiency had been
removed as far as was then possible, and chiefly through the
wondrous power of the vow, and when Israel in the second
era of its whole history was to this extent enjoying greater
peace, then, it is true, new and deeper wants began to show them
selves, which gave rise on the part of some few of the nation to
a new kind of vow, the performance of which was full of
difficulty.2 But in the community at large, it became the custom
in time of need to vow only thanksgiving and rich offerings
of the ordinary kind to be presented after dehverance,3 on which
occasions something laudable and acceptable would be vowed,
especiaUy if the thanksgiving was hearty and sincere, but
nothing so very difficult or immeasurable.
In these first centuries, therefore, there was often a danger
that many a one might make some tremendous vow, next to
impossible to accomplish, by which he yet deemed himself
bound, in consequence of the solemn way in which the vow had
been audibly uttered, as described above. A true religion like
Jahveism could disapprove neither of the utterance of sacred
words nor of the ultimate object of all vows ; but just as little
could it demand vows at all, or cling tenaciously to the per
formance of what was impossible, thereby misunderstanding
human conditions. On these principles the Book of Origins
proceeds in the matter of laws on vows ; and it has every token
1 As is shown Hist. ii. 392 (first ed. 3 Vide Die Dichter des A. Bs. i.b. s.
164). 162 of the third ed. Comp. also Prov. vii.
s Hist. iv. 79. 14.

SACRIFICE. 23
of being the first work which treated this subject from a legal
point of view. It assumes1 that the man, i.e. the head of the
family, may not violate his vow ; it was expected from him
that he should know what it was he was vowing. StiU another 24
law provides that in the case not contemplated here, and which
religion could not sanction, of avow uttered thoughtlessly, relief
should be afforded by means of a guilt-offering.2 But the father
could annul every vow spoken by his unmarried daughter, the
husband every one of his wife ; though this could be done only
if on hearing it he at once declared its invalidity (and that he
should be able instantly to see through an inconsiderate one,
must have been expected from the father and the husband or
their representatives). But the mere loss of a husband, by
death or separation, freed no woman from her vow.
So strict and yet so equitable are these laws, especially
when considered from the point of view of the extensive ancient
rights of the head of the family. In Deuteronomy as well as
in still later writings similar prominence is always given to the
general necessity of strictly keeping a vow, but at the same
time it is said more plainly than in the Book of Origins that it
is also no sin not to make vows, and that a heedless vow is
before everything to be avoided.3
We are not yet in a position to speak more closely of the
contents of the vow, or the things undertaken.

2» The Sacred Utterances expressed by Sacrifices.
Only a few kinds of sacred phrases, such as the ordinary
oath or the blessing, constitute an end in themselves, and are
complete with little or no accompaniment of motions and
gestures. The majority, vows, or pure spontaneous prayers,
should always lead to the corresponding action of man or of
God. But in truth man must strain all his inmost powers of
soul and body to their utmost, and when necessary, freely sur
render his most cherished project, or the dearest of his external
possessions, in order to attain what he is ever seeking, and
which at every fresh step in his life is again impelled to seek.
A dim feeling of this has undoubtedly at all times been 25
present to man. It drove him, when words addressed to the
Deity were thought insufficient, to press in by stronger means,
1 Num. xxx. 2-17 [1-16]. 8 Deut. xxiii. 22-24 [21-23], Ec
2 Lev. v. 4. See below. v. 3-5 [4-6].

24 SACRIFICE.
so as to draw forth from God what he lacked, and could obtain
only from him. But what man sought, divine salvation and
divine counsel, is stiU, and was then even more than now, the
hardest and the darkest that he can seek after ; something,
moreover, which is inexhaustible, towards which he is ever
conscious of fresh need. In regard to it, then, he soon felt
himself ready for any undertaking and for the hardest service,
or even the most painful and the strangest attempts. Some
thing Vast and Awful stood over against him, and compeUed
him to give up or to dare aU things in order to approach it,
and draw it near to himself. But man can only offer what is
human in order to get in exchange what is divine, and a dim
impulse made him believe that he would the sooner win the
divine boon, the more vigorously he sought the higher posses
sion by the completest resignation of all his lower goods.
Every such act, then, of practical surrender, by which man
penetrates immediately to the Deity, and seeks not only to in
fluence it, but more strongly, as it were, to touch it, in order
to be touched again by it and blessed, we may designate by the
general word sacrifice. The striving of men by means of an
unusual act, as it were, to touch and draw to themselves
Deity itself, and thus cause the sacred act to follow the sacred
word of prayer, is assuredly the early commencement of all
living individual religion. Without a renunciation, moreover,
of what is valued and agreeable merely on account of its
sensuous qualities, extraordinary efforts of the soul in striving
exclusively after what is divine are impossible ; and in so far
as such renunciation is demanded of us, the idea of sacrifice
has a meaning, eternaUy valid and imperishable, for us and for
all futurity.
26 Nothing is more characteristic of remote Antiquity than
the force, and at the same time the openness and integrity,
with which the feelings of fear towards God passed over into
corresponding actions ; and this proves itself, before all else, in
that chief constituent of every religion, the sacrifice. There
seemed no more important task for a whole nation than not to
neglect the sacrifices to its God ; no greater misfortune could
occur than for them to be violently broken off.1 The individual
knew no greater happiness than to draw near his God with
offerings ; no acuter pain and no deeper dishonour than for this
to be impossible or forbidden to him.2 And what the earth pre-
1 This is seen best in Joel i., ii., but 12, aud the descriptions even in the Protev.
also in all Antiquity. Jac. i.
2 Comp. the proverbial saying, Mai. ii.

SACRIFICE OF PROPERTY. 25
sented to man seemed not to be blessed to him for his enjoy
ment until a portion of it had been offered to its Giver.1
Already, in quite the dawn of Antiquity, sacrifice had
assumed a hundred different forms under these quick feelings of
young humanity. In each of them the utmost efforts were
made to reach the highest aim, viz. the right kind of the most
fruitful influence of living religion. At the time of the founding
of Jahveism the most varied forms of sacrifice had been long in
operation, each with its special drift and corresponding belief;
indeed, they were in the full bloom of their earliest develop
ment, and their evil side was but little known. Accordingly
aU the principal kinds of these ancient sacrifices were trans
ferred to Jahveism. Some branches of them, indeed, it had
from- the very beginning to reject, as contradictory to its own
spirit, and these included just the final points to which con
sistency had led them. But many others which it took, it de
veloped the more thoroughly in consequence, pouring its new
spirit into them, and seeking by means of them to awaken the
power of higher religion. Being, however, a powerful new re- 27
ligion, it also founded a new form of sacrifice, which, though un
pretending, was yet th6 only one which closely corresponded to its
spirit. And while the attempt to develope perfectly the older forms
of sacrifice only revealed more clearly their great deficiencies,
completely new and purer kinds graduaUy became prevalent,
and these are in a position to endure for ever. If the history
of Israel is, before aU things, the history of the growth of true
religion, it shows also in particular, and with the utmost clear
ness, what is true sacrifice, and through how many imperfect
kinds of it even the nation of Antiquity which was most
advanced in rehgion had to pass, in order to learn at last what
is this true and eternal sacrifice. Even the most imperfect
and unsatisfactory sacrifice includes still undeveloped the whole
tendency towards a true religion. When, therefore, this on
any occasion reveals itself with greater vigour, it graduaUy kills
off of itself the imperfect elements in the sacrifice, until there
remains nothing but what is genuine and eternal.

a. Sacrifices of Property.
It follows immediately from all that has been said above,
that sacrifices, in conformity with the feeling of Antiquity, and
as they were customary also in Israel, especially during the first
1 A striking expression of this feeling occurs Hos. ix. 4, comp. v. 6.

il& SACRIFICE.
centuries of its history, were so manifold, and at the same time
always so essentially dependent on man's free resolve at any
given moment, that it seems scarcely possible to reckon them
all up according to any strict arrangement.1 When, e.g., three of
his boldest warriors had, at the risk of their lives, brought fresh
spring- water to David, when he was burning with thirst, and
he, in sudden impulse, rather than drink it, poured it out on the
28 ground in thanks to God, who had given him such companions
in war,2 he then performed no prescribed or even customary
sacrifice, but one all the same which sprang from the deepest
sacrificial feeling animating the ancient world.
However, if we desire to review the more usual ones among
them, we must speak in the first instance of the sacrifices of
external possessions, those being in themselves the most natural,
as well as the most numerous. Such possessions, to which the
name of property is usually confined, were, as the history of all
sacrifice proves, what man first of all felt himself impelled
to offer up, in order thereby to .press in upon the Deity and
obtain from it a greater good. We must remember that the
external goods and treasures of men in the earliest times, before
the arts of easily multiplying them were developed, were, far
from being as immeasurable as in later times. The oldest
nations, like the first human beings, commenced their existence
in poverty and need. The earliest efforts, prayers, and wishes
of nations, turned almost exclusively on obtaining this sensuous
ground of all higher development.3 Thus we can understand
what importance this sacrifice of external possessions had in
primitive times, for in all ages the things sacrificed essentially
resemble those which the person offering them is particularly
anxious to obtain from God. But the conception of property
and its surrender was capable of extraordinary extension in
course of time. If no scruples held a man back from giving
the dearest he had when a feeling in his heart drove him to
sacrifice it to his God just as it was, then he would easily feel
even the life of a beloved domestic animal not too dear to be
given up at his heart's urgent demand. Nay, only in the offering
up of life or soul, as the last that can be offered, did it seem to
him that the highest was presented. But the logical consequence
1 An attempt at a history of sacrifices even to old Phoenician writings, iv. 15
was made at the end of the ancient world, (probably the Sanchuniathonic).
by Prophyrios in his work De Abstin. ii. 2 Hist. iii. 88.
5 sq. 59 ; but this most imperfect at- s As can be seen most clearly and at
tempt stopped there, and rests on little greatest length in the oldest songs of the
else but guessing and conjecture. Never- Vedas, comp. Hist. ii. 162 |first ed. i. 585],
theless this philosopher refers to Theo- note 2.
phrastos, ii. 20, 27 ; to Empedocles, ii. 21,

THE TABLE-OFFERING. 27
of such feelings was that human life must ultimately be
looked upon as incomparably the highest and most wondrous 29
offering, whether the life offered be that of a stranger, or, as
that which is dearest to one, that of one's own child, or even of
oneself. Thus human sacrifice was everywhere the proper
crown and completion of aU these utterances of the fear of God.
Whether Jahveism went so far as to justify this most consistent
development of the sacrifice of property, can only be explained
below at its proper place.

A. THE TABLE-OFFERING.
The simplest mode of offering a sacrifice of property was
from the beginning connected with the liveliest wish to prepare
therewith something pleasing, some enjoyment for the Deity.
Accordingly the sacrifices which arose in the very earliest
times were entirely furnished as food-offerings ; they were
presented as meals for gracious acceptance. Man parted with
his own most delicious food in order to prepare enjoyment for
a higher being, and to draw forth thereby a blessing over the
earth ; x and when he received this blessing from mother earth,
thankfulness drove him to make ready a portion of the super
abundance for a similar food-offering. Exactly in this way
the custom arose among certain nations of western Asia and
Europe, of setting out, at a sacred spot, a magnificent table, and
replenishing it from time to time with choice provisions ; liba
tions of wine were always connected with this.2
A trace of this custom remained also in Israel down to later
times. A table overlaid with gold stood constantly at the sanc
tuary of Israel ; on it were twelve loaves turned towards the Holy
of Holies, and accordingly named 'the bread of the countenance'
(of God). After being there a week they were replaced (on ea.ch
Sabbath) by fresh loaves, as is further described below.3 Still this
table-offering appears alongside of the other sacrifices, as they 30
grew up in Jahveism, as something quite special, differing entirely
from the numerous other kinds. For at the public sanctuary
this simple offering stood by the side of the others like a
sanctified relic of quite a different age ; and at the domestic
1 Here too the collation of Vedic of Zarathustra [Zoroaster], which in other
hymns, so far as they are yet printed, is respects rejects bloody sacrifices has some-
most instructive. thing like in the Dramas, vide Spiegel's
2 Heathen lectisternia, as prepared Avesta, ii. s. lxxii.
also by many Israelites, are spoken of, s See below, under the description of
Ezek. xvi. 18; xxiii. 41; bk. Is. lxv. 11; the national sacrifices and of the Sane-
Daniel xiv. 3-15. LXX. Even the religion tuary.

28 SACRIFICE. -
sanctuaries of the people it does not seem to have been in use
from the time of Moses. Plainly, then it had only maintained
itself in Israel out of an altogether remote primitive age.
Similarly it will be made clear in many cases further on, that
the characteristics of two earlier eras and cultures met in
Jahveism after its foundation, and sought to maintain themselves
in it ; and this, after the fuller description of the primeval
history of the nation already given,1 cannot surprise us.
There can be no doubt, from general considerations, that
originally the pouring out of wine (libatio) belonged to this
table-offering ; 2 and although it seems in Jahveism to have been
completely separated therefrom (at least we must judge so ac
cording to our present sources), the sacred vessels for hbations
were nevertheless always preserved on this table.3
B. FIRE-OFFERINGS.
Great as was the readiness of remote Antiquity to sacrifice
even its dearest possessions to the God, and present the most
desperate offerings to the Mysterious One, whose favour it
longed for, its desire was yet greater to receive conversely from
heaven the signs of being heard, and of the gracious accep
tance of its sacrifice. The listening for heavenly signs easily
grew into the effort to attract them forth with aU one's might,
and wring them out from heaven. Many a nation value above
31 all else the possession of at any rate one common easy sign of
the visible mediation between heaven and earth. To the chUdlike
feeling of remote Antiquity it appeared that such a one was met
with in. fire, with its wondrous nature. This, breaking forth,
moving, and growing, like an unlooked for divine being, de
vouring, and bearing what was devoured aloft in its cloud,
seemed to be the means for conveying the earthly gift to heaven.4
And certainly in many nations, from very early times, this
operated as a main cause why the sacrifice was most strongly
developed in just this direction. It was only when the sacrifice
had gone up to heaven in the fire that it was complete, a sweet
enjoyment for the Gods,5 and a token to the persons sacrificing
1 Hist. vol. i. dressed to Agni, the once so highly
2 Comp. the two members of the ver. reverenced great God of Fire.
33K. Is. lxv. 11, and what is said below on 6 Even in the Old Testament sacrifices
libations of wine in general. are called ' a sweet savour for Jahveh,' ac-
3 See more below under the descrip- cording to a standing expression in the
tion of the Sanctuary. „ , „ „ . . ,"[_•
• We see this nowhere so clearly as in Book of 0rISmS ^? Off; Cin)- It some-
the ancient sacrificial hymns of the Rig- times appears in later writers (as Gen.
and Sama-Veda, especially in those ad- viii. 21), but it is always borrowed first

FIRE-OFFERINGS. 29
that it had really gone to heaven and was accepted there.
Another belief was easily and consistently added on to this.
As fire can be kindled without human aid, e.g. by lightning or
by catching the rays of the sun, the best sacrificial fire soon
came to be considered that alone which was kindled even from
heaven itself, as though God himself descended to meet and
take the offering. The belief in the existence of such purer
fire coming from heaven itself, had its root deep in many an
ancient nation. It maintained itself also in Israel long after
Moses, although with him it had no close connection with the
higher religion itself; ' and in many ancient religions the most 32
active efforts were directed to the solution of the problem, how
to obtain such heavenly fire.
It was, accordingly, through the fire- and food-offering that
remote Antiquity felt the most palpable manifestations of that
reciprocity between heaven and earth, between God and man,
which ever constitutes the final ground of all religion. For here
man saw his own prayers and wishes borne up to heaven, and
God descending to meet them. It became, among every nation
that introduced it, the highest and most brilliant sacred rite,
it soon accompanied all the stronger utterances of religion, and
assumed the most different forms just because of its endless
application. It was therefore most closely connected with the
strongest forms of all sacrifices of property, as well as with the
profoundest views respecting them. The bloody sacrifice, with
all its horror of flowing blood, became to the races that loved it,
essentially only a fire-offering. The altar, i.e., in reality the
hearth for the fire-offering, was regarded with quite other
feelings than those which men attached to the sacred table
from this book. Similar expressions occur that it held sacred, and as it regarded
Amos v. 21 ; Deut. xxxiii. 10. him as the mysterious God of the heavens
1 Even sacrificial fire obtained by and the earth, the Book of Origins,
rubbing two sticks together is celebrated Lev. ix. 24, makes the first sacred fire
for its wonderful origin in one of the of the Sanctuary under Moses fall from
hymns ofthe Rig- Veda, iv. 1, 3. Amongst Jahveh on to the altar, and in an instant
other ancient peoples the sacrificial fire consume the acceptable sacrifice. This
was yearly renewed in spring by catching a later narrator transfers to a case of
the sunbeams, and even according to the similar extraordinary sublimity in the
description 2 Mace. x. 3 (comp. with it time of Elijah, 1 Kings xviii. 22-38. A
the prolix legend, i. 18-36), when sacri- like case is related 1 Chron. xxi. 26, and
fices were renewed in the temple after an of Solomon's Temple, 2 Chron. vii. 1.
intermission of three years, fire was ob- Comp. also Surah iii. 179. The conception,
tained for the purpose from two heated or rather the representation, Jud. vi. 21, is
stones (perhaps heated hy the sun, i. peculiar, as also the similar one, xiii.
22?); comp. Ben-Gorion, iii. 13, the views 20. But these too oome essentially to
of Philo in the Life of Moses, iii. 18 ; this, that a sacrificial fire kindled, as it
CI em. Rom. Homil. ix. 6 ; Plutarch's were, without the aid of the person sacri-
Numa, c. ix. ; Prescott's History of Peru, ficing, by a heavenly breath or staff, was
i. ch. 3. But as Jahveism eagerly re- deemed truly divine, i.e. miraculous.
ferred back direct to" the true God all

30 SACRIFICE.
mentioned above, and constituted far more the centre for
numerous sacred rites. A warlike nation, longing for vivid im
pressions, will always give the fire-offering a preference to the
simpler table-offering ; so long at least as no new aversion of
any sort to the destruction of aU earthly life, including there
fore that of animals, assumed predominance as the religion of
the nation became enervated. For in this case an opposite
tendency may cause continuaUy more and more limitation of
bloody sacrifices to the Deity, or completely forbid them, just as
it may forbid the enjoyment of meat among men, and this we
see in very different forms in the Egyptian worship of animals,1
in Brahminism,and the religion of Zarathustra, but most strongly
developed, in Buddhism.
33 The people of Israel maintained, especially after Moses, a
straightforward, strong, manly religion, and never feU into the
scruples of such over-refined and morbid principles. It was
certainly acquainted with the fire-offering before Moses, for
this had been long in use in those countries in Asia whence
it sprang. Moreover if, on the one hand, the altar may be
everywhere taken as valid testimony to the existence of sacri
fices by fire, on the other hand it cannot be doubted that both
long before and during the time of Moses altars were erected
by Israel.2 But it is just as clear that it had not yet ac
quired its perfect development by that time. Certain ancient
historical testimonies show this,3 and we saw that the table-
offering must be the older of the two in Israel.4 The fully
developed sacrifice by fire is plainly connected closely with the
development of the Levitical priesthood, which will be spoken
of further on, and the two together probably assumed this
fixed form only towards the end of the life of Moses, and the
time of the conquest of Canaan. Thus at that time two es
sentially distinct kinds of sacrifices, the table- and the fire-
offering, met together in Israel, and sought to harmonise ; but
in doing so, the sacrifice by fire, in itself the more developed and
far more suited to those strong, warlike times, maintained
much the superior position.
Thus these two principal kinds of sacrifice were compounded
one with another in Jahveism, and as far as the idea of food-offer
ing is concerned, stood upon the same footing. Accordingly,
they were developed in other respects in as similar a manner as
1 The silly things in this, which Jose- 3 See Hist. ii. 261 sq. [first ed. ii. 33].
phus mocks at, Contr. Apwn, ii. 11, 13, This essentially agrees with what Ezek.
are only to be explained in this way. says in a passage to be considered more
2 See below, under the description closely below, xx. 25-6.
f the altars. * P. 27.

FOOD-OFFERINGS. 31
the distinction between table- and fire-offering, as well as that
between bloodless and bloody offerings would permit. This
appears at once in considering : —
i. The Materials of the Food-offering.
Among the materials of the food-offering there is none
which in itself would not serve also for human meals. Both
the corn- and the slain-offerings, furnished the principal mate
rials in Israel from early times, just as bread and meat did at
human meals ; and the ' bread of Jahveh ' was, at the date of 3i
the Book of Origins, stUl a current name for aU food-offerings.1
In general a close connection runs through the ancient laws
about eating and those about sacrifices, which is easily ex
plained by the fact that the sacrifice of which we are now
speaking was, in the oldest view, considered a meal for the
gods. This, when possible, ought to be stiU purer and more
choice than that of men; whatever was held to be the best
meal for men should constitute the sacrifice. But what this
is, wiU depend on the mode of life which is held to be the
most noble and worthy among a people ; and it is an important
fact for the whole history of Israel, that the Mosaic sacrifice
was entirely suited to a nation which united agriculture and
fixed settlements with the breeding of cattle. The pre-eminence
of the slain-offering comes from the ancient preference for
cattle-breeding ; but with it is already inseparably connected
the corn-offering, having relation only to an agricultural people.
1. Among animals, the wild ones, or those not accustomed
to domestication among men, were not available for sacrifice.
This was the case even when they were in themselves edible,
and not forbidden as human food by religion, such as deer,
gazelles,2 and also fish and every kind of water-animal. For
such animals as were living wild, could not be considered the
actual property of men among a nation that had long passed
out of the mere hunting stage, and they could therefore serve
for no real sacrifice such as a man might offer up of his own
possessions. There remained, accordingly, only the tame
domestic animals, which from very early times were the real
property of men, and in the times of the Patriarchs constituted
their chief possessions, which stood in many respects so near
1 Lev. iii. 11, 16; xxi. 8, 17; xxii. proverb in Harith'sMi'a^, ver. 69, and the
25 ; Num. xxviii. 2. Ham'dsa, p. 442, line 6, with the narra-
2 In accordance with the proverb, tive in the Scholia. It was different
Deut. xii. 15,22. The same principle was among the Phoenicians, who are treated
valid among the ancient Arabs, comp. the of below.

32 SACRIFICE.
to man, and almost seemed to share his very feelings. But as
again from the tame animals there were excluded all that were
held unclean for men (on which point more is said further on),
the only ones that were available for sacrifice were cattle, sheep,
and goats. Only in certain cases of an inferior kind, tame
birds of the species of pigeons were permitted,1 and these were
also allowed when through poverty a prescribed sacrifice could
not otherwise have been offered.2 But at the time of the Book
of Origins, cattle were the most natural and worthy sacrificial
animals. Even sheep and goats were then considered in the
eye of the law a poorer offering, which might be substituted for
cattle only when a contribution was demanded of every indi
vidual, so that cases would arise when there would be a necessity
for so doing.3 That the animal must belong, as a condition of a
proper sacrifice, to the person offering it, was so much a matter
of course, that even kings could not take it in such a case as a
present, but if they did not possess it, believed they must
purchase it with their own money.4
35 The very conception ofthe sacrifice involved that the animal
offered must be sound and free from blemish, and further that
it must not have been impaired by work or other service for
men, and as it were desecrated ; 5 for the giving up of property
already used and worn out, or faulty, would be no sacrifice.
This feeling penetrated Antiquity so strongly, that it was not
till the latest times — when the gifts, originally voluntary, had
long been legaUy prescribed, when the childlike feeling of
remote Antiquity was lost, and the people were become far
poorer — that complaints are made of deception in the matter of
blemishes in the animals brought for sacrifice.6
According to the Book of Origins the sacrificial animal
must not be less than eight days, nor more than one year old ;
on this account those of one year old are generally spoken of as
the best.7 In considering the bodUy defects of an animal a wide
field of observation was opened for suspicion and superstition.
The law, therefore, enumerated the particular blemishes which
1 As in the cases Lev. xv. 14, 29 ; as Num. xix. 2.
Num. vi. 10. « Mai. i. 7, 8, 13, 14. Comp. the bad
2 As in the cases Lev. v. 6 sq., xii. 8 ; figs, Jer. xxiv.
xiv. 21 sq. Comp. Luke ii. 24. ' This appears from Lev. xxii. 27,
3 This is clear from Lev. xiv. 10, 21, comp. xii. 6 ; xxiii. 12, 18 ; Num. vi. 14,
and from the whole mode of representation and thence Mic. vi. 6. How animals for
of this book. sacrifice three years old can be spoken of,
" 2 Sam. xxiv. 23 sq. Gen. xv. 9, is seen Hist. i. 325, note 1. The
6 The usual expression for all this is seven year old bull (Jud. vi. 25) appears
D11)?)^ ' without blemish,' still in its first even there as something unusual, which
fresh and full yputhful vigour. But there once in a wav milst, for want of another,
are also more complete descriptions, such Berve for sacrifice.

FOOD-OFFERINGS. 33
rendered an animal unfit for the altar, and contented itself
with demanding somewhat less strictness in this respect in the
case of offerings which occupied a lower, and, as it were, a
human grade.1 Moreover, an animal that had not been reared
among the Israelites themselves was considered quite unfit for
sacrifice, as not coming direct out of the possessions of the
nation itself, and out of its consecrated sphere.2
Distinction of sex in the animals for sacrifice was carefully
observed in the case of quadrupeds, but not in that of birds. 36
The male was held everywhere to be the most natural and most
worthy. The Paschal lamb, as the oldest and by far the most
widely extended sacrificial animal, was the standing type of
this ; and just as was the case with blemishes, it is only in a
late age that attempts were made to evade the duty of offering
male animals.3 But stiU the female could not have been con
sidered altogether valueless and unworthy. The ancient custom
drew a remarkable distinction. The female animal was avail
able for certain kinds of sacrifice, which were regarded as ne
cessary under certain circumstances, it being eligible, as it were,
for the whole dark side of sacrifice ; and this gave rise to a
distinct opposition between the sexes, as will be explained
further on under the separate kinds of offerings. Moreover,
the two sexes were not legally distinguished in sacrifices that
occupied a lower, and, as it were, a human grade, such as
thank-offerings.4 — Further, the first-born was considered pre
ferable, but the law did not demand it as a condition of correct
animal sacrifice.5
2. Just as the sacrificial animals ought to be limited to the
domestic ones among an agricultural people, so of vegetables,
only corn, and what was prepared from it, should be offered up.
This is enough to show how completely the law presupposed
a nation which was already purely agricultural. Corn might be
offered up in very many ways, but in ordinary cases it was only
presented either as fine meal, or after being prepared as food ;
in the latter case, being baked in the oven in thick or thin
cakes, fried in a pan, or else roasted.6 To this was added, as at
a meal, rich oh, which was either kneaded in, or spread on the
thin flat cake, the quantity of each being accurately determined
according to fixed proportions.7 But because the oil pertained
1 According to Lev. xxii. 18-24. See * Lev. iii. 1 [A. V. peace-offerings].
further on respecting some obscure ex- 5 According to Gen. iv. 4. Comp.
pressions found here. This is more gene- what is said below about firstlings.
rally expressed Deut. xv. 21 ; xvii. 1. e Lev. ii. 1-10 ; comp. vii. 9.
2 According to Lev. xxii. 25, which ' Num. xv. 2-12;
explains the expression Ex. x. 26. xxix. 40.
« Mai. i. 14.

34 SACRIFICE.
to the corn-offering just as the male sex to the animal offering,
37 the want of it denoted the above-mentioned dark side of sacri
fice, as wiU be made clear below. It was just the reverse with
the leaven. Only bread which was quite pure, and would not
yield readily to putrefaction, which was mixed therefore neither
with leaven, yeast, nor honey, would do for the altar. But yet
as leavened bread is more agreeable to men, it was not for
bidden in thank-offerings, in so far as it was to be eaten by the
person offering it.1 But as unleavened bread alone was allowed
for the altar, it was held the more necessary to season it with
salt, which counteracts all corruption. It was, indeed, on
this point that the special belief turned, that salt must accom
pany every sacrifice, as a new covenant which man concluded
with his God ; just as according to old custom it must never
be absent from meals for ratifying human friendship and
aUiances, and only a ' salt-treaty ' was held to be secure.2
3. Wine served as the drink-offering (nesekh) in conformity
with the nature and fertility of the country, and was un
doubtedly the red wine native there at that time, to which
allusion is so often made in the Old Testament. It was em
ployed, however, as at a genuine meal, only as an accompaniment
of the proper ' bread of Jahveh,' and its proportion to the latter
38 was estimated exactly as that of oil to corn.3 But the same
sadder kinds of sacrifice, at which oil was purposely not em
ployed, did not admit of this joyous addition of a libation of
wine.4 Even on fast-days it was the national custom to offer
up water alone at the holy place,5 a usage which is fully ex-
1 All this appears from the brief in- many were seeking an entirely incorrect
dications in Lev._ ii. 4, 5, 11, 12 ; vi. 9, 10 ; reason why the ancient nation did not use
vii. 12, 13; xxiii. 17. Comp. the still honey at sacrifices.
older and shorter utterance in Ex. xxiii. 2 This follows from the short but clear
18. More will be said on the subject expressions Lev. ii. ] 3 ; comp. the ancient
further on under the Passover. I have proverbial phrases, Num. xviii. 19; 2 Chr.
already treated the whole subject in the xiii. 5 ; Ezek. xliii. 24 says expressly
article of 1835, Zeitschr. f. K. des Morgen- that salt was also used at animal sacri-
landes, iii. s. 423. We see from Amos iv. fices; Lev. xxiv. 7 shows that it was not
5, Hos. iii. 1, that at sacrifices, more or wanting from the bread of the sacred
less heathenish, as e. g. Philo, Opp. ii. table, rDD-l, from the LXX is to he in-
p. 51 8, describes them, things leavened and serted nerg after
sweet were esteemed. Still the Heathens s ' a„„„-a:„~i tr o ,„
themselves considered what was un- 4 sn ^l^l^ T^ H8 ; ""^
leavened to be purer, see Gell. K A. ,. tj^l al°Dg mth what has Le6n sald
15, Plut. Qmest. Bom. c. 109. — Theo- "

jo, .nut. w&,uvsi. ixvrn. u. ±u». — ±neo- 4 mi.- r. 17 „ .,,...
phrastus,accordingtoPorphyr^^. theJ^X^t^"Zu-
11. 26, makes the 'Syrian Jews drop offerings, Num. xv. 3-12
honey and oil upon the burnt-offering, 5 1 <j„„ •• o « , „
but this view must have arisen from the vLnt "' ^' ¦ A™ong the, Greeks,
an error. In reality, at the time of Philo ' ™n&^'tl^? "* e7erJ*lng the
{De Sacrific. c. vi.), and Plutarch (ac- 'Zed CtinL f ^7^7 ^f' T
cording to his ConL. Disput. iv. 6,^2), ^^^^ £™- A^

THE BLOOD. 35
plained by that force of opposition frequently mentioned above,
but of which the law takes no notice. — Widely different was
the custom which appears here and there of pouring out, instead
of wine, broth made of the flesh of the sacrifice.1 It is, how
ever, more simple, and is also only depicted as having formerly
taken place in the time of the Judges.
The drink-offering was never poured on to the altar itself,
but on to the ground, and probably at all times at the foot of
the altar,2 just as the blood. But all that was to come on the
altar as ' bread ' must finally be supplied with sweet odours,
both because these belong to sumptuous banquets generally,
and also to banish the unpleasant smell which the burning
substances would otherwise have been likely to cause. Only when
oil and wine were excluded was there also no place for incense.3
But where it was aUowed, as in the most usual and numerous
sacrifices, its amount was not legally prescribed ; it was there
fore easy for it, as for the oil, to be consumed at times with
the utmost profusion. At the same time its scent was deemed
so pure and its substance so delicate, that the whole amount
of it which was supplied with the ' bread ' had to come on to
the altar, and in oertain cases it was even laid there as an
offering in itself. Gradually it became in somewhat later
times one of the most popular and elaborate constituents of the
sacrifice. In particular many costly and rare substances were
used as perfumes instead ofthe simple incense;4 and in the so
period after the Book of Origins the most acceptable and
valued offering generally is often that of incense.5
The Blood and Entrails.
1. But it was something quite different from this sweet
savour on which remote Antiquity laid the chief stress in the
food-offering, and this appears very clearly in the represen
tations of the Book of Origins. In order to apprehend this
rightly we must first investigate more closely the mutual rela
tion of the two possible portions of the meal, these being the
flesh- and the corn-offering.
1 Judg. vi. 19, 20. amount of pure oil. Accordingly the
2 Only in Num. xxviii. 7 is there a best incense for the altar probably con-
very brief indication of this spot. The sisted of four such substances ; comp. bk.
language is more determinate in Sir. 1. 15. Is. xliii. 23, 24.
3 According to Lev. v. 11 ; Num. v. 15. 5 As in Is. i. 13 ; comp. xliii. 4, 23, 24 ;
4 Porphyry, De Ahstin. ii. 5, speaks of Jer. vi. 20.— Ps. cxli. 2. Hence comes too
four substances. The sacred ointment, the conjunction ' The sweet scent of rams,'
Ex. xxx. 23-25, was made up of this Ps. lxvi. 15.
number of them mixed with an appropriate D 2

36 SACRIFICE."
We find the corn-offering already driven quite into the
background during the first centuries of Jahveism, and for the
most part reduced to a mere accompaniment of the flesh-
offering. To all the ordinary as well as the grandest animal
sacrifices, a corn- offering always formed a necessary addition,
the amount of it being determined by the species ofthe animal.1
But from the opposite kind of sacrifice, more than once mentioned
above, it was altogether absent ; 2 and at compulsory sacrifices
it was allowed only in case of extreme poverty on the part of
those that offered them,3 or in Special cases where it seemed
sufficient merely to accompany a peculiarly sacred action.4
At certain sacrifices, which were early removed out of the
ordinary course of the national life, the offering of corn always
continued to hold a more independent position, and stood forth
more on its own merits, as will be made clear in detail further
40 on. But in the main line of the earliest history of a national
development in Israel, the animal-offering so completely over
shadowed the corn-offering as to represent the essential element
of the whole sacrificial system.
ISTow, in the essence of sacrifice itself, there lay no ground for
so decisive a preference for the animal-offering. Among many
ancient highly civilised nations, as e.g. the Hindoos, the simple
offerings of cakes, fruit and flowers, and also the still more
simple presentation of fat (butter) and sacred water, remained
always in high honour and common use. In the people of
Israel too, or rather in an ancient nation from portions of which
it was formed, the corn- offering must once have been far more
respected and independent. The very name of it, Mincha, shows
this ; for the word originally denoted a free gift or an offering in
general, and even in our present Hebrew text it is often used in a
wider sense, not even confined to sacrifice at all. If then, it
now of itself denotes the corn-offering, there must have been
an earlier time in which this was regarded as the most natural
and satisfactory offering, quite otherwise than in the present
legislation. Accordingly it appears far more independent in
reminiscences of the patriarchal times. The agricultural
patriarch Cain brings nothing but a mincha of the fruits of the
soil ; Abel the shepherd offers, as suitable to his occupation,
an animal sacrifice, but it also is there caUed mincha.5
1 According to Num. xv. 2-13, cap. the thank- and whole-offerings, of the
xxviii.-ix. Similarly among the Romans injunctions given Num. xv., xxviii. sq.
there was an old law never to offer sacri- 3 As Lev. v. 11-13 ; xiv. 21-32.
flee without meal. Plutarch's Duma, * As Num. v. 15 sq.'
<--. xiv. ... 5 Geu- iv- 3-5. We find the same
2 This appears from the limitation to word in the Hellenistic expression pavai,

THE BLOOD. 37
To account then for the animal sacrifice coming so pro
minently to the front among the people of Israel, two causes
must have, co-operated. In the first place the more powerful,
warlike, and excited an ancient nation, or a tribe of it,
became, the more it learnt to love the dread blood sacrifice,
and the wider it extended its use. In Israel, too, everything
goes to show that it was during the time of its first mighty
wars and victories that the animal sacrifice became predomi
nant in it.1 It is a life, a warm young healthy life, which is .
here offered up and destroyed, in spite of the fact that every
one readily feels the awful ness of this even in the case of
animals, and in spite of the religion of such nations directing
attention so early and so strongly to the sanctity of all life.
If this feeling of awfulness was finally overcome, yet the less
the sensibility for it was already blunted in early times, the
deeper the impression it would leave ; and it must have aroused
many ofthe most profound and most incisive thoughts. Life for
life, blood for blood, was already the rule in another case, where
a human life had been destroyed by a living animal, because
only like could balance like, and it seemed possible to compen
sate for one irreparable destruction only by another.2 Here we
have the converse case; man offers up a life to his God; but all
the awfulness remained the same. When he was himself
conscious of sin, must not the idea and the feeling have come
across him, that this soul feU for his own, and that his own
soul would only thus find reconciliation and peace ? Or if at
the moment when he prepared this sacrifice, he did not feel the
inward pressure so severely, could he yet help having similar
emotions of awe, and feeling himself in an unusually exalted
mood ? 3 It is as though this sacrifice alone were the proper
means for putting men in such a mood, and the extremes of
joy and sorrow meet. — But on this account the animal sa
crifice could hardly come into regular use among nations already
somewhat civilised, without, in the next place, the mood which
ought to correspond to it, seeking to express itself com
pletely by means of a special symbol, which should bring clearly
before the senses the awfulness of the whole proceeding.
This symbol was furnished by the blood, which to a great
portion of remote Antiquity appeared to have about it something
so utterly mysterious, so divinely sacred, that a belief became
which appears also in the still more cor- s It is the same mood, after all feeling
rupt form, pawd, as Baruch i. 10. has been blunted immeasurably, which to-
1 Comp. p. 29 sq. above, and Hist. ii. 38 day the King of Dahomey seeks to produce
sq., 58. in this way at festivals, by the slaughter
2 See below, under the second main sec. of thousands of human beings.

38 SACRIFICE.
deeply rooted that true sacrifice could be carried out perfectly
only by means of its intervention. A strong feeling of this had
already completely transformed the whole department of sacri
fice among the people of Israel, in times which we must consider
as relatively very early ; and the Book of Origins still depicts
for us vividly enough the feeling in this matter which for many
centuries penetrated the ancient nation.
2. Indeed, the warm blood of men, and of quadrupeds and
birds, seemed to contain the very soul or life of the living
earthly creature — to be almost identical with its soul. The
Book of Origins hardly knows how to put this sufficiently
strongly in the passages devoted to it.1 Now when the life and
the soul were held to be something sacred, and the more tender
feelings of certain nations took this view very early, it would
follow that the blood too must be considered a sacred thing,
and be regarded quite differently from the rest of the body. The
sight of that which was held to be the soul itself, carried the
mind immediately to thoughts of God, placed directly before it
something full of mystery, and filled it with that immeasurably
profound awe which overpowers man whenever he sees any
42 rent in the veil between him and the Divine. In accordance
with such feelings, blood could be scarcely touched, still less
eaten, by pious men ; and ancient Jahveism impressed its immu
nity in every way as deeply as possible. Even the inviolabihty
of human life received support from the sanctity of the blood.2
To taste the minutest portion of animal blood was something
horrible ; 3 even the blood of such animals as were allowed for
1 ' The soul of all flesh (i.e. of all sition to the fine, thin, and apparently
things living on earth) is in the blood,' so fragile soul, is always strictly mascu-
Lev. xvii. 11. This expression is ex- line. Sanskrit, Greek, and German, are
changed for ' The soul of all flesh is its the first to make the blood a mere thing
blood itself,' ver. 14, this latter being only (a neuter).
somewhat stronger It is certain that 2 Gen. ix. 4-6, after the Book of Ori-
1GPS33 is nothing hut our • itself, Lehr- gins_ prom this came further the norror
buch, s. 314e. On the other hand, B>3J3 among the heathens of blood shed appa-
ver. 11, can only mean that the blood i"ently involuntarily, especially if it was
makes atonement for, or on behalf of the lna temple, and the painful purification
soul, i.e. reconciles or purifies it, according ™'Jh would ensue, v. Jamblicus, Vita
to Lev. vi. 23 [30] ; xvi. 17, 23 ; and iirfA-
Lehrbuch, B. 282a. The LXX also rightly . 3 The oldest expression of this is found
take it so. In this passage, Lev. xvii. in LeT- xi:x;- 26 ; tllen in the Book of Ori-
11-14, E»SJ stands in such very different Slns> Lev- "'¦ J7; vii. 26; xvii. 10-14.
. , ,'V" . . , , , , Prom this it is repeated in Deut. xii. 16,
contexts, that great care is needed to under- n, . ™r „,, _., ... ..
4. j -i ' • u • v. tu t> 1 -so sq. xv. 23. The Philistines, on
stand it aught in each case -The Book the other w were particular in
of Origins says the same with respect to all this BE.Zach. ix_ 1? Jd elsewhere
men Gen ix. 5, and laterthe Deuterono- co laint is made of'the & ^ fal
mist repeats tne principle in his own way, connected with the Di _ g^nia-
xii23-It?s further quite m accordance ft ^ ed_ Q ^^ _
with this original significance of the blood 9_ ed g ft EusebiuS) j^' k ;i. £8.
that a\ just as sanguis, in direct oppo- But ¦ t £s H m '3 j J ^ j,

THE BLOOD. 89
eating, but not for sacrifice, was to be poured ' like water ' upon
the ground, and covered over with earth.1
It foUowed from this, as a matter of course, that the
blood of sacrificial animals was not to be tasted by men. But
the essential characteristics of sacrifice gave rise to a new and
extraordinarily important idea. When he entirely surrendered
the blood of the sacrificial animal without tasting the least
portion of it, man gave it up to God ; and having begged him
graciously to accept it, the sacrificer could live in the glad belief
that this had really taken place. But this belief in a gracious
acceptance on the part of God is the Yery kernel and centre of
the whole act of sacrifice, only when this is present does the
act become spiritual and sacred, while altar and priest furnish 43
the medium for the reciprocal intercourse between the man
offering and the God accepting. Accordingly, as the blood
was already looked upon as having a mysterious and divine
nature, and was in addition offered ftp at the altar in this
belief, and taken thence for the purpose of confirming and
strengthening the same, it became the clearest expression of the
highest aim of aU sacrifice, as well as the special means appro
priated to this aim. Sacrifice, in its fullest extent and widest
development, is a sacred action done to arouse and impart as
directly as possible the higher life of faith (it is a sacramentum) :
the mysterious blood of the sacrificial animal became the
strongest lever of this action, and by its means man most
clearly saw with his own eyes, and at the same time felt with
his own blood, what was supernatural and divine in it. It
came therefore to be the most effective means of renewing con
fidence in the divine graciousness. God allowed it to be offered
up on the altar, in order that man might thereby be continu
ally reassured of his grace and reconciliation, and of the salva
tion of his own soul.2
Yet the internal activity, and the true might of the belief
in the perpetual renewal of divine grace, is never in the least
dependent on any special kind of external action. Bather
does it spontaneously draw forth the external action, and then
comp. Ex. xii. 9, complain of the eating Certainly the example of the blood-eaters
of raw sacrifices, so Enoch xcviii. 11. ed. (Kravjdd) or blood-suckers in India is
Dillm., even complains of the eating of not inviting, but of such dangers the old
blood in Israel; and now there is still laws of Jahveism assuredly never thought.
something similar in Ethiopia, see Sa- See Transactions of the Boyal Asiatic So-
peto's Viaggio tra i Bogos, p. 217, 232y' ciety of London, vol. iii. p. 379 sq. ; Bun-
1 Lev. xvii. 13 ; Deut. xii. 16 sq.— The sen's Outlines, i. 345; comp. G. Miiller's
question therefore never arose whether Amerikanische Urreligionen, s. 375.
the eating blood is in general wholesome 2 As is expressly said Lev. xvii. 11.
for men, or can be dangerous to them.

40 SACRIFICE.
eashy come to use it as its support and instrument. Every
sacrament, as far as it is mere action, is merely human action.
But what is internal, neither can nor ought for men to remain
purely internal. For the sake of clearness and strength it
presses out into action, and becomes itself visible ; and the
special form of representation and action assumed will be in
accordance with the entire mode of internal belief, and the
religion which gives rise to it. Thus the primitive feeling of
the mysterious sanctity of blood only came to supply a want in
44 the religion of the ancient people of Israel ; nor can it surprise
us that the blood of sacrificial animals seemed to other nations
also to possess a certain sanctity. But no heathen nation had
such ideas about human sin and divine grace, as had the people
of Israel from the time of Jahveism ; so that it was only in this
nation that the blood assumed this unique, exalted significance,
and only there that it became the one great centre of the whole
sacrificial procedure.
All that sacred awe of the blood, and the use of it at sacri
fice, as from the time of Jahveism this was more fully developed
among the people of Israel, accordingly refers us back of itself
to a yet more remote antiquity, whose existence the Book of
Origins also indicates as a fact. This childlike awe at the first
apprehension of the Infinite, deemed to lie in the soul and so in
the blood, this equating of animal and human blood and life,
and this horror of touching blood at all, leads straight enough
to the view that man may destroy no life whatever, and may
eat no animal. It leads therefore to the religion which pre
vailed in ancient India, whose yet untroubled existence is trans
ferred by the Book of Origins to the first of the four ages of
the world, as its divinely ordained law, with the express decla
ration that permission to shed the blood of animals was first
given by God to the renewed race of men after the Flood.1
Among many nations, then, at least a dread of blood remained
as a relic of the entire tone of a still more remote antiquity,
while others preferred not to offer animals at all, but let corn
form their gifts to the gods. The people of Israel was com
posed in primitive times by the melting together of two ele
ments, as shown by the numerous traces already explained ; 2
and one of these two may have formerly given prominence to
the corn-offering (the mincha), the other to the animal sacrifice
1 Gen. i. 29, 30 ; ix. 3-6 ; comp. on and last of the commands of Triptolemus
this point, Hist.i. p. 85 sq., and what more was Tct f£a jut; otvtaBai, Porphyry, De
is said further on with respect to the Sab- Abstin. iv. 22.
bath. According to the Greeks the third 2 Hist. vol. i.

THE BLOOD. 41
with its sacred dread of blood, until the form of sacrifice legally
prescribed in the Book of Origins was arrived at by means of 45
the complete union of the two. In this the animal sacrifice, as
being not only stronger and more manly, but also more
mysterious and available for far more varied and more developed
sacred rites, took decisively the upper hand, but still without
suppressing the other. The new name for both the slain-
offering and the corn-offering was now qorbdn i.e. offering.1
All this certainly took place in pre-Mosaic times, but it was
Jahveism which first gave the higher meaning to the blood of
sacrifice. 3. Besides the blood, the entrails, as the mysterious seat
of emotion, were a special object of the sacrificial art, and
it is well known in how many heathen sacrifices they even
became the instrument of soothsaying. They served for this
purpose also among the neighbouring nations,2 but never in
Israel. Here, on the contrary, these parts were always to be
consumed by the fire on the altar, even if the rest of the
animal was not similarly treated ; indeed, they were so indis
pensable an element in every act of sacrifice, that the eating of
them was forbidden to men just as was that of blood.3 Still
they had no such directly sacred significance as the blood,
which was to be poured out on the altar and not to be burned.
The different parts were generally briefly called the fat, viz.
the internal fat. The Book of Origins often gives them more
in detail,4 and the invariable omission of aU mention of the 46
heart and other blood-vessels is remarkable. Ancient custom
plainly kept the strictest watch that these portions for the
altar and proper supply for the fire should not be curtailed.
All these practices, however, with unimportant modifications
are to be found again in heathen sacrifices. — With birds these
parts were never separated, but after the blood had been
taken from them they were devoted whole to the fire on
the altar.
1 In accordance with such main pas- large laps of the liver.' Lev. iii. 3, 4, 9,
sages as Lev. i. 2 ; ii. 1. Still the word 10, 14, 15 ; iv. 8, 9 ; vii. 3, 4. This ex-
would also contain the wider idea of a plains the abridged expressions in
mere consecrated gift, Lev. xxvii.; Lev. viii. 16, 25; ix. 10, 19; Ex. xxix.
Num. xxxi. 50-54; comp. Mark vii. 11; 13, 22; but it is possible that in Ex.
Matt, xxvii. 6, and more on the subject xxix. 13 the words were abridged by
below. a later hand, as just here no abbrevia-
2 Ezek. xxi. 26 [21]. Even of human tion was to be expected. When sheep
sacrifices, Porphyry, De Abstin. ii. 51. are spoken of, such passages add the
3 Lev. iii. 17; vii. 22-27. fatty tail; to so great an extent the mere
* ' The fat above and about the in- conception of fat may have gradually
testines, the kidneys with their fat, and the worked its way in.

42 SACRIFICE.
ii. The General Procedure in Sacrifice by Fire.
Such were the ideas and customs which of themselves de
termined a large part of the general procedure with respect to
sacrificial animals and the other constituents of sacrifice. We
shaU now give a connected description of it so far as our
sources permit this to be done.
It was so completely taken for granted that every one who
wishes to approach his God with an offering has prepared him
self for the sacred rite in a worthy manner, and knows well
what it is he desires to do, that this is mentioned only in the
historical accounts of the great days of sacrifice.1 On such
grand occasions the sacrificer had to purify himself for one or
two days previously ; that is, he had strictly to abstain both in
thought and deed from everything that passed as impure or
unholy ; he had also to wash his clothes. If the sacrificial rite
had to be performed with unusual haste, a purification in the
shortest possible time was stiU necessary, but what were the
usages then, we no longer know with certainty.2
The sacrificer was himself to bring his animal to the place
where the sanctuary was, and before reaching its threshold he
must in the fore-court, as it were, present it to his God with a
petition for a gracious acceptance of it.3 Hereupon took place,
as something quite understood, the careful examination of the
47 animal on the part of the priest, to see whether or not it were
available for sacrifice and sound, and whether it just suited
the special purpose of the sacrificer.
If the sacrificer and his gift passed this inspection, they drew
near to the altar, and the sacred rite itself then began with his
laying his hand for some time on the head of the animal. The
Book of Origins, which evidently brings this part of the
whole sacred rite into prominence as something specially im
portant and indispensable, does not think it necessary further
to explain its object and its meaning.4 We must therefore
look around in the circle of sacred usages generaUy. Accord
ing to the Book of Origins, a man like Moses consecrated
his follower Joshua to succeed him in his office by laying his
hands on the latter's head, and thereby imparting his blessing,
1 In the Book of Covenants, in reference " Lev. i. 3 ; iii. 1 ; iv. 4; and else-
to the sacrifice at Sinai, Ex. xix. 10, 11, where. Hence, even in the latest times
with which the description in the same such beautiful images as Rom. xii. 1.
book of Jacob's sacrifice essentially agrees. 4 Exod. xxix. 10,15, 19; Lev. i. 4;
Gen. xxxv. 2, 3 ; comp. such expressions iii. 2, 8, 13 ; iv. 4, &c; from which it
as Zeph. i. 7 ; Jer. xii. 3. appears that it was to be found equally in
2 1 Sam. xvi. 6. But see below. all varieties of sacrifice, 2 Chron. xxix. 23.

GENERAL PROCEDURE IN SACRIFICE. 43
along with his most sacred commissions.1 It was as though
the superior desired in so rare a moment to let his whole spirit
stream over through the glowing nerves of his hands on to him
whom he honoured with his blessing and highest commissions.
Such a symbol of blessing and consecration, putting forth its
utmost power and effort, was in use in Israel from primitive
times,2 and maintained its position down to the early days of
Christianity,3 when it, like many other things of the kind, came
to life again with an entirely new vigour. This ancient custom
even gave rise to the sacred practice that the priest in solemnly
greeting and blessing the assembled multitude, since he could
not lay his hands on them, at least raised them up, and
stretched them out over the crowd.4 Accordingly, when the
sacrificer laid his hands on the head of the yet living animal, 48
this can only indicate the sacred moment in which he, purposing
at once to commence the rite itself, transferred to the head of
the creature whose blood was about to be shed, and, as it
were, appear for him before God, aU the feelings which must
now stream through him in fuU glow. Moreover, the ancient
sympathy for the sufferings and conditions of loved domestic
animals, and still more the above-mentioned idea of the sanctity
of blood, contributed to the rise of this custom, and the public
religion on its part could demand nothing less than this solemn
commencement of the sacred rite, and the expression of such
feelings and silent prayers on the part of the sacrificer. It
immediately preceded the shedding of the blood ; in this way
the custom became as specially characteristic of the religion of
Israel, as did the higher significance which they ascribed to
blood in general poured out before the altar. — When, however,
the same custom found further application in regard to criminals
condemned to death in the community, inasmuch as the wit
nesses had all to lay their hands on the head of the criminal
just about to be stoned,5 the model on which this custom was
based was clearly first given by the ancient sacrificial practice.
The slaughter which now followed was originally executed
by the sacrificer himself, whether layman or priest, and this is
still allowed in the Book of Origins. In later times it was,
1 Num. xxvii. 18-20, where the expres- known, the symbol, the means, and the
sion, ' lay of thine honour upon him,' is commencement of the communication of
particularly noteworthy; comp. vi. 27; thespirit; hence, too, of the true salvation.
Deut. xxxiv. 9. * Lev. ix. 22.
2 Gen. xlviii. 14-20. Somewhat differ- 5 This is also according to the Book of
ent is the representation of the Fifth Nar- Origins, Lev. xxiv. 14. The criminal
rator, chap, xxvii. therefore was considered as Q"TI, see
3 In the first three Gospels and in Acts, bei0Wi
the laying on of the hands is, as is well

44 SACRIFICE.
according to certain indications, committed more often to the
inferior priests.1 The special place for the purpose, at any rate
for the principal kinds of sacrifice, was, according to the Book
of Origins, on the north side of the altar. Possibly we have
here a relic of an old belief that the Deity dwells either in the
East or in the North, and comes from thence. This much is
certain, that aU the nations of Asia to the south of the high
49 mountains of Armenia, Persia, and India, have from primitive
times placed the abode of their Deities in the lofty North.
Now as it cannot be denied that the people of Israel also came
ultimately out of this same North, as is proved in the History,
vol. i., it is quite possible that such a belief in the greater near
ness of the Deity in the North may have very long maintained
its place in a particular sacrificial usage such as this, notwith
standing that Jahveism ascribed no further importance to it.
Under any circumstances the sacerdotal function commenced
with the slaughter, in so far that the priest caught the fresh
blood with sacrificial bowls, in order to- employ it, while it was
yet warm, in that usage which, as explained above, formed the
essential kernel of the whole sacred rite. In later times, as
we know for certain, the inferior priests caught the blood,
and handed it over to a sacrificial priest to sprinkle it.3 — The
sprinkling of the blood was itself the most solemn moment :
in ordinary cases the priest sprinkled it only on the corners
and the sides, and on the foot of the altar,4 but aU round
the latter ; just as in general the ancient custom required on
the most solemn occasions the party to go round the altar in a
circle, praying, singing, and otherwise fervently soliciting the
Divinity.5 What the priest said while going round the altar to
sprinkle it with the most sacred element of the sacrifice, how
he supplicated thereby the divine grace for the sacrificer, and
how he announced it, we no longer can teU in detail ; but that
it did take place in this way there can be no doubt. — A stalk of
the shrub Hyssop (Ysop) was, in accordance with ancient cus
tom, used for the sprinkling, one end of it being dipped in
the blood. This wood must once in early times have passed
for pure and cleansing, just as among the Hindoos and Persians
the Soma (homa) alone is used as a sacrificial drink ; and only
1 2 Chron. xxix. 21-24; comp. xxx. 15- Is. xiv. 13; Enoch xxv. 5; comp. also
17; xxxv. 1, 11 ; Ezra vi. 20. Bhdgavata Ptirana, t. iii. p. 79, Burn.
2 Lev. i. 11 ; comp. vi. 18 [25] ; vii. 2, 3 2 Chron. xxx. 16.
and the position of the sacred table, 4 Comp. bk. Zach ix. 15, with the de-
Ex. xxvi. 35. Much the same is said, but scriptions in the Book of Origins.
on occasion of entirely different historical 5 Ps. xxvi. 6, 7. Comp. Meghaduta,
events, in the following passages, str. 56, with Wilson's remark.
Ps. xlviii. 3 [2] ; Ezek. i. 4 ; comp. bk.

GENERAL PROCEDURE IN SACRIFICE. 45
by means of this instrument did it seem possible to complete
properly the cleansing atonement.1
Not until the conclusion of this principal ceremony, during
which the feelings appropriate to the sacrificer would attain
their maximum, did the cutting up of the slain animal com
mence, and at the same time the fire on the altar would be
stirred up by other priests. But at this point the separate
kinds of sacrifice begin entirely to differ one from another, in
asmuch as each kind sanctified a different use of the parts of
the bloodless animal, and it was only in certain sacrifices that 50
the flesh, with the exception of what was invariably put on the
altar, would be eaten either by the sacrificer or by the priests
themselves. This is further explained below. — With birds, on
account of their smallness, the latter part of the procedure, in
cluding the killing, was different. The priest himself took the
small creature at once to the altar, wrung its neck without
quite tearing off its head, sprinkled some of the blood on the
sides of the altar, and let the rest of it run out at its foot.
He then removed the throat and the offal, and tore open the
body by the wings without completely dismembering it, and
so prepared it for the fire on the altar, without, as it seems,' the
least portion of the flesh being eaten by men.2
All portions of the sacrificial animal which were destined
for the fire on the altar were finally richly strewed with incense,
as were also the corn-offerings, and laid upon the altar hearth,
to be rapidly consumed by the long glowing fire. The Book of
Origins invariably denotes this by the short expression, 'to
burn upon the altar,' 3 for which the LXX say with less signifi
cance, ' to put upon the altar.'
Far simpler was the procedure with the corn-offering.
Each portion of it had its own incense, the whole of which the
priest, after presenting and consecrating the portion at the altar,
threw into the fire, along with a handful of meal and oil from
the meal-offering, or a small piece of the cake. When the fire-
1 According to Ps. li. 9, and what will the other hand there is at present no
be said further on in the second main ground for changing, in ver. 16, nnXJ
section. The expression Sro-emos, comes . . beeause j ig ^
from a Hebrew word afX not from the "VvJ! ^
Massoretic hTN; on this':'point comp. whether the Aramaic j^lJ \A21J,
Lehrbuch. s. 1536. ' offal>' may not be brought into some sort
2 The ' words, Lev. i. 15-17 contain of comparison with this. "K"!P, as
some clerical errors which can to some 'throat,' can at the same time include
extent be easily corrected from v. 8, 9. stomach. Compare Lehrbuch, 0. 130 of
nrOJDn VDpn, in ver. 15 is quite out the 8th ed.
of place here; and yet there may be an 3 Lev. i. 9, 13, 17, &c.
original rQtDH Vp concealed in it. On

46 SACRIFICE.
offering had come to predominate over the older table-offering,
61 the twelve plain Sabbath-loaves also were strewn with incense,
but when they were taken away only the incense was given
over to the flames.1 That portion of the corn-offering which
actually came on the altar is called in the Book of Origins
its Azkdra, i.e. its savoury portion ; because originally at
any rate it consisted either entirely or principally of the in
cense scattered on it.2 At the time of the Book of Origins,
the name was as specially appropriated to this portion for the
altar, as was the name Mincha to the corn-offering itself.3
The libations of wine, on the other hand, were, as far as we
know, simply poured out, this being done at the foot of the altar,
but probably not at the places where the blood was sprinkled.4
Of the speeches, prayers, and singing, which went on during
the sacrifice, mention is only once made in the law, in connec
tion with sacrifice on account of the jealousy of a husband.5
Nevertheless, we still possess some ofthe most beautiful hymns,
which must have been sung at the sacrifices in the sanctuary ; 6
and reference is stiU more frequently made to such singing.7
62 Undoubtedly it formed an important part of the whole sacred
rite, although the ancient law prescribed nothing particular
with respect to its kind and manner, and the individuals sacri
ficing were at liberty to enjoy the utmost freedom with respect
to it.
iii. The Significance of the different hinds of Sacrifice by Fire.%
The Whole- or Burnt-Offering.
Sacrifice by fire or on the altar, the predominant kind and
one most fully developed, took very different forms in accord-
1 Lev. ii. 2, 8 sq. ; vi. 8 [15]. Already to cause to give out scent, to make smoke
Lev. xiv. 20, actually changes i"OTi1 with (see Die Dichter des A. Bs., ia. s. 284-5),
"VDpjIi and it will be made clear below and in Hos. xiv. 8 the meaning scent
under the expiatory-offering that the word suits the connection of thought best for
had some such meaning in the linguistic 1"Ot, though it is to be pronounced some-
consciousness. How primitive is the entire what differently. With regard to rnDtX>
mode of speech, is seen in the formation, Lev. v. 12 sq., see below, under the expia-
found only there, nrBtfiil. In general tory-offering.
the sacrificial language preserves a good s B. 36.
deal of the antique expression quite pecu- 4 F. 35.
liar to it. s Num. v. 18-26.
2 According to the decisive passage, 6 As Fs. xx., xxx., lxvi. 13-20, even
Lev. xxiv. 7, n"DtX, although the LXX aPa*t from Ps. cxviii.
translate it jiVrip6crwoi>, can mean nothing ' As in Ps. xxvii. 6 ; xxvi. 6, 7 ; xxii.
but scent ; and it is indisputable that 28 [27] sq.
< j, comp. <\ can also give the con- - " T.he .™ai° seCtlon *°r tlle subject is
jr"' r LT ' Lev. l.-vn. It was copied in the Book of
ception of a pungent smell. The verb, Origins, but there are many traces that it,
TOti!) too, means, in sacrificial language, along with a few kindred passages, is the

THE WHOLE-OFFERING.

47

ance with the various occasions and significance which it might
have. On this account we shall now pause to consider the
separate kinds of sacrifice. We observe in the first place that
they branch out into only two main divisions, which stand
related to one another much as day and night, both in respect
to the occasions which gave rise to them, and to the mode in
which they were carried out. On the one side stands the
thank-offering, joyous as the day ; on the other the guilt-
offering, shrouded in gloom.
But, in the midst between these two contrasted poles,
Jahveism very early had already largely developed a third kind,
which gave the most complete expression to an essential
though one-sided idea pertaining to all sacrifice, and thereby
lent such a glory to aU sacrifice, that it seemed appropriate to
every occasion, and to give additional value to every special
kind of offering. This kind is known as the Whole-offering,
or can also be named the splendour- or more exactly the glow-
offering, and Luther not improperly called it the Brand-
dpfer.1 In this, man's share in the consumption of the offering,

53

work of a different and somewhat older
author ; moreover, it is itself divided into
two distinct works. Hist, i., 88, ii. 168. —
The division of sacrifices into those : 1)
Stct tijutJi' ; 2) Sia %i,pi.v ; 3) Sick xp^av T"v
cVyaflSv, which is given by Porphyry, De
Abstin. ii. 24, is only imaginary.
1 [A.V. burnt-offering.] The origin
of the Hebrew word, rV]), is ob
scure, and even the LXX translate it
very differently in different places. As
it is not unfrequently connected with
TOVT\ and this appears capable of mean
ing to put on (the altar), we might think
that the word was thence derived, in ac
cordance with the translation ofthe LXX,
Ps. li. 21, avcupopd. But in this nothing
characteristic about this very special kind
of sacrifice would be expressed. The
assumption that rpj? as the feminine
form of nb)l means that which goes up,
(in the fire), i.e., which is consumed,
suffers from still greater difficulties,
because everything which came on the
altar was completely consumed. What is
most probable is that ?1J? = W i-
means properly a glowing, burning, like
"11JJ. The long burning is the distinctive
mark of this offering, and the word itself
seems to be thus explained in the passage
Lev. vi. 2 [9], ' the burnt-offering,' that is,
' that which burns the whole night on its

hearth (iTlp'lD according to the LXX),
on the altar.' The translation, tihottab-
Tiefia, of the LXX would thus be the
most suitable, especially when we re
member that the d\o- enters into compo
sition in just the same way in the case of
KitpTrmfia and tiXoKipitiuna. Even the word
occurs very early, comp. the &\oKavroiiv,
among the Persians in Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3,
24. It is true that such a conjecture
appears opposed to the fact that fpjjij
goes with n?j? as its verb just as regu
larly and specially, as 2,-lpn t^'AH,
H3T go with the other kinds of sacri
fice, so that the verb of itself even without
the n?j? can signify the offering of
this particular sacrifice (Judges vi. 28,
comp. v. 26 ; 2 Kings xvi. 12, where
yvp'i is to be read). Even the intran
sitive n^J? is enough to denote the burnt-
offering, Ps. li. 21. A departure from
this linguistic usage is first found
1 Chron. xvi. 1 ; Esra viii. 35, where
inpn is used of ni'pj?- The Syrian
o o 7
lj£>QJD tPimj may also be quoted
here. But in everything which concerns
the original significance of 'sacrifice, it is
the oldest writings which must be con
sulted first, a Joel and a Hosea (ix. 3-5),
however, as well as the Rig-Veda of the

48 SACRIFICE.
being connected with sensuality, altogether vanished. The
sacrificer consecrated to the Deity alone the enjoyment of the
whole, and this not to punish himself, or because he was
punished, on account of a special consciousness of guilt by de
privation of sensuous participation, but rather from free resolve
and purest self-denial. The reciprocity, which as said above,
64 originally existed at every offering of food, here totaUy disap
pears, inasmuch as man voluntarily withdraws his claim for sen
suous participation, and consecrates to God alone that of which
he might himself partake. Yet his entreaty for divine favour
is now all the purer ; his soul bent more exclusively on spiritual
nourishment, and his hopes stronger of winning the divine
favour. The whole-offering had no further aim than just to
win the divine favour and reconciliation generally, apart from
special circumstances ; but this it sought all the more strongly
and intensely,1 with all the energy of which the once-existing
sacrificial system of the Old Testament was capable.
Accordingly it became at the same time the true splendour-
offering, at which the sacrificer thought from the first he might
offer only the best that he had. The sacrificial animals,
when offered by an individual, might indeed be the smaller
quadrupeds and birds ; but ordinarily they were cattle, or an
equal number of cattle and rams,2 and the law prescribed further
that they must invariably be of the male sex. The number
was quite undetermined, but often seven or some other round
number. After the skin had been removed from the animal,
and all the operations of cleaning properly performed, the sepa
rate pieces one after another came upon the altar with a quan
tity of incense, until all were entirely burnt to ashes.3 A
corresponding number of corn- and of wine-offerings belonged
to every animal sacrifice of this kind ; but the stringency of the
Hindoos. Moreover TWVft is also used ¦¦ i.v . - -,.»,
of the Mincha, bk. Is. lvii. 6, even when word |AA^- 1S 7** of <&** » different
this word has the ordinary meaning of gift, formation and derivation, and means ori-
2 Kings xvii. 4. Plainly then it denotes ginall jtst like altare and nM tn6
only to offer, with an allusion to an elevated , . TT'
or worthy place for it, but it does not ascmt or the Ovation.
mean, to put on the altar. Similarly ' LeT- *• 3- 4> comP- wltn xvii. 11.
nVj? is first used in Ezra viii. 35, quite 2 Tnis is seen very well from
generally to embrace all kinds of sacrifice. Num- xxiii- 1 s9- where ^4 ^ always
Besides the word n^j) itself is pure Hebrew serve for this sacrifice, while the np^
in this sense (just* as the above, nljJJft) ; i'XX3 ™- 40' are emPloyed on the other
but if 1 AX v. in tne inscr. Palm.' l! hand merely for thank- and joy-offerings.
"f' , ., „ . s Lev. i.; comp. vi. 1-6 [8-13]; ix. 13,
means the altar, we see from the bynan .. .„ ._ „ . ,„,,_, J
,, » y 14, lb, 17 ; Jix. xxix. 17 [18J.
plural 17n\v that this genuine Syrian

THE WHOLE-OFFERING. 49
whole-offering was so far modified (from causes to be explained
under the expiatory-offering), that the priests could themselves
consume the various sacrificial cakes,1 and most of the meal,
after giving over the indispensable portion of it to the altar.
But the corn-offering, which the priest on duty had, daily, 55
to offer morning and evening on its own account along with
the animal whole-offering, always retained too great a sanctity
for this ; all of it must be committed to the flames.2
In accordance with its all-comprehensive aim, this sacrifice
admitted of the widest use, and easily connected itself with the
most different offerings. On joyous occasions it was in keeping,
and could accompany the thank-offering ; 3 it could also serve
as a general expiatory-offering,4 and was added, as will be
described below, to many a legaUy prescribed guilt-offering. It
could not indeed suppress the more special kinds of sacrifice,
which were too closely united, down from primitive times, with
the whole national life. But it reduced them within far
narrower limits, and was ever extending its own use. It was
in the system of public offerings of the ancient kingdom of
Jahveh that this sacrifice very early attained the highest rank.
It became the foundation of all offerings presented on account
of the kingdom, on behalf of which it was itself offered every
evening and morning, and this alone prevented the fire on the
altar from ever going out.5 In the Book of Origins it accord
ingly occupies incomparably the highest place among sacrifices,
and always takes the first place in the descriptions of all
kinds of offerings. In later times, in consequence of its splen
dour and its comprehensive aim, it was the only one which the
heathens were aUowed to offer in the third fore-court of the
Temple.6 The prominence thus assumed by this kind of sacrifice is 56
1 This follows from Lev. ii. 4-10; of the influence of the people of Israel.
comp. vi. 7-11 [14-18] ; vii. 9-10, where The question therefore arises, was the
the words have special reference to the word in use among the Hyk-sos or at
whole-offering. least the Phcenicians ? But with respect
2 The name for this was originally to tne t^-j of the Phoenician sacrificial
?V3, 'whole-offering,' Lev. vi. 12-16 language, compare the Abhandlung of
[19-23], comp. Ps. li. 21 [19], although 1849, s. 18 sqq. mentioned just below.
this word came gradually to be applied 3 As Ps. lxvi. 13-15.
to animal sacrifices as well, 1 Sam. vii. 9 ; 4 As Job i. 5 ; xiii. 8 ; Mic. vi. 6.
Deut. xxxiii. 10. It is impossible to 5 This follows not only from the long
doubt, on careful examination, that Lev. description, Num. xxviii. 2 sq., but also
vi. 12-16 [19-23] does not properly mean from such remarks, in themselves obscurer,
the same as what is described in another as Lev. iii. 5 ; vi. 2, 5, 6 [9, 12, 13] ; vm.
connection in vi. 7-U [14-18]; Ex. 28; ix. 17. Comp. more below on the
xxix. 40 ; Num. xxviii. 5. — The Koptic whole subject.
(f XlX is undoubtedly borrowed from 6. Comp. Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 17, 2 ;
the Hebrew, but hardly in consequence "' ' '
E

50 SACRIFICE.
undoubtedly characteristic of the life of the ancient religion of
Jahveh. The resolute surrender and wuling resignation which
it taught, found vigorous expression there, whUst, conversely,
among the Greeks and other nations such whole-offerings were
rarities.1 But in the oldest times this kind also certainly passed
through many forms before it arrived at the one described
above. We still know, however, of an older and far simpler
form which is ascribed to the time of the Judges.2 According
to it a kid was cooked at home as for an ordinary meal,
the flesh then brought along with unleavened bread to some
rocky altar, the broth poured out there as a drink-offering,
and the rest dissipated by means of fire, it being customary
to look for a Word of God (Oracle) in the way in which this
fire blazed up. It is easy to see how much simpler this is on
many sides, but yet it is essentially the same offering, excluding
all human sensuous participation. Here, in fact, as well as in
other passages recalling the earliest times,3 we see very clearly
what was its original aim.
The Thanh-offering and its Varieties.
The Thank-offering 4 proceeded originally, at any rate, from
the mere glad disposition of men, through whose longing for
the continuance of benefits received from the Deity, thanks
giving passed of itself into an entreaty for a repetition of the
divine favour. That the sacrificer did not celebrate a great
sacrifice out of mere joy, without any view to the future, and
without respect to the grand divine continuity of all human
experiences, is a matter of course in the case of a superior
religion hke that of the Old Testament. The Deuteronomist
1 This can now be seen more clearly * Qip^ n3T in the Book of Origins,
since the sacrificial system of the Phce- duaU; ^^sed more shortly VO1?®
nicians and Karthagimans is somewhat = L ="*«...v u u/<u.,
better known. See the Abhandlung uber derived from n?ty} to pay, to reward,
die neuentdeckte Phonikische Inschrift von to thank, according to Lehrbuch, 8 144 J'
Marseille, Gottingen, 1849, also printed it is in the plural, like the Latin gratia;
in the Ahbh. der Kon. Ges. der Wissensch. the singular, formed afresh from
iv. To this has now been added, partly it, is found only in Amos v. 22;
modifying, partly enlarging and confirm- The translations of the LXX aanipmy
ing, the Abhandlung uber die grosse Kar- and Apiivm6v rest on erroneous views,
thagische und andere neuentdeckte Phbnik- although they are supported by the
ische Inschriften, Gott. 1864. words in 1 Mace. iv. 56, dmla aamiptov
2 Judges vi. 17-21, is the principal /cal alvio-eus. We should then \have to
passage, a later representation founded on deriTe the word from -^ weU.bcwq or
it occurs xm. 15-20. "'"tj »
3 In particular, in the descriptions, W' but the reT7 vacillation betrayed by
Num. xxiii. 1 sqq., which are touehed upon *hls tw°fold interpretation tells against
on p. 48. ' lt

THE THANK-OFFERING. 51
is the first to think it seasonable to explain more distinctly what
are the right words of gratitude with which man should conse
crate his gift to the Sanctuary.1 But just as that gay, child
like disposition — coming as the fair inheritance of humanity
from a better time of youth — ever remained the foundation
of the celebration of this thank-offering, so too the feasting
together of God and of him who offered the sacrifice always
maintained its position here as one of the oldest customs of
all the sacrifices which men offered. This was because man
desired not to keep his happiness or his gay enjoyment to
himself, but wanted to share it with his God, and preferred 57
to offer him everything in the first instance, and then become
his guest, if he knew that God would be glad to have him, and
see him by his side.
But in Jahveism the whole-offering early obtained such a
preponderance that the far simpler, as it were, more human
thank-offering, with the usages peculiar to it, retreated before
it very considerably. The law indeed admitted the thank-
offering with aU its varieties, and invariably looked upon it as
a sacred rite, but limited it almost entirely to the free-will of
individuals, and only took care that its performance generaUy
should be in due form. We do not know therefore so much
about its particular usages as about the other kinds of sacrifice,
which were more determined by law. Only from Nazarites
does the Book of Origins demand that at the close of the
period of their vow they should bring a ram as a thank-
offering.2 A victim was always thought indispensable at it. Birds,
especiaUy as they did not seem to be shared between the
altar and the man,3 were regarded as too poor to grace such
a solemnity. The slaughter is so prominent here that the
entire branch of sacrifice sometimes bears a name derived from
it.4 The number of corn-offerings which should accompany
every such sacrifice of a victim was determined by law, just as
in the case of the whole-offering.5 Only those portions of the
slain animal, which are mentioned above,6 were devoted to the
flames. For these small portions, generally called the 'fat-
portions ' or the ' fat,' no special fire was kindled, but they
1 Deut. xxvi. 3-10, 13-15. sometimes made between them, as in Num.
' Num. vi. 14. XT- 8, comp. Josh. xxii. 26-7 ; 2 Chron.
3 p 45' xxxiii. 16, this must be understood to
4 That' 1-QT is interchangeable with refer to the different varieties, which are
, -'¦• „. . „ spoken of below.
WtpW follows from 2 Kings xvi. 13, 15, 6 ^m. xv 2-12.
and other passages. If a distinction is e P. 41, note.
E 2

52 SACRIFICE.
were flung on to the top of the whole -offering, which was
58 constantly burning in the Sanctuary.1 The priest, by some
special usages of consecration, which will be treated of further
on, received the breast and the right hind-leg of every animal
sacrificed. All the remaining portions were consumed by the
sacrificer and those whom he had invited, for the law pro
vided that none of this flesh which had once been consecrated
and sanctified should be taken home, or put to any purposes
without the precincts of the Sanctuary. On the same or
following day it must all be consumed within the Sanctuary,
and if any were left over, it must be burned to avoid human
touch.2 This very rule, therefore, tended all the more to
induce the sacrificer, as the nature of a thank-offering would
have already done, to invite others to join in his celebration,
and share his joy and plenty at the sacred place. Allusion
is not unfrequently made to a number of persons partaking of
the celebration, or present for other reasons ; 3 and the Deutero-
nomist, regarding especially the needs of his own time, gives
exhortations to remember the many poor, both of the laity and
the Levites, and thus by means of human beneficence to render
the best thanks to God.4
The thank-offering could assume different forms, either
in accordance with special occasions, or with the less or greater
degree of solemnity required. The Book of Origins distin- "
guishes three varieties of the thank-offering.5 Of the last two
it calls the one the slain-offering in accordance with an ex
pressed vow ; the other it speaks of as that which is offered with
out such vow, from free resolve, in brief, the free offering. This
59 plainly indicates the two main occasions when thank-offerings
were made. Distinct from these, and by all tokens exalted
above them, was the Offering of thanksgiving or of praise.6
It would not, therefore, be the occasion, but the degree of
solemnity, which would be its distinctive characteristic. It
seems that then the sacrificer would perform magnificent songs
of praise and thanksgiving with the aid of trained singers and
musicians, and thereby impart a higher glory to the celebration.
1 This follows from the passages men- 5 Tn the principal passage, Lev. vii. 11-
tioned on p. 49 note; Lev. iii. 5 ; vi. 5 21, comp. iii. The expression, Deut. xxiii.
[12]. ¦ 24 [23], says nothing to the contrary.
2 For further particulars on the 6 Lev. vii. 11-15 ; xxii. 29, 30 ; comp.
subject in theBookof Origins, see Lev. vii. Ps. xxvi. 6-8 ; Amos iv. 5. In the first
15-18 ; xix. 5-8 ; xxii. 30. _ passage the LXX translate alveois, which
s Ps. xxii. 27 [26] with the other is important on account of what is con-
thoughts in this passage. Ps. xxx. 5 ; tained in the first Book of Maccabees. "
lxvi. 16 ; Amos iv. 5. See p. 50 note.
* Deut. xii. 7, 12, 18, 19 ; xxvii. 7.

THE THANK-OFFERING. 53
We have an instance of such a song of praise in the later Psalm
c, according to its own title, and the numerous singers and
musicians of the Temple will be spoken of further on in con
nection with the Levites. A choir of such singers of praise
was itself called, like the offering, Toda.1 This also explains
how the Book of Origins can elsewhere speak only of thank-
offerings for vows or of free-will.2 Each of them might be
magnified into an offering of thanksgiving.
The higher sanctity of this latter variety found expression
on the side of the sacerdotal regulations, in the rule that such
a slain-offering must be consumed on the same day, whilst for
the ordinary thank-offerings the following day as well was
allowed for eating it.3 No objection to the female animal was
taken at any of the three kinds ; 4 so much greater freedom
must be admitted in these voluntary, and as it were more human
sacrifices. But in the case of the variety which was altogether
voluntary, when no vow was to be fulfilled, the law was less strin
gent even with regard to certain corporal blemishes, which else
where would have made an animal unfit for sacrifice.5 Leavened 60
bread, too, was permitted at every thank-offering,6 that is, for
the consumption of the sacrificer himself, and apart from the
unleavened corn-offering which accompanied every slain animal.
Not the least portion of it, however, might go into the fire;
the priest on duty was to keep it for himself, if the sacrificer
desired to make a gift of it to the Sanctuary.7
So far as all this goes, the thank-offering found its most
natural application in the case of private individuals. But a
further extension of its use clearly arose from the prominence
of the whole-offering at all public assemblies of the people. On
behalf of the kingdom the whole-offering only was then made,
but if the assembled nation was on that occasion to partake
of a sacrificial meal, slain-offerings were sacrificed along with
the whole-offering, nor was this confined to joyous occasions.
The law did not prescribe such a usage, but permitted it ; 8 and
the narratives, especially those concerning the earlier times,
often tell of such a connection between the whole-offering and
the slain-offering at public assemblies and on festivals.9 A
1 Neh. xii. 31-40. ¦ Lev. xxii. 23.
'Lev. xxii. 18-21; Num. xv. 3, 6 Lev. vii. 12, 13 (comp. Amos iv. 5),
comp. 8. where indeed this is said only of theoffer-
3 Lev. vii. 15-18. It is specially re- ing of praise, but it would be more easily
marked of offerings of thanksgiving, xxii. understood of the other kinds.
29, 30. " 7 This is the meaning of Lev. vii. 14.
1 According to Lev. iii. 1, 6. The ex- s Lev. ix. 4, 18 ; Num. x. 10.
pression, xxii. 19, is too brief to prove the 9 Judges xx. 26 to be understood in
contrary ; but comp. p. 46 note. accordance with xxi. 2-4. — 1 Sam. xiii. 9 ;

54 SACRIFICE.
great man, too, would generally sacrifice along with his whole-
offering, thank-offerings, of which the people might partake.1
In such cases, therefore, it was only a different application of
what could be eaten, which this special kind of offering re-
61 quired. It is improbable that even on merely joyous occasions
the public festivities would be complete without the whole-
offering.2 But let us now look once more to the origin of the com
munity and to the strict prohibition of eating blood, mentioned
above.3 We shall then see that the ancient law consistently
made every meal — which men prepared of animals available for
sacrifice, i.e. of the best animals according to the old popular
feeling — a sacrificial meal, and most naturally a free-will thank-
offering of the lowest of the three kinds described above. For
the precautions that the blood should not be applied to improper
purposes could only be thoroughly observed by means of a
regular sacrificial procedure ; besides, the fat-portions were soon
reckoned uneatable, like the blood : 4 and it is likely that
during the earlier and stricter days of the community a domestic
quadruped, out of pure dread of what was Divine, was never
slain and consumed, except as a free-will thank-offering. The
Book of Origins still represents this as the law, but gives it
not among the sacrificial laws themselves, but towards the end
of its whole explanation of the laws, and only with express
reference to the old camp-life of the nation.5 In Saul's time
the people, in the heat of conflict, and exhausted with the
struggle, tried to evade this requirement. But Saul arrested
them, stopped the mere pouring out of the blood on the ground,
and hurriedly erected an altar where it could be properly
62 treated.6 The Deuteronomist, however, already allows every
2 Sam. vi. 17; xxiv. 25. The 24 bulls, that the Pythagoreans were at most to
60 rams, 60 he-goats, and 60 male lambs, eat beef. Jamb. Vita Pyth. ch. 18, 21
spoken of Num. vii. would certainly have (85, 98). — Therefore, even in Islam the
been made use of as a thank-offering at a command is retained never to slay an
festival for the whole people ; but the nar- animal for food without uttering a short
rative of the Book of Origins is suddenly prayer, and so consecrating it, Sur. vi.
broken off at vii. 88. " 118-121 ; and the Ethiopian Christians
1 1 Kings ix. 25. even yet kill no animal without first speak-
2 According to 1 Sam. xi. 15, this ingthe Bosnia db.&c; comp. Sapeto's Viag-
would seem to be so, because there are gioiBogos etgli Habab, p. 226, 232 ; comp.
great difficulties in the way of inserting Journ. As. 1854, ii. p. 514. Among the
"\ from the LXX, and understanding Buddhists it is allowed in times of
tVmt of whole-offerings. But the doubt greatest need to slaughter flesh, but only
disappears after what will be remarked as a sacrifice ; vide Brockhaus' selections
below under the treaty-offeriDgs. from the Somadeva in the reports of the
3 P 37 sqq K.S.G.W. 1860, s. 109.
< p.' 4j. " Hist. iii. 35.
' Lev. xvii. It is very remarkable

THE EXPIATORY- AND GUILT-OFFERINGS. 55
animal, with the exception of the first-born without any blemish,
to be slain without further ceremony so long only as the blood
was not tasted. This was indeed necessary, for by his time
the altar at Jerusalem was the only true one.1
The Expiatory- and Guilt-offerings.
The Expiatory- and Guilt-offerings form the exact opposite
to the thank-offerings, and, as has already been more than once
remarked, stand to them, in the ancient sacrificial system, in
the relation of night to day. In speaking of them as the
night-side of the ancient system, we have already implied that
they first assumed their present form in opposition to another
simpler and earlier side of the sacrificial system. But we have
not denied that, in their ultimate origin and simplest form,
they could be pre-Mosaic. On the contrary, we have indis
putable evidence that they were ; but it is just as certain, that
it was within Jahveism that they were first developed more fully,
became more important, and passed through a history quite
different from that of the thank-offering.
We shall assuredly find the ultimate origin of this sort of
sacrifice in the innate feelings of sin and guilt, which must
arise in men in some shape or other from the very first, but
which will be the more vigorous and potent the more the whole
state of ideas and experiences in which it dwells, is developed.
When once the extraordinary oppression and anguish of such
feelings have become effective, what, if it will completely release
men from them, will be thought too dear or too hard, so long
as men believe (as all antiquity did, and every healthy man
still does) in a God ? How excited these feelings were in the
better part of heathendom, is shown most graphically in the
Old Testament itself in the case of the wicked patriarch Cain.2
Indeed, the full vehemence and savageness of such feelings are 63
to be easily seen only where they have not yet experienced the
discipline, as well as the consolations, of the truths of a higher
religion. We must remember, in addition to this, how power
ful was the dread in early antiquity of an outbreak or further
extension of the ' great wrath of God ; ' with what anxious care
every evil, whether manifes't or merely apprehended, was re
ferred to the possible or actual guilt of man, and how hard it
1 Deut. xii. 15-28; xv. 19-23. grade of life that had been attained (that
2 It is indisputable that Cain, as the of regular agriculture), the type, therefore,
Fifth Narrator, Gen. iv. represents him, of the heathen. Comp. for more about
is the type of one who has fallen away from him now the Jahrbb. der Bibl, Wiss. vi.
the true religion, as well as from a higher s. 5 sqq.

56 SACRIFICE.
was for men to learn consistency in religion. We can then under
stand the wide extension of the expiatory-offering, with its
array of atonements and purifications, which were already deve
loped and in full bloom among many heathen nations before
Jahveism came into existence. But in accordance with all that
was said above,1 it was just here that the bloody sacrifice found
its most natural place.
Now within the circle of these existing usages, Jahveism
aroused the feelings spoken of above all the more strongly, on
the one hand, in proportion to the greater purity with which
it placed before men the infinite holiness of the true God ; and it
is in the Old Testament generally that we see the deepest con
sciousness of guilt, which was possible previous to Christianity.
But on the other hand, Jahveism saw in the same usages an
ally in the struggle against aU guht, and thereby found the
means for satisfying a crying want — a task which it undertook
far more seriously than heathenism.
For the extraordinary striving after more perfect holiness
and purity, which guided the ancient community in all its
deepest feelings, met with no aid among the usages of an
earlier state so important and efficacious as this expiatory-
offering and the cleansing sacrifice allied to it. The ancient
64 religion plainly seized with great power and consistency upon
this long sanctified agency, in order to remove as far as possible
whatever seemed to trouble and stain the sanctity of the whole.
The community, as a standing whole, put itself into the same
position as that occupied by a private individual. The one and
the other must alike root out, by means of expiatory-offerings,
every sad disturbance of the sanctity and purity before the eyes
of Jahveh which had once been established ; and as far as this
was concerned, not the least distinction could be made between
the great and the lowly. Accordingly, most of the expiatory-
or guilt-offerings, even the very impulses to bring them, were
no longer left to the free-will of private persons. The law en
deavoured minutely to determine and arrange all of them with
out exception, the relatively voluntary along with the rest.
On close consideration, a grand connection of ideas appears in
the regulation of the details ; and there are the most unmis-
takeable tokens that we have before us one of the creative
institutions which must have sprung from the spirit of Moses
himself. 1. The extreme solicitude which the law displayed in pro-
1 See p. 35 sqq.

THE EXPIATORY- AND GUILT-OFFERINGS. ¦ 57
viding for the proper expiatory-offering, and the judicious
strictness which characterised it here, appear at once in the
distinction between an expiatory- and a guilt-offering.1 Every
sacrifice of the class here dealt with was properly in itself an
expiatory-offering ; for everywhere a distinct transgression of
a Divine command or restriction is pre-supposed, and one so
important, that it could only be effaced by means of a solemn
atonement, by an expiatory-offering. A deliberate transgres
sion could not indeed be effaced by means of a mere atoning
sacrifice ; grievous trangression of the kind was rather to be
punished by the death of the sinner without any expiatory-
offering. This was so thoroughly understood from the whole
stern moral tone of the ancient religion, that in the Book
of Origins the statement of the fact makes its first appearance 65
towards the end ofthe sacrificial laws.2 But where a committed
trangression could be effaced by sacrifice, either an offering
alone or one accompanied by something else, this sacrifice was
always an expiatory-offering. If then a guilt-offering is delibe
rately distinguished from this,3 as a species is from a genus,
the fact is enough to show an extreme solicitude in the
arrangement of the whole expiatory system.
The distinction, which was not a superficial one, was of the
following kind. On the one hand, provision was made for the
case of a private member of the community who felt the pressure
of conscious guilt, or an obscure religious distress which he
might regard as similar (and which, as further explained below,
was most closely aUied to it), and who felt accordingly, or rather
was obliged to feel, that he was shut out from the favour of
his God as at present enjoyed by his co-religionists, and that he
was therefore as good as excluded from the community. Such
a man, if he would win once more this favour, and be received
again into God's community, was to bring a <7m^-offering, or as
it can be also termed, an offering oi penitence. Often, however,
this was not enough without his making reparation for any
damages which he had intentionally inflicted.4 A guilt-offering
1 The first is briefly termed DXtSn 2 Kings xii. 17 [16].
i.e. expiation, the second with similar 4 DEW. guilt, is used even when it is
abbreviation DB*N, he. guilt ; like not applicable in its most usual, i.e. the
D^D^K*, for thank-offering, Num. iv. 16, legal sense ; e.g. 1 Sam. vi. 3, it is used
and like i\ao-fi6s and apaprla in the New of the sacrifice which the Philistines offer,
Testament. quite in accordance with their own
2 Num. xv. 30, 31, comp. with ver. usages, but yet as men who feel they
22-29. have received corporal chastisement from
3 As must be concluded from all indi- Jahveh, and are imposing a sacred, self-
cations, including such distinct utterances inflicted punishment on themselves.
as Lev. vi. 18 [25]; vii. 2, 7, 37 ; xiv. 13 ; Another instance is bk. Is. Iiii. 10 of the

58 SACRIFICE.
accordingly, like this, must specially abase the individual as an
individual, and there were good reasons for making it a distinct
kind, with special characteristics. Real guilt, however, can
only exist, and can be ascribed as such to a man only when he
has committed the deed consciously, and without just excuse.
This condition therefore is always presupposed here.1 If, how
ever, an individual, whether an exalted prince or anyone else, had
committed a transgression which was first remarked by others
and pointed out to him, then a public offence and scandal had
been committed, which must be at once atoned for, and since
the scandal had become public, the atonement must be as
conspicuous as possible ; but still the simple expiatory-offering
was sufficient penance for the transgression, and no special
i penance was to be superadded. Or if the transgression involved
the whole community, so that no one felt himself more guUty
than the rest, then consistency required that nothing but the
simple expiatory-offering should be made. Still it might weU
happen on such occasions that certain persons would feel them
selves specially compromised, just as when in Ezra's time certain
heads of families, simultaneously feeling their guilt in the
matter of unlawful marriages, brought the legal guilt-offering.2
Finally, if the high-priest committed some error in the perform
ance of his official duty, by which, according to the old belief, the
whole community was involved in guilt, then, in this case also, the
guilt-offering was not available, because the whole community,
rather than he himself alone, was held to suffer along with him
by the oversight. Accordingly, the simple expiatory-offering
¦had more of a general and public character, while the guilt-
offering was a more private affair, which was, however, morally
compulsory on the individual, if he was again to take his place
in the community and share its holiness with a glad feeling of
freedom. To put the same thing in other words, the former
sacrifice brings simple expiation; the latter adds to this re
paration, in the form of a self-inflicted penalty, and makes this
an indispensable condition of the atonement.3 — This is the
clear distinction between the two kinds of sacrifice ; 4 but it is
sacrifice of one's own soul, which is offered to be read for x^l, and j^j is to be omitted
up for the sake of others as an atonement from ver. 18.
demanded by God. Of course in these 2 Ezra x. 19.
cases the word is only used figuratively. 3 The blood' in the case of a guilt-
1 It is, therefore, important to under- offering was also considered as flNiSH
stand the difference between the words • .. x „ T "'
1*P« JH'in IN, W. iv. 23, 28 (on this "Pf™. L?7- t. 9
,.-. i, jih v 4 According to Lev. iv. sq. and other
IX see Lehrbuch, § 352 a), and the words more detached passages.
jn< torn, v. 3, 4. But in v. 17, NliT) is

THE EXPIATORY- AND GUILT-OFFERINGS. 59
to be observed that the name ' expiatory-offering ' may at any
time occur in the language in its more general meaning,
equivalent to an atoning sacrifice, and in particular cases is
even frequent in that sense ; while, on the other hand, a simple
expiatory-offering can never be designated a guilt-offering.
The expiatory-offering could also be employed to make a
consecration more solemn, a point on which more will be said
hereafter. A guilt-offering would have been here quite out of
place, so the former still preserves its more universal character.
When, on the other hand, private persons were strongly sus
pected of transgression or sins, without the charge being proved,
they were then permitted to bring the universal burnt-offering,
but not an expiatory- nor yet a guilt-offering ; the mere burnt-
offering, if they were directed to present it, would have been
here at any rate, of the nature of an indulgence.1 — How it
could become the sacrifice of the Nazarites and the Lepers wiU
also be explained below. But here again the distinction of the
two kinds appears at once, inasmuch as only that of the Lepers,
not that of the Nazarites, could be treated as a guilt-offering.2
2. Every expiatory- or guilt- offering was essentially a
mournful sacrifice, which had to be offered in order to re
establish the joy and the sanctity of the Whole after it had
been actually violated, or was at least dimly felt to be no longer 67
quite untroubled. It stood opposed, therefore, not only to the
thank-, but also to the whole- offering ; for though the latter
was of the nature of a supplication for divine favour and recon-
cUiation, it did not necessarUy presuppose a definite violation
of sanctity such as we have just spoken of, and could not in the
least be considered to be of a sad character. A clear token of
the wide distinction which always existed between the ex
piatory-offerings and the whole-offering may be at once found
in the fact that the Book of Origins seizes every opportunity of
lauding the whole-offering as ' a sweet and pleasant savour unto
Jahveh,' but never 3 employs this, or any similar expression, of
any form whatever of the atoning sacrifice.4 However different
were the purposes to which the atoning sacrifice was applied,
and however much accordingly the varieties differed into. which
it was divided, this predominant spirit of sadness and of- com
pulsion always cleaves to it.
1 Comp. Job i. 4, 5, together with 20, 21. The Book of Origins, Lev. iii. 16,
xiii. 8, 9. uses this expression of the portions for the
2 Comp. Lev. xiv. 12, 17, together with altar of the thank-offering, but not of
Numb. vi. 14. those of the guilt- offering, which in other
3 Except Lev. iv. 31. respects were quite similar, vii. 5.
4 Just like other authors, e.g., Gen. viii.

60 SACRIFICE.
A consequence of this was that only a single animal could
be offered at an atoning sacrifice. The number of the animals
cannot be increased, as at the thank- and whole-offerings ac
cording to the free-will of the sacrificer, as though he could
thereby win a larger amount of God's favour. This single
animal he must indeed bring, but it must stand in perfect
isolation, as though in the midst of sad solitude and desola
tion, with nothing similar or comparable by its side.1 On this
account, however, it would be deemed a mitigation of this
gloomy sternness when the law in certain cases aUowed or
ordered a whole-offering as well to be brought. This might be
done only when the atoning sacrifices partook of the character
68 of purification, where an individual had been rendered unclean
by some obscure mysterious cause, e.g. on account of leprosy,2
or where the sacrifice was made on behalf of the whole com
munity, and the guilt of any individual did not come into
prominence.3 We can see how indispensable this isolation of
the proper expiatory- or guilt-offering was deemed, from the
fact that when a guilty person was allowed on account of.
poverty to bring two doves instead of a sheep, only one of them
could be offered as the atoning sacrifice, the other must be
sacrificed as a whole-offering.4
A female animal, in all likelihood, must have been originally
chosen for these expiatory- and guilt-offerings. In the directions
of the Book of Origins concerning the different varieties of this
sacrifice, the cases in which the female appears still strikingly
preponderate ; and the red cow, whose ashes were to be used in
preparing the water of atonement,5 may be considered the type
of all expiatory animals. The very nature of the whole in
stitution involved this opposition between the sexes. If it had
become law that the male sex was to be employed for all whole-
1 The strictness of this isolation is still, therefore, to be atoned for, and
seen very clearly in the enumerations, though this colour is not distinctly in-
Num. vii. 12-88, comp. Ezra viii. 35. sisted on in the case of all expiatory- and
2 Lev. xiv. 10-20, comp. xii. 6-8. guilt-offerings, no conclusion can be drawn
3 Numb. xv. 24-26. On the other from the fact adverse to this being the
hand, only an expiatory-offering is pre- type of an atoning animal. However,
scribed for the same case in Lev. iv. 14 ; heathenism certainly went much further
on this deviation something has already in the distinction of colours of sacrificial
been said on p. 46, note 8. Lev. ix. 2, 3, animals. See Aristophanes, Ranee, 831.
and often elsewhere. A whole-offering of Virg. Mn. iii. 120. Gell. N. A. x. 15 ad
this kind would consist of a bull, a ram, fin. Plut. De Iside et Osiri, xxxi. But
or a male lamb, according to the impor- elsewhere black was often the colour which
tance of the case. was considered to pertain to the infernal
4 Lev. v. 7-10. regions, as when, amongst the ancient
5 Numb. xix. comp. more hereafter. Arabs, a hornless black buck was sacrificed
Is. i. 18, shows us clearly that the red as redemption-money for men. Hamdsa,
colour would signify guilt not yet expiated, p. 442 ad fin. — 443. 7.

THE EXPIATORY- AND GUILT-OFFERINGS. 61
offerings without exception, and for thank-offerings in by
far the most numerous cases, then the dark side of the ancient
sacrificial system could not express itself more clearly in re
ference to the expiatory animals, than in the choice of the
female sex.1 Thus we may assume as certain that in pre- 69
Mosaic times this sex alone was available for atoning sacrifices.
When, however, Jahveism minutely distinguished and carefully
arranged aU possible varieties of this kind of sacrifice, then in
particular pre-eminent cases the male animal came again to be
deemed the most suitable and correct. And inasmuch as the
different grades in the varieties of this kind of sacrifice sought
to find expression in the difference between the animals re
quired, the whole system assumed the following form, manifestly
arranged with a certain amount of intentional art. The simple
expiatory-offering for a transgression of which information had
been given (the further subdivision being, therefore, of no im
portance) was, for an ordinary individual, always a young
bearded she-goat or female lamb ; for princes it was increased
in such cases to a bearded he-goat ; for the whole community,
or for the officiating high-priest, it must rise to a bullock.2 In
these three grades a manifest advance is made, the starting-
point being the expiatory- offering for the ordinary individual,
since this was the most frequent. — On the other hand, the guilt-
offering, which never concerned anyone save the single individual,
but applied to him without distinction of rank, admitted of
two or three grades, corresponding to the distinctions which
could be drawn here between ordinary and more culpable trans
gressions. Ordinary transgressions were such as did not imme
diately involve any desecration ,of a sacred object ; if e.g., when
a solemn adjuration of the whole community took place in
order to discover some truth, anyone had concealed it from fear
of men, yet afterwards repented doing so ; or if anyone needlessly 70
and out of pure inadvertence had touched something unclean,
yet perceived this himself or soon noticed it ; or if he had uttered
an oath inadvertently, and though inconsiderately, still without
injury to his neighbour, yet afterwards noticed it himself. For
all such transgressions,3 which belonged to the lowest grade, the
law prescribed a she-goat or female lamb, just as it did for the
same grade of the expiatory-offering. If the person were too poor
1 Verbal formations, to which the in this work.
mere contrast gave rise, are to be found 2 Lev. iv. Such a bull was therefore
in the language (comp. Lehrbuch, § 267e) similar to that required for the high-
as well as others in the customs of ancient priest, Lev. xvi. 3.
nations in considerable numbers. Some 3 Lev. v. 1-13; Ps. xv. 4,
further ones are touched upon elsewhere

62 SACRIFICE.
to give this animal for the sacrifice, he could defray its claims
with two pigeons, or if too poor for that, with a corn-offering.
On the other hand, for Nazarites in similar cases the requirement
was augmented from the female to the male sheep.1 — The
transgression had immediate relation to a sacred object if
anyone by mistake failed to discharge properly a tax due to
the Sanctuary (e.g. the tithes), or in other respects had broken
the laws of a sacred institution (e.g. the Sabbath or legal
marriage). It was regarded as an equal transgression if on
occasion of an oath being solemnly required of any person he
had by mistake deprived a neighbour of a pledge or something
confidentially intrusted to himself, or in some other way had
done him injury, but afterwards became himself aware of his
mistake. As in all these cases there was evidently a more serious
transgression, the law required for the guilt-offering a ram,
and in addition, if the rights of property had been infringed,
required restoration, and also as compensation for the detri
ment which had been caused, an additional fifth part of the
value.2 This twofold reparation was so indispensable, that if
neither the original possessor nor his heirs survived, the
priest himself received it (as he did the sacrificial animal).3
What was to be done in case the person was too poor to do
71 this, we no longer know. Rams or female lambs were at any
rate so usual for the guilt-offering, that the two pigeons or the
corn-offering, which might be brought instead on account of
poverty, received by preference the general title of expiatory-
offering.4 Just as every animal to be avaUable for any form of expiation
must be a solitary victim, so in the next place it must approach
the Sanctuary without any of the honourable and joyful ac
companiments which pertained to the thank- and the whole-
offering ; it must be sacrificed without any corresponding corn-
and wine-offering. In like manner the corn-offering which
might replace the expiatory animal on account of poverty,
might be accompanied neither by oil nor incense.5
3. But it was in the sprinkling of the blood, the proper
sacrament of sacrifice, that the distinction between the guilt-
1 Num. vi. 12 ; comp. also the case of verr. 6, 7. It is a similar case when, along
the purification of the leper, Lev. xiv. 10- with the male guilt-offering of the leper, a
19. female expiatory-offering also is brought,
2 Lev. v. 14-26 [v. 14 -vi. 7]; Lev. xiv. 19. The insignificant offering
similar cases occur, Lev. xix. 20-22 ; after child-birth is never called anything
Ezra x. 19. The ram is simply called an but expiatory, Lev. xii. 6-8.
expiatory-ram in Num. v. 8. 5 Lev. v. 11, 12; comp. vii. 10, the
3 Num. v. 5-8. ' dry corn-offering.'
4 Lev. v. 7-9, 11. 12; compare with

THE EXPIATORY- AND GUILT-OFFERINGS. 63
offering and the expiatory-offering in the narrow sense, came
most clearly to the front ; and it is easy to understand why it
would reveal itself most plainly here.1 As it was right that the
blood of an expiatory-offering for publip transgressions (as we
may term it for the sake of brevity) should be made far more
conspicuous to eyes and sense, so it was sprinkled on an ele
vated place or even on one which was extraordinarily sacred.
The way too in which this was done was marked by three
stages. If the atonement was made for an ordinary man o'r
for a prince, the priest sprinkled the blood against the high-
towering horns of the outer altar, and poured the remainder as
usual out at its base ; 2 if it was made for the community or for
the high-priest, some of the blood was seven times sprinkled
against the veil of the Holy of Holies, then some more against
the horns of the inner altar, and only what was then left was
poured out as usual at the base of the outer altar.3 The third 72
and highest stage of expiation was adopted on the yearly day
of atonement, of which we shall speak hereafter. On the other
hand, in the case of the guilt-offering, no reason existed for
adopting any unusual mode of sprinkling the blood. It was
sprinkled just as in other cases round the sides and foot of the
outer altar.4
But as soon as this most sacred solemnity of the sprinkling
of the blood was completed, then, according to the ancient
belief, the impurity and guUt were already shaken off from the
object to which they had clung. It seemed as though the
drops of blood, sprinkled by the mighty hand of One who was
pure, had caUed them up and irresistibly drawn them forth, for
thus we must plainly interpret this procedure in accordance
with the feeling of antiquity. Yet shaken off as they were, they
only passed in the first instance according to the same view, into
that body, whose blood had so irresistibly driven them forth
(as weU as into the officiating priest) .5 The rest of this body,
therefore, was now deemed to have become in its turn unclean,
and was regarded with all the dread with which anything that
was unclean before God was looked upon, nay even with yet
stronger dread ; it was just here that the dark side of this
whole order of sacrifices was felt most keenly. Consequently,
all the remainder of the body just as it was, together therefore
with the dung, was burned far away from the Sanctuary at
1 P. 37 sqq. Arabs even sprinkled blood on their idols.
2 Lev. iv. 25, 30. Shahrastani's Kit&b Elmilal, p. 443, 2 sq.
3 Lev. iv. 6, 7, 17, 18. — At ameresac- ed. Cureton.
rifice of purification, the outer altar was 4 Lev. v. 9 ; vii. 2.
enough. Lev. ix. 9, 15. — The ancient 5 See below.

64 SAUKIFIUE.
some common but in other respects clean spot (outside of the
camp or the city), as though it was an object of horror,1 which
could only be disposed of and annihilated in this way. Not till
this was done could the Deity be implored that the impurity
73 and guilt might now be really removed and destroyed. This
burning, however, was eventually retained only at the most
solemn kind of atoning sacrifices, at the great yearly atone
ment,2 and at the expiatory-offering for the preparation of the
water of expiation, about which we shall speak hereafter.
The victim for the latter sacrifice was even slain outside the
Sanctuary, as it was to be employed only in the preparations
for another sacred rite.3 In ordinary cases the procedure was
clearly so far abridged, that immediately after the sprinkling
of the blood the divine grace was invoked to remove altogether
the guilt which had now loosened its hold. The dead body of
the ordinary victim was therefore regarded with extreme horror,
as the mysterious instrument which the guilt seized upon, and
at the same time destroyed ; and any drop of blood which fell
from it on to a man's clothes, had to be scrupulously washed
out, in some part of the Sanctuary itself.4
The expiatory animal was to be slain within the Sanctuary
on the same spot where the whole-offering feU,5 to the north
of the altar ; while probably the thank-offering was not slain
on this more sacred spot, but just on the other side, to the
south of the altar.6 Since the expiatory- and still more the
guilt-offering, on account of their sad and gloomy character,
might have been originally ' deemed unworthy of the sacred
spot where the other offerings were made, the law expressly
enjoins that the place where these victims are to be slaugh
tered shaU be the same as the place for the whole-offering,7
thus overthrowing at the same time a piece of ancient super
stition. It was further a matter of course that the individual should
have previously distinctly acknowledged his transgression, and
1 As a D'ln, see below. Similar ii. 54, such an offering must be sacrificed,
is the practice of casting such an abomina- e& tv*-®".
tion into the sea: Homer, 11. i. 314; 3 Num. xix. 3-9.
Herod.ii. 39. Allusion is made to this, \ Lev- vi. 20 [27].
Micah vii. 19, and frequently occur in the 5 P- 43-44.
Mishna ; comp. Porphyry, De Abstin. ii. 6 Tie recollection of this in the Seder
29 30 ; iv. 10. 'Olam rabba. vii. agrees very well with all
' 2 Lev. xvi. 27 ; comp. vi. 23 [30] ; else.
viii. 17; Ezek. xliii. 21, determines it ' Lev- vi. 18 [25]; vii. 2; and with
more closely in relation to the Temple, special reference to the guilt-offering,
Allusion to this is made, Hebrews xiii. X1Y' 13.
10 sq. According to Porphyry, De Abstin.

THE EXPIATORY- AND GUILT-OFFERINGS. 65
intreated divine forgiveness. In the case of the guilt-offering,
where confession was especially important and necessary, the 74
Book of Origins sometimes states this prerequisite with marked
emphasis.1 4. We have already pointed out that the sombre feeling
which necessitated the burning of the remainder of the carcase
had already been to some extent overcome, and that, at any
rate in ordinary cases, men had learned to pray for the divine
removal of the guilt without this having been done, so that
flesh doomed to destruction seemed as it were to be saved by
higher grace. From this it was easy to venture a step further,
and it became legal in Jahveism to cast into the fire on the
altar a portion of every sacrifice even of this mournful kind.
When an animal was sacrificed this portion consisted of the
scanty parts which were always given to the fire even from the
thank-offering,2 and when corn was employed, it was a hand
ful of meal ; but all this would assuredly be offered with only
just so much incense as the priests themselves found it desir
able to add in the interest of the altar itself.3 But neither did
the original law permit the sacrificer himself to eat any part of
the offering, nor was this ever allowed later.4 It was a sad and
a compulsory sacrifice, the exact opposite of the thank-offering
for men, as well as of the luxurious whole-offering for God.
The flesh then of the ordinary offerings was preserved, but it
was regarded as something marvellous, which had been saved
from destruction purely by divine grace, as something ' most
holy,' as it is often termed. Whoever touched it with common
hand was looked upon as forfeited to the Sanctuary.5 Only
priests at the Sanctuary itself were competent to eat the
dangerous food; but they were even expected to take and
consume it, and the expiated guilt along with it. Nevertheless, 75
it was a bold step for the law to allow the priests, or rather to
make it their duty, to eat without scruple all the expiatory-
offerings which did not belong to the two higher grades defined
above.6 How difficult it was to accomplish this at first is still
1 Lev. v. 5 ; Num. v. 7. said in pp. 62, 46, ean no longer have
2 P. 41. retained its original meaning. The tradi-
3 This assumption explains rather tional technical term would of itself re-
more definitely how Tlt3pn>p. 46 nt. is also ceive another signification in connection
employed of these portions for the altar, with this converse form of sacrifice.
Lev. iv. 10, 19, 31, 35 ; V. 12 ; vii. 5. It 4 The mroTpoim'toi. Bvaicu are not to be
follows that the word had in this special eaten, says also Porphyry, De Abstin. ii.
case already taken the more general mean- 44.
ing 'to lay on the altar,' which is noticed 6 See especially Lev. vi. 20 [27], and
on page 46, note. Similarly rn3TK, what will be said hereafter on the subject.
Lev. v. 12, in accordance with what is « Pp. 61, 63 ; Ley. vi. 19, 22 [26,
P

66 , SACRIFICE.
clearly depicted in the Book of Origins in a reminiscence about
Aaron and his four sons. Aaron with his two elder sons burned
the flesh and skin of a he-goat which had been used for an
atonement at a festival. Afterwards Moses is angry with
Aaron and his two younger sons for having burned instead of
eating the expiatory-goat ; for Jahveh had given it to them as
the mediators of the atonement for the community, so that they
were not only justified, but even bound to honour the sanctified
flesh by consuming it themselves. So difficult was it in the
earliest time to overcome the repugnance even of priests to
such a meal ; even Aaron excused himself and (as the narrative
proceeds to state) with Jahveh's acquiescence, on the ground
that he could not have eaten such flesh on a day when he had
lost two sons.1 Moreover, the vessels in which such flesh had
been cooked must always be at once broken to pieces if they
were of earthenware, or scrupulously scoured and rinsed with
water if of metal, as though the traces of the impurity which had
gone into the flesh were still an object of fear.2
Only under the guidance of this feeling of the most remote
antiquity, shall we rightly understand the significance of the
law which in like manner aUowed, or rather commanded, the
priest to cast into the fire only a part of certain sacrificial
loaves, or even only the incense which was strewn on them, and
themselves to eat them as bread which was indeed most holy,
but was to be consumed by proper persons. These were (in
addition to the twelve sacred weekly loaves already spoken of3)
76 the corn-offerings which accompanied every whole-offering,
and which on account of its splendour and frequency formed
the most numerous contributions, and special prominence is
always given to the injunction respecting them ; 4 there were also
those which would occasionaUy occur as expiatory-offerings.
AU this food, having once been received into the holy place and
become itself ' most sacred,' must either be devoted at once to
the fire on the altar, or else if only a portion of it was destined
for this fire, the remainder having served its immediate purpose,
was strictly speaking available only for destruction, and this
could be best done by burning it.6 Nevertheless, the ancient
religion was soon sensible enough to introduce another use for
it. In the case of the thank-offerings the participation of the
priests in the consumption of them easily became a matter of
29] ; vii. 6 sq. ; x. 18. There is something - Lev. vi. 21 [28] ; comp. xi. 33 ; xv. 12.
similar in spite of all dissimilarities in the * P. 27.
Brahminical usages ; see Albr. Weber's 4 Pp. 48, 49.
Indische Studien, v. s. 274 sq. s What 'speaks most clearly here is
1 Lev. ix. 8-11, 15; x. 16-20. the expression 'Most sacred,' which the

OFFERINGS FOR CONSECRATIONS. 67
course, but we may think how much there would be to overcome,
before a priest would dare to eat even the bread of the whole-
offering, or of those sacrifices which were regarded as having
an equal sanctity ! And even then the consumption of all such
' most sacred ' food by the priests was always put under certain
restrictions, to be spoken of further when we come to treat of
the Priests. Offerings for Purifications and Consecrations.
Offerings for Treaties.
It is easy to understand how the three principal kinds of
sacrifice, when they had once come into existence, might be
transferred to all sorts of corresponding occasions.
The various expiatory-offerings, either alone or in connection
with other sacrifices, especially the whole-offering whose ulti
mate object was similar, might be transferred to the more
solemn kinds of prescribed purifications, for the essential aim
of atonement is purification. But this subject can be better 77
treated of hereafter along with the very various purifications
themselves, for the details assumed very different forms, and
were mainly prescribed in the public interest.
These same expiatory- and whole-offerings were also ap
propriate for a solemn consecration of sacred objects, persons,
or days, for in such a case the idea was always to establish
something new and spotless, so far as human co-operation
can effect this. According to the Book of Origins, at all the
more important public festivals, where the high-priest himself
officiated, an expiatory-calf must be offered, along with a ram
as a whole-offering, for the consecration of the day on his own
account, and an expiatory-he-goat, along with a calf and a
lamb as whole-offerings, for the people, but the atoning sacri
fices as most appropriate for the consecration invariably took
precedence.1 The blood of an atoning sacrifice like this, which
served merely for a consecration, was sprinkled on the horns of
the altar, but only on those of the outer one.2 The procedure
was similar when the altar, the inferior, or the superior priests
were to be consecrated.3 The latter priests were, in addition,
Book of Origins purposely reiterates, was thus merged in the fire-offering (p.
Lev. ii. 3, 10 ; vi. 9, 10 [16, 17] ; vii. 6 ; 30), appears also from their enumeration
xxiv. 8, 9 : comp. the same expression among the D'K'K, Lev. xxiv. 9.
applied to the expiatory-offering, vi. 18, 1 gX- xxix. 1_2S; Lev. ix. 2 sq.
22 [25, 29] ; vii. 1 ; xiv. 13. Num. xviii. s Lev. ;x. 9 . comp. viii. 15 ; Ex. xxix.
'9, 10, classes both kinds together. See i2.
further, Lev. viii. 31,32. — That the twelve 3 Ex. xxix.; Lev. viii. 2, 15 sqq.;
weekly loaves were supposed to go finally jfum. vi;;. 6-12.
into the fire, and that the table-offering v 2

68 SACRIFICE.
sprinkled in a peculiarly solemn manner with blood from the
altar,1 as though their consecration was to be made as over
powering as possible by the strongest contact with the most
sacred element of sacrifice. When, however, at a consecration
of superior priests only the one ram which was prepared as a
thank-offering, was called the ram of consecration,2 there was
a special cause for this, to be explained hereafter. — Such an
offering for consecration found also a suitable application on
the occasion of the return from a foreign country to dwell
again in the holy fatherland.3
78 Sacrifice was employed to sanctify treaties in a peculiar
manner. Whole- and thank-offerings belonged to treaties by
aucient custom; and thank-offerings were all the more im
portant, since what was vowed on either side had, at the close
of the ceremony, to be taken in, as it were, along with the meat
and bread of the sacrifice by the parties swearing, as though it
had to migrate into their flesh and blood, and since a common
meal off the sacred instruments of the treaty was regarded as
indispensable.4 But before this concluding meal took place,
the blood of the sacrificial animal was sprinkled, partly as usual
on the altar, partly, however, in quite a peculiar fashion over
those who took the oath, in order that the influence of this
most sacred element might be the strongest and most binding
possible. This is as the Book of Covenants describes it, plainly
in accordance with a custom generally prevalent in earliest
times.5 The custom also took a yet more decided form, when
the two contracting parties walked between the two halves ofthe
sacrificial victim, in order to be reminded as strongly as pos
sible of the fact that the victim had been slain for both of them.
Nevertheless, the Book of Origins embraces neither this more
sharply expressed kind of treaty-sacrifice, nor yet the simpler
form of it, within the circle of laws, or even of typical actions,
although frequent opportunities for so doing were not wanting.
1 Ex. xxix. 22-34; Lev. viii. 30; 4 Accordingly, even when the covenant
comp. what is similar at treaty-sacrifices. between Israel and its God was concluded,
2 Lev. viii. 22-33. A special question the eating and drinking of the people at
is, how the sacrifice of consecration can be it is mentioned, as well as the fact that its
spoken of, Lev. vii. 37, as having been God himself appeared then, and thus, as
described in chaps, i.-vii. ; for the sacri- the one side, made himself somehow mani-
fice described, vi. 12-16 [19-23], accord- fest to the other. Ex. xxiv. 11 ; comp.
ing to pp. 48, 49, cannot have been consi- v. 5; bk. Zach. ix. 11. On this account
dered such a one. If, however, the again at the royal celebrations, when
sacrificeof consecration differed butslightly Israel concluded for the first time a treaty
from the rest, especially from the expia- with a human king, it is only thank- ,
tory -offering, tliis may perhaps explain its offerings of which special mention is
enumeration there. made, 1 Sam. xi. 15 ; similarly Gen. xxxi.
3 As is shown by the great example, 54.
Ezra viii. 35. 5 Ex. xxiv. 6-8 ; comp. p. 68, Un. i. sqq.

ISSUES OF THE FOOD-OFFERINGS. 69
The simpler kind it could no longer sanction, because the blood
had become too exclusively appropriated to the altar, and with
the more sharply expressed custom, which we find had become
very prevalent in the times succeeding David,1 it was possibly
quite unacquainted, or deemed it repugnant to the essence of
the ancient religion.2
The Effects and Issues of the Food-offerings.
Such then were the forms assumed by the food-offerings 79
(to include the table- and the fire-offerings under one name)
during the earlier days of the community of Israel, and for a
long time it seemed as though a most important element of
the intrinsic life of true religion was to pass over into them.
For Jahveism in its youth evidently embraced with the greatest
fervour these sacred usages which were still blooming in their
first innocence, and strove to let its own spirit operate also
through them. But the apex of all these offerings, which we
have already seen to be human sacrifice,3 had nevertheless to
be at once broken off in Jahveism. For there can be no doubt
that the people of Israel were fanuliar with human sacrifice from
primitive times. It is just among the nations of Western Asia
and Greece, even among those most closely connected with
Israel,4 that we have abundant testimony to its having been in
frequent use ; and the nations in and round about Canaan early
1 According to the testimonies of Gen. so near their final disappearance even
xv. 9-18 (where the birds, which were not there, that the description of them by M.
divided, certainly were to be used as a Haug, in the Gottinger Nachrichten, 1862,
whole-offering) ; Jer. xxxiv. 18, 19 ; also s. 302 sqq., may be profitably studied.
Deut. xxix. 11 [12], may allude to it. s Pp. 26, 27.
Comp. Junghuhn's Batta-lander (1847), ii. 4 Even amongst the Arabs infanticide,
s. 148. How among the heathen a con- partly, no doubt, as a precaution against
tract and a promise was properly struck poverty, but still more from superstition,
by sacrificial animals, is seen from was tolerably prevalent, as is clear from
Livy, i. 24; xxi. 45 ad fin.; Xenoph. the account of the Dumatians in Eusebius,
Anab. ii. 2. 9. Theoph. ii. 62; Prcep. Eo. iv. 16; and
2 After all that has been said above, from Sur. vi. 138, 141 ; comp. 152; lx. ]2,
it is hardly worth while paying much at- and other passages. Comp. Origen, Con
tention to the manifold errors which are tra Cels. v. 4. 3; and for what relates to
always seeking to rise to the surface in India, Wilson's article On Human Sacri-
regard to Old Testament sacrifice; comp. fice among the Ancient Hindoos in the Jour-
the Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. vi. s. 147 sq. ; nalsof the Royal Asiatic Society, xiii. (1851),
ix. s. 256 sq. It must be noticed, how- pp. £0-95; Prof. Max Miiller's History
ever, that in Western Asia the ancient of Sanskrit Literature, p. 408 sqq., and
sacrifices nowhere maintained themselves Major-General John Campbell's Thirteen
longer in full vigour than among the Years' Service amongst the Wild Tribes of
Ssabeans, comp. Chwolson's Ssabier, ii. s. Khondistan for the Suppression of Human
89 sq., 93 sq., 104 sq. They retained their Sacrifice. Lond. 1864. For human sacri-
position longer also in India under the fices amongst the Romans, comp. Alexan-
Brahmins ; but the ancient mysterious dre on the Libri Sibyll. ii. 2, p. 218 sq.
usages of a thousand forms are in our time

70 SACRIFICE.
became sufficiently polished and over-refined to take pleasure in
this most refined of all bloody offerings. The narrative about
Isaac when a child shows us how narrowly even such a hero
of antiquity as Abraham, and with him the whole Israelitish
nation, escaped the danger of child-sacrifice.1 Jephthah actuahy
did allow a delusion to bring him to sacrifice his only child.2
so Already does the Book of Origins sternly forbid sacrificing chil
dren to the Ammonitish God Moloch,3 and much later Jeremiah
has to make bitter complaints on the same point. An ordinary
man too in Israel, even if he never thought of bringing such
an offering himself, nevertheless experienced an insupportable
horror when this most fearful sacrifice actually was offered.4
So near to the nation did human sacrifice come. But the most
characteristic instincts of Jahveism were utterly opposed to it,
estimating man too highly to use him as an offering, as the
very narrative of the child Isaac shows with such unsurpassable
beauty. It is no doubt true that we find no legal ordinance
against human sacrifice previous to this prohibition of sacrifice
to Moloch in the Book of Origins ; and it may well be that in
the time of Moses no such absolute prohibition was as yet given,
because the nation was not then in danger of being seduced
into it by the Canaanites. For the offering of the dearest
possession of one's own flesh and blood is everywhere relatively
the latest, because the most refined, development of all these
sacrificial usages. Even among the Ammonites the sacrifice
of children may have been but little developed in the time of
Moses. This would explain how Jephthah, who did not live
far from the Ammonites, could be overtaken by the thought of
such an offering. It is possible that in his days this sacrifice
may for the first time have become more widely extended
among the nations of Hebrew origin beyond the Jordan, and
have exercised its first powerful magic over men of just the
rank and culture of Jephthah. But in the same measure as
we see it spreading among the heathen round about, do even
the first commencements of it as an offering to Jahveh vanish
from the midst of the ancient community, till at length the
Deuteronomist, like the Prophets of the seventh century, deems
it hardly worth while denouncing it as an abomination.5 But
how easily might all food-offerings have been deemed a per-
1 See Hist. i. pp. 326, 332-3. 589], note.
2 For this instance, see more below, as 4 Hist. iv. 90.
well as Hist. ii. 395 [first ed., 167]. s Deut. xii. 31. But on this question
3 Lev. xviii. 21; xx. 2; on the first the section below, on the first-born, is also
passage comp. Hist. ii. 166 [first ed., i. to be compared.

CONSECRATED PRESENTS., 71
version, when true religion had utterly to reject just the most si
logical and refined of them !
Moreover, if we take the burnt-offering as the kind which
was most esteemed in Israel and most characteristic of the
nation,1 we shall find that the very splendour which resulted
from this costly sacrifice, the enjoyment of which was ex
clusively on the divine side, could soonest manifest the intrinsic
emptiness of the whole sacrificial system.
On this account there arose tolerably early the view of
the Prophets that all such sacrifices, and whatever was closely
connected with them, stood in a false relation to the essence of
religion, and one which might lead to grievous errors and per
versions, and that the real sacrifice for man to bring is purely
spiritual.2 The Temple of Solomon was built while the old
behef in the indispensableness of these offerings was yet un
impaired, and they attained their highest point of magnificence
in it. But from that very time the germs of the very oppo
site views were maturing ; and these, though they were to
struggle on for a thousand years without external results, came
at last to bloom in the New Testament. And even in the
heathen religions the view that bloodless offerings were really
superior, tried here and there to force its way gradually in
direct opposition to the predominant bloody sacrifices.3 With
this indeed commences the dissolution of this whole develop
ment of Antiquity.

C. SIMPLE DEDICATION OF SACRED OBLATIONS.
CONSECRATED PRESENTS.
If then aU the gifts with which we have become acquainted
as gifts of food, or as sacrifices in the primitive sense of the
word, were unable to give satisfaction to the deepest needs of i
true religion, it is the more easy to understand how the feeling
which strove to win the satisfaction of heaven attempted very
early to reach the final goal by many other similar means.
No sooner, in consequence of this activity and of these sacrifices
of the very earliest religion, had there been estabhshed a congre
gation of worshippers of the same God, a local Sanctuary, and,
as it were, an institution for the spontaneous propagation of
1 P. 46 sqq. everywhere wanting. Plutarch's Numa,
2 So Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and all viii., xvi. ; Porphyry, De Abstin. ii.
succeeding Prophets. 15 sqq., 28; Jamb. Vita Pyth. cap. 5,
3 E.g. among the Pythagoreans, who 7, 24 (25. 35, 108). Comp. what is re-
also tried to show, historically that, marked, Hist. ii. 39 (first ed., i. 462),
in the most remote antiquity, it was note.

72 SACRIFICE.
this religion, than new wants arose, and opportunities increased
for promoting higher, and therefore divine ends, by means of
the simple surrender of property, and for sacrificing something
of value without seeing it palpably accepted by heaven as food.
This already gives us a more subtle and spiritual form of sacri
fice, and in particular, in many situations of life, a pious man
felt himself impelled to offer to his God possessions which were
either from various causes not admissible as gifts of food or for
the altar, or which, if they were admissible for this purpose,
were yet voluntarily presented by him without any demand
that they should be considered as food-offerings.
The most obvious kind of such simple gifts to God and his
Sanctuary bore the closest resemblance to the above-described
thank-offerings in respect of the ultimate motive which pro
duced them. A spontaneous impulse of his heart induced a
man to devote to some higher purpose more or less of his
property without seeking the enjoyment and the honour of an
ordinary sacrifice ; and the dedication of property to God was
at that time almost identical with its consecration to higher
purposes. Even trifling possessions could be thus consecrated
by a poor man. In the most important cases, however, where
the transfer of a large amount of property must have been
more difficult, there was always, or at least seemed to have
been,1 an antecedent vow binding the man to execute this
most simple of all the forms of sacrifice.2 Every description
of property could be presented in this way. The Book of Origins
i does not yet make any exceptions ; Deuteronomy, in conse
quence of the disordered state of its times, is the first to have
to utter a warning against believing that it is possible to lessen
the sin of encouraging unchaste religions (as e.g. when parents
let their children earn money by prostitution at heathen fes
tivals) by devoting a portion of the gain thence derived to
the Sanctuary of Jahveh.3
When such gifts become more frequent and of wider scope,
they presuppose not merely a deep religion, engrossing the
whole heart, but also the existence of an organised priesthood.
Only such a body can properly receive large gifts, and apply
them in accordance with the wishes of the donor. From the
frequency and amount of the donations indicated in the Book of
Origins, we may therefore safely conclude that the power which
Jahveism exercised during its first centuries over the whole life
1 P. 21 sqq. 3 Deut. xxiii. 19 ; comp. what is said,
2 Lev. xxvii. where a vow is through- Hist. iv. 44, 50, note.
out presupposed.

CONSECRATED PRESENTS. 73
of the people, was very great. Many periods make of themselves
greater demands than others on such self-sacrificing gene
rosity ; and thus the Book of Origins brings into prominence, as
a model for all similar cases in the future, the willingness with
which the whole nation, men and women, princes and people,
brought their treasures together when the institutions of the
great Sanctuary of Jahveh were first founded, and exhibits this
as the result of an expression of the divine will and pleasure.1
Similar mighty efforts for the revival and extension of the
older sacred institutions were made by David and Solomon, as
weU as by some of their successors : a fact which the Books
of Chronicles in particular everywhere take care to describe
exhaustively in their own fashion.2 What free-will offerings
were given to the temple at Jerusalem after it had come into
existence, whether as contributions to its treasury out of which
the needful expenses for building and maintenance were met,
or for the purpose of establishing a more independent institu
tion of any kind which should adorn it, or enlarge the scope
of its action and secure the attainment of its ends, — all these 84
matters we can now survey better in general than in detail.
We can, however, see clearly that the number and the magni
tude of the consecrated gifts was at all times very considerable.3
Some kinds of such consecrated gifts, however, recurred so
frequently and so regularly, that they began to lose their
originally free character very early, and gradually became
permanent taxes. This transition easily took place of itself,
but it was of course favoured by the establishment of the
Sanctuary and priesthood, so that gifts which had been origi
nally completely voluntary, are already represented in the Book
of Origins with all the exactitude and prolixity of law as imposts
ordained by Jahveh for the Sanctuary. Such are 1), the share
of the priests in every thank-offering;4 2), the firstlings of
every kind; 3), the tithes. But we shall be in a better position
to speak of these further on, in the section on the Priesthood.
But whether or not an originally free consecrated gift be
came a standing impost due to the Sanctuary, it must still on the
occasion of its surrender be admitted into the sacred common
wealth by some sort of solemn rite, or at least through the
instrumentality of some significant symbol. We do as a fact
stUl find in many passages in the Book of Origins clear indica
tions of such a symbol of consecration. It is the solemn action
' Ex. xxv. 1-7; xxxv. 5-9, 21-29. 17 [4-16] ; xxii. 4-7.
2 Hist. iii. 228 sqq. ; iv. 50. * P. 51.
' Comp. in particular, 2 Kings xii. 5-

74 SACRIFICE.
which has been too obscurely translated the wave and the heave,
and which we may name more correctly the swing and the present-
85 ing, or the consecration and the dedication.1 There is no doubt
that the only essential part of the rite consisted in this, that the
priest held the gift aloft before the altar, and thus presented
it to the altar for acceptance, while he swung it to and fro,
Uttering (as we may take for granted) certain sacred ' phrases
and prayers.2 We must remember that the altar stood very
high,3 the object which was to be consecrated however was
held as close to it as possible, as though the altar were itself
that visible God to whom the heathens dedicated their gifts.
Such a consecration took place even at purifications and other
sacrifices before the rest of the ceremony was performed;4
indeed, this appears to have been the case in regard to every
thing that went into the fire on the altar.5 The most frequent
mention of it, however, is in connection with the two consider
able portions of meat which were assigned to the priests from
every thank-offering, viz., the breast and the right hind-leg.
On both of these the priest first laid the smaller altar-portions
of fat and corn, solemnly raised up the whole before the altar,
then committed to the flames only what was indispensable,
and having once more presented the remainder to the altar
on its own account, took it away as consecrated.6 In the
1 na-lW and np-1"lF), like the verbs in the Book of Origins, as Ex. xxx. 13,
mn and D"nn are essentially alike both lt' .tFl°h?Uy t116 ancie°t "f^lost much
. < ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦¦ ' of its living character m later times, so
in formation and meaning (Num. xviii. that in reality only a TXOVR still con-
11 ; comp. v. 8 ; Ex. xxix. 27, 28; xxxvi. . . , . . _ : , .
6 ; comp. xxxviii. 24). But the original tlnued to exlst To *\SN corresponds in
distinction was this : • Qi"in means to the old Roman sacrificial language the
lift up, or take away somcthinq from a word P°f.rifw>. substituted for projicio,
greater heap of it (as I already translated as a dialectlc f<»™ The LXX in
it in 1840 in Ezek. xlviii. 8 sqq.) ; avjn ™a-°y Passa^s Y6I7 weU exPress the sub-
. ' ¦¦•' sidiary meaning of consecration, and at
on the other hand, means to swing. Ac- the same time the similarity of sound
cordingly, only the nBMfl denotes the between the two words, by the translation
whole sacred rite which went on before the &tp6purim tcai atpalpe/ia.
altar, and is a thoroughly sacred word, z This last is of course essential ; and
while riDIIH may sometimes be employed Isaiah, in a strong figure of speech,
even with the bad meaning of extortion ™' 28' a]ludes to this swinging to
(Prov. xxix. 4), sometimes at any rate in &nd.™0. '• and ln accordance with the same
a more general sense, arid it gradually sacnficial language, he speaks in ver. 32 of
became the prevalent term. The former HD-liR rflDrPD, battles fought by swing-
is in the Book of Origins, wherever ing.
it is speaking of sacrificial matters, the 3 Comp. the expression ' he descended
most usual, while the Deuteronomist (from the altar),' when the sacrifice was
even confines himself to the latter (Deut. complote, Lev. ix. 22.
xii. 11, 17), and in the same way later * Lev. xiv. 12, 24- xxiii. 19 20
authors no longer usenSlin and spri in 5 According to tlie description' Lev
this signification. The word riDlin is, viii. 25-28; comp. vii. 30, 31.
however, in its wider signification of 6 According to Lev. viii. 25-29 If in
'sacred contribution,' already familiar ver. 25 only the hind-leg is spoken of and

CONSECRATED PRESENTS. 76'
same way the first sheaf was consecrated every year, and
similarly no doubt every kind of valuable gift which piety
caused to be offered.1 Even the inferior priests were thus
dedicated- as it were by the whole people to the service of
Jahveh and the Sanctuary, the high-priest probably conducting
them on to a raised platform before the altar, in order to present
them to the altar as sacred gifts, with a similar waving of the 86
hand in prayer.2 Every consecrated present bore after this
the brief appellation of a ' Sacred Thing.'3
So long now as human beings themselves were reckoned
available for acquisition or presentation (on which more will
be said below), it was quite consistent for parents to dedicate
their children to the special service of a God, or for a rich or
mighty man to do the same with human beings who were his
property, or for the whole national community to dedicate some
of its own members to the various services of the established
Sanctuary. The more needy the dedicator was, the more
might the view be held that this was the highest and most
sacred gift which it was possible to devote to the Holy One,
and the forms which this assumed in Israel will be made clear
in detail below. The instance of the inferior priests (Levites)
has been already mentioned, and whl be more fully explained
further on. Gifts placed under the Ban (Ban-offering).
But as in general the contradictions of the lower life came
into sharper prominence in the utterances of religion, so in
contrast to these peaceful and joyous consecrated gifts, there
arose another kind of sacred offering which calls to mind, more
strongly than a,nything of a similar nature, the dark side of '
ancient religious life. Some object or other might seem so
dangerous to the existing piety, and its improvement so hope
less, or from some reason or other have appeared to its owner
so mysterious and so horrible, that man knew of no way by
which to be saved from it, except that of handing it over to the
Divinity for destruction, or, if it were possible, for improve
ment. It was therefore presented to the Sanctuary, and thus
then in ver. 29 only the breast, another xxxviii. 24 ; comp. xxv. 3 ; Num. xxxi.
account, Lev. vii. 30-32, makes it plain 41-54.
that this is merely accidental ; as a rule, 2 Num. viii. 11-13.
however, the breast is mentioned first, just 3 tJHp often means the same as avA-
as nsun is of the two words of conse- j^ 2 Kings xii. 5 [4] ; 1 Chr. xxvi. 20 ;
oration. ...,,.„ ^ „„ bk. Is. xxiii. 18; comp. Num. xviii. 19;
, ' Lev. xxm. 11, 12; Ex. xxxv. 22; Ex. xxviii. 38.

76 SACRIFICE.
as it were withdrawn from the world, but at the same time the
Sanctuary was required to undertake to destroy it or render it
harmless, so that the owner might be saved from a plague ; for
which purpose the priest had no doubt to utter a ban-curse over
it. This is the ban-gift or ban-offering, which in Hebrew derived
its name likewise ultimately from consecration and hallowing,1
but became the exact opposite of the ordinary consecrated
gift. Corresponding to it, among the food-offerings we have
the mournful expiatory-offerings ; among the kinds of sacred
phrases, the curse.2 It is easy to understand that such a ban-
87 curse when once solemnly pronounced was deemed irrevocable,
the hated object on which it fell being regarded as com
pletely banished from the world. And so long as the only way
of escape from a dangerous object was by a most violent appeal
for aid to the Sanctuary such as this, the ban always appeared
to be invested with a sacred spell.
Such a usage is to be found accordingly among many an
ancient people, and Israel was certainly acquainted with it
long before Moses. But in early times it can scarcely have
received among any other nation so forcible an application as
it did in Israel, in virtue of the latter being the community
of Jahveh ; inasmuch as the stricter moral life, which soon
completely separated this people from all others, specially
adopted even this sacred usage to make a fearful weapon out
of it. If the nation deemed the existence of its religion
seriously imperilled by any of its enemies, it easily directed the
whole power of the ban against the foe. Not only on the altars,
images, and temples of enemies would the ban naturally fall,3
even the greater part of the plunder of the enemy was put
under it, i.e. destroyed as dangerous. So great was the dread
of contact with what was heathenish, and so little longing
prevailed after the riches and treasures of the earth ! Especially
did this horror apply to certain military insignia, which,
in accordance with the primitive experience of the community
of Jahveh, were considered un-Israelitish, such as horses and
chariots, weapons, and even fortresses.4 But though this horror
1 Qin >s so called from the for- lasting memorial, corresponds to aviSy/ia
bidding (separating), interdicting, shutting in Num- ,x*xi- 5i > but also in a certain
out from ordinary life ; in contradis- ^X to ivide/ia, Num. v. 15 ; xvii. 5
tinetion to Wn, common (profane): !! p ie
DnqO, 'to put under the ban,' is then » ln ' accordance with the ancient
derived from it. Similarly, the corre- decree, Ex. xxiii. 23, 24 ; comp. Num.
sponding aviBena was originally the same xxxiii. 52, 63.
as aviBnua. In Hebrew }V"I3T, MK 4 See ffisi!. ii. 130, 154, 155, 241, 242;
remembrance, or something to serve as a iii- 145, 146. On the S» spoken of there,

CONSECRATED PRESENTS. 77
gradually became toned down, it was easily stimulated into
a fresh glow in unhappy times by the power of the vow, as
occurred in Samuel's case.1 It had previously been usual to
spare the lives of captives, and of much else that might be
useful, e.g. cattle ; 2 but through this relentless power of the
vow, the demands of the ban increased till it was insisted ;
that nothing, however insignificant, should be spared, as this
same history of Samuel shows.3 The Book of Origins, there
fore, endeavours in some vivid narratives to exemplify the law on
the subject. According to it, the war against Midian, because
that nation had seduced "Israel into participation m an immoral
worship, was a war of the ' revenge of Jahveh,' and Moses adds
to the penalty of the slaughter of all the men, that of all the
married women and male children, but nevertheless allows all
else to be spared, and the whole punishment although re
sembling a ban of the highest grade, is not called here a ban-
offering.4 Such a one, however, was laid upon Jericho; to
spare or to hide as booty even the smallest portion of what
came under the ban was deemed enough to completely over
throw the peaceable, blissful relation between Jahveh and his
people. When Achor secretly retained some portion of it for
himself, the tokens that Israel was in disgrace increased, until
Joshua most solemnly adjured the culprit who stiU denied the
deed, to give honour and glory to Jahveh by free confession.
He then did confess, and with all his possessions and his whole
house underwent the punishment of the ban.6 After the time
of David this early harsh severity was indeed somewhat toned
down,6 but still many great Prophets of the eighth century
repeat the phrases which time had rendered sacred, just because
they desire and anticipate a revival of stricter discipline in the
Messianic times;7 and the Deuteronomist, in his own times,
which were already greatly altered, endeavours to revive them
at any rate against the ancient Canaanites, a point which will
be further spoken of below.
comp. further, Ham&sa, s. 290, ver. 4 from no doubt only the Deuteronomist who
below, s. 742, ver. 2. According to the makes the remark, but the same is re-
Cyropmd. Cyrus in just the same way al- lated, 1 Sam. xv. 9.
ways caused the captured weapons of his 3 1 Sam. xv.
enemies to be burned, for the strict reli- 4 Num. xxxi. 1-18. Also Jud.
gion of ancient Persia had many points of xxi. 11.
resemblance in such matters to Mosaism. 5 Jos. vi. 17-19 ; vii. 1-26.
Similar features occur among the earliest s Comp. Hist. iv. 74, 75. But it is
.Romans, see Livy, i. 37. the wish of the Prophets also that the ban
1 Comp. Num. xxi. 2, 3, 30, 35; Jos. should not exist for ever. bk. Zach. xiv.
ii. 10; Judges i. 17 ; 1 Sam. xv. 2 sqq. 11.
2 In the words which occur in Deut. ii. 7 Is. ix. 14 ; Mic. iv. 13 ; comp. Ezek.
34, 35, iii. 7, xx. 14, Jos. viii. 2, it is xxxix. 9 sqq.

78 SACRIFICE.
The ban either of the first or second grade was also turned
inwards, with equal severity, against such members of the com-
89 munity as had violated the existing covenant, i.e. the existing
sacred constitution, and this was done whether it were whole
towns1 or private individuals2 that were concerned. In a song
composed during the fresh moral indignation against such
an execrable deed, we have an actual instance of the lively
feeling which guided the people in such a matter. ' The very
angel of Jahveh who, in peace and in war, moved on at the
head of the nation, seemed to have pronounced his curse upon
such an atrocity, and the destruction which the nation speedily
awarded, appeared only to have been the consequence which
resulted thence.3 The extraordinary power exercised in early
times by this custom, is plain even from the fact that the word
for ' to ban ' had come to convey the conception of the swiftest
and most utter destruction.4 — Now when the human monarchy
arose and stood in its prime vigour in the Theocracy, this
weapon of the ban also was consistently transferred to it.
But the history of the first king shows immediately, in an
illustrative example, how easily such a hand might employ it
without due consideration, and what toil it cost the whole
nation to ward off its pernicious effects.5
It was of course a somewhat different case, when an in
dividual handed over to the priest some possession of his as a
horrible plague, which he found himself unable to subdue.
Scarcely any clear instances of this are mentioned in the Old
Testament, but of the main fact there can be little doubt, as the
Book of Origins lays down the law for such cases in the most
unambiguous terms.6 Even human beings, e.g. anyone sacri
ficing to idols, a seducer to idolatry, a child which appeared
incorrigible, could be devoted to death in this Avay by the
community or the head of the family.7 Was a man troubled
90 by some inanimate object in such a way that his soul was
endangered, having, e.g. been led away into idolatry by it ? He
1 As in Jud. viii. 4-9, 14-17, xxi. 11 ; forbidden by Mohammed, Sur. vi. 139-141.
comp. Mai. iii. 24 [iv. 6]. » Comp. Hist. iii. 35 sq.
'- As even the Deuteronomist thinks 6 Lev. xxvii. 28, 29 ; comp. ver. 21,
legal and describes tolerably fully, Deut. The Book of Origins certainly contained
xiii. 13-18 [12-17]. How this was altered a section which is now lost on the ban-
in later times may be seen in Ezra x. 8 ; gift of the individual.
comp. what is said below. » This is distinctly presupposed in
3 Jud. v. 23 ; comp. .HiM. ii. 377- Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, nevertheless Deut.
4 As Is. xi. 14, and ameefiari^iv often xiii. 7-12 [6-11], xxi. 18-21, already
in later languages. What an amount of regards it as apurely civic matter without
superstition of all sorts may of course reference to the priesthood. The oldest
finally become connected with this ban, and shortest utterance occurs Ex. xxii.
may be seen, e.g. from the Arabic usages 19 [20],

REDEMPTION OF GIFTS. 79
could get rid of it most thoroughly by the intervention of the
priest's ban.1 Even a whole field, which had inspired its owner
with disgust and loathing, could be thus surrendered to the
will of the Sanctuary.2
Finally, an object might evince its incompatibility with the
holiness of Jahveh's community with such direct and palpable
certainty, that it seemed sufficient to destroy it on the spot,
even without having previously pronounced the ban over it.
Such an object also was deemed to have been forfeited to the
Sanctuary; but without anything further happening, its mere
appearance was enough. It became accordingly sacred, i.e.
received by the Sanctuary ; only, however, to be instantaneously
devoured and annihilated by the same Sanctuary, so that in
its case the conception of making sacred coincides with that of
annihilating.3 This final development of the idea of the ban
found application chiefly in the case of contact with things that
were too sacred and inviolable (a subject treated of below), but
also in other cases when something horrible ventured to appear
in the community in spite of legal prohibition, as in the instance
just alluded to.4 The Redemption of Consecrated Gifts.
A ban-offering, which had once been accepted by the Holy
One, was incapable, from its very nature, of ever reverting to
its former possessor. It was for ever forfeited to the Sanctuary,
and no abatement or change was possible ; or, according to the
technical expression, it was just as much ' most sacred,' as any 91
portion of the food-offering which was destined for the altar-
fire.5 Only the Sanctuary could now dispose of the object.
When, however, it was such as could not be destroyed by fire,
as e.g. a field, it was probably made to lie fallow until a
time when a new state of things would commence for every
thing whether sacred or profane, until therefore the 'death of
the high- priest or the Year of Jubilee ; then, after atonement
had been made for it, it could again come into the use of the
Sanctuary.6 When booty which had fallen under the ban was
1 Somewhat like this is indicated in from the use of the Latin sacer, in the
Is. xxx. 22, a passage which, as noticed sense of accursed.
on p. 74, borrows many images from sac- 4 P. 78.
rifices. 5 The name Q»KHp EHp, which was
2 Lev. xxvii. 21, 28. applied to such altar-portions, according to
8 That this is the case with the verb p. 66 note 6, is used also of the ban-
K»1J5S follows clearly from Ex. xxix. 37, offering, Lev. xxvii. 28.
xxx. 29 ; Lev. vi. 20 [27] ; Num. xvii. 6 According to the brief indication,
2, 3 [xvi. 37, 38] ; Deut, xxii. 9 ; as well as Lev. xxvii. 21 ; comp. Num. xviii. 14.

80 SACRIFICE.,
being destroyed, only the noble metals were saved by the victors,
in order that they might be presented to the Sanctuary as thank-
and consecrated-offerings. The Book of Origins even gives, a
law to this effect for the ban of the first and second grade.1
Mere consecrated gifts, on the other hand, were treated less
rigorously by the law, which admitted the possibUity of re
demption in case the man who had bound himself by a vow
deemed this to his own advantage. Only the firstlings of all
cattle, and those animals which were available for sacrifice,
were not redeemable ; the former manifestly because they were
considered to be too singular in their kind and to belong indis
pensably to the Sanctuary (as we shall see below) ; the latter,
because they were not more numerous than were needed for
the public sacrifices of the temple. If the possessor from greed
or other cause substituted a worse offering for a better, he was
at once to be deprived of both.2 Unclean cattle, i.e. those that
were not available for sacrifice, houses and tithes, could be
redeemed at an increase on their legal value of one-fifth;3
but special regulations were necessary in the case of fields, on
account of the privileges of the Tear of Jubilee, a point on
which more will be said below.
Most remarkable is the fact that human beings could be
redeemed, the Book of Origins carefully determining the price
92 for the redemption of every variety.4 The law permitted 5 each
head of a family to vow and present to the Sanctuary any
human beings that were considered his property — slaves and
children. It was, however, already sufficiently merciful to
aUow their redemption at an equitable rate (which was evi
dently reckoned by the priest according to the customary price
of slaves), but more will be said on the subject below in con
nection with the temple-slaves. Only when a child had been
consecrated for a Nazarite was no redemption possible ; this
will also be spoken of below.
We are now in a position to pass a proper judgment on the
case of Jephthah's daughter.6 Had it been Jephthah's will
that the vow should involve a ban-offering, he would have
seen that he was bound to carry it out even according to
the Book of Origins ;7 but such an offering was not and could
not have been intended. If, on the other hand, a mere con-
1 Num. xxxi. 22, 23, 50-54 ; Jos. vi. church children are presented to a. con-
19. It is similar in regard to the brass vent, butransomed if they wished to marry.
in Num. xvii. 1-5 [xvi. 36-40]. Ausland, 1850, s. 1047.
2 Lev. xxvii. 9, 10, 26. s P. 75.
3 Lev. xxvii. 11-15 ; 30-32. « P. 70.
4 Lev. xxvii. 2-8. In the Syrian ' P. 77 sq.

CORPORAL SACRIFICE. 81
secrated gift had been meant, then Jephthah and. those of his
time might easily have thought of redemption, such as the
Book of Origins permits. But what he vowed was to sacrifice as
a whole-offering the first thing that met him out of his house.
This is quite a different case, sanctioned neither by the Book
of Origins nor any other legal authority in the Old Testament,
because it springs from heedlessness, and may lead to monstrous
perversions. The legal ordinance which is explained above,1
and which proceeded out ofthe genuine spirit of Jahveism, would
have left the individual who made the vow, after the sad con
sequences had manifested themselves, at liberty to make public
confession of his heedlessness, and to obtain expiation from
the priests by means of a guilt-offering. But such a man as
Jephthah at that time, and occupying that princely position,
was too proud to avail himself of such a way of escape ; and in
those devastated tracts beyond Jordan, no sensible man was to 93
be found who would have had sufficient influence to free the
triumphant warrior from his false notions of honour.2
In a different way the intention of the ancient law was
overstepped in the late days of the Hagiocracy when it became
a custom that anything to which anybody had applied the
mere word qorbdn,3 should immediately be considered as neces
sarily forfeited to the temple, even though acts of injustice
were thereby committed.4

B. CORPORAL OFFEKINGS AND SACRIFICES OF BODILY PLEASURES.
i. Fasting and Similar Matters.
There are, however, kinds of sacrifice which lie deeper, and
extend into quite another province, and which in their tempo
rary effects are far more influential. The sacrifices which man
imposes on his own body and its pleasures, in order thereby
to obtain a blessing from God, touch him at a point where he
is unmistakeably more sensitive, and they accordingly develope
a power which has for religion a greater temporary force, and
for the sacrificers themselves a more lasting influence, than all
the above offerings of property. We saw, indeed, how the most
1 P. 61. quent were the discussions on this matter
' But compare more on this matter on in later times, This also explains why, ac-
p. 70. cording to Theophrastus (Joseph. Contra
3 I.e. according to p. 41, sacred gift'. Ap. i. 22), the Tyrians would not suffer
4 See Mark vii. 10 sq. ; comp. Ecc. this qorban ! to have the smallest legal
v. 3-5, from which wo can see how fre- value.
G

82 ' SACRIFICE.
varied feelings or truths of religion might be connected even
with the sacrifice of food or other possessions ; but when man
does not only offer external, though it may be most valuable
property, when he lays hands on himself and offers to Deity
the pleasures and pains of his own body, as well as its orna
ments and embellishments, then such feelings or truths wiU
from first to last affect him more strongly, and the reaction
will easily excite them to greater intensity, and produce a
more lasting impression. Everything here originates in the
94 mightier impulses of the individual, although he does in the
first instance hope as well to obtain from his God the coveted
blessing through the instrumentality of his own body.
In thus connecting the feelings and needs of religion with
one's own body and one's own pleasure, there clearly lies a
danger of exaggeration and return to barbarism, into which
self-mortification so easily faUs. It is exactly such heathen
religions as were seized with a more or less exalted impulse to
discover and retain spiritual truths — among which we must
especially reckon the Brahminical, and still more the Buddhist,
but also the ancient Egyptian, the Canaanitish, and the
Syrian- — -which easily fell into such exaggerations of the mighty
strivings which had been aroused for the attainment of divine
favour. The savage frenzy into which the prophets of Baal
fell when they could not make their God do according to their
wish, the way in which, after they had long called upon him
to no purpose, they danced about the altar, and then, ' accord
ing to their custom,' cut into their flesh with swords and spears
till the blood streamed down them,1 may serve as an instance
of such excesses as they were practised among the Canaanites
and Syrians, and thereby became known also to the people
of Israel from early days.
But the spirit of Jahveism was altogether too sensible, and
in particular the human body as the dwelling-place of the
'image of God' was deemed by it too holy, for it ever to
consent to such excesses. An express prohibition in its oldest
written laws already forbids all mutilation of the human body,
whatever be its purpose, as will be explained farther on. And
this prohibition, moreover , was especially extended to the
35 priests,2 whilst in heathen religions the priests, prophets, and
1 1 Kings xviii. 26-28. Comp. Lu- p. 33.
cian, De Dea Syra, ch. 1. sq., lix. ; Layard's 2 Not without cause does the Book of
Nineveh, ii. p. 71. In India it is found Origins, Lev. xxi. 5, apply specially to
.specially among the worshippers of the the priests what is said in the older source,
•Civa and the Durga, Journal of Sacred xix. 27 sq., of the whole of Israel.
Lit. 1849, ii. p. 55; As. Bes. torn. xvi.

FASTING. 83
saints, believed in the nieritoriousness of special self-denial and
self-torture. Under these circumstances the law could do nothing to
hinder people from voluntarily undertaking to make such
offerings, because they were capable of becoming a valuable
instrument in calling forth true religion. The Book of Origins
places them side by side with vows, which at that time were
limited as far as verbal usage went, to offerings of property,
and lays down the principles according to which vows of both
kinds, those applying to property and those applying to self-
torment, ought to be valid.1 But this law, according to its
clear meaning, certainly did not sanction any conceivable
personal offering which at any moment a man had sworn
somewhat inconsiderately to make ; such cases of inconsiderate
oaths were rather provided for in the opportunity given of
bringing guilt-offerings.2
The law takes special cognizance of only a single case as
the most usual one, that, viz. of fasting, which had been
voluntarily undertaken by some one for a definite period, but
this it gives with its usual detailed delineation.3 What this
fasting consisted in, is not definitely laid down. It occurs
elsewhere not unfrequently as the involuntary manifestation of
the deep grief and yearning prayer of an individual,4 or as a
public decree of the government on occasion of great national
calamities, and those of the most different kind,5 even when a
town lay under an accusation of high treason.6 If sacrifice 96
also was to be offered at public fasts, pure water served for the
purpose,7 and such a fast lasted either from one evening to
another, or for seven days without intermission. In the latter
case it was certainly mitigated in the same manner as may
now be seen in the annual month of fasting (the Ramadhdn)
of the Mahometans. The law claimed only a single annual
day of fasting, viz., at the great festival of atonement in the
seventh month, on which more wUl be said below. When,
accordingly, anyone voluntarily made a vow to fast, it might
last, as described above, for a single day, or for seven days, or
1 Num. xxx. 2-16 [1-15]. a pain to which a man binds himself to
2 According to p. 61. submit), is so general that it is by no
J Num xxx. 14 [13], K»3J njJ! to means confined merely to fasting.
bow (not satisfy) the soul, i.e/the desire \ \ Sam- *& 16 ; 1 Kings xxi. 27
for eating, is the ordinary expression for 5 ***¦ ** o S™ 1 ?2 • Joel i 14 '
tofastingthe Book of Origins: tie shorter ^m. xxx, » *£». i. 2 Joel ^14-
¦expression for it, niV> already m use a j j •
in Joel, is unknown to the former. But °- 6 1 ^^ ^ ^ ^
the name for this vow^ WQi'by "1BX (i-6- ' Pp. 34, 35. '

84 SACRIFICE.
even for a longer time, no length of time being legally prescribed
here. But the excess of fasting which characterised the times
after the first destruction of Jerusalem,1 was quite foreign to
earlier days.
Other species of self-punishment were, it is true, possible.
We meet later with the custom of offering the adornment of
the hair ; 2 or on being spared after a severe illness or from
some other great danger, before bringing a thank-offering, a
man might devote thirty days to frequent prayer, during which
wine was abstained from, and the hair was shaven,3 and it was
usual to spend such a period of thirty days at the place of the
Sanctuary itself offering sacrifices.4 Even the power of the ban-
curse, already spoken of,5 might make its appearance here, so
that, e.g. for the sake of attaining some end deemed sacred, a
man might lay eating and drinking under its imprecations.6
But aU this received no further encouragement from the law.
However, the spirit of genuine Jahveism already placed an
obstacle in the way of the voluntary assumption of all such
self-punishment, in the fact that fasting was at least out of
harmony with the Sabbath, as will be made clear below. It
was not tiU the last days of the ancient nation that the spurious
Pharisaic piety attempted to transcend this limit, and there
appeared those who prided themselves on fasting once or twice
even on the Sabbath, and who succeeded at certain times and
places in securing the prevalence of so gloomy a tone;7 but
even in those times such an excess did not succeed in establish
ing itself permanently. ii. The Nazirites.
If now a crisis in the nation's history was reached, in which
the most deep-seated powers of the soul were caUed forth and
put to the stretch, it was easier for the stronger forms of self-
renunciation and punishment to develope themselves from such
beginnings as has been described, into the employment of a
life. They would be unreservedly devoted to effecting the
more permanent rescue of man from his usual torpidity by
1 Comp. Hist. v. 114, 200 sq., and 4 Comp. what is said below.
other passages ; see especially bk. Tobit, 5 See pp. 15-16.
xii- 8. 6 Acts xxiii. 12, 21.
2 Acts xviii. 18. » Luke xviii. 12 ; Sueton. Aug.
¦> Josephus, Bell. Jud. n. 15. 1. We ch. lxxvi.; Just. Mart. Hist, xxxvi. 2. 14.
shall see hereafter that, in exactly the That these heathen accounts are not totaEy
same way, a day of repentance and atone- wrong in respect to so late a date, is proved
ment always preceded the great annual by the first passage, and the Essaico-
festivals. Pharisaic spirit itself.

THE NAZIRITES. 85
means of extraordinary inward effort and its outward manifes
tations. The heavier and the more permanent the toil which 97
such men took upon themselves, the smaUer must be the
circle to which such customs were limited. Smaller commu
nities were therefore formed within the great one and connected
with it more or less closely, which at times rapidly extended
their boundaries, but graduaUy lost again either numbers or
internal force, whenever the original mighty impulse which
had caUed them into existence began to flag. That such
smaller circles of a more intense religious life were formed from
time to time within the great community, proves the exist
ence of a strong vitality in the ancient religion; while the
profound truth of the latter is shown by the fact, that those
circles, after they had done what lay in their original impulse,
always, without rending or overthrowing it, resolved them
selves again into the great community. This, at least, remained
the case until the last period of this history ; then even this
healthy impulse of the old community underwent a complete
change. Best known, and originating in remote antiquity, is the
order of the Nazirites, i.e. the Consecrated,1 those who had con
secrated themselves by a vow exclusively to Jahveh,2 and had
given themselves up, along with the whole of their bodies, to
be owned by him. In them an urgent desire was awakened
to devote themselves more purely and more strongly than the
ordinary people to Jahveh alone — to present him with their
whole bodies and their greatest pleasures. Thus the vow to
abstain from wine, which certainly existed here and there long
before their time,3 received under their efforts a new and more
rigid application. To the priests it had been forbidden from
the days of Moses to drink anything of an intoxicating nature
before the commencement of their public functions.4 Such
1 The word is in itself only dialecti- 2 According to what was said on p. 21
cally, and as it were sacerdotally, distin- sqq.
guished from the more common fyi to 3 See Hist. ii. 397; compare also
vow, p. 21 sqq., which originally meant*, g^™^^^ ^
consecrate (i.e. to set apart for a higher ^l"° "il"3 , """ , ., . „, t,
v vine was also deemed the sign, and tne
purpose); iust as 3H. votum, is finally commencement of a higher grade of human
1 civilisation; see Hist.i. 270; but the pos-
, . , „ _,_ __ -. sible evil effects of this civilisation— stimu-
denved from ^ J or f; (to preserve, j^ passions and spl.eading drunkenness
separate, choose"). More on this word will be —might be so deeply felt by some that
found below in connection with the con- they would long to return to a primitive
secration of the high-priest. In quite a simplicity. _ ....
different way e«x<>iim, and geloben, verlo- 4 Comp. what is said below about the
ben, are terms derived from speaking and priests. That this command remained m
praying aloud. force ^ tue destruction of the second.

86 SACRIFICE.
¦ancient sacred prohibitions, however, are easUy carried to ex
cess by those who are anxious to acquire a special sanctity,
and this was what happened in the case of the Nazirites. He
who had once taken this vow of consecration to Jahveh might
never again taste the least drop of wine or any part of the
98 vine, neither pure nor mixed wine,1 neither sweet nor sour
drink of any kind prepared from the vine, no form whatever of
the juice of the grape might he drink ; neither fresh nor dried
grapes, no dish which was made (as is still done in that region)
of unripe grapes or of the pressed-out skins, might he eat.4
So long as the ISTazirite lived true to this vow, free from the
infection and even from the touch of the intoxicating growths,
he was deemed a consecrated, pure being ; but since from the
moment of his exit out of the world of ordinary enjoyments, he
was deemed, along with the whole of his body, to be conse
crated to God, no further alteration even of his body might
be made. Accordingly, the hair of his head might not
be reduced, stiU less shaved; and if this laid on him a new
burden and hardship, on the other hand, the luxuriant growth
and waving locks of this inviolable adornment of the head
served, for himself and for the world, as the visible token and
as the mighty spell of his own unbroken divine power and com
plete consecration.3
temple in Jerusalem, may be'seen from Jo- sages like M. -|»tJ. i- 2, they are merely
sephus, Bell. Jud. v. 5, 7 ; Contr. Ap. i. 22. repeated ; and from places like vi. 2, we
1 The "OE>; trucepd, Luke i. 15, men- see how uncertain as to their meaning
tioned here,' and often elsewhere, sweet- ma-n7 ofthe later critics were. However,
wine, properly intoxication, seems to have tne LXX and a iearned opinion in M. TH.
been a wine mixed with honey, and other T1- 2> giye reason to think that |y-|n are
sweet substances, and accordingly only too the pressed-out grapes (in regard to
well liked, just such an intoxicating which we must comp. the Aram. w. "ISJ*,
drink as we find now, e.g. in Habesh, which means the pressing out of the wine),
made by mere mixing. Fiery water and jf the pips. Nevertheless the latter
(brandy, etc.) was then, according to all is found M. flliriD, x. 8 ; )-|3£>, iv. 1, in
tokens, not yet known ; and that ~Oti? a context which would make us think
was regarded as one of the more excus- rather of the skins > tHe word wou]d te
able drinks, follows from the real meaning then connected with Jirj sediment, comp.
of the words in Prov .xxxi. 4, where itf, recrementa_ pm th' reminds on6
KM, according to the Lehrb. § 352a, ! '
means even, like the Latin vel. In later - ¦, , „ ° . .„
times the <nKepcJ, which was widely spread foTclblv of £r»> unripe grapes (Ha-
by means of the Phoenician commerce, ,. . ,. - , ' „ ,„„ _,„ .,
appears to have been only a kind of beer ™\ae/ ,'n? <?, De SacJ> s; W\/<&&-
M. mt miajf, "¦ 4. and Jul. Afiic! fW:s. 197. 2), a word which, from its
•ceo-Toi, v. 25 (in the Vetercs Mathematici. "J4"?; mus' rather haye .come , ">
Paris, 1693); but such a meaning is the Arabians from other nations, but
plainly in contradiction with Num vi., wluch mflT mean originally what is green,
where nothing but the vine and its pro- i-e- unripe, just like pVPI ^as-i- On
ducts are spoken of. ..¦,. ... , 7 : '^^.„,r
2 -a j.i «.«- „„a .. xr ™ • t tuls account the words m the LXX seem
' .Both mr\ and Jt Num. vi. 4, are „„i„ ,. t, , j ., ¦ ,
It ' - "xi ' only to have changed their places.
words hard to be understood, comp. the 3 The expression Num. vi. 7, ' the
Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. ii. o. 34 sq. In pas- consecration of his God is on his head,!

THE NAZIRITES. 87
The Book of Origins considers Naziritism sufficiently im
portant and honourable to include it in the description of
the legal religious orders.1 But from the description we find 99
there we should never guess what was its origin, nor its great
historical importance ; here, however, the accounts in the his
torical books come to our help.2 These historical recollections
leave no doubt that Naziritism displayed its greatest glory and
power in the last of the three epochs into which we may divide
the period of the Judges ; towards the ninth century we see
it already in a rapid decline, for the joke denounced by Amos
of compelling Nazirites to drink wine,3 betrays an essential
change in the popular estimation of this consecrated life. For
a few centuries accordingly the speU of this extraordinary life
maintained its position, and a phenomenon such as this cannot
well retain its charm much longer. When we find, however,
in much later times, this more rigid vow coming once again
into respect and use,4 this is evidently already the result of the
sacred estimation in which the present Pentateuch was held ;
the regulations of which in regard to the ISTaziritism which it
had admitted into its sphere, were carefully observed in this
very late period. But the ISTazirites through whom this mode
of life became so influential and famous in history — Samson,
Samuel— were consecrated by their parents for their whole life ;
whUe the Book of Origins in its legal description presupposes
rather that a man or a woman takes this onerous vow only for
a definite period. Now is the stricter Naziritism of a Samson
and a Samuel earlier or later than the easier practice ? We ioo
must remember that Naziritism, as it is described in regard to
those heroes, is only the final development of an already exist
ing custom ; that parents should come to such a determination
in respect to their children cannot be the commencement of
Naziritism in general. Examples of the simpler Naziritism
quite agrees with Judg. xvi. 17. — In just Luke i. 15. That he who offered the sac-
the same way the Brahmin, who was a rifices necessary for Nazirites was him-
hermit, might not, according to Manu, vi. self regarded as consecrated (as the later
6 4, 12 sq., 16, cut his hair, nor eat honey, teachers admitted to be legally allowed,
flesh, or oil ; salt was allowed, but nothing Joseph. Antiq. xix. 6. 1 ; Acts xxi. 23 sq. ;
grown on cultivated land. Mishna, "p}3, ii. 5 sq.) is sufficiently
1 Num. vi. 1-21. proved from the fact that he must accom-
2 Comp. Hist. ii. 396 sqq. pany them into the temple. But the
3 Amos ii. 11 sq. — Tf, further, a Naza- Mishna Nazir shows here too what foolish
rite devoted for life was esteemed to ideas these later teachers ofthe law derived
possess equal sanctity with a priest, and from the mere sacred letters. Since, at
so might enter the inner temple, this will this late time, the vow was so largely
explain the narrative about James the revived, and extended in accordance with
Just, in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. ii. 23, and in the words of the Pentateuch, its period
Abdias, Apost. Hist. vi. 5 sq. was limited to thirty days : this became
4 1 Mace. iii. 49 ; Acts xxi. 23 sq. ; the most important of the innovations.

88 SACRIFICE.
may therefore have existed long before the time of Samson and
Samuel, and. it might therefore be referred back by the Book
of Origins to ancient times, and even to Moses himself, al
though, according to all the indications of stricter history, we
can derive nothing with confidence from Moses but the higher
prophetism which became the deepest foundation ofthe existence
of the ancient community. Again, the Book of Origins ' knows
of children being presented to the Sanctuary, and thus admits
the possibility of the stricter Naziritism.
When the period of Naziritism which had been only tem
porarily undertaken came to an end, this happy return into
the full life of the people of one who had been consecrated and
set apart was thus celebrated. A one-year-old female lamb
was sacrificed as an expiatory-offering (for this we saw would
either precede or accompany a very solemn thank-offering 2),
a male lamb as a whole-offering, and a ram as a thank-offering.
As the consecrated person might now be released from his
onerous vow, this thank-offering formed a fitting conclusion to
the celebration ; his load of hair was cut off in the forecourt of
the Sanctuary, while preparation for this offering was made by
the priest ; the latter then took from the offering, in addition
to the other portions of the flesh which were legally his share,
also the right shoulder, and this having been roasted, was most
solemnly offered at the altar by the sacrificer himself, together
with a sacrificial cake and a wafer ; 3 and in this respect such
a thank-offering differed from an ordinary one. Not tiU this
was over was he free from his original vow, and at liberty to
drink wine.4 A whole week was considered necessary for the
completion of all these valedictory ceremonies.5
Eor all other purposes the Nazirites lived in the midst of
society. When the respect for them was already on the wane,
101 there was formed at the commencement of the ninth century
the association of the Bechabites, who held to their fundamental
principle of abstinence from wine, but gave up the vow to let
the hair of the head grow, and vowed instead to perpetuate the
ancient life in tents in the solitary parts of the country.6
Abstinence in marriage,7 and the total avoidance of it, which
was the starting-point with the Essees,8 appears wholly foreign
1 F. 80. in the East rests only on the doubtful
2 F. 67. reports of certain missionaries. See Hist.
5 According to p. 73 sq. iv. 79, whore more is said on the subject.
* Num. vi. 13-20. 7 About which Mahomet dares to pre-
6 Acts xxi. 26-27. scribe laws, Sur. ii. 226.
6 That they still maintain themselves 8 Hist. v. 373.

CIRCUMCISION. 89
to the early days of the nation, so healthy was its growth at
the core under the influence of true religion.
iii. Circumcision.
Sometimes, however, a large community or a whole nation
wiU pledge itself to a universal corporal offering of such a kind,
that every member shall constantly bear about its mark on
himself, and so make his personal appearance or condition a
perpetual witness for the special religion whose vows he has
undertaken. In such a case, the external form which this
offering assumes becomes less and less burdensome, tiU every
one is able to adopt it without much trouble. It is reduced,
therefore, to a mere token (symbol, sacrament), and becomes as
httle conspicuous as possible, being all the time capable of
conveying a most important meaning, at any rate while it
retains its original vitality, and of perpetuating itself from
generation to generation.
Thus several Arabian tribes living not far from the Holy
Land adopted the custom, as a sign of their special religion
(or, as Herodotus says, after the example of their God), of
shaving the hair of their heads in an extraordinary fashion,
viz. either on the crown of the head or towards the temples, or
else of disfiguring a portion of the beard.1 This custom was
extremely ancient; and in a very old legal passage similar
mutilations of the hair of the head are already entirely for
bidden ; 2 later again, Jeremiah designates these races by the 102
hereditary nickname of ' those who are shorn on the temples.' 3
Or it was deemed sufficient merely to brand or tattoo the
symbol of a particular god on the skin, on the forehead, the
arm, the hand.4 — Israel, too, adopted from early times a
1 More definite than Herod, iii. 8 is shown in Lev. xiii. 41, comp. xix. 27. It
the description, Lev. xix. 27. The fjijpn was perhaps originally the same as
here being allied with OJJ has the force 1 71 ' •) A ,,°
of 'hew down ' used of tho hair, as it '^' or eTen l^a.or jAa, although
would be of trees, a, strong expression this now designates the mustaches, Knos,
being purposely chosen. cw wher6 ^ ;g be
2 The prohibitions, Lev. xix. 27, may r r"-1
have been occasioned by heathen customs read, Barhebr. Chron. p. 355. 19. — See for
of a, corresponding kind, because the similar practices, Lucian, De Dea Syra,
usages, which refer only to mourning, are ch. 60 ; and among such nations at the
not spoken of till ver. 28 a. They are present day, Wellsted's Seise zur Stadt der
repeated in a somewhat different connec- Chalifen, s. 123, and the work of the mis-
tion in the Book of Origins, Lev. xxi. 5, sionary Halleur about the Ashantees.
and differently again in Deut. xiv. 1. Also see Livingstone's Second Journey,
3 Jer. ix. 25 [26] ; xxv. 23 ; xlix. 32, i. s. 263 sq.
comp. the Hamasa, p. 253. 10 sqq. What . See what is further said on this
DK3 may be in such a connection is below.

90 SACRIFICE.
custom which attained the highest sanctity in its midst, where
no jest, however trifling, could be uttered on the subject, but
which was essentiaUy of a similar nature to those we have
just mentioned. This was Circumcision, of which we are now to
speak further.
Circumcision is far from being a usage lying so close at hand,
and so easy either to be invented or to be brought into practice,
that it would grow up of itself, like many other usages, among
nations the most different and widely separated from one
another. To the so-called Indo-germanic (more properly Medi
terranean) races it was completely unknown in early days, and
the same was the case with the Chinese and the nations of the
North. In fact, it is something so unusually artificial and
peculiar that we should expect it to be invented only in some
one place on the earth, and it is besides something so strange
that a nation would not easily adopt it of its own accord. But,
on the other hand, just as little is it something originahy
confined to the people of Israel. The Book of Origins gives the
legal description of it as it was practised and was to be deemed
valid in Israel,1 having, however, sufficient regard for history
to refer it for its origin back to the age of Abraham. This
already says as much as that all nations which derived their
descent from Abraham may also have had the rite of circum
cision, and the Book of Origins indicates this as a matter
of fact as regards the Arabian tribes in the narrative of the
103 circumcision of Ishmael.2 Jeremiah, however, designates in
addition, Edom, Ammon, and Moab, as circumcised ; 3 but in
the same passage he speciaUy calls also the Egyptians cir
cumcised. Herodotus, whilst confirming this, adds that the
Ethiopians, the Phoenicians, as well as the Colchians, who
were descended from the Egyptians, and certain Syrian tribes
(amongst whom he undoubtedly reckons the Judseans, without
mentioning them by name), hkewise practised this strange
usage, which outside their boundaries was nowhere to be found.4
The PhUistines, on the other hand, were always railed at by
the people of Israel as the ' uncircumcised.' 5
1 Gen. xvii. opia also had it, according to Diod. Sic. iii.
2 Gen. xvii. 23-26. The circumcision 31 ; and among the Phcenicians, according
of the ancient Arabs is spoken of by one to Sanchuniathon, p. 36, ed. Orel., Chronos
who knows it, Bardasan, in Cureton's was even deemed its originator. Philo,
Spicil. Syr. p. 18. 7 sq. however, Opp. ii. s. 218 sqq. expressly
3 Jer. ix. 24 [25] sq. Later Barnabas speaks of the fourteenth year among the
speaks more definitely, c. ix. Egyptians, and others.
4 Herod, ii. 104; comp. 36, 37, and * I Sam. xiv. 6; xvii. 26; xviii. 25-27;
Josephus, Antiq. viii. 9. 3 ; Aristoph. xxxi. 4 ; 2 Sam. iii. 14.
Aves, ver. 507. The Troglodytes inEthi-

CIRCUMCISION. 91
Such, then, was the condition of this usage as it existed in
the later days of Antiquity, both according to the Old Testament
and to the information of Herodotus ; and this shows unmis-
takeably that circumcision had its origin among an extremely
ancient nation, as a practice and symbol of the civilisation
peculiar to this nation. The civhisation of the Ethiopians
stands in the closest connection with that of the Egyptians ;
and seeing that, at the present day, we still find circumcision
in Africa, even in places where Mahometan influence is out
ofthe question, among Ethiopic Christians and the Negroes of
the Congo,1 and among many other now savage tribes, extend
ing far down towards the south, it cannot be doubted that we
have here the remnant of a primitive African civilisation, which
had its seat among the Egyptians and Ethiopians (which of
the two was the earlier in attaining to it we need not consider
here), and which was shared by many other nations reaching
far into Africa. But the Asiatic nations mentioned above; who 104-
were acquainted with circumcision, were in part very closely
connected with Egypt by relationship, as has been remarked of
the Colchians,2 and in part had, at some time or other, come
into the closest contact with the Egyptians, either by war and
conquest, or else by neighbourly intercourse and trade, as was
the case with the peoples of Canaan and of Abraham.3 From
aU quarters, therefore, we come back to the land of the Mle
as that part of the earth where, in far-distant times, circum
cision took its origin and received its significance. In par
ticular we can see plainly that its transition from the Egyptians
to certain Semitic races was effected through the Hyksos.
How complete was the intermingling at one time of the Hyksos
and the Egyptians is mainly proved by the long persistence of
this usage among precisely these Asiatic nations, while they were
living in the midst of others where it never found an entrance.4
We should therefore presuppose that the primitive signifi-
1 See Ausland, 1845, s. 1353. Among son's Beisen in Siidafrika, ii. s. 215. For
•the Tumale it is performed in the nine- the rest, the subject is best treated in
teenth or twentieth year (Tutschek, in Bastian's Beise nach St. Salvador in Con-
the Munch. Gel. Anz. 1848, s. 733 ; Aus- go, 1859, s. 85 sq., 152, and Livingstone's
land, 1848, s. 314 sq.), among the Kaffirs, Travels, i. s. 180 sqq. ; ii. s. 190 ; also his
Namaquas, and others, from the thirteenth Second Journey, i. s. 263 sq.
to the fifteenth year; comp. Galton's 2 See Hist. i. 245 sq.
Bericht iiber das tropische Siidafrika a Hist. i. 388 sqq.
(Leips. 1854), s. 109. Among other 4 It is true that Origen, Contr. Cels.
African races, such as the Wakuafi, it i. 5. 1 (comp. v. 6. 1, 7, 8), gives vent to
takes place in the third year, see Krapf his anger against those who thought that
in Ausland, 1857, a. 440 ; among the Bet- circumcision was more ancient among the
schuans, however.it is always the real Egyptians,'but he is certainly not pursuing
transition to man's estate, comp. Anders- there any careful historical investigation.

92 SACRIFICE.
cance and the origin of the strange usage would be best learned
from Egyptian literature. But up to the present time the
investigation of this literature has led to no disclosures of im
portance on the point.1 When Herodotus, however, says that
the Egyptians submitted to the rite from a conscientious feel
ing for purity and propriety,2 he thereby tells us nothing but
the view prevalent in Egypt at his time, when, however, the
consciousness of its original significance among the Egyptians
might long have become weakened and lost. That those who
were the Circumcised deemed themselves purer than others,
and explained the usage on grounds of propriety, is perfectly
natural when it had once been in vogue from primitive days,
but that it should have come into existence to promote such
105 ends is just as unlikely as that it owed its introduction to a
regard for health. These and other conjectures of later times
have nothing to support them, and are right in the teeth of the
spirit of Antiquity.
We shall be led nearer to a comprehension of the primitive
meaning of circumcision by sundry indications in the Old
Testament itself, because there we possess far earlier accounts.
When Moses (as a very ancient source relates 3) turned back
to Egypt to effect Israel's deliverance, but was overtaken on
his way by a dreadful sickness, and it seemed as though Jahveh
required his life, Zipporah, his first wife, seized a sharp
stone, with it cut her son's foreskin off, threw this before the
feet of the father, her husband, and upbraided him as a bloody
bridegroom (i.e. as a husband whom she now saw she had
married under the grievous condition of shedding her child's
blood unless she were to lose the husband himself). But just
at that very juncture Jahveh released Moses, and the wife, full
of joy for the restoration of her husband, broke out into the
altered exclamation, ' a bloody bridegroom for circumcision '
(i.e. I see now that the blood shall involve no one's death, but
only circumcision). More clearly than is done in this brief
typical narrative, the original essence of circumcision, according
to its most ancient significance, cannot be described. It is
a rite which cannot be performed without loss of blood, and
there is, no doubt, a possibility that the patient may die of the
wound ; 4 it is therefore essentially a bloody sacrifice of one's
1 See the picture of some Egyptian Egyptian priests had to be circumcised,
children about twelve years old, in the and to eat no pork.
Revue Archeologique, 1861, 298 sqq. 3 Ex. iv. 24-26.
2 Herod, ii. 37. Perhaps, according l If the patient is too tender or weak
to Joseph. Cont. Ap. ii. 13, only the in body, or if unexpected symptoms ap-

CIRCUMCISION. 93
own body, difficult to render, such as man may regard with
shuddering fear. But he who has offered up to his God this
flesh of his own body and this blood, and bears circumcision on
his person as a permanent token of this hardest sacrifice, be- *o&
comes thereby for the first time a man well-pleasing to his
God, and may even become the saviour of his father. Thus,
the tender mother's horror at such an offering of her son's blood
turns into peace and joy.
Circumcision was accordingly an offering of one's own flesh
and blood sacrificed to a God. It may originally have served
as the substitute for a sacrifice of flesh and blood at which far
more was required. This very son of Moses, whom, during
the deadly sickness of his father, the mother resolved to cir
cumcise, might have been sacrificed for Moses himself by the
mother, according to strictest custom, and it is already no small
indulgence that a drop of the blood of his circumcision should
suffice for the same end. It was, however, always more usual
to regard it as an offering on behalf of the person himself who'
gave his blood and lost his foreskin, and therefore as a token
that he had to devote himself — give himself up — to his God,
inasmuch as he had perpetually to carry about with himself a
constant reminder of this consecration to a higher being. It
was properly a painful and violent expedient, such as could
originate and become generally adopted only in a nation
which was stiU very rude; and just as baptism now in the
Eussian Church has degenerated to so rude a condition that
the endurance of it may almost serve as a test for the healthi
ness of the child, in the same way, and to a greater degree,.
the man who survived circumcision might, when the rite
was first instituted, be deemed to have received strength and
consecration from the Deity. At the same time, however,
it is not too hard for it to become universal among the males
of a nation.1 But the fact that the offering was made to
consist of just the foreskin, is due indisputably, not only to

pear. Comp. a book only suitable for (p. 515), and then by Arabian writers.
medical use, Bergson, Ueber die Beschnei- (Tabari, i. p. 154, Dub., and others), and
dung. Berlin, 1847. The third day after further accounts of its present manner is
the operation was anciently deemed the given in particular by Riippel (Eeise nach
most dangerous, especially for adults, Nubien, 1829); comp. on the point also
according to Gen. xxxiv. 25. Kolle's Vei Grammar, p. 147 sq., together
1 Circumcision, or rather excision, with p. 209. But Strabo is altogether
for girls is mentioned as a custom of wrong when he calls this custom a Jewish
the Lydian, Arabian, and African tribes, one. Even Herodotus knows nothing of it,
first by Philo, Opp. ii. p. 218 sqq., and by and whether it is as old as the circum-
Strabo (Terr. Hist. xvi. 2. 37, 4. 9 ; xvii. cision of boys, or had originally the same
2.5; comp. Athenseus' Deipnos. xii. 1 1 purpose, is very doubtful.

94 SACRIFICE.
an early discovery of the possibility of severing it, but also to
the ancient sanctity of the organs of generation, of which we
have already seen another proof.1 We must also suppose that
the operation was originally performed when the boys first
passed out of childhood, and began gradually to enter on their
youth. This was always the hereditary practice among the
107 Arabs,2 and on this account has remained precisely the same in
Islam to the present day, and it may have been the case among
the Egyptians and Phoenicians. If, then, it was first performed
at this period of life, so that it may be compared with the
Eoman assumption of the toga virilis, it is the more easy to
understand why just this corporal member should have seemed
appropriate for the symbol. The initiation into the approach
ing period of youth became at the same time a special conse
cration to the service of the God of the fathers.
In this simple form, circumcision had undoubtedly been
introduced among the people of Israel long before the time of
Moses. But a narrative contained in an extremely ancient
documentary source,3 tells us in a very rem arkable manner how
Joshua had the nation circumcised anew on the banks of the
Jordan, because the operation had been neglected during the
many years they spent in the wilderness. This, however,
could not have been from lack of means ; for the sharp stones
which were made use of in early times for the purpose 4 were
certainly not difficult to procure in the desert. It was there
fore negligence of some sort which had occasioned its total or
partial discontinuance ; in the same way as the Phoenicians,
when living among the Greeks, had no scruples about neglect-
108 ing it,5 and as the Arabians, previous to the rise of Islam, did
1 P- 19. others, see J. G. Midler's Amerika-nische
2 See the quotations from old Arabian TJrreligionen, s. 212 sq., 285, 398, 604, 640..
narratives in the Morgenlcindischen Zeit- Livingstone's Second Travels, i. s. 346.
schrift, iii. s. 230 ; comp. Shahrastani's El- 3 jik. Jos. v. 2-9.
milal, p. 444. 3. It is still just the same ' Ex. iv. 25 ; bk. Jos. v. 2, together
on the island of Socotra (see Wellsted's with the important additions ofthe LXX
Beise zur Stadt der Chalifen, ss. 460, 466, at xxiv. 30. When, according to Jos. v. 3,
and among the African heathens (see there v,-as a 'hill of the foreskins,' in
above). Most instructive, however, is the that district by the Jordan anciently
fact that the Kayan in Borneo have a consecrated by Joshua's camp: this only
eustom for male children like that of cir- shows that later also people liked to per-
cumcision (Ausland, 1850, s. 703), and form circumcision there, which quite
certain tribes in Africa and Australia sig- agrees with what is said in the History,
nalise the entrance of children from eight vol. ii. 225 sqq. The Rabbinical nonsense
to nine years old into the world by knock- in Justin, Contr. Tryphon, c. 113, may be
ing out three or four of their teeth. See disregarded. A- flint knife was discovered
Haygarths Buschleben in Australien, 1849, in 1864 during the travels of the Due de
s. 174: Kowalewski, in Ausland, 1849, Luynes in Palestine, Ausland, 1864, s. 455.
s. 226, comp. s. 475. Essentially the same, See, too, Saulcy's Second Palestinian
too, was the so-called Nagualismus among Journey (French), i. p. 44 ; ii. p. 191 sq.
the ancient Mexicans, Carabbeans, and s Horod. ii. 104.

CIRCUMCISION. 95
not apply it universaUy.1 In Egypt alone during remote an
tiquity does it seem to have been rigidly maintained, at any
rate among the priests, whUe it was gradually neglected
among the more distant nations. This accounts for the excla
mation of Joshua, who, according to that ancient narrative,
when he had reestablished it in all its strictness, cried out
with unaccustomed joy, that ' now had Jahveh rolled off from
them the scorn of the Egyptians ' (who had reproached Israel
with being no proper nation). We see, therefore, how in
that early time, when among the most civilised nations of
the earth, circumcision was deemed the surest token of civili
sation, Israel would not allow itself to yield one jot in respect
of this honour to any other people ; and the time when it
reintroduced circumcision with greater strictness than before,
was just when, as the conqueror of Canaan, it established all
its national institutions on a firmer footing. Certain it is,
however, that already the God of Israel was entirely different
from aU the Egyptian and other heathen Gods, so that this
symbol of circumcision was sure to assume in Israel a very
different meaning, and ultimately receive, therefore, a very dif
ferent application.
Circumcision was the symbol of consecration for the entrance
into the community of Jahveh, and consequently for partaking
of all the rights and duties of the latter. This community,
with aU its pure divine truths and its storehouse of spiritual
powers, in which the new comer is about to share, is something
infinitely higher than the corporal symbol, strong as this may
be ; but so far as the symbol of entrance does not remain
powerless or without meaning, it becomes not only a reminder,
but also, for believers, a motive force of the life passed amid
the rights and the duties of the community, and in extending
its meaning so far beyond its corporal significance, it becomes
itself sanctified — a Sacrament. As such, circumcision further
became obligatory on every male without exception ; even in
cluding aliens who were desirous of entering the national com
munity ; 2 a matter which will be treated more fully when we
come to speak of the Community. Such universality, such
strictness, and such sanctity, as was to be found within the
community of Jahveh, where, indeed, it experienced its proper
regeneration, certainly never characterised its celebration any
where subsequently to this period. And if among the Egyptians
themselves, who still for the most part practised it, it yet
1 This also is already explained, loc. cally in regard to the heathen house pf
cit., Morgenldnd. Zeitschrift. Hamor. Gen. xxxiv. 15-25.
2 As the Book of Origins shows typi-

96 SACRIFICE.
became preeminently only a symbol of the higher purity of
the priests, so in Israel, at any rate after it had been revived
under Moses and Joshua and made legally binding on every
male, it could furnish an image of the higher purity which the
whole people felt they possessed by the side of other nations.
But the benefits of the community of the true God, after it
had once been called into existence, are not imparted for the
first time to the human beings which live in it, at a definite
period of their lives, at the fourteenth, or the twelfth, or the
seventh year of their age. Everyone, on the contrary, that is
born or brought up in it is received from the very beginning
of his life by the spirit of love and kindness, of justice and
truth, prevailing in the community ; and who can say in how
manifold and what early impressions this spirit would exercise
its influence on the growing child ! It is also weU for the
child, when it begins to be self-conscious, to be always met by
an image of the good which had been thought, vowed, and done
for it, before it had any consciousness. It is well, again, for
adults to recognise the child as always partaking, as far as
is possible for it, in every right and duty of the community.
Thus it certainly became a custom from those days of Joshua just
referred to, to circumcise the boy on the eighth day of his life,
as the first day after the week of his birth.1 The Book of
Origins on this account relates how circumcision was intro
duced as a divine law and as a symbol of the covenant, at a
time when Ishmael was just thirteen years old (the usual age for
Arabian children), but when Isaac was not yet born, so that this
typical child of the true community might at his birth be at
once circumcised on the proper day.2 Through this artificial
transformation of circumcision to a consecration of the new
born child, the usage as practised in Israel made a further
departure from that of heathen nations.
When circumcision in Israel had once attained this lofty
significance, and served to mark the entrance of the man into
the fuU rights and duties of the true community, it was only
suitable, in the last place, to connect with it the giving of the-
name. The child received its name on this occasion ; and to
every a.dult who was admitted into the community by circum
cision there was given at the same time a new name, which
thenceforth seemed to correspond to his new worth as a mem
ber of the community. All this, too, is already shown in the
Book of Origins 3 — a proof of how early these customs took
definite shape.
1 Lev. xii. 2 sq. Origins, according to xvii. 12.
2 Gen. xxi. 4, taken from the Book of 3 Gen. xvii. 4 sq., xxi. 3 sq. Well

THE SABBATH. 97
There can be no doubt that it was in this special fashion no
that, circumcision was always observed in Israel from the time
of Joshua ; many, too, in the nation might early have become
the more easily proud of the sacred consecration, the more
they remarked its complete absence or very different practice
among foreign nations. Thus it is that the prophets of those
days, taking an opposite line, speak of its being necessary, not
so much to circumcise the flesh as the heart, i.e. to cleanse
the heart of all that is superabundant and impure ; 1 and
the time would come when the rude old usage was no longer
willingly regarded in its original aspect, viz. as a bodily
sacrifice, but attempts were rather made to find in it an
emblem of bodily, and therefore also of spiritual, purifica
tion, as though the foreskin taken away in the operation
was in itself something impure that had to be removed. But
this latter view does not accord with the feeling of remote
antiquity, and no one would spontaneously arrive at the m
idea that the foreskin was less pure than any other part of the
human body.2 C. THE OFFERING OF REST : THE SABBATH.
None of the offerings of the second series just described,
accordingly, rise to the highest stage of life and activity in a
true religion ; just as aU of them go back for their ultimate
origin to a period anterior to Jahveism, and were only modified
by its spirit.
But Jahveism, too, brought forward simultaneously with
its appearance a sacrifice absolutely peculiar to itself, the first
which corresponds truly and directly to its significance, and
worthy of consideration, apart from cir- 9. Still earlier the ideas of 'uncircumcised'
cumcision, in the primitive widely ex- and ' unclean ' began to be convertible.
tended custom of giving the child a name 2 As for the controversy so vehe-
on the seventh, or eighth, or (fifth) tenth mently carried on in modern times (since
day. The tenth day is to be found among 1841) about the necessity of circumci-
the Indians (A. Weber, Ueber die Naxa- sion for the present confessors of the
tra, s. 316, and DMGZ., 1853, s. 532), religion of the Old Testament, it is unde-
ahd the Greeks (Arist. Aves, ver. 493, niable that the later prophets down from
923 sq.) ; the eighth among the Romans ; the eight century already held very free
the seventh among the Khands in India opinions about this necessity ; that, more-
(Ausland, 1850, s. 703), and the Negroes over, circumcision does not stand so high
in Borneo (Kolle's African Native Litera- as the sabbath in the Law itself ; and
ture, p. 131 sqq.), but also among the finally, that it is essentially a barbarous
Greeks (ApoUod. Bibl. i. 8. 2). This is usage, and that if it costs but one life
connected with the old reckoning and among thousands, yet that even this life
sanctity of the week, of which we shall must be valued more highly than the
soon speak. custom. Christians, at any rate, ought
1 Lev. xxvi. 41 ; Deut. x. 16 ; Jer. iv. to take good heed how they oppose its
4 ; vi. 10 ; ix. 24 [25] sq. : comp. Ezek. xliv. abolition.

98 SACRIFICE.
which is of a totally distinct kind from all the innumerable
offerings of both the preceding series. This is the Sabbath, an
institution in its essence purely Mosaic, and as such the great
est and most prolific thought of Jahveism.
1. Yet it would be an error to imagine that this institution
of the sabbath, or of the sacred rest on the seventh day, found
nothing of an earlier date which could furnish an occasion for
it, when it was introduced for the first time on the earth in
Israel, and that it was in this respect an entirely new discovery
of the great founder of the true community. Many very
ancient nations were acquainted with a weekly circle of seven
days,1 which is quite in accord with the fact that such a week
112 is spoken of in the primitive history of Jacob.2 These traces
leave no doubt that the division into weeks of seven days, and
all consequent distributions of time, were widely extended over
the earth long before the time of Moses. But that it was
originally adopted by all nations can by no means be inferred
thence. On the contrary, there are certain regions in Eastern
Asia where, at the present time, a shorter week of five days is
stiU in use,3 and this, according to many other traces, is just as
ancient. Indeed, there are some indications even in Israel
itself in the earliest times of the use of a corresponding great
week of ten days.4 Accordingly, almost the same as was said
' Philo, Vita Mos. ii. 4, and Joseph. 2 Gen. xxix. 20, 27.
Contr. Ap. ii. 39, are only too partial in 3 See Selberg's Beise nach Java
explaining this as an imitation of the (Amsterdam, 1846), s. 264 sq., and Leon
Jewish week ; a still widerview is taken Rodet, in the Journ. As. 1858, ii. p. 408.
by Theophilus, Autolycus, ii. 17. It is The Japanese and Chinese have, it is
a fact, however, that in particular the true, lunar months, and accordingly esteem
seventh day, but the eight as well, after more highly the first, fifteenth, and
the new moon, was held sacred, and dedi- twenty-eighth day of each month, but dis-
cated to some special god (Apollo, Hera- tinguish no week of seven days with a
kles) by many heathens, including the celebration, but rather refer the great
Greeks. See Philo on the Decalogue, week of sixty days (see Siebold's Nippon,
xx; Aristobulus, in Euseb. Prmp. Ev. iii. s. 107) to an original one of five days.
xiii. 12 (p. 667 sq.); Jamb. Vita Pyth. Veryremarkable,comparedwiththat,isthe
xxviii. (152); comp. Miiller's Orcho- fact that the seven days were unknown to
menos, ss. 221, 327, and Valckeuar, De pre-Christian Americans; whilst, on the
Aristobulo, xxxvii. p. 89 sqq.; also other hand, a week of five days was cnsto-
Hitopadega, i. 3, and for what specially mary among the Mexicans. This aflbrds
relates to the Buddhists, Spence-Hardy's striking evidence that the former came
Eastern Monachism, p. 236 sqq. That from Eastern Asia.
the ancient Arabs were acquainted with 4 In the expression ' some days, or a
the week follows from Hamdsa, p. 268. 7, week of ten (days),' Gen. xxiv. 55. The
according to the correct interpretation and word "iVB'j?, of the same rare formation as
reading *jj "jJU The celebration of ^^ a week of seven (days), signifies

>J^J.

cordingtoEx.xii.3, Lev.xxiii. 27,thetenth

the sixth day by some of the ancient day of the month, as one which was distin-
Hindoos (see Max Miiller's Hist, of Sansk. guished from those which immediately sur-
Liter. p. 424) does not, on the other hand, rounded it ; the fifteenth corresponds to it;
affect these considerations. — Comp. also „ u J,, .¦ ii.- j * .n. n. ¦¦
what is said below under the Festivals. C°mp- JS-J> tor a th,rd of the month' a

THE WEEK. 99
above ! in regard to circumcision may be repeated here, viz.
that we have here a custom very widely extended in primitive
times, but still definitely limited to a large circle of nations, 113
and which in particular was unknown in Eastern Asia. Still,
the use of the week of seven days seems to have been more
limited in Africa, and to refer us rather to Asia.2
The very fact, however, of there being these two systems
may assist us in recognising the origin of the divisions into
weeks. As the moon certainly affords the most natural term
for all such reckoning of days, the month may have been
early divided into four parts ; and the fractions over and above
the four times seven days may originally at least, as long as
the real month was strictly maintained, have been intercalated
somewhere or other when they amounted to a complete day.3
Only in this way can we explain how the sanctity of the number
seven became so universal, for there must have been a founda
tion for this fact somewhere. And just as easily could the month
be divided into three greater weeks of ten, or into six smaller of
five days each, in which case one of the weeks would lose a day
when necessary to keep in with the lunar month ; 4 though here
the solar year, with its 365 days, comes very near to thirty-six
greater, plus one of the smaller, weeks. It cannot, then, be
denied that the reckoning by five and ten days is relatively the
more original, partly because it can be more easily harmonised
with the course of the moon, partly because these numbers
primitively suggested themselves with such unique readiness,
and formed the basis of all counting,5 whilst the sanctity of the
number seven manifestly finds its first support in the more
artificial reckoning of weeks of seven days, and the great im
portance which this subsequently attained.
> In the people of Israel traces are stUl to be found, as has
been already remarked, of this most primitive division of time
into periods of ten (five) days, as well as of thirty, but reckon-
the Chron. Samarit. p. 35, and in other Ztitschrr. iii. s. 417.
Arabian writings. * That a period of thirty days was
i p. 90 sqq. very common among the people of Israel
2 For the question whether it was from the earliest times will be made clear
known to the Egyptians, see Lepsius, Chro- below in many ways. When, however,
nologie der Aegypter. s. 131 sq. But other according to M. 1*13, iii. 2, fifty-nine
Africans certainly had it from earlier times, instead of sixty were reckoned sufficient
as the Ashantees and tlie Gallas, see when the thirty days were doubled, the
Tutschek, Grammar of the Galla Lan- meaning of this can only refer to the
guaqe, p. 59. course of the moon. But the Mishna no
3 As in the ancient Persian division longer knows the reason, and introduces
of weeks (which seems also to have kept its one which is quite perverse.
place among some Buddhist nations) ; 6 According to Hist. ii. 159 sqq.
6ee tha treatise in the Morgtnlandische h 2

100 SACRIFICE.
ing by exactly equal weeks of seven days, without further
reference to the course of the moon, must very soon have been
established among them ; ' even as this week was already in
existence among many of the neighbouring nations. Standing,
as it did then, entirely on its own merits, this circle of time,
with its eternally-constant periods, easily came to be regarded
as having something sacred in it ; and among heathen nations
H4 it was but a short step from this to consecrate each of the days
to a god or a corresponding star (planet), and then it was only
natural to dedicate the last day of the circle to Saturn as the
god of a remoter antiquity, or as the last tardy-pacing planet.2
Now as Saturn is also the god of dull quiet time and of re
pose itself, the conjecture was already made by some of the
scholars of the fast-disappearing Old World,3 that Moses had
made the last day of the week the sabbath solely because he
regarded it as the day of Saturn. But there 'is nothing to
confirm this conjecture. Unfortunately, we do not now know
when and how the week of seven days was introduced. But if
(as was certainly the case) it was long prior to Moses, and,
moreover, among a nation where an accurate knowledge and
even a veneration of the solar year was prevalent, so that we
may say that the aim of this week was to establish a single
self-recurrent period of time, without regard for the moon and
the lunar year, then it is altogether probable that the week
was established with reference to the number of the seven
planets,4 the individual days of it being severally named
1 This is plain from the Book of tude of such conjectures ; Dion Cassius,
Origins, Lev. xxiii. 15 sq., in a passage Hist, xxxvii. 17-19, speaks most definitely
where (as will be shown below) it de- on the point, giving instructive informa-
scribes the genuine Mosaic arrangement tion. On the further conjectures of
of the fifty days after the Passover. modern scholars in this topic, which for
2 This we find to be the case, not only the most part erroneously appeal to
with the Nabatians (see Morgenl. Zeitschr. Amos v. 26, it is already needless to say
iii. s. 416), but also with the Hindoos, anything.
if ho call Saturday (Janivara; their planet 4 Even the series ofthe days ofthe week,
Saturn takes it name (ani from its slow- as far as we can follow it back among
ness, and is also represented as a God the earliest nations, is everywhere the
slowly driving in a carriage with piebald same, and rests on a primitive heathen '
mares, comp. Wilson's Vishnu-Pur&na, belief: 1) that the series of the seven
p. 240. It is also by no means necessary planets, commencing with the moon, and
that Saturday should be the sacred day ending with Saturn, is something sacred;
among such nations as possess the weeks 2) that the twenty-four hours of the day
of seven days from primitive times; the were also in like manner of a sacred
Ashantees, e.g. have this week, but do not character ; and 3) that the planets in this
hold the Saturday or the Sunday as series had an influence on the particular
sacred, see Ausland, 1849, s. 511. Again, hours and days, as though the planet
we find that in Islam it is Friday, with which ruled the first hour of each day
the Druses Thursday, and with the Jezidi, possessed that day. The twenty-four gave
even Wednesday, which is become the three times seven and three over, when
sacred day (Layard's Nineveh, i. p. 302). divided by the series of planets, and the
3 Tacitus, Hist. v. 4, collects a multi- fourth planet which came next with the

THE WEEK. 101
after them. But this makes it all the more necessary to
assume that in Israel, at any rate from the time of Moses and
preeminently through his instrumentality, the violent trans
formation which then took place caused this original no
menclature to be totally rejected, just because it referred
to the celestial deities. For when the days of the week are
once named in a nation after deities or planets, these names
easily keep their place unchanged, even when heathenism
is relinquished ; but of such names there is no trace among
the Hebrews, nor again among the Syrians, so far as we can
now trace back their history, or among most of the Arabian
tribes. The last day of the circle is called by aU these nations
simply the day of rest ; the first is, in the Old Testament, ' the
one which follows next to the sabbath' (or the first after it).
The remaining days do not happen to be mentioned in the Old
Testament,1 but were undoubtedly then, as later (e.g. in the
New Testament), distinguished merely by their numerical order,
as the second, third, &c, of the sabbath, i.e. of the week as
regulated by the sabbath. In the same way the months in the
Old Testament were, at a tolerably early date, named accord- H5
ing to their number only, although it is possible to show that
prior to Moses, and even after him, they were also named
differently.2 The difference is due merely to the fact, that
the names of the months were not originally derived from
such artificialities, and accordingly appeared less irrecon-
cUeable with the true religion than those of the days of the
week. ,
Accordingly, when Moses fixed on the last day of the week
for the day of rest, this was only done inasmuch as rest of
twenty-fifth hour, became the consecra- iii.s.418, andffisi.iv.169. — Whenceindeed
tor of the new day, and thus the name of finally come all astrological systems, and
each of the seven days was determined, how and when they spread abroad, has not
Here, the perpetual repetition of this yet been accurately investigated. But
sequence seemed finally to be its most though the Rabbis in the time of the
sacred attribute. The only doubtful Romans called Saturn, *ri3B', it by-
point is whether the most ancient Egypt- n0 means follows that the ancient nation
ians were acquainted with this entire cherished the same ideas, and expressed
system (comp. J. Brandes: Die sieben them in the same manner.
Thore Thebens, in Hermes, 1867, s. 259 , „ , , . ., , . „„„.,•„ nr_
...,,..',, ' ., • • j. 2 See below, m the last section. JNo
sqq.); if this is not the case the origm of d(mbt name6 QuMU $exm
the whole must be referred with all the Eomans also at first
more certainty to Babel. But how little ft month and
the sabbath had intrinsically to do with /^ numberi of them was stiU
Saturn, is once more shown by the above more pr6yalent anJjng certain races in
i'mu 4. • *t i a ™^«*i,oi.™o Greece and Asia Minor, (7. Inscript. iii.
'That ancient Israel during the time how M ^
of Moses even held m high esteem the P * ^ at rate
nfluenceof theseven planets orotherastro- y |ifferent relations prevailed from
logical systems ,s extremely improbable, ' commencement.
comp. the treatise in the Morgenl. Zeitsch. "" vo ' ""

102 SACRIFICE.
itself comes best not at the beginning, but at the end of the
circle of ordinary daily toil, as is depicted with unsurpassable
truth, by the Book of Origins, in its typical narrative of the
week of the Creation. And when heathen nations caUed the
same day after Saturn, they may have therein arrived half-way
at the expression of the same idea, without its following thence
- that Moses had previously honoured it as the day of Saturn, or
that the meaning which Jahveism put into it was first of all
borrowed from the conception of a God Saturn.
2. The most important point is the last mentioned. What
Moses made of the last day of the week was something quite
new, something which had previously existed among no nation
and in no religion. The last day was to be devoted to rest ;
all ordinary human toil was to cease, an unwonted quiet to
reign. Man must therefore renounce the gain and enjoyment
which he sought in his ordinary occupation and labours.
This is the self-denying sacrifice which he must here offer,
something quite different from all the sacrifices which the
world had ever known before, but one which is often far
from easy for man to make, seeing how covetous he is, or
H6 otherwise plunged in the world's unrest and turmoil.1 But yet
man shall not rest on this day for his own sake alone, so as to
sink into a vacant condition characterised only by the absence
of activity, or yield himself up to dissolute, savage pleasures for
the sake of passing the time ; the rest, says the law from the
very first, shall be unto the Lord Jahveh, shall belong to him
and be sanctified to him. Man, then, shall release his soul and
body from all their burdens, with all the professions and pur
suits of ordinary life, only in order to gather himself together
again in God with greater purity and fewer disturbing elements,
and renew in him the might of his own better powers. If, then,
the interchange of activity and rest is already founded in the
nature of all creation, and is the more beneficial and health-
bringing the more regular its recurrence, so should it be found
here too; yet not as when in the night and in sleep the
body is cared for, but as when in a joyous day of unfettered
meditation, the spiritual man always finds his true rest, and
thereby is indeed renewed and strengthened.
To do this, however, is the peculiar object of Jahveism, as of
all true religions. The sabbath is therefore the first sacrifice
which is appropriate to it, such a one as the spirit alone produces
1 This is shown not only in the figu- but alto in such prophetical descriptions
rative narratives about the introduction from life as Amos viii. 5.
of the sabbath, Ex. xvi., Num. xv. 32-36 ;

THE SABBATH. 103
and brings to perfection. External property man does not offer,
to his body he does not the slightest harm ; all the purer does
he present his soul to the Creator. Nevertheless, the realisation
and celebration of this lofty repose of human life must show
itself also externally, in the cessation of all labour ; and there
was already something solemn in this universal cessation during
a whole day, from the evening of the one to that of the other.
On this account the sabbath possesses some external and visible
attributes, so that it can be deemed a symbol, but at the same
time a sacrament of Jahveh, which aU the members of his
community must observe together. In this sense the sabbath 117
was deemed of sufficient importance to be assigned a place
among the Ten Commandments,1 although not a single other
sacrifice or sacred usage is there required. The same concep
tion of it prevaUs in the other laws of the oldest times, and
it is there exalted to a position of the highest importance.2
Indeed, its final and eternal prototype seems to the Book of
Origins to have been given by God himself at the Creation,3
for the alternation of motion and rest goes like a divine
rhythm throughout the whole world, and equally certain is it
that the existing condition of the world, which, considered on
a grand scale, preserves a constant method, must have been
preceded by conformations of a totally different order.
The grave importance of the sabbath to the histoiy of
humanity is exhibited by the Book of Origins, with its profound
legislative insight, in a grand review of all the epochs of the
world. According to this conception each of the four epochs into
which the whole of man's past history is divided,4 has its special
divine commandment and decree, by which men were bound to
God, its covenant therefore with him, and an external token as
the visible confirmation of the latter.5 Every law is at the same
time always a hmitation for man, which he ought not to over
step, and above which he is nevertheless always trying to rise,
and the whole development of humanity properly consists in us
1 Hist. ii. 161 sq. covenant which God then concluded. For
2 Lev. xxvi. 2 ; xix. 30 : comp. what when a contract is concluded, the mutual
is said below on this ; Ex. xxiii. 12, understanding may already be deemed
already speaks with more circumlocution disturbed, and accordingly a new arrange-
and explanation. ment needful which shall bind both
3 Gen. i. 1-ii. 4; 3x. xx. 11; xxxi. parties; and this had not yet taken place
17. at the commencement of all creation. So
4 Hist. i. 79, 256 sqq. far as this goes, all must here be one-
5 Only in the case of the first epoch of sided, simply the command and law of
the world, where this description is alto- God ; but the existence of a law binding
gether of the briefest character, Gen. i. two parties is always just what is essen-
29 sq. there is no token added, because tial for every covenant.
neither is there any distinct mention of a

104 SACRIFICE.
such a ceaseless struggle against a limitation lying right before
it, until this is perhaps once broken through, and a new law
can at once come into being to suit the relations which then
exist. The prohibition of the first epoch contained accordingly
the straitest limitation to human life and action, viz. : to slay no
living thing, to eat only of vegetables and fruits.1 When man
transgressed this first law more and more, and the first world
was therefore destroyed, the peaceful commencement of the
second epoch, brought him permission to shed the blood of
brutes, but human life was made aU the more sacred, and the
bow of peace in heaven was the token of this epoch. When in
its course human blood was continually shed more and more, and
for the sake of upholding human society, a sharp distinction
between ruler and subject had been established by the force
of circumstances,2 there appeared with the commencement
of the third epoch, Abraham the pattern of the true ruler
and father of many people; along with a new covenant and
circumcision as its token.3 After this covenant also had
been transgressed worse and worse, and good rulers had given
place to evil Pharaohs, there commenced with Moses, in the
fourth epoch, a new covenant, viz., the rule of Jahveh over his
people, so that the true God appeared, and at the same time in
closest relation to him — the true community, the mutual token
119 being the sabbath.4 Accordingly the sabbath stands yet higher
than circumcision, and the Book of Origins loses no opportunity
of enforcing its supreme importance.5 The book, however,
always seeks to illustrate its legal instructions by appropriate
narratives, and in one of these it shows how God himself hy
the difference in the fall of manna, taught the people in the
wilderness the distinction between the sabbath and other days ; 6
and in another how the punishment of death was incurred by
him who infringed this sacrament.7
3. This extreme penalty was not so heavy, considering the
1 P. 40. the second epoch, and that his very name
2 The part of the Book of Origins is probably borrowed from |j3» Gen. iv.
where this feature of the second epoch ig TT'
was described is, it is true, now lost, but 3 P 95
that it once existed may safely be con- , Ex ^ 12_1? ^ ^ descr;
eluded from the arrangement of the whole tion of concludi the ^ which shoufd
as indicated by the portions which still gtand before ^ {g ^Q j CQn.
remain. How great are the losses which tained in the Book f Qri .
a keen observation of the surviving portion 5 -gx xxxi 1217. xxxv i_3 To a
will still detect with certainty !-We later time belongs Ex.' xxxiv! 2l". '
can here only briefly touch upon other s ^ xvi Jf ^ .. 221
important consequences of this circum- , Num_ ^ ^ Ex. xxxi.
stance, e.g. that the murder of Abel ^ . XXXT. g
belongs properly to the commencement of '

THE SABBATH. 105
whole position of the ancient kingdom of the people of Jahveh,
as will be shown below in its proper place. The early recol
lections, too, collected in the Book of Origins, stiU let us recog
nise clearly enough that it was deemed no easy task to enforce
at first the strict keeping of the sabbath throughout the whole
community and permanently accustom men to it.
That it was strictly kept from quite the first, and that the
law was urgent on this point, is not to be doubted. None of
the business of ordinary life, such as the crafts and agriculture,
buying and selling, might be carried on, as many passages in the
Old Testament clearly show. And for a long time it seemed all
the harder to observe this prohibition, and all the more justifi
able to evade it,1 inasmuch as all nations were accustomed to
hold a market on exactly these exceptional days, the new-moons
and festivals, and to make use of the concourse of many men at
leisure, for the purposes of trade. Even fire might not be kindled
in their dweUings, a point on which the Book of Origins lays
special stress,2 plainly meaning only that during the sacred day
nothing might be eaten which had not been on the previous 120
day procured and prepared.3 Of its haughty violation, or
conversely of an over-anxious erroneous conception of the
sabbath, we hear no complaints till we come to the latest pro
phets.4 However, the notion that people were to sit quite still
all the day, and might hardly walk the necessary number of
paces to and from the sanctuary which in later times was caUed
a sabbath day's journey,5 is a view far too scrupulous, which
was derived in later days from a misunderstood passage in the
Book of Origins.6 Considerable strictness in observing the
sacred rest was of course involved already in the general nature
of the very strict discipline prevailing in the early community,
which reached its maximum in regard to the sabbath, that
being the loftiest and most peculiar sacrament, as well as the
one instituted latest, a fact which would have alone secured
special stringency. The community had first to learn to feel
that it was altogether the community of the one true God,
1 Comp. Amos viii. 5. s Actsi. 12: comp. Matt. xxiv. 20. It
2 Ex. xxxv. 3 ; probably only the was reckoned at 2,000 ells, which was the
commencement of a further amplification distance from the west side of the Mosaic
of the duties of the sabbath, which is now camp (see below), to the east where the
lust. It is remarkable that Philo, Vita Tabernacle stood, as the people were at
Mos. iii. 28, says it was frequently any rate obliged to go to the sanctuary on
forbidden. the sabbath.
3 As may be seen also from the typical 6 Viz. in the passage, Ex. xvi. 27-31,
narrative about the use of manna as food, which the context and true meaning of the
Ex. xvi. 22-31. speech show to relate to going forth for
4 Jer. xvii. 19-27 ; comp. bk. Is. lvi. 1- purposes of gain, not to other going forth.
8 ; lviii. 13.

106 SACRIFICE.
and to look up to him alone; on his account too, peremp
torily to interrupt and suspend all the trades and occupations
of the lower life, in order that they might wait in perfect quiet
and retirement on their Lord and his voice alone. Here
the strictest custom and discipline were not too stringent, and
for every member of the nation without exception the sabbath
was surrounded by the circle of this strict discipline. But that
in the earlier days, when the national life was stronger and
healthier, this strictness did not degenerate into the subsequent
scrupulosity, is certain from general considerations. On the
contrary, the sabbath was looked upon, like every other festival,
121 as a time of glad recreation and elevated joyous life.1 What
were the particulars of its celebration among each local com
munity in early times, we no longer know ; but it was certainly
not celebrated by a torpid sitting still, but with prayer and ex
hortation ; and we do still know that on it the people were wont
to seek the instruction of the prophets.2
The more strictly the sabbath was kept, and the more pre
paration was required in order to avoid all work while it lasted,
the more customary did it become to regard the last hours before
it as a mere preparation for it, and even to designate the whole
of the day immediately preceding as the pre-sabbath,3 or as the
preparation,* or as high-evening.5 All this, however, was not
fully developed until the last days of the ancient nation, when
all that concerned the sabbath was observed with the most
painful scrupulosity, and a thousand new laws were passed
about it.6 The same was the case with regard to the other
festivals. Of what superlative importance the sabbath was, moreover,
to the community during its earliest days, and how this per
petual sacred circle was regarded in the mind of the great
1 Hos. ii. 13. It is expressly declared the seventh day, may be seen in the
in Judith viii. 6, that even all pre-sah- exalted narrative, Josh. vi. 3 sqq. ;
baths and festivals of every kind are in- Hist. v. 307, 400, 416.
compatible with fasting. Down to the 2 2 Kings iv. 23.
latest times care was taken not to 3 TrpoirdftSaToi', Judith viii. 6.
appoint a sabbath as a day of fasting or 4 irapaaKeirh. of the Gospels.
lamentation ; and the dread of so doing 5 The word, appearing chiefly in the
was still lively enough even among the Aramaic form XRl-liy which signifies
Christians of the first century; comp. FHd alsQ a T tie'Syrian and Arab
whatwas still the right feeling in P«to. christians, but °Mch Jet occurs ne-
Joe. n. ; Bv. Stood, xvi. ; Can. Apost. i5, 46 whfJre inthe Qld Testamen{ wouidpr0perly
Confusion of these ideas is first found denQte the day made (turned) into the even-
only zmong heathens, see ^ Just. Sua. i^, i.e. the high (sacred) evening.
xxxvi. 2 ; comp. above, p. 84. And how . See ou ^ ^ fa ^ and tha
little inclination there was in earlier times . r "T^>
to the later scrupulous dread of war and intimately connected M. J^TJJ ; further
the use of weapons on the sabbath, how, light is thrown on it in Hist. v. [German
rather, a brilliant victory was expected on ed.].

PURIFICATIONS. 107
founder of the community as the pattern for every period of time,
may be further seen from many periods of time which appear in
other laws modelled on this pattern, as will be further explained
in the course of this work1. Here again is something genuinely
peculiar to the time of Moses and his immediate followers.
But the application on the largest scale of this sanctified
circle of time, and of the number seven, was with regard to the
determination of all the remaining festivals of the community
and their dates. We shall, however, be better able to speak on
this point towards the end of our whole description.
3. The Sacred Utterances expressed by Purifications and
Consecrations.
Purifications were sometimes legally ordered on account of
such transgressions or impurities as the supreme law in the
community of Jahveh did not tolerate. So far they hardly con
cern us here, and will be fully spoken of below.
They were, however, also undertaken by men as a fit prepara
tion for sacrifice and other imposing solemnities, as has been al
ready noticed.2 On such occasions they no doubt varied very 122
much so as to suit the importance of the solemnity which was
to follow ; in their main features, however, they were very strict,
true to the spirit of Jahveism. The lowest grade of purification
demanded a washing of the body and changing of the clothes,3
as well as the removal of any objects of heathen superstition
which might be about; 4 on occasions of very great solemnity
sexual abstinence for three days was further required.5 — For
the priests on duty purifications wholly special to themselves
were" necessary ; theymust,e.g. bathe with hands and feet, i.e. with
the whole body, in the fore-court of the Sanctuary when they
desired to enter the sanctuary or approach the altar.6
Related to these are the consecrations for sacred or danger
ous undertakings, e.g. for a general fast,7 a war,8 the meeting
of the national assembly,9 or for a new building, not only of an
1 Comp. what has been already said * Ex. xxx. 17-21 ; xl. 30-32.
under Circumcision, p. 96 sq. ; for other * Joel i. 14; ii. 15.
cases, see below. 8 Ps. ex. 3 ; Joel iv. 9 [iii. 9] ; Mic.
2 P. 42. iii. 5 ; Jer. xxii. 7, and elsewhere. An
3 According to Ex. xix. 10, 14 ; Gen. historical instance occurs 1 Sam. vii. 9 sq.;
xxxv. 2, and the purifications described a song, Ps. xx. Josephus, Antiq. xv. 0,
below. 4, speaks of sacrifices before a combat
4 Gen. xxxv. 2, 4; Ex. xxxiii. 5 sq. beingstilloffered under Herod. — Philo, Vit.
s Ex. xix. 15. At ordinary celebra- Mos. i. 57 ad, fin. speaks of a purification
tions, e.g. when the national assembly of warriors on their return from the com-
met, a single day's preparation sufficed, bat.
Josh. vii. 13. 9 Joel ii. 16; conrp. i. 14.

108 THE SACRAMENTS.
altar,1 and a temple,2 but also, e.g. of a town-gate.3 They are
all called ' sanctifications ' ; but we do not now know much
about the particular phrases and rites which were employed on
these occasions.
Sacrifice was connected with all the more important purifica-
123 tions and consecrations4; the songs and phrases being for the
most part freely composed and selected.5 Eor the consecration
of the sacred vessels, as well as for that of the high-priest, oil,
mixed up with various costly perfumes, was employed,6 a matter
which wiU be spoken of again. This oil was what grew in
Canaan, and of itself furnishes an image of happy luxuriant
growth, and therefore of a blessing. The various perfumes also
which were mixed with it in certain technical proportions grew
in that neighbourhood, or in Arabia and Syria, countries not too
far from Canaan.

THE SACRAMENTS OP JAHVEH.
Every religion, however, has finally some few usages in which
she seeks to comprehend her entire significance and spirit, as
well as her external validity and her sanctity. These are her
sacred rites, by us usually termed sacraments,7 and their existence
is quite inevitable. Eor while every religion, particularly if
it be an elevated one, starts from some few fundamental truths,
but finds her fulfilment and goal only in life and action, she has
also a craving finally to put forth again her whole contents in some
few usages, and to cling to these as eternaUy valid in the world
and for the world. Beligion, so powerful and at the same time
so simple, especiaUy in her strictest and purest forms, must
124 finally collect her truly inexhaustible power in certain equally
clear and expressive symbols of her life. These symbolic actions
1 Ex. xxix. 36 sq. ; Ezek. xliii. 18- ' The proper Hebrew word for them
27. is C'KHpp ; for, on a close inspection, it
2 C™P, ! KinSs Tiii-: Hist. Hi. is impossible to doubt that this word must
aS%' t ¦¦¦Sq1q' te B0 understood in the very ancient pas-
JNen.m. 1. sages, Lev. xxvi. 2 ; xix. 30. The sacra-
' ]" the heathen purificat.ons they mentg are here gym in a series as ^
were of the same terrible kind as the sac- . to be feared , af ^ & bbath_ &
nfices of covenants (p. 68), so that those this account the fura] ^ ig be
who were to be punned had to pass . - !'!•
between the halves of the sacrificial victim, *ead> as is actually found in Lev. xxi. 23.
Livy, xl. 6, 13. What Israel retained In tlle last passage, as likewise in Lev.
of similar more rigorous usages will be xx- 3 '< Num- xviii- 29. the word refers
explained below, under the Passover. to the sacrifice. The words KHJ-) or
5 As is shown by the examples, GJHPD. in Ezek. xxii. 8, 26 ; xxiii. 38, are
1 Kings viii. ; Ps. lxviii. to be understood and read in accordance.
« Ex. xxx. 22-33. with this.

THE SACRAMENTS. 109
have their origin in the life, and the whole power and activity
of this particular religion itself, and so when repeated in their
original vitality, propagate and renew this whole significance
and spirit of the religion. But as soon as they come into being
they serve perpetually to remind alike adherents and oppo
nents of the existence of this religion, with its many various
commandments and laws ; the believers however having these
things recaUed to mind very differently from the unbelievers.
This at least is their original essence.
These few usages of more than ordinary rank, are accordingly
very properly described in the Old Testament as symbols of the
covenant of Israel with Jahveh. A symbol in itself is dead, the
spirit which created or took possession of it first gives it all its
significance, as well as its powers of persistence. It is then
very possible that such a symbol may have existed earlier, before
it is seized upon by the higher religion, and receives from her
quite a new meaning, which shaU correspond to her nature.
This we have already shown to have been the case with regard
to circumcision1 and sacrifice, especially the bloody sacrifice.2
Nevertheless, a vigourous true religion will always create as
well out of its most intrinsic spirit a completely new symbol.
Such an one Jahveism possessed in the sabbath.3
Never, however, can such a symbol exhaust, in its mere pheno
menal manifestation, the significance of that which it tries to
reveal to the senses, least of all where it is employed to express
the deepest thoughts and the highest aspirations of true reli
gion. If the life and the power of every religion, and most of
all that of the true religion, includes an incalculable element,
something secret and miraculous, then for every common mind
which does not like to penetrate into their full vital mean
ing, these symbols of it become stiU more fuU of secrecy, so that
these sacraments become identical with secrets (mysteries).*
That such sacraments are to be deemed more sacred than
aught else that is visible, is a matter of course ; they are the
seat of the. public conscience and consciousness of religion. So
long as the religion is surrounded by many powers bitterly
hostile towards her, and is limited to a narrow circle, or even
single close nationality, the latter will seek to protect her, and
therefore her most intrinsic and sacred symbols, with the greatest
anxiety. As in the case of blaspheming the name of Jahveh, so
also designed and conscious violation of these symbols of the
1 P. 89 sqq. * As even this word D>tjnpD may
2 P. 40 sq. signify secrets, Ps. lxxiii. 17.
> P. 97 sqq.

110 THE SACRAMENTS. • •
covenant was to be punished according to the Book of Origins,
by death ; as though he who despised or disturbed these syni-
125 bols of their life, robbed himself of aU life in the sacred com
munity. The individual sacraments, moreover, so far as they were
vehicles of this lofty significance, assumed the form of a cohe
rent Whole. Circumcision was the sacrament and symbol of
reception into the community.1 It is thus a very strong
symbol, derived from a ruder primitive time ; it always re
mained visible on the person of him who had received it, and
would always serve as a most vivid memorial for himself
and a witness for others. Sacrifice, especiaUy the bloody
sacrifice with its inseparable deep dread of all blood, was de
rived from stiU earlier days ; it could not, in the form in which
it was taken and employed, be so readily connected with any
of the new truths of Jahveism, and it is accordingly termed a
sacrament, but not, as a rule, one of the symbols of the cove
nant. Only the Passover and its blood is depicted as a sacred
symbol,2 and therefore strictly insisted on every year for at
least every male member of the community.3 On the other
hand, such a symbol of the covenant appears from the very
foundation of the community in the Sabbath, and it presents
itself not only as something quite new, but also as the most
worthy symbol of this religion and community, being altogether
incorporeal, and one which, without the complete participation
and free act of the spirit, could not become manifest in the
community, but which does become a glorious revelation of the
existence and efficiency of religion, as soon as the nation cele
brated it with one accord and from their hearts.4 At the same
time it is a sacred symbol in which all members of the com
munity without exception may have an equal share. As then
circumcision, a single act incapable of repetition, marked and
sealed the entrance into the community, and stiU more into a
126 state of obligation towards Jahveh, so the proper celebration of
the sacrifice, which could be repeated after longer or shorter
intervals, and still more that of the sabbath, gives the sym
bol of this obligation, and at the same time when properly
celebrated, the continual fresh power for its maintenance.
And as this alone is the final aim of all true religion, her whole
intrinsic unity and might is brought to a focus in her having,
1 P. 95 sqq. 55, 94 nt, Apocal. vii. 1-8.
2 Ex. xii. 13, 21-28. The symbol 3 See below.
given by God to Cain to bear on his body * As has been all further explained on
(Gen. iv. 15), is, on the other hand, more p. 97 sqq.
of a heathen character ; comp. above pp.

THE SACRED EXTERNALS. Ill
taken strictly, only one such rite of the highest sanctity (sacra
ment), the true sacrifice. To this the former kind now only
stands in the relation of a suitable prerequisite and prepara
tion. How far these sacraments were really held sacred in the
life of the ancient nation has been already explained.

II. The Sacred Externals.
When a religion passes out of her purely spiritual province,
and enters a particular community or nation, there to abide
and bear her fruit, she needs more than the above-described
sacraments, which do bring out her deepest truths, but only so
far as they are capable of external representation and communi
cation. She needs, in addition, a number of outward means
and instruments, which are not meant to produce and repre
sent her truths themselves, but only to enable the latter to be
maintained, imparted, and advanced. There must be persons
whose lives may be spent in their promulgation — priests, and
these possibly of different grades. There must, further, be im
plements, places, and houses, which maybe used as the instru
ments of this promulgation ; and lastly, there must be definite
times, when they may be promulgated again and again as effi
caciously and vigorously as possible.
All these we call the sacred externals ; and that they are
indispensable as conditions of the existence and maintenance
of every religion which has attained historical importance, is
undeniable. But their special conformation and development
is most intimately connected with the whole individuality of
each special, i.e. historical religion ; and Jahveism shows also
here the duality which characterises its temporal origin.
On the one hand, Jahveism, in its inmost nature and im
pulse, as far as it was something new in the world, was so
simple, and at the same time so true and so deep, that in its
necessary assumption of human, moral, and temporal externals, 127
it was nevertheless obliged to strive to uphold, securely and
clearly, its own pure truths, which stood far above these things,
and were quite independent of them. It cannot take the view
that the truth and power of religion depends on priests, or even
on prophets, or sacred vessels and houses, or festivals and
seasons. This dependence it nowhere teaches, for all that is
Sacred it refers back ultimately to Jahveh, to his volition and
action, his election and rejection. How completely, on the
contrary, it exalted the eternal and unchangeable Sanctity

112 THE SACRED EXTERNALS.
alone, and only thence derived all else which was called sacred
by men, we see most clearly in the fair commencement of its
course, when its divorce from all earlier religions, and new
arrangement of all conditions after its own impulse, proved
most favourable to a noble simplicity in all sacred externals.
On the other hand, the founding of Jahveism fell in a time
when all living religion was still more than at present bound up
with persons and places, and when especiaUy the genuine religion
with its truths could only make its way with great toil. This
was reason enough why Jahveism had to become accustomed
to relying much on external supports, even if these were not to
become to it what they were to Heathenism. And when we
remember what terrible risks this commencement of true reli
gion ran at the time from the most opposite quarters, and with
what difficulty for a long time it maintained itself in the
struggle against the world, we cannot be surprised at the ex
cessive anxiety with which it sought to attach itself to certain
persons and races, to vessels, and places, and seasons. True
rehgion seemed always ready enough to vanish again out of
the world ; aU the more anxiously did the conception of it
gradually connect itself with certain externals, without which
it appeared unable to exist.
In this way, then, these two impulses interpenetrated one
another from either side till their co-operation resulted in the
128 remarkable historical conformation of sacred externals about
which the Book of Origins gives us our most perfect knowledge.
SACRED MEN,
be they priests or prophets, preachers or monks (the sanctity
of the last mentioned being that on which Buddhism was
specially reared), or any other human beings, could find no
place in Jahveism, for this had too profound a knowledge of
the relation of human weakness to Divine strength ; and accord
ingly represented sanctity for men only as a requirement of
God, but on this very account as something which applied
equally to all the members of the community. Of the worship
of rehcs, into which Buddhism feU so early, there is in Jah
veism not the most distant trace. Even the exalted figures of
the patriarchs of the nation, with all that was closely connected
with them, were allowed to be neither deified nor canonised by
the strict true religion which became law in Israel.1 Nor were
Moses or the other ancient heroes of the first founding of the
1 Hist. i. 295 sq.

SACRED TIMES. 113s
community, ever made the subjects of such an application of
the idea of sanctity.1 How much less could this religion
ascribe sanctity to a living man and member of the community
as something which cleaved to him and was to be reverenced
in him !
When, nevertheless, a certain sanctity is often ascribed to
the priests and to the high-priest in particular, this is to be
explained from the narrowness of those times, in which religion
did not seem able to maintain herself without the closest
alliance with particular classes and persons ; and, moreover, in
such cases the expression ' sacred ' must be understood in con
formity with the ruling principle of Jahveism.
We shall, however, be better prepared to speak on the point
further on in treating of the position of the priests.
SACRED TIMES. THE PERPETUAL LIGHT AND SACRIFICE. 129
Of all sacred externals none is more necessary and unavoid
able than the appointment of sacred times, when not only the
individual, but still more the whole community, shall have
leisure, as weU as a summons, to recognise the higher truths
which it is so easy to leave unheeded amid the bustle of ordi
nary life, and to strengthen themselves afresh by partaking of
their vitality. It is desirable that such seasons should recur1
regularly at intervals not too distant from one another, and for
this Jahveism made the best provision in the already described
institution of the Sabbath2 — that greatest and most enduring
of the creations of the arch-legislator. The more important
festivals, which ought to stand out prominently even in the series
of ordinary sabbaths, will, however, be treated of below at a more
suitable place.
But again, the mere observance of holy days like these
was not enough, inasmuch as religion must exist and operate
without break or intermission, and there should not be an
instant in which the individual may doubt whether he is in the
presence of God, or whether he sighs after his light in vain.
Especially were the cravings of Antiquity utterly unsatisfied by
this constant renewal of the public religion as the sacred days
recurred. For every nation then believed that its gods,. ancL
in particular its head- and guardian-god, might be easily lost
again, and wished therefore to put forth all its might to secure
his actual and continuous presence in their midst. Every
1 Hist. ii. 225 sqq. * P. 97 sq.

114 THE SACRED EXTERNALS;
nation, accordingly, which felt a craving for such sacra diurna,1
took measures in its sanctuary for giving assurance by means
of appropriate symbols of the eternal presence in its own midst
of a God ever ready to succour ; and other symbols of the
130 never-ceasing worship of this God were easily connected there
with. Now the craving for such symbols was felt also by the
people of Israel, and after the founding of Jahveism more strongly
than ever, inasmuch as its God could be represented by no image
made with hands, and the setting up of any such image in the
sanctuary was strictly forbidden. It was as though it desired to
make it perfectly clear to the Heathenism which surrounded it,
that its God too, though purely spiritual, was none the less
actually in its midst, and was honoured there with no less magni
ficence. Many things of this kind, then, passed over from the
earlier condition of affairs to Jahveism, in order to indicate the
abode where Jahveh dwelt, who, though invisible, was certainly
and eternally there. And yet it is almost more important to
notice how at that time the true religion only partiaUy submitted
to such temporal limitations, still clinging to the more eternal
view, at any rate in anticipation and contemplation, and letting
the light of pure truth stream through.2
All the particular symbols of this perpetual sacred service
recur in their essential features in heathen religions. It is, as
has been already said, as though Israel was ever desirous of
showing by a similar institution, that its totally distinct, in
visible God, was not less continually present, than aU the gods
of the nations in whose midst it lived. And when we turn to
the essential elements, it appears that we always meet with two
distinct symbols : a light (or fire) kept perpetually burning as
the symbol of the mysterious presence and activity of the Divi
nity in this abode, and some kind or other of perpetual sacrifice
131 as its never-failing human worship.3 In other respects a close
investigation shows that the separate parts of which this daily
1 The "VM in the Book of Origins, a new one put in its place, and the sacred
the <?xSe\€X!<rM<Ss> in Joseph. Bell. Jud. tent was not looked upon as necessary till
vi. 2. 1. How much importance was as- after the Sreat backsliding of the people.
cribed to it even in later times, is seen 3 Before a Chinese idol there stand at
from such expressions as Acts xxvi. 7, the present time two great candles and
which are frequently to be met with at dishes containing dainties of every sort;
that time. Something similar appears in among the Cossacks and similar races a
the Temple of the Tyrian Herakles, see light, never permitted to go out, burns by
Sil. Ital. Pun. iii. 29. the side of an image of the Virgin, see
2 This is proved.in a great variety of Wagner's Reise imKaukasus, i. s. 65 sqq. ;
ways; in the long passage, e.g. which Bodenstedt's 1001 Tage,s. 32.- But in the
concerns us most here, Ex. xxxii-xxxiv., Acropolis of Athens, too, Athene sat by the
we see tfcitthe original Decalogue ' written side of a sacred lamp never extinguished
by the finger of God' was shattered, and (Berl. akad. Monatsber. 1849, s. 2121

THE PERPETUAL LIGHT. 115
sacred worship was composed in the final arrangement of it were
of very different origins.
1. As we have already seen,1 the primitive table-offering
always maintained its position here, and consisted of twelve
loaves, carrying us back by means of this number to the primi
tive time when the number of the tribes determined everything.
This offering is termed in the Book of Origins the ' eternal
bread ' 2 and elsewhere the ' bread of the countenance ' 3 because
it was placed in front of the innermost sanctuary, in two rows,
on the similarly named sacred table. But in • true Mosaic
fashion these twelve loaves were unleavened and served up only
with incense and salt, and had to fall in with the Mosaic
arrangement of time in being renewed every sabbath-day, the
old ones becoming the property of the priests.
2. A perpetually burning light must assuredly have been an
invariable accompaniment of this table-offering; but its arrange
ments, as they are known to us, have a thoroughly Mosaic stamp.
Seven lights were to burn on the lamp of the sanctuary, mani
festly in accordance with the number which the sabbath had
made sacred. Every evening they were prepared, i.e. filled with
the finest oil, every morning they were examined and cleaned ;
by day it appears that not so many, three or still fewer out of
seven, were kept burning.4 The description of it in the Book
of Origins is at present somewhat imperfect, but it is not in 132
itself probable that there was no sacred lightatall burning during
the daytime. We should rather remember how calamitous it
was deemed when the ' eternal light ' was by any accident com
pletely extinguished ; and this is enough to make it likely that
by day more than a single flame was kept alight.
When in the evening the priest filled the seven lamps and
in the morning put all in order for the requirements of the day,
it was his duty at the same time always to offer incense at the
smaller altar in the inner sanctuary. In this way perfect ex
pression is found for the correspondence between light and
sacrifice.5 3. After the brilliant fire-offering described above6 had
'. P. 27 sq. seems as if the light burnt only at night ;
2 Lev. xxiv. 5-9 ; Num. iv. 7. but the passage, Ex. xxx. 7, speaks of a
3 1 Sam. xxi. 6 [5] sq., rendered by trimming of the lamps every morning,
Luther Schaubrode [A. V. shew-bread]. and Joseph. Antiq. iii. 8. 3, may he right
In a more artificial mauner the name 'the in informing us that by day three out of
bread set out in order,' 1 Chron. xxiii. 29, the seven were burning. Comp. Mai. i.
is formed out the words in Ex. xl. 23. 10, where no intermittent illumination
* According to the passages, Ex. xxvii. would suit.
20 sq. ; xxx. 7 sq. ; Lev. xxiv. 1-3 ; 5 Ex. xxx. 7 sq.
2 Chron. xiii. 11; and 1 Sam. iii. 3, it 6 P. 46 sq.
I 2

116 THE SACRED EXTERNALS.
established itself in Israel, a new and final, but more -costly,
form of the daily sacrifice was its logical consequence. Every
morning and every evening a male sheep was consumed as
a burnt-offering, together with the fruit- and drink-offering
which went along with it, and on every isabbath a second offering
of the same kind was added.1 The fire for it ©n the large altar
was made up every morning and evening till it was sufficient
to reduce the offering then consigned to it to ashes in the
• course of half a day ; it was therefore never too low for all
other offerings which were brought to the sanctuary to be
at once placed upon it.'2 A similar perpetual fire, which, how
ever, probably did not yet consume the same expensive
sacrifice, must have marked out the sacred central spot while
Moses was alive ; 3 and we have already shown the use of this
constant great sacred fire, according to the remembrance of
133 those who lived later, during the many and long wanderings
of the people under Moses.4 As soon as the great sanctuary
obtained a fixed abode in the Holy Land, this sacred fire, too,
must have assumed a different shape. It was no longer possible
or desirable that it should mark the high central spot of the
encamping nation, visible afar in a wild desert. But something
similar at any rate was once more instituted. Thus it was
transferred to the Temple of Solomon,5 and the prophets of the
eighth century can still declare that Jahveh has at Jerusalem a
hearth which was ceaselessly burning, and a sacred fire.6
The particular time in the morning or the evening when
this sacrifice never failed to rise aloft, was according to all
indications, the same as that when, as has been just said, the
incense was daily kindled on the more refined altar of the
inner sanctuary. The time was so universally known, and the
sacrifice with the prayers which undoubtedly accompanied it,
was deemed so sacred, that use was made of it in common life
to distinguish two of the hours of the day,7 and it gradually
became customary for the pious all over the country to pray
daily at the same hours.8
1 Num. xxviii. 1-10 ; comp. Ex. xxix. dying out of the sacred sacrificial fire.
39-42 ; Lev. vi. 1-6 [8-13] ; ix. 17. ' According to 1 Kings xviii. 29, 36 ;
- P. 51. 2 Kings iii. 20.
3 See Hist. ii. 218 sqq. 8 This daily prayer at certain hours
' Hist. ii. 218 sqq.; with which we of the day was not, it is true, fully deve-
may compare the gleaming jewel, bright loped and in general use among the
at night and dull by day, in the temple of people, before those later times when, as
the Syrian Hierapolis, Lucian, De Dea we have shown (p. 14) prayer generally
Syra, c. xxxii. became a real popular power. Allusions
5 Com]). Hist. iii. 246 sq. ure, however, already made to a similar,
6 Is. xxxi. 9. The Samaritan Chron- more informal, custom among pious indi-
icle, xli., also gives an account of the viduals in Ps. cxli. 2 ; v. 4 [3]. Mid-day is

SACRED APPLIANCES. 117
There was, however,, in the earliest times still another
sacrifice which the high-priest, as suited his peculiarly lofty
position and importance (of which we shaU speak later), offered
up every morning and evening as his own. This was very
simple — a corn-offering, which was reckoned as a full burnt-
offering,1 and was half the size of the one which was daily
offered on behalf of the kingdom along with the flesh-offering.
It is- plainly something extremely ancient, and very different in
kind from the other fire-offerings.2 It is, nevertheless, possible
that this more simple sacrifice' gradually ceased after the animal-
offering became prevalent.
THE SACRED APPLIANCES, PLACES, AND BUILDINGS.
An altar can be dispensed with by no religion which attaches
importance to sacrifice by fire, and the extraordinary impor
tance which was attached to it in the pre-Mosaic times has
already been explained. The altar is in the first instance
nothing but a hearth for fire ; but this very fact caused it to
become the centre of all divine worship, and the sacred spot
where earth and heaven have their meeting-place, where reli
gion seeks to impart her whole strength to man, to reveal to
him what is most full of mystery, and to exhaust before him
what is most inexhaustible. All religion, especially all true
religion, is a reciprocal relation between God and Man; all
real religion, is an intercourse between them. The altar, and
the man standing opposite to it, only declare that this reci
procal relation and intercourse, as certainly as it had once
existed, and as certainly as the altar stands there, shall con- i34
tinue to be renewed and to operate for ever. If it is the case
that all other symbols of religion which are displayed to men
serve to indicate this mutual intercourse, and their very exis
tence is an exhortation unto its accomplishment,3 still the altar,
added to morning and evening by the poet vi. 18, and p. 36 above) with n/j?, but
inPs.lv. 18, but he is only speaking freely. never in the Book of Origins. For the
1 Luther translates it here and else- rest, compare p. 48 sq.
where in similar cases by Speisopfer [A. V. 3 E.g. it may be, at a still more
' meat-offering '1. BlmPle stage °f religion a, sacred stone,
. . about which more is said below. Every
' We are, it is true, acquainted with ol)- t> ilowerar, s;mple and rude it may
this offering only from Lev. vi. 12-16 [19- b wnich is employed just for reminding
23] (where it is an utter mistake to think men of wha(. ig Dmne, may be termed a
of a single offering of dedication made fetisht if people like the name : it is better,
once for all by the high-priest), but the however, jn Antiquity to avoid the modern
words T>pn nrnD in ver. 13 [20], word_ jt \B< however, true that it was
comp. Num! xxviii. 3, allow no other almost as natural then to hallow certain
meaning ; and possibly the same sacrifice trees or staffs. Sanchuniathon. p. 8, ed.
is intended in Num. iv. 16, as the name Orelli ; Ecang. Luth. Missionsblatt, 1849,
PirUD isconvertible in other authors(Judg. s. 36 sqq. How arbitrarily a Qibla could

118 THE SACRED EXTERNALS.
as the hearth of the fire which mounts to heaven, has the
advantage of representing the perpetual realisation of this
intercourse, while at the same time, in the absence of other
symbols which have been given historically, and are there
fore more definite, it is the one nearest to hand and the
most indispensable. The numerous ways in which it received
further special honours from sacrifices, and how it came to be
regarded as the unique and lofty centre of the whole sacred
rite, have already been described.1
1. An altar, therefore, was all that was originally wanted,
and we know that it was enough even for the people of Israel
in the very earliest pre-Mosaic times ; wherever a patriarch
settles down for a while, there he builds an altar.2 On the
other hand, it was a most ancient custom in Canaan to erect a
monument of stone, either quite simple or more elaborate, as
the memorial of a place which man gratefully remembered as
the spot where he had drawn near to the Divine presence ; 3 and
such a one would also be naturally erected where a single indi
vidual, or a family, or a tribe, or nation felt themselves sur
prised by an exhibition of the Divine nearness and favour for
which they had not looked, and which took place before an
135 altar had been built there.4 Sacred monuments of stone of just
this character formed from early times one of the main peculiari
ties of Canaan and of the other regions lying round about the
country where the Hebrews and the races allied to them dwelt,
and the preference for the purpose of stones remarkable for
their strange origin, colour, or form, can only be ascribed to
the same cause.5 Indeed, we can almost follow the whole his
tory of the Palestinian-Syrian religions in the wide difference
in the views regarding, and in the application of, such sacred
stones. In the primeval days — more than two thousand years
before the birth of Christ — when the Patriarchs lived, many of
the Canaanites may have used a sacred stone as a mere monu
mental symbol of a god, and consecrated and anointed it, as is
related of Jacob.6 At that time there must in particular have
been one sacred stone of the kind in the middle of the country
at Bethel, which was deemed of great sanctity, so that the
be issued only to get a fixed point for direc- this custom is presupposed, Lev. xxvi. 1,
tion of prayer is seen from Sur. x. 87. and other passages cited below.
1 Pp. 44-46. 4 Of which Gen, xxviii. 10-22, gives
2 This is the account of the oldest the ever valid type.
sources about Jacob, Gen. xxxv. 1, 3, 7, 5 Like the black stone of the Ka'ba at
also of the Fourth Narrator, in regard to Mecca.
all the ancients, Gen. viii. 20 ; xii. 7 ; xiii. " Gen. xxviii. 18 sq.; xxxv. 14 sq.:
4, 18; xxii. 9 : comp. xxvi. 25. comp. Tacitus, Hist. ii. 2 sq. ; Dion Cas-
3 According to Gen. xxxi. 35, where sius, Hist. xvi. 33.

SACRED STONES. 119
Hebrews and the Canaanites struggled for centuries for its
possession (as the Arabs did for the Ka'ba).1 It is always the
name of the one patriarch, Jacob (Israel) , about which the
strongest recollections cling from primitive times of his having
attached so great an importance to a stone, and, before all, to
this stone at Bethel ; and down from those earliest days when
the people was still a race of wandering shepherds, there was
retained the designation of its God as the shepherd of the stone
of Israel.2 But even down to the time of David, the numerous
local names compounded with the word -stone, prove, when
taken along with these ancient legends, what a sanctity these
stones possessed in the popular estimation.3 While, however,
' Jacob's stone ' at Bethel was deemed so sacred in the eyes of
that people, and the ancient feeling was so hard to eradicate,
the Phoenicians even gave the name of Batylos* to an ancient
god who had certainly at one time been highly reverenced by
them at the place of this very stone, and sacred magic stones
generally they termed bdtylien ; and while in Israel even this
stone continually lost more and more of its sanctity, as the true
religion was more and more developed from the days of Moses,
stones received among the Phoenicians and other heathens an
increasing superstitious reverence, their character varied more
and more (pillars and portable stones being the most common),
and the smaller round portable ones were deemed to be living
things with which men versed in magic liked to practise their
art.5 When man came to possess an image of the Deity, some 136
kind or other of shelter or case was allotted to it, or even a
house, this being at first certainly a very small one.6 But it is
plain that in the earliest times, each separate household began
1 Hist. i. 302 sq., 343 sqq.; ii. lioth. i. p. 342, 348, ed. Bekker, as well as
277 sqq. the remarks of Theophylact, according to
2 Hist. i. 409 sqq. Cyril, on Acts vii. 43. Similar, if not so
3 Comp. the narrative given in Hist, highly developed, superstitions existed
ii. 427. The Eben-ha'ezer, 1 Sam. vii. 12, among the Greeks (see iEsch. Eum. ver.
something like our Helfenstein [helping- 41 ; 0. Miiller's Orchomenos, s. 179, 211 ;
stone] is already mentioned, iv. 1, v. 1, Gerhard, in the Berlin, akad. Abhandl.
only for the sake of more clearly describing 1848, s. 277 sq.), and the Hindoos (see
the mere locality, for it was undoubtedly 0. Frank, in the Munch, akad. Abhandl.
not another place. 1834, s. 613 sq., 837). See also Theoph.
4 Comp. theDeus Carmelus of Karmel. ^ Autolykum, i. 15 ; Irby and Mangles,
Tac. Hist. ii. 78. Travels in Arabia Petr. p. 461. JJ.\\
5 Sanchuniathon, p. 26, 30, 18, ed. ' — '—"'
Orel., with the essay on the Phoenician Sur.yA; Ausland, 1849,s. 510sq., 514.Eh-
views of the creation of the world, pp. 24, renbergin the Berl. akad. Monatsberichten,
62. Comp. further the reminiscences in 1849, s. 345 sqq. ; DMGZ. 1853, ss. 498,
Livy, xxix. 11 ; Pliny, Nat. Hist, xxxvii. 500, and 1864, ss. 452, 456 sq.— For the
51 ; Pausanias, Perieg., ix. 27, 48 ; x. rest comp. more below, and the Jahrb. d.
24 ; Porphyr. Vita Pyth. c. xvii., and Bibl. Wiss. v. s. 287 sq.
especially Damaskius in Photius's Bib- ' This is seen from Jud. xvii. 5.

120 THE SACRED EXTERNALS.
by coveting an image of this kind for itself alone, in order that
it might be able to enjoy quite privately the perpetual aspect
and immediate proximity of its divine protector. • It was
placed by the hearth as the innermost sanctuary of the house,
and kept locked up in a case only in troubled times.1 It was
already a higher stage when a whole nation desired to assemble
round an image of its god in the same way as the family had
done. Not till this was the case would the images as well as
the corresponding receptacles or houses probably be much larger
and more handsome.
The highest summits of the earth have always been deemed
places essentiaUy sacred ; but in these countries a certain
sanctity was also attached, from a most remote period, to
some kinds of long-lived wide-spreading trees, so that men,
especially when they wished for some sort of sacred worship in
valleys and plains, liked to celebrate their rites, erect their
altars, and keep their other sacred possessions, under the shade
of one of these trees.2 Such was the condition of local sanc
tuaries in the earliest times, according to aU the traces which
we can still discover.
Jahveism, which, at any rate in its stricter conceptions
rejected all idols from the very first, could at no time tolerate *
a ' house of God ' of the kind that had hitherto been customary;
and the truth that every house of God, however great and
however magnificent human hands may make it, will yet always
possess features which have little correspondence with the full
majesty of Jahveh, is one to which it bore clear witness, espe
cially on all decisive occasions, although here too in the course
of centuries, art tried what it could do in the matter.3 — Nor
could sacred trees or groves agree with the spirit of Jahveism,
so that all the remnants of the old Canaanitish superstition
1 This also may be seen equally clear the belief is still described in Ibn-Arab-
from Jud. xvii. 5 sqq., and other traces of shah's Fak. in the omen furnished by the
the early religion which will be explained viridity or non-viridity of a grand old
below. . palm-tree.
2 As is even still clear from the remin- 3 2 Sam. vii. 6 sqq. ; bk. Is. lxvi. 1 sqq.
iscences of the patriarchs, Hist. i. 302 sq. No doubt this same simplicity in this
Thesame belief is familiar injust those nor- matter might be found also among certain
thern districts whence the patriarchs came, nations, partly inherited from primeval
see Mose von Chorene, i. 15, 19 ; Tscham- times, partly due to the reaction described
tschean, Armen. Alterth. i. 13 ; Assemani's on p. 71. So Origen, Contr. Cels. vii. 8.
Bibl. Or. iii. l,p. 492 sq. Forthe rest comp. 1, maintains that neither the Scythians,
DMGZ. 1853, ss. 481, 483 ; Spence- the Lybian Nomads, the Seres, nur the
Hardy's Eastern Monachism, p. 25, 212 Persians, had either temples, pillars, or
sqq., 325 sq., and Lajard's Becherches sur images. Still more to the purpose is the
la Culte du Cypres pyramidal, p. 65 sqq. instance of the simple altar of the Phoe-
For palms, as oracle-trees, see Orpheus, nicians on Mount Carmel, Tac. Hist. ii.
Fragm. 40, p. 496, Herm. See how vividly 78.

SACRED PLACES. 121
which still lingered on in subsequent times, or which crept 137
back again among the people, were continually more and more
decidedly regarded as heathenish.1 The high places ofthe earth,
on the other hand, had something of a sacred character even for
the earliest Jahveism. Just because this religion was utterly
unable any longer to find and to hold fast its God in any single
earthly object which was visible and could be handled, it was
all the more eager and anxious to find the tokens of his ex
istence and activity, at any rate, in heaven and in all heavenly
phenomena, and therefore in the clouds which touch the highest
and holiest spots of earth. This was a primitive belief, which
maintained itself in Israel down to later days, and was not
severely shaken until the highest and most illustrious sanctuary
of the nation was permanently established on the but slightly-
elevated Mount Zion, before which the incomparably higher
peaks of the earth now seemed to bow their heads for ever.2
But even when the old belief was beginning gradually to waver,
a piece of rocky ground, at any rate, was selected by prefer
ence as the best locality for an altar.3
While to early Jahveism the places of the earth which were
high and difficult of access were long regarded as spots which
had ever been sacred, nevertheless in its legislation it always
held fast to a lofty truth, which was far more special to itself,
viz. that wherever the true God reveals himself to men, even if
it be in the vaUey or the desert, the ground is sacred to him ; 4
and in the earliest tones of the law the happy promise is heard,
' Everywhere where I let my name be praised, will I come to
thee,'5 an utterance closely resembling that of the Gospels,
' Where two or three are gathered together in my name,' &c.
Many an ancient reminiscence of the former roving life of the
people, and the revival of it under Moses, might here unite
with some of the less restricted sympathies of the new religion
which was working its way up under his influence, so as to
clothe such a view with even a legal sanctity. An altar of this
kind, according to the same earliest law, ought to be built in
the simplest manner possible of nothing but turf. If, however,
it were desired to build one of stone, the stones must not be
1 See below under the review of How Isaiah deals with this rock or stone
heathenism. from his own point of view may be seen
s Ps. lxviii. 16 sq. [15 sq.] from Is. viii. 14 sq. ; xxviii. 16 ; xxxi. 9.
3 According to Jud. vi. 20; xiii. 19. * The Fourth Narrator represents this
But just lately there has been discovered, most magnificently, Gen. xxviii. 10-22:
on the same place where formerly Solo- comp. xvi. 13; xxi. 14-19.
raon's Temple stood, the rock which was 5 Book of Covenants, Ex. xx. 24,
covered over by the SsachrS, Moschee, comp. xxiv. 4.
iws^V wnosie name is derived thence.

122 THE SACRED EXTERNALS.
artificially hewn, so as to have been much touched by human
hands and tools ' — a prohibition which is similar to the com
mand to < ffer no sacrificial animals which had in any way been
138 desecrated, but which is a remarkable expression of the spirit
of this earliest Jahveism. Stone monuments of, the heathen
sort were, it is true, forbidden distinctly enough,2 but the old
custom lingered on of erecting twelve monumental stones — one
for each of the tribes — at a celebrated place where the whole
people desired to offer thanksgiving and sacrifice to their God.3
The same purpose was served by a single stone of larger size
under a tree,4 irrespective of any special sanctity in the latter.
And it was but a slight modification of the primitive custom to
use twelve stones to build an altar large enough for the solemnity
of the occasion when it was to serve for the whole of Israel.5
2. But this extreme simplicity which prevaUed under Moses,
and for some time after him, did not remain very long, and
there are several causes to account for the fact. In the first
place, many an object within the sphere of a new religion will
quite imperceptibly become invested with an extraordinary
sanctity, though it arose at first very simply out of the needs
of the time, and claimed originally, on its own behalf, no
special holiness.
This is the case with the Ark of the Covenant, whose original
position was the following. A chest is used for keeping docu
ments, jewels, and sacred articles, therefore for signs or images
of a god, when these, as was customary in the earliest days, were
of small size ; 6 the Ark of the Covenant had essentially no other
purpose. But for Israel the most precious and sacred things of
inestimable value, to be kept in such a chest, were — so far as
they were preserved in writing — just the great truths and divine
commands on which its whole earthly existence rested, as well
as its faith and its hopes. And we know that in that chest
the two stone slabs of the earliest law, and consequently of the
earliest contract between Jahveh and the people, were pre
served ; and with equal right the documents of other laws and
contracts of supreme importance might have been deposited
there. Nothing is more characteristic of the earliest Jahveism,
nor yet of greater historical truth and certainty, than that in
1 Also Ex. xx. 24 sq. 6 This has been rediscovered even
2 Lev. xxvi. 1, according to Hist. ii. among the ancient Mexicans, comp. J. G.
165, from a very early fragment. Ex. Miiller's Amerik. Urreligionen, s. 594.
xxiii. 24. Something similar has lately been dis-
3 Ex. xxiv. 4 ; bk. Josh. iv. 2 sqq. covered in the Phosnician Amrit ; comp.
* bk. Josh. xxiv. 26. Renan's Mission de Phenicie, p. 67-
5 1 Kings xviii. 30-32.

THE ARK OF THE COVENANT. 123
place of the idols in which common heathenism took delight
and of certain artificial symbols which served the same purpose
for a heathenism which was aiming at something higher, it
was only the documents of theste purest truths and of these 139
contracts, concluded as it were for all eternity, which acquired
the most precious value and the highest sanctity.
It was in accordance with this fact that all the special
arrangements connected with this chest were made. It was
certainly constructed in the desert, a fact shown by every in
dication, and as we should suppose from the description of its
component parts in the Bock of Origins.1 The very durable
wood of the acacia-tree, which grows in certain places in the
desert, was taken for the purpose. Its length was two and a half
ells, its breadth and height one and a half. Inside and out it
was covered with thin plates of gold, and further adorned with a
sort of ripple of gold running round it, — a form of construction
which, as regards materials and decoration, exactly reappears
in the sacred table and great altar, to be described further on.
But as this chest was to have contents so precious, two
Cherubim were fixed over it, to symbolise the fact that Jahveh
had, as it were, descended upon it, and eternally protected
what was contained in the chest. For the Cherub signified in
the first instance the descent of the Deity, and consequently the
spot whither it had descended and would again descend perpetu
ally, and there manifest itself.2 In this symbolical application
the Cherub was also much utihsed elsewhere, — in the sacred tent
and in the temple, as will be shown below. But its primary
and most significant position was over the Ark of the Covenant,
where, for artistic reasons, two were placed lying face to face ; 3
and in this application they indicate, in the first instance, how
strict is Jahveh's watch and guard over the sacred words con
tained therein. The two Cherubim were fixed to a plate of pure no
gold, which was suspended as a footstool over the ark, and was
like a second cover of corresponding length and breadth, but
separable from it. Its proper name was ' the footstool,' 4 and
1 Ex. xxv. 10-22 ; xxxvii. 1 -9 ; xl. companying it. Comp. also the K. S. G.
20 sq. Berichte, 1854, ss. 54-62. There is a re-
2 I have said sufficient on this point markable representation of a Garuda (i.e.
in the Propheten des A. B. vol. ii. s. 220. a cherub), as the altar for the ancient
3 So far, no doubt, the Sphynxes lying I^ian horse-sacrifice, Rd.m6.yana, i. 13, 30
facing one another over a sacred shrine or (?« Gorr.) But the greatest resemblance
sepulchre, etc., are very similar, see De- °* a11. 1S found ln s0™ ,lately ^covered
scription de VEgypte antiq. pi. i. 11, 12 ; Assyrian pictures, which are given m
Wilkinson's Manners and Customs, second Layard s. Monuments of Nineveh. _
series, ii. p. 276, and Lepsius's Denkmaler, 4 IVft3 can by no means sIgn.fy sim-
iii. bl. 14 ; Fellows's Second Excursion in ply the cover, as though the chest had no
Lycia, p. 185, along with the picture ac- other; for it would have one of its own,

124 THE SACRED EXTERNALS.
it indicated the spot where Jahveh hady as it were, his -footstool
and abode. The two Cherubim, constructed of similar gold,
lay over it, with their faces turned one to the other, and
spread wide their mighty wings, as though protecting the ark.
How deep was the space which separated this second covering
from the first we do not precisely know, but we may very well
suppose that there must have been room enough underneath
the ' footstool ' for the lid of the ark to have been opened and
shut. No other sacred article was similarly distinguished ; for
none included in itself such an infinite depth of meaning, or
called to mind anything so superlatively glorious and sacred as
did this ark with the equipment we have described.
Now if this ark had of itself, from the very beginning, a
significance so lofty that it could not but be deemed the most
141 sacred of all the sacred externals, then in the days after Moses
the reverence felt towards it must ever have been on the increase.
It held the documents of the law in its greatest purity and of the
covenant in its fullest divinity, as they were guarded by Jahveh
himself. Thus it became the representative of the presence of
Jahveh himself among the community,1 the symbol and pledge of
all the revelations and promises of this God, and accordingly a
place was allotted to it in the Holy of Holies of the sacred tent
or house. This would make it seem more sacred than the altar
itself, and on occasion of the most solemn sacrifices, e.g1. at the
annual Festival of Atonement the blood was sprinkled on the
footstool which hung over it,2 as the most sacred of all visible
whilst the Capporet is described from the which was to be- seen under the feet of
first, Ex. xxv. 17-21 ; xxvi. 34, as some- Jahveh when he had descended on to
thing of different dimensions, and else- Mount Sinai, Ex. xxiv. 10. — Moreover,
where in other respects as separable, and it is the Ark of the Covenant which first
as an object of special importance in gives the name to Jahveh of 'him who is
itself more important even than the ark. enthroned upon the cherubim.'
The word is manifestly very ancient, and ' Just as the expression ' before Jah-
only to be found now in this meaning, but veh ' is convertible with ' before the reve-
it clearly denotes a stool, being formed lation,' i.e. the ark in the Holy of Holies,
from "|33, i.e. to rub off, scrape off (to Ex. xvi. 33 sq.
obliterate, and therefore to forgive guilt), 2 The LXX already think that the
just as scamnum or scabellum from scabere, name rn'BS owes its origin to this circum-
and just as ^ 2 Chron. ix. 18, a, word stancei a ' ' "though it denoted at0nement,
of similar derivation and meaning, takes its lid of atonement. This conjecture was
name from treading. There is also a not far wrong, for, as has been said above,
correspondence even in the Ethiopic word "133 can also signify the effacing of
fjavi C> p* , • r, ¦ i • , » guilt. But in this case, the ornament
"^nr X. , which is plainly a passive for- °„„nj * .a. V • • i.
.¦J iv ¦ • • -n could, Irom the very beginning, have
mation from a word of similar sigmfi- .  -, e ,, J * ' ?' c
mi i ¦ r j t, ._-¦ served lor no other purpose than lor
cation. The word is formed like PlDia „„¦ . • .... Fu.lFua° *
' 't I"i> expiation, which is quite impossible.
according to Lehrbuch, § 166 a. In the The LXX also begin by translating the
legendary history, according to the Book word very freely by iKcKTT-fipiov M6epa,
of Covenants, the corresponding feature is and it was only gradually l\a<rrl)pu>v alone
' the work of art of gleaming sapphire,' came to take its place, although the latter

THE ARK OF THE COVENANT. 125
places, and the step nearest to heaven. For it will be easily
understood that this footstool assumed far greater prominence
than did the mere ark, from which it might be distin
guished as absolutely the most sacred of all places. It
seems as though the people had had still so imperative a
craving to represent materially and locally the presence of the
Divine Being in its midst, that this ark became gradually
more and more of a centre, both for the whole nation and
for the priesthood and the invisible sanctuary, and this in
peaceful sojourn as well as in roaming and in war.
But soon the consecrated receptacle passed into a new stage
of its existence. As it contained the highest ancient revela- 142
tions, so, too, it was but natural that new ones should proceed
from its mysterious interior, — that, at any rate, the high-priest
should receive the oracle which he sought for most easily and
correctly in its immediate neighbourhood. This is the aspect
in which the Book of Origins especially treats of the sacred
ark. What Moses had placed inside, it calls absolutely the
'revelation,' or more properly the sacred convention (parley),
to which a peculiar name is given here ; l the ark it inva
riably terms ' the ark of revelation,' 2 and even the place in
the Holy of Holies where this stood it also calls simply the 143
is already so used in Philo's Vita Mos. and understand one another ; whilst "Ijto
iii. 8. Saadia, on the other hand, held rather jndieates the place of it, and is
fast to the idea of iniB^a, and translated therefore so often coupled with the word
it, covering, lid. The same conclusion has tent% q^e meaning, ' tent of the assembly,'
been reached by J. D. Michaelis and the in favour 0f which the words Num. x. 3
moderns generally, without their thinking ^ may be c;tec[i destroys the manifest
that 133 cannot possibly allow this connection of "[Jno with J\-$ and is
meaning, and that n"l33 must merely . " . . „ . ..'••"'.. ~,
from its formation be an architectural ex- contrary to the spirit of Antiquity. The
pression similar to rDhS T I™ 1 V Tt^T^T^
r ' 'v it' lble here, according to Lehrbuch, § 117 sq.;
1 Ex. xxv. 16, 21 ; xl. 20. The but the LXX bave derived the words in-
expression fl-lli? will only become clear correctly from IJ^ witness, and translate
when we remember that, 1) in the Book of by fiaprvpiov, which could, however,^ give
Origins, "m'10 is not only convertible a meaning in so far as every convention is
... .', , „.' ' an attestation. In perfect correspondence
with rny in the sense of congregation, ^ asregarJg origfnand signification are
Num. i. 16; xvi. 2; xxvi. 9, but in the
connection 'D bjl'S, sometimes also with the Arabic ^., and, with the ancient
HIV Num. xviii. 2-6 ; xvii. 22 T7] sq. ; termination in -an (which is essentially
ix.15; comp. niyn JSE'P which always the same as the -ut), the Ethiopic
stands thus; 2) when either theark or the Yipa-, where k interchanges with y.
sacred tent is spoken of, these nouns are , '. . *¦,,„• „i„„ *
sometimes explained by a corresponding The a bed meaning of witness is also to
verb, Ex. xxiv. 22; xxix. 42 sq. ; xxx. 6, be met ™th> bllt ,hls ls more frequently
36 ; Num. xvii. 19 [4]. We cannot doubt expressed by S^Jj, JO"l£D.
that niJJ signifies the revelation (or a 2 Alg0 < tne ar^ for the revelation,'
legal code thence derived) so far as God Ex. xxxi. 7.
and man meet together in it, and speak to

]26 THE SACRED EXTERNALS.
' revelation.'1 It thinks that on to that stool with the Cherubim
the glory of Jahveh himself descended, as it were, in a cloud,2
and, according to it, Jahveh even promised to speak to Moses
on that very spot, and reveal himself for Israel.3 With this per
sistent view of the Book of Origins is connected, as we cannot fail
to recognise, that excessively high reverence felt for the ark
in the centuries between Moses and Solomon, about which the
historical books tell us. And in war-time this greatest sacred
possession of the people was, in the first instance, carried about
with them not merely in order that they might be protected
by it, as by a miraculous image which could be handled and
kissed (for so deep into heathenism Israel could never really
sink), but in order that, with the aid of the high-priest, it
might be everywhere used as the seat of the oracle,4 and, of
course, also in order that they might rejoice over it as over the
presence of Jahveh himself during the greatest crises of their
lives. Accordingly its capture by the Philistines gave the first
powerful blow to this oldest religion.5
By the ' revelation ' to be placed by Moses in the ark, the
Book of Origins undoubtedly intended the two stone tables of
the law ; 6 and we can still understand enough to see plainly that
they were deemed by it to have been given to Moses by God
himself, but the passage where this book speaks explicitly on
144 the point is now lost. The old Book of Covenants simply
makes Moses write down the Ten Commandments, and they
belong to it as part of the Covenant Book.7 But from the time
of Moses to the building of Solomon's temple there is not
likely to have been any one who dared to open the ark. Im
portant legal documents, which came into existence after Moses,
were not deposited in, but by it.8 When it was opened and
newly decorated on the occasion of the building of Solomon's
temple,9 the writing on the slabs may already have become
antiquated, and so the more easily have been supposed to have
been written by the finger of God.10 Tt was certainly less and
1 Ex. xvi. 34 ; xxvii. 21 ; xxx. 6, 36 ; 5 See Hist. ii. 412 sq.
Lev. xvi. 13 ; xxiv. 3 ; Num. xvii. 19, 25. e This follows from Ex. xl. 20 : comp.
[4, 10]. xxv. 16, 21. although there is no mention
2 Lev. xvi. 2. here of slabs. After Ex. xxxi. 17, the
3 Ex. xxv. 22, and the similar passages Book of Origins must have further repre-
quoted on the preceding page. sented how Jahveh gave this agreementto
4 We might, therefore, consider the Moses in writing, but what now stands in
reading of the Masoretic text in 1 Sum. xiv. ver. 18 is but a poor remnant of it.
18 fcomp. Hist. iii. 34"), to be correct — as ' Ex. xxiv. 4, 7.
against the LXX i<povd in particular, no 8 1 Sam. x. 25 (so to be understood)
one would say the ' Ephod of God ' — if Deut. xxxi. 26.
only the passage wore quite trustworthy 9 See Hist. iii. 242.
in other respects. 10 This is fir»t said in the passage,

THE ARK OF THE COVENANT. 127
less used, as time went on, for the purpose of seeking oracles,
just as was the case with the grand attire of the high-priest,
which is spoken about further on. It, therefore, completely
lost the name which it bears in the Book of Origins,1 and all
later writers call it the ' Ark of the Covenant of God,' or, more
briefly, the ark of the covenant, or the ark of God.
These facts further show us how peculiar to the people of
Israel was this greatest of their sacred possessions, and what
slight grounds there are for regarding it as a mere imitation of
the sacred things of other nations. For it can be easily under
stood that heathen religions, too, might possess a sacred chest
which contained their most sacred objects, which were to be
exhibited to the people only on certain festivals, and which the
priests might carry round in solemn procession.2 As far as
this goes, Moses introduced nothing new ; but just as the con
tents of the ark were quite exceptional, so, too, was its position
as the centre of all that is holy.
The existence of the ark of the covenant and its sanctity —
which went on increasing for centuries — was the first and most
powerful cause which put an end to the primitive extreme 145
simplicity ofthe sacred appliances. A second cause may be found
in the necessity which was soon recognised for founding, in the
midst of the whole great community, a single sanctuary of
corresponding greatness and worthy of its position. When, after
the first founding ofthe community all its arrangements acquired
some stability, it became necessary that it should have, some
where or other, a more permanent sacred place, or else, in some
way or other, a more permanent symbol of such, round which
the community could always assemble in a manner worthy of its
entirety. If it did not suffer this place to remain a mere
simple altar, but adorned it with its finest decorations, it
thereby only paid honour to itself, and did what was demanded
not, it is true, by the stricter side of its religion, but by
human feelings and human thankfulness. Every ancient nation
honoured its gods with costly sanctuaries, and gladly erected
for them the most superb house at the place which it made
its own centre of rejoicing. Israel neither could nor would be
left behind in this display of zeal.3 Its task was only this, to
Ex. xxxi. 18, then with a notable increase Greeks (Gerhard, in the Berl. akad. Abh.
of strength by the Fourth Narrator of the 1847, s. 492). For similar circum-
primitive history, Ex. xxxii. 1.5 sq. ; stances among the Phoenicians see the
xxxiv. 1, and on this Deut. j.. 4. is based. Abh. iiber die Phbnik. Ansichten von der
1 There is just one exception to this Wcltschbpfung (Gott. 1851), s. 19.
in bk. Josh. iv. 1 6, owing to imitation of 3 Comp. the way in which the Book of
the name in the Book of Origins. Origins represents this, Ex. xxv. 1 sqq. ;
2 It is to be found even among the xxxv. 20 sq.

128 T±i.sjj aa\jimu j^jVxrjJi^Aija.
make the great sanctuary which it erected in its midst corre
spond as closely as possible to Jahveism.
A third cause, moreover, lay finally in the institution at
this sacred central point of never-ceasing sacrificial rites.
This, we have already seen, existed even in Israel, which
had, moreover, to unite the two essentially different kinds of
the table- and of the fire-offering, so that to the sacred hearth
there was necessarily added at the same time a sacred table.1
This perpetual sacrificial service (to be further discussed below)
is most intimately associated with a hereditary priesthood,
which, as will be further described hereafter, developed itself
, sufficiently early in the community, and separated itself from
the latter tolerably sharply. As then this ceaseless sacrifice at
the sacred place demanded special arrangements, so, too, the
separation from the rest of the community of hereditary priests
who were specially charged with this duty, led the way to a
similar separation also in the Sanctuary and its appliances.
The cooperation of all these causes led before long to the
establishment of a special sacred house or tent, more briefly
146 termed the Sanctuary,"1 with numerous appliances and fixed
institutions, as will be described below in its place. And even
these appliances, belonging to this great sanctuary in the centre
of the people along with the building itself, gradually acquired
a certain sanctity, even if none of them could rival that of the
ark of the covenant. More will be said on the matter below
under the Priesthood.
3. Along with this great central Sanctuary, there existed,
in the earlier days of the community, a multitude of smaller
ones, for the most part consisting of nothing but an altar with
a stone monument. We can have as little doubt of the original
plurality of sanctuaries as of the fact that, during the period of
the healthier and stronger national life, a stricter unity of the
national religious life was sought through the establishment,
in the midst of this plurality, of a single great sanctuary.
Just because, in the oldest times, there were a multitude of
sacred places, the individual altars were distinguished by
special names. These, however, were not, as in Christendom,
borrowed from early saints (St. John, &c), but were derived
1 See pp. 113 sqq., 27. In this way where. This, as the name of a place, is
we still find in heathen temples many easily distinguished from the sacnments
rpairefai of the kind dedicated to a god (p. 108) designated by the same word. It
merely in accordance with a vow. Revue is expressed in passages specially con-
Archeol. 1866, i. p. 105 sq., 224. cerned with it more briefly, tfHp Ex.
2^i?l?n in the Book of Origins, XXTi. 33 ; xxviii. 43 ; xxix. 30 ; xxxv. 19 ;
Ex. xxv. 8 ; bk. Jcsh. xxiv. 26, and else- xxxix. 1.

JLOCAL ALTARS. 129
more immediately from great historical events which the people
had themselves experienced. Thus it is related how, after the
victory over Amalek, Moses erected an altar and called it
'Jahveh my banner." This monument ofthe old warlike days
of the community certainly existed not far from Sinai down into
later times, and the Israelites may have long laid claim to it,
if (as is related of Elijah) they made pUgrimages to Sinai.
When, after the conquest of Canaan, every tribe possessed its
own province, and in each of these provinces certain Levitical
cities were to be found, each of these forty-eight towns would 147
contain its own altar.2 What relation existed between these
smaller sanctuaries and the great one we do not exactly know ;
probably the perpetual sacrificial service3 was maintained in
its majestic splendour only at the centre of the community.
¦ — But at any other place, down to the reign of Solomon,
it was a natural thing to erect an altar,4 at any place, e.g.
where a man had received a special favour from heaven, and
desired to return solemn thanks for it by means of sacrifice ; *
sufficient reason for one was even to be found in the old strict
law to slay no domestic animal without solemnly sprinkling its
blood on an altar,6 and the extremely simple construction of all
that was needful,7 rendered it possible to erect one with very
little delay.
But in this plurality of altars there was always a danger,
attaching, in particular, to such as were remote from the central
sanctuary, of "their being gradually misapplied for purposes of
strange religions, or of the Jahveism in connection with them
not retaining its strict purity. This, at certain periods, may
have been of frequent occurrence, and in times when the unity
of the nation became impaired, a further danger soon appeared,
that, viz., of several larger sanctuaries being formed in the out
lying districts. To this must be added, that a sacrificial service,
if it is to be carried on in a worthy manner, always seems to be
increasing its demands for costly and difficult preparations, as
wUl be further shown below in treating of the priesthood.
Reasons such as these induced men to think during the better
days of David of establishing a stricter unity, and when an
immense step in that direction had been ventured on in the
1 Ex. xvii. 15: comp. xxiv. 4; the s P. 113.
short account of the latter passage is cer- 4 As Judg. vi. 24-28 ; xxi. 4 ; 1 Sam.
tainly very ancient, like the verse xxxiv. vii. 17 ; xvi. 2-5.
16. For similar cases see Hist.i. 303, and 5 As 2 Sam. xxiv. 18 sqq.
Judg. vi. 24. So far what is said in Hist. ii. 6 As Saul erected more than cne of the
100, must be somewhat qualified. kind, 1 Sam. xiv. 35.
2 Hist.ii. 308 sqq. ' P. 121 sq.

130 PROCEDURE OF PUBLIC WORSHIP.
building of Solomon's Temple, the Book of Origins seized every
favourable opportunity to forbid sacrifice outside of the one
proper place for it.1 This, however, was far more rigidly
insisted on by the Deuteronomist, after the kingdom of the
Ten Tribes had made its attempt to procure a total repudiation
of this seasonable claim.2

148 III. The Procedure op Divine Service in the Community.
With the way in which divine service was celebrated by the
priests when the great community was assembled, we are still
tolerably well acquainted, at any rate in regard to certain main
features.3 The celebration was one of magnificent splendour,
but on this very account of somewhat rare occurrence, and it
was only at the annual festivals that it was on so large and
complete a scale, as will be here described.
In the more ancient times the community was assembled in
the early morning by the priests with the sound of trumpets
and loud shouting, almost in the same way as if the summons
were for battle.4 In this not only the inferior, but also the
higher priests, with trumpets peculiar to themselves, took an
active part, a matter which will be spoken of below in con
nection with the priests.
One of the necessary consequences of the feelings of aU
Antiquity as they have been described above, was that sacrifice
should form the commencement and most important part of the
whole celebration. The sacrificial animals were solemnly brought
in, the celebrants marched round the altar singing, perhaps
going round it several times, and this would furnish an occasion
1 Lev. xvii. 1-9 ; bk. Josh. xxii. 10 may remember that a historical reality
sqq. On the other hand, this agrees with must correspond even to what is figura-
,the fact that in 1 Kings xix. 10, the tive, especially with this author. From
existence of many altars in the king- the time of the Hagiocracy we have a more
dom of the Ten Tribes is presupposed detailed description, though it suffers
by Elijah himself, whose sphere of from rhetorical exaggeration, Sir. 1. 5-21 :
activity was there. In the same way comp. Hist. v. 273. But the two do not
he readily builds one himself, xviii. appear to contradict one another in main
30-32. points, and it is of itself unlikely that the
2 Deut. xii. 5-14, 18-26 ; xiv. 22 sqq. ; chief constituents and fundamental ar-
xvi. 2, 5 sqq. j xvii. 8 sqq. Comp. Hist, rangements of the divine service should
iv. 225. have been completely altered in later
8 The chief passage from the older times. We must rather wonder at the
times i6 Lev. ix. 22-24. The description casual similarity of the two which is some;
here is certainly very brief, giving little thing which may easily be overlooked.
more than indications ; and, moreover, in * According to Joel i. 14; ii. 1:
accordance with the habit of the Book of comp. Num. x. 2 ; Lev. xxiii. 2.
Origins, it is highly figurative. — But we

PUBLIC WORSHIP. 131
when most beautiful choruses might be sung in turns by the
people and the priests.1
The sacrificial priest would now come forward out of the 149
sacred house invested with his official decorations. He would
in like manner march round the altar singing, and ascend its
steps, surrounded by other priests of the higher rank, probably
at least twelve in number.2 The fire on the sacred hearth had
been made up long before, and all was now ready for the actual
offering. The sacrificial priest then received from the hands
of his subordinates the portions for the altar in order to place
them on the hearth, whilst the congregation, beholding the
proceedings with feelings full of awe, were engaged in prayer.3
If the celebration was a full one, the sacrifice consisted of a
combination of its three main kinds, the expiatory-, the burnt-,
and the thank-offering ; the expiatory-offering coming first as
a consecration, but being itself preceded by an expiatory- and
a burnt-offering, which the sacrificial priest offered on his own
account.4 The conclusion of the proper sacrificial proceedings was
reached when the priest had poured out the drink-offering on
the steps of the altar,5 and immediately the priests joined in
exultantly with a loud trumpet-blast, but the whole community
swiftly flung themselves to the ground, praying aloud.6 Not
till this was over did the singing of the whole congregation,
led by the sacerdotal singers (the Levites), commence. This
was always of a highly elaborate character, especially after the
time of David and Solomon.7 The intervals in it were in part
filled up with alternate choruses,8 in part, also, when it seemed 150
1 According to Lev. ix. 1-21 ; Sir. 1. .and models in Ps. xx , xxi., lxxxv., cxv.
5: comp. Ps. xxvi. 6; hence comes too A close investigation of the poems of the
j - ' Old Testament undoubtedly reveals a
the sacred name I > or t(j; Lnirial- most beautiful system of choruses at the
. „, „„ . f ,¦ »• solemn services of even the earliest times,
qais M ver 63. A song of this sort is as ig mme full ghown in the mMer ^
certainly to be found in Ps. cxvm.:for the A B T a 8_ /„ m It is true
correct divisions of the periods and entire that according to\r_ h 18sft seems as if
meaning of which see Die Dichter des ;n the d of the fl]lly.developed H io.
Alten Bundes, I. b. s 394 sqq. 3rd ed. cracyj on] the LeT;tes saDg, while the
Comp. also Ps. lxvi. 13 sqq. pe0ple prayed jn gilence_ But in tbose
2 This number may be inferred from better tilnes when songs like Ps xx were
what is said, Hist. v. 189 ; comp. Sir. 1. heard in the Temple, we have every reason
12 sq. 10 asSume a closer participation of the
3 All this according to Sir. 1. 5-14 : whole congregation also in the singing.
comp. Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 13. 5. Only in the still earlier limes antecedent
4 Lev. ix. 1-21 ; comp. xvi. 3 sqq. to David does it Seem to have been as-
5 P. 35. sumed that there would not be much
6 According to Sir. 1. 14-17. singing or participation of the community
' Hist. iii. 248 sq., 282 sqq. in it, Lev. ix. 21 sq. But such brief
8 Of which we can see clear examples description must be supplemented out of
k 2

132 PUBLIC WORSHIP.
needful, by shorter or longer addresses to God, succeeded — the
face being turned in the opposite direction — by addresses to the
assembled congregation ; 1 and it was, of course, also the case
that during the happy days when kingdom and theocracy were
at one, the king as priest might deliver such addresses to the
congregation either from his own place or from the altar.2
Still the sacrificial priest remained standing on his elevated
post all the time that the congregation were singing, and when
that was over, before he descended, he pronounced with out
stretched hands the blessing on the people.3 — But after doing
this he only went into the sacred house in order again to return
thence to the neighbourhood of the altar, and after the gracious
acceptance of the sacrifice by heaven, to speak to the congre
gation a few comprehensive words full of the highest sublimity,
after which, with repeated blessing, he dismissed them.4 It
was here that the solemn rite attained its highest point, and it
was then, at least according to reminiscences of the Mosaic
days, that the glory and power of God often seemed to stream
forth over the whole people, while at the same time the offering
had risen joyously to heaven, and the people with loud exultant
cries repeatedly sank down in prayer.
151 On one of these two occasions, probably with inconsiderable
alterations on both of them, the priest accordingly uttered the
benediction to the assembled congregation, which the Book of
Origins has handed down to us,5 and which without doubt
always remained in use from the time of Moses. Simpler, and
yet at the same time more pregnant and satisfying, nothing
can be. It consists properly of three short half-poetical sen
tences, which gradually extend their length, each one (as in a
verse) has a break in the middle, and all three, while constantly
varying the words, only contrive to exhaust more and more
fuller ones, as Ex. xv. 1, and others ; and we should regard the lofty answers
at any rate the indisputable meaning of in Ps. xx. 7 sq. ; xxi. 9-13 [8-12] ; lxxxv.
all parts of the poems is here decisive. 9-14 [8-13]; they were proclaimed as
1 We have some important examples prophetic utterances on the return of the
in the speeches at the temple, 1 Kings sacrificial priest, and before lxxxv. 9 [8],
viii. 12-61. we can easily supply in idea the words ' I
2 See Hist. iii. 251. thought,' for the proper answer is first
2 F. 42. taken up in ver. 10 [9], Comp. also the
* That this second coming forth out of explanation, Hist. iii. 297 note. That this
the sacred house was the more solemn, and conclusion is altogether wanting inSirach's
that the whole divine service only then description is a matter for great surprise;
reached its highest point, is plainly in- however ver. 21 is certainly to be read
volved in the description, Lev. ix. 22-24, with the Compl. Ifeuriputrtui and in-
where we must note that only then did B^wrfloi, which alone gives it any meaning
Moses appear along with Aaron. We can at all.
understand now somewhat better the con- 5 Num. vi. 22-27 : comp. Hist. ii. 21.
nection with the whole service in which

PUBLIC WORSHIP. 133
completely the one pure thought. The threefold repetition,
therefore, only expresses thorough confidence ; there are also
other traces to show that in primitive times it was only a three
times repeated Yes ! which was accepted as regular and binding.1
— A similar and probably shorter form of blessing was undoubt
edly also pronounced at the commencement.2
Nevertheless, the grand feature of the divine service was
always the sacrifice and its proper preparation and presentation.
Here, as elsewhere throughout the whole of the ancient world,
it was deemed an achievement of the highest but also of the
most difficult nature, to draw down the Deity, as it were, with
all its living power and aid quite close to man, this being re
garded as only possible at such solemn moments as these.
Here too the fear existed lest this Deity should be lightly lost,
and what had been undertaken at so much cost should have
beeu undertaken in vain. This will account for the anxious
scrupulosity and timorous caution which characterised the
whole procedure, for the rigid fencing-off of the consecrated
space, and the deep dread of any disturbance,3 and for the
universal trembling and quaking at the most sacred moment of
the rite.4 This was but the strongest manifestation of what 152
expressed itself in other respects when the Sanctuary became a
visible object of the outer world, as will be further shown below
in connection with the priests. Nevertheless, the best conclu
sion of the whole celebration was always deemed to be an
exalted joy and cheerfulness irresistibly spreading forth below
from the heavens above.5
These and similar facts we can learn clearly enough from
the fragments of the ancient literature, and we mW thence
conclude how rich and stirring even in early days was the divine
service of that nation whose religion was the most perfect in
Antiquity. — In later times instruction in the law by the priests
was added, perhaps during the middle of the day or at some
other time when no sacrifice was offered.6 But no doubt there
was also much that was similar in earlier times.
1 This is seen most clearly from Ex. 21-24, is only the highest of its kind,
xix. 8 ; xxiv. 3, 7, according to which the which, however, is just on this very
people have to answer ' yes ' three times to account to be applied elsewhere. The
a proposed law. What is essentially the same was the force of the Procul. prof ani
same to be found in the members of the of the heathen mysteries : comp. Hist. iv.
utterance about Canaan, Gen. ix. 25-27, 100.
and even in the words John xxi. 15-17, 4 What is related of it also in Ex. xix.
where the same is repeated thrice both as 16, 18 ; xx. 18, can only be deemed here
question and answer. the highest of its kind.
2 According tol Kings viii- 14 : comp. 6 Lev. ix. 24.
ver. 55. 6 See Hist. v. 146.
3 What is related in Ex. xix. 1 2 sq.,

134 THE DIVINE DEMANDS.

SECOND SECTION.
the other side : the divine demands for holiness and
righteousness.
The Power op Inflicting Punishment.
1. Such then were the endeavours and exertions of man to
press in upon the Deity in order to obtain from it that in which
he felt himself to be deficient ; and it was the aim of the laws of
Jahveism either to mould and guide as much as possible in
accordance with its own spirit aU such forms of human activity,
the force and employment of which were in existence long
before itself, or else completely to transform and remodel them.
But all these divinely-human exertions and strivings, let
them do what they will, were always met from the beginning
by the divine demands for holiness and righteousness of life,
demands which are universally valid and not to be rejected,
which are so far from being dependent on these human exer-
153 tions, that the first question is always whether the latter satisfy
them in particular cases or in general, and which can even
remain essentiaUy unaltered when the insufficiency of many
kinds of these human exertions has made itself manifest. These
are just the eternal divine truths in their application to human
life, so far as they can be plainly recognised in a religion, and
at the same time be proclaimed as universally valid in their
application to the infinitely various emergencies of human life.
They form, therefore, a very important part of the privUeges
and of the laws without which ancient religion could not see how
to exist, and which she drew into close partnership with herself.
In each rehgion, as well as in the laws of a community
based upon that religion, all depends on the extent to which
these paramount truths are known. Here, accordingly, ancient
Jahveism first displayed its most intrinsic essence and its
lofty speciality. And the exalted stage in this knowledge
which it had already attained at its very dawn, is revealed
at once by the fact that it comprehends with the utmost
clearness aU the infinite variety of details which might give
rise to questions, under a single fundamental principle, viz.

MORAL PRINCIPLES. 135
the divine command : ' Holy shall ye be, for holy am I.' ' In
these words the member of the community was referred to
the absolutely perfect eternal authority which was totally free
from moral deficiency. It was this of which it was even
his duty to partake, which was therefore the measure of his
obligation and for which he would not be too weak or poor.
In all that he did or thought the member of this community
was only to have before his eyes the unimpeachable pure sacred
Being, something which he could indeed misconstrue, but
could neither remove nor render inoperative, which would
rather turn round upon and destroy him, so soon as he ceased
to give it a lively recognition and appropriate it to himself.
This utterance, therefore, involves the inexhaustible claim of
a task that is infinite both as regards the individual and the 154
community, and it already properly contains in itself aU par
ticular claims.
And just as Jahveism compressed with the utmost exacti
tude and truth into one main principle all the infinite variety
which may here arise, so too it embraced aU that it deemed
sacred with an earnestness and decision of which there is no
trace in lower' religious and national constitutions. It raised
itself far above much that the latter considered holy and
salutary, but its grasp was all the firmer of whatever it did
hold sacred. The moral strictness which characterised the com
munity as a whole, as well as each particular tribe or household,
was almost the only great force which the ancient nation
possessed from the time of the establishment of Jahveism ; and
it was all the more indispensable, as during the pure Theocracy
the highest authority could not be rendered visible and its
presence shown to men. But how strict was the protection of
whatever the community held sacred, and how long this state
of things endured, has already been to some extent indicated
in the particulars of its history, and wUl besides be touched
upon below in many ways.
This extraordinarily strict discipline, which lasted with
little diminution or change down to the time of Solomon, and
which it is difficult for us fully to realise, by no means de
pended merely on the existing authority and the heads of the
nation. On the contrary, Israel, subsequent to the leading
of Moses, was so inured to it that the consciousness of its
necessity and the actual practice of it extended to all the
1 This is found at the head of the Origins, xi. 44 sq. ; xx. (7) 26 : comp. xxi,
ancient fragment, Lev. xix. 2 sqq., but it 8 ; Num. xv. 40.
is elsewhere repeated in the. Book of

136 THE DIVINE DEMANDS.
members of the nation, and its influence was not less exerted
from below upwards, than in the contrary direction. In this
respect the whole people felt at all times almost as a single
closely united household, in which there dwelt something abso
lutely inviolable, holding all members together, and affording
them protection and happiness, something whose violation and
destruction would therefore be an affront to all, which all must
indignantly repulse. A certain sphere of what was holy and pure
for men, as well as conversely of what was vicious and to be
155 avoided, had been distinctly defined by the foundation and
primitive history of the community. Every violation of what
was pure and holy, even though it were unintentional, was
immediately punished and expiated with zealous severity, so
that ' the majesty and the name of the guardian God of Israel
might not be desecrated,' and no stain attach itself to his
people, so that to Jahveh alone should honour and praise be
rendered.1 And should it be for the moment impossible to
punish a desecration in this community, it was so little lost
sight of, that long after, and under totally changed circum
stances, the vengeance was inflicted, often with all the greater
severity on account of the delay; and so vigilant was now
the universal heed paid to every such violation, so powerful the
dread of the 'wrath of Jahveh,' that people were ready to de
tect signs of it everywhere, and in every other misfortune which
the community suffered they could see only the warning of an
injured God. Indeed, it would often happen that such a mis
fortune would induce them to restore some insignificant, and, in
other respects, despised member of the community to its rights
even when the legal claim to them had been lost by prescrip
tion, e.g., a tribe under their protection which had been unfairly
treated.2 A discipline as strict, as watchful, even as painfully
anxious, may indeed be found in other ancient kingdoms so long
as they were contained within narrow limits, and. had become
neither too powerful through brilliant success in warfare, nor
yet demoralised by misfortunes of another kind. But nowhere
else in the ancient world do we find this spirit so strongly
infusing a whole nation, nowhere is it equaUy persistent amid so
many and such momentous changes, or does it serve to protect
such important truths.
2. But should the Sanctity which alone ought to prevafl in
this community, and there carry on its work, be desecrated,
• ' Frequent expressions, as in the 2 Comp. the instances, Hist. ii. 351-
Book of Origins, bk. Josh. vii. 19 ; Amos 353 ; iii. 135 sq., 214-215 ; iv. 98-99, and
ii. 7 : comp. iii. 2 ; Jer. xxxiv. 16. elsewhere.

RIGHT OF PUNISHMENT. 137
whether by its members or by aliens, then the discipline which
must oppose the offence, the penalty which may be attached
to it, and the superintendence and precautions which have to
keep a ceaseless watch over the observance, and anticipate
any outrageous desecration, must in any case be under human
management so far as human ability is available for the pur
pose, and the men who undertake the task must themselves^
belong to the community. Thus there arises an apparent
contradiction. On the one hand, true religion, which ought
always to be the deepest life and the purest motive power of
the national community, ought to put all the members of the
latter on an equal footing, alike as regards their rights and
their duties. All equally ought to hearken without ceasing
and exclusively to the voice of the true God, their sole king
and lord. On the other hand, certain members ought to
exercise a superintendence, hold the reins of discipline, and
inflict penalties on the rest. Thus the equality of all should
be subject to such exceptions as will permit human authority
and even human lordship to arise in their midst, and for
these a perpetual maintenance should be secured ! What
power there is, and yet what apparent arbitrariness in the
right to inflict punishment, and this ought to be placed in the
human hands of individual members of the community ! An
additional consideration is that those in the community who
raised themselves to be human rulers would be compelled to
extend their supervision and power of punishment over every
thing that was permitted or forbidden there, even over the
affairs of the established true religion when they came under
the law as described in the preceding main section. For it
was the healthy feeling of those times that there should be one
supreme universal law, whose penalties should apply, with the
utmost impartiality possible, to all the movements and strivings
which attained power in the nation; and this, in spite of the
many confused notions which at the present hour are con
tinually making more and more desolating inroads, will con
tinue to remain for all times the unspoiled feeling and the
self-preserving instinct of every nation.
But at the same time we musb not suppose that Jahveism,
from its commencement, and also later during the long centuries
of its more vigorous existence, did not perceive the possibility
of this contradiction, and had no clear ideas how to obviate
it. When once it had clearly recognised in the light of the
true religion what must be the true Divine rule among men,
and in the first instance in a nation, it could comprehend

138 THE DIVINE DEMANDS.
all the more clearly how far men might cooperate with this
Divine rule in maintaining and protecting its institutions.
Human rule and right of punishment ha.ve but a limited mean
ing and aim. They only become possible under certain con
ditions ; but as long as these conditions last, so must they. It
is accordingly historical circumstances which best determine
their essence and the sphere of their competency as well as their
limitation. The people of Israel, however, had experienced from
the time of Moses enough real history to prevent them for all
eternity from ever taking wrong views in this matter. And thus
the author of the Book of Origins, in his equally lofty and mar
vellously happy review of all the periods of the world's history,1
anticipates and teaches the true view. We must, however, now
give special prominence to what necessarily concerns us here.
In the first of the four epochs there is as yet no mention of
human sovereignty. When, however, it came to an end, and
apparently for want of this, and when a new order of things,
more complicated but also higher, is established at the begin
ning of the second period, there is heard for the first time the
sentence, ' Who sheds the blood of men, by men shall his blood
be shed.' 2 These words can only be fully realised when we re
member that previously all shedding of human blood had been
most strictly forbidden, and that God had reserved to himself
the punishment of the transgressor of this prohibition. Thus
man is now charged with the execution of punishment on other
men, and even of the extreme penalty which God had reserved
to himself, and which in the strictest sense does pertain to him
alone ; and this right to inflict the extreme penalty which can be
exacted of a human being, is committed by God himself to men,
because otherwise (as God foresaw, so to speak, from what had
happened), it would not have been exacted with the same care
and certainty. During the second epoch in the progress of the
struggle of human freedom against its immediate limitations, a
divinely guaranteed liberty is indeed won for all human action ;
but where the sphere of freedom for all kinds of human activity
is enlarged, especially if its growth be rapid, so much the
more serious may be its excesses ; and thus in order to suppress
the license of individuals, it becomes necessary to have a
human sovereign, who takes the place of God in inflicting
punishment. And as with each new progressive epoch human
effort assumes greater variety of form and hue, and all human
relations grow more complicated, the simple equality of aU men
1 P. 103.
» Gen. ix. 6 : comp. ver. 4, and especially ver. 5.

RIGHT OF PUNISHMENT. 139
one with another must cease. The sharp distinction between
authorities and their subjects makes its appearance, and what
would have been deemed impossible becomes a possibility — a
single member of the community exercises the Divine power of
inflicting punishment on the rest. But it should be understood
as a matter of course that the human ruler who owes his
position to this state of things ought to consider this power
only as something intrusted to him for a time by God and for
which he is . responsible, and he ought to exercise it only
in accordance with the meaning and intentions of the Divine
law as it has been revealed to all and is universally accepted.
Should the human rulers forget these their limitations, and
degenerate in the same way as, according to the old tradition,
the fathers and founders of the earliest great nations did in
becoming malicious Titans and Giants, then such a period meets
once more with the only fate it deserves — universal destruction.
Accordingly the true fathers of nations, as they ought to be,
and as the people of Israel on a retrospect of their first days
could pride themselves on having had, do not appear before the
commencement of the third epoch. With the three Patri
archs the real nation, or the community of the true religion,
now endeavours to form itself as the goal whither all temporal
history is tending. When, however, this was about to be
crushed at its very birth by the Pharaohs, the most hopelessly
degenerate of the human rulers, then, at the commencement of
the fourth epoch, and engaged in the severest conflict with
these rulers, there appears in Moses the true Prophet and
national leader, and simultaneously with him, the true com
munity, along with all its eternal possessions, its permanent
institutions and its laws, including those relating to punish
ment. This position the Theocracy never abandons. The image
of the true prophet becomes to this community, i.e. to this
nation, the imperishable type also of all ruling and punishing
power as it ought to be exercised by men. Much as those who
rule may differ from one another in respect to the greater or
less importance of their office, and much as the highest rulers,
so far as outward appearances go, may vary to suit the exigen
cies of their times, and actually did vary during the centuries
between Moses and the permanent establishment of the human
monarchy, it was stiU indispensable for them to retain some most
essential features of Moses, or rather of his time and his spirit.
The immediate Word of God (or Oracle) as it might lead
Moses, and thereby first introduce the nation to its new consti-

140 THE DIVINE DEMANDS.
tution, does not appertain to every human ruler ; it could not
easily return with any later one as it was with Moses ; nor was
there, after the community had been founded by its means, such
imperative need for it. But if the true prophet cannot but give
the supremacy in himself to the Divine demands for holiness
and righteousness, and ought to derive his surest strength and
a God-sent confidence in commanding other men, only from
feeling these powers reigning in himself, so every ruler in this
community ought only to exercise his functions as far as he is
warranted by these objects and this belief. He must totally
renounce his own personal desires and inclinations, pay heed
only to the Divine wiU and law, and thus exercise in the place
of God — as far as it is possible for a man to do so — this power
of inflicting punishment on men. He must reign, command,
and punish, as though it were not he that reigned, commanded,
and punished, but the One to whom he never ceases to be
responsible, and as though he might himself be in the position
of any other member of the community, and the latter in his
own. This is the genuine Mosaic element which ought to be
retained by every human ruler of this nation, whether he be
High-priest, Duke (like Joshua), Judge, or King, and which
should extend downwards in due manner to all the officials of
inferior rank.
The forms which human sovereignty actually assumed in
Israel, so far as they endeavoured to establish themselves as
permanent institutions, and the extent to which the power to
punish was carried into practice, will only be described in the
third main section.
3. We may, however, consider more closely here, what were
the particular things which were either forbidden or com
manded; apart from all questions respecting the person by
whom, and the way in which, the legal punishments for sacri
lege were enforced. A little reflection will then show us that
each one of these things, at least in its strictest and most
original essence, must contain in itself the ground of its own
sanctity or opposite character. The original constitution of
individual things, and of individual truths as well, as it is given
to men in creation, is at once their most original and most
inalienable right, their goodness, and (so far as man ought to
realise this goodness and respect this right) their sanctity.
And though this sanctity, goodness, and righteousness, may
attach themselves to individuals in an infinite degree, they are
nevertheless, included and protected, from the first and for aU
time, in the sanctity, goodness, and righteousness of the Creator

INHERENT SANCTITY. 141
himself, as the eternal sustainer and lord of his creation.
There exists no Divine sanctity which we can think of as ever 160
being arbitrary, and by which we can determine in a manner
no less arbitrary the sacredness of individual things and truths.
The sanctity of the latter must show itself in the possession of
an unimpeachable holiness which extends to the highest sanc
tity of the true God, and is again sustained and protected by
him. — But just because the sacredness of things and of truths
depends on their essential qualities, and therefore in the eyes of
particular men and times on the degree of their knowledge of
these, we cannot expect that in those early days it would appear
to Jahveism in aU its details just as it appears to us now after
the whole development has reached its completion in Christi
anity. We shall be able to approach the subject somewhat
more closely if we consider the distinctive marks of the main
divisions under which all the details that belong here will come.
There are three great departments into which all these
rights and laws will fall. There is a sanctity, i.e., in a lower
or higher sense, an inviolability for men, inherent 1) in creation
(nature), or the world, as that which the human mind knows to
be the work of a wise God, the order of which man can despise
or disturb only to his own hurt. — Contained in this there is
2) the sanctity of the human being, as something formed in the
image of God, standing in the midst of and yet over the world,
occupying an independent position as well as being a member of
the greater Whole into which humanity always organises itself,
viz., that of the community and the kingdom. Again, the exist
ence and activity of what is spiritual in man sanctifies property
also as that which is always won originally by human exertion.
• — Finally, this sacredness attaches 3) to the true God, to his
revelations when once they have been recognised as real and
' accepted as decisive, as well as — when it has been recognised
as binding the community — to the whole constitution of his
kingdom, from its greatest and most indispensable constituent
elements down to what was of less importance and apparently
less needful. AU this pertains here, even though particular 161
details in its wide sphere may appear to us to have very dif
ferent degrees of sacredness,1 and the arrangement just given
of the three great departments into which all the infinite
varieties of detail separate themselves, is the proper one, in
1 If we compare Lev. xi-xii. as the touched upon there. But the greatest
passage where, according to Hist. i. 88, and most important part of it is treated
the phrase ' holy shall ye be ' has its of there as fully as the character of the
special home, we shall not find every- Book of Origins allows ; and this is a
thing which we comprehend here expressly sufficient justification for us.

142 SANCTITY IN NATURE.
order to ascend from the lower and so far apparently more
comprehensible stages, to those that are higher and so far really
harder to understand.
But of these three all-embracing departments, that of
nature was the one least known to remote Antiquity. For as
regards main features, it must needs be that first of all man
learns to' know himself perfectly, and God, who though invisible
stands nearest to him, so that, having become secure in matters
that lie closest to him, he then becomes familiar, gradually but
continually more and more completely, with nature, which
stands with its hidden depths and infinite diversities between
himself and God. Lofty, then, as is the general level of those
laws of Jahveism which concern man and God, and full as they
are of eternal truth, those laws which decide about physical
matters are equally full of transitory elements, especially when
it is not the physical nature of man which is in question.

I. Sanctity in Nature.
We understand here by nature not the original true essence
of all possible things or relations, but the whole of the animate
and inanimate creation, so far as it stands over against the
human mind, and therefore human activity or passivity, — what
in fact may be termed matter or the world. In this sense it
was just in the earliest times that nature made the strongest
impressions on men. This was the case so long as his mind
had not sufficiently learned clearly to recognise and realise the
162 higher mind which is over him even as it is over nature ; and
so long accordingly as he knows not how to give any clear
account of these impressions, and indeed has hardly begun
even to get the first grasp of their real character, nature
appeared to man to be endowed with extraordinary life, spon
taneity, and even understanding.1 But to him she was not
merely a friendly being, but also, so far as his knowledge of her
was little trustworthy, far more a hostile living being, dark
and terrible, which he must take heed not to disturb and in
sult, and whose evil actions were hard to avert. The more direct
and therefore the more powerful were these obscure impressions
which man received from nature, the more troubled became
his dread of doing anything which seemed antagonistic to her,
1 Comp. the Hebr. S.L. § 171 sqq., in the Gel. Nachrichten, 1866, s. 175-
and further the treatise Ueber die haupt- 190.
cijemhumllchXiitdesKc.f.r-sprachslammec,

SANCTITY IN NATURE. 143
and the more diligent were his efforts to remove to a distance
from himself any repulsive object which he might anywhere
happen to meet with. However, the whole of nature in all
its infinite details could not be always making such impressions
on man ; where therefore he thought he had no need to fear, he
soon acted with all the greater recklessness and cruelty, as,
e.g. towards the human body itself.
A treatment of nature so heathenish was far beneath the
level to which Jahveism was raised by its deeper principles.
In teaching a knowledge of the true God and Creator, it frees
the human mind from the dark bonds of nature, and impels it
to seek after the hidden causes of all that is alarming as well
as of all that is repulsive. And inasmuch as it regards the
whole creation with all its infinitudes as having been well
constituted, it condemns aU blind horror of any one of her
manifestations, unless it has been polluted by sin ; still more
does it condemn any rough treatment of her. Thus the legis
lation is characterised by a remarkably tender anxiety for the
rights of animate nature, and for the eternal laws of what is
inanimate. Indeed, this ancient legislation shows a far more
delicate feeling for nature than the modern often does, where,
alas ! the true connection between religion and law is as good 163
as forgotten. The former legislation is still penetrated by the
strong, healthy feeling that even nature, as the work of God
and cognisable by man, has her inviolable laws and rights, and
therefore her special sacredness for men.
Since, however, it was developed in a time when the essen
tial features of nature and the causes of her phenomena were
very little known or closely studied, this legislation nevertheless
bears many a trace of the primitive troubled dread of natural
objects. Here, too, we can recognise an instance of Jahveism
not being at once able to attain in actual life to the pure ele
vation which was shown to be its destiny by the vigorous
deeper principles which it already contained in itself. Nume
rous prohibitions have their only ground in the prevalence of
this primitive dread, though the special occasions on which it
, displayed itself may have varied much. It is accordingly just
on this side that Jahveism has retained many features of those
primitive times when it was still more closely allied with other
religions of the nations which were earliest developed. No
where does it bear so much resemblance to other earliest
religions as here, and in the above-described department of
sacrifice, which, so far as the ancient sacrifice was not purely

144 WHAT IS UNCLEAN IN NATURE.
spiritual, likewise falls into the same category.1 Where, how
ever, Jahveism of its own impulse desired to go a step farther,
in order to exalt the sanctity of the nature which often received
such scurvy treatment at the hands of heathenism, then, fol
lowing its general plan,2 it found no difficulty even here in
lighting on some of the most widely prevalent uniformities
without having regard to possible or even advantageous excep
tions of less consequence, which a wider experience and ac
quaintance with nature would have brought under its notice.

1. What is Eepulsive in Natuee or Unclean
per SE.
164 The important consequence of this ancient troubled dread
is that Jahveism deemed a tolerably large number of the objects
and conditions of nature to be unclean, i.e., such as were not
to be tolerated either under any circumstances or in certain
respects in the community of Jahveh, which, therefore, would
make a man unclean and unworthy of communion with Jahveh
and his worshippers if he did not keep himself away from
them, or if after having been defiled by them, he did not
hasten to free himself from them. The ultimate grounds of
this dread seem to have been very different in the various
instances. In part, they were purely natural, here there would
be a repulsive and often sound experience of what was prejuT
dicial to health and life, there the only too easily aroused
repulsion which the living feel towards the dead, or again,
perhaps, a repulsive look, or some other such obscure feeling.
In part, however, and probably to a greater extent they were due
to historical events, and determined by the formation of national
peculiarities. It would thus be necessary to know far more about
Lhe earliest conditions of Israel and of other nations long anterior
,o the time of Moses, before we could give an accurate expla
nation of each detail. But since the dread of these things
always remained an obscure feeling, Jahveism did not concern
itself with its ultimate grounds, nor were many questions asked
on the subject as the laws were developed. Bather was there
but one single effective feeling about them, viz. that they were
chings not to be tolerated in Jahveh's community, and as it
were before the eyes of the exalted Pure Being, — that Jahveh
repudiated and abominated them. This view being once
adopted, the ancient religion applied her whole strength to.
> Comp. Hist. ii. 151 sq. 2 See p. 8 sq.

UNCLEAN THINGS. 145
the task of warding them off from that community which was
to be the purest and holiest among all nations ; and the extra
ordinary earnestness which found a home there, and the might
of its influence on the entire life of the nation may again be
recognised here with the utmost clearness. No doubt similar
efforts, originating in a similar dread, are also to be found
characterising other ancient religions, which were specially
exacting in their demands on men.1 None, however, embrace
so firmly and consistently a whole nation, and stamp their 165
prohibitions on it so deeply.
But the ways to avoid or destroy the unclean things which
might be met with must differ much according to the very
various kinds and grades of the latter. Now in the determina
tion of these kinds, whether of the unclean things themselves,
or of the modes of dealing with them, and ways and means of
getting rid of them, there appears a Unity in the prescriptions
and laws so weU studied and so consistent, that we cannot
help recognising here the most unmistakeable traces of the
spirit of a single great legislator. The laws of the Book of
Origins, moreover, are here very complete, and this also shows
us how rigidly these ancient regulations had been upheld till
the time of the composition of this historical work. As regards
general characteristics, there are three main classes of unclean
things ; and these are arranged in the following order, begin
ning with those of least, and ending with those of most con
sequence. 1 Especially those of Zarathustra xi. 44-47. Rather was there much that
and of the Hindoos. The laws of the was similar among the Egyptians and
ancient Hindoos about eating (Manu, v. Phoenicians, e.g. the prohibition of pork,
5-16) are very like the Hebrew ones even if, especially in later times, the par-
in certain fundamental points, and in ticular application of it was developed
particular we see very clearly from them in very different degrees, just as was the
how close was their original connec- ease with circumcision. See Porphyry,
tion (according to p. 54 sq.) with the laws De Abstin. i. 14, iv. 7, comp. ch. 14 ; Here
of sacrifice. That, on the other hand, the dian's Hist. i. 6. 22. Sextus Empir.
Egyptians had, on the whole, totally dis- Hypotyp. iii. 24. 223. — But we cannot
tinct laws of eating is plain from many take any fuller notice here of the innu-
indications, and is explained in Gen. xliii. merable attempts of later writers to ex-
32, xlvi. 34 ; but it leads to quite a false plain, by allegory and other artificial
Conception to suppose that Moses gave methods, the meaning and purpose of the
his people their special laws on the sub- primitive laws about eating contained in
ject in order thereby to procure for them the Pentateuch, although they begin before
greater isolation. This is to substitute the ChurchFathers. — Mahomet speakssen-
for the origin and first unprejudiced sibly about such laws, Sur. iii - 87, but to
meaning of the laws, the consequences to what an extent superstition in the matter
which, no doubt, they gave rise more prevailed earlier in Arabia, is seen in Sur.
and more, and which are on this account vi. 139 sq., and as a fact he himself sank
conspicuous in the representations of the back into its tone.
Book of Origins, Lev. xx. 22-26, comp. L

146 WHAT IS UNCLEAN IN NATURE.

a. What was Unclean for Food.
Of vegetables the law takes no account, leaving the few that
are not eatable to be distinguished by experience. But in
166 respect to animals it draws the sharpest distinctions, counting
in round numbers, however, far more species as unclean than
as clean.1 We see indeed that the only animals which ancient
custom and religion permitted in Israel were cattle, sheep, and
goats, and this is manifestly connected with the whole of the
primitive formation of Israel as a pastoral people. We should
try and think ourselves back in the times when Israel placed
alike its strength and its honour in separation from the tribes
of the desert, and so refrained from the flesh of the camel or
simUar animals of the desert, as well as in elevation above the
morally degenerate town-life of the Canaanites and Egyptians,
and therefore held aloof from the rearing of swine, or of other
smaller or more dirty animals which are often eaten of neces
sity in thickly populated towns.2 In those early days the strict
and proud limitation of the use of meat, to beef, mutton,
and goats' flesh, was undoubtedly very closely connected with
the entire condition of the civhisation and of the aims of
Israel. The scale of preference and the particular estimation
of these animals, which is seen so clearly in the old sacrificial
laws,3 was unaltered in common life. Nevertheless the hst of
animals aUowed for food exceeds that of the sacrificial animals
in certain respects, and the law, seeking to determine every
thing as far as possible by inseparable attributes, decreed as
167 follows : — !• Of the larger quadrupeds all were clean which
both possessed completely cloven hoofs and also chewed the
cud. This would include, besides the above-mentioned sacri
ficial animals, the many species of deer and gazelles inhabiting
the forests and deserts.4 Specially excluded by name were the
1 Lev. xi. 1-38. We easily recognise but already with the addition of pennis-
in the enumeration of the species of ani- sion to give or to sell such animals to the
mais the same order as is found in the heathens, ver. 21.
history of the Creation in the Book of 2 As the Carthaginians are bitterly
Origins, Gen. i., only that here the large reproached with eating dogs' flesh, Justin.
quadrupeds, as the most important, are Hist. xix. 1, and as pork in many heathen
taken first, and that finally a particular countries was even used for sacrifice, see
kind of small animal (}HB>) is distin- comment on Is. lxvi. 3.
guished as the most uneatable and espe- P. 31 sq.
daily repulsive. But for this very reason * Their partly obscure names occur
we must suppose verr. 24-28 to be out of I)ellt- xiv- 5> with *« surprising omission
their proper places, and transfer them of tne DN"! so often mentioned by the
back to after ver. 8. — A short selection of poets, supposing this really to belong to
fhe most important cases, along with a the family of gazelles ; perhaps because it
few additions, is given in Deut. xiv. l-20j was so difficult to catch that it was hardly

UNCLEAN ANIMALS. ]47
camel, the coney, the hare,1 and swine,2 manifestly because
these were largely used as food among the surrounding nations,
and further, all carnivorous animals which walk upon paws. 
2. Of fish and all allied animals only those were admitted which
have fins and scales, as though from an ancient obscure dread
of snakes and animals like them, such as eels. — 3. In the case
of birds we have only an enumeration of those that were for
bidden, the list being of some length. Many of the names in
it are now of very doubtful meaning, but it is clear that all
birds of prey as well as most waterfowl were reckoned unclean.
However, not only the different kinds of pigeons which were
used for sacrifice,3 but many others were considered clean, as
the narrative about the birds of the desert4 suffices to show. —
4. For aU the smaller land animals, whether winged or not, an
ancient disgust continued to prevail in great streno-th.5 The-
various kinds of locusts are the only exception, and they may
have been too indispensable as food for the people during their
marches through the desert for the law to pronounce them un- 168
clean, but it is a noteworthy fact that this exception is made
only in the Book of Origins, no longer in Deuteronomy.
But even with clean beasts the flesh was deemed unclean if
the animal were torn to pieces in the fields, suffocated, or in
other respects not put to death in the proper manner. This,
however, was not only on account of a natural repugnance for
every dead body, or because of experience of injury to health,
but principaUy on account of the blood not having been taken
from it in the proper way. The prohibition of the use of such
flesh belongs therefore to another class,6 and marks the tran-
ever eaten, see the note on Job, s. 301 arrangement in both passages. But it is
of the 2nd ed. On the other hand, the in any case remarkable that they avoid
Phoenician law permitted even wild ani- the use of the word \ay<is, hare (see
mais for sacrifice, as is clear from the Hist. v. 249, note), and probably in both
treatises mentioned above, p. 50 note. cases they had the arrangement of Deute-
1 Here we must disregard the question ronomy.
whether the hare really does chew the cud, 2 That Mahomet was not the first to
as stated m Lev. xi. 6 ; and also whether disallow the eating of swine among the
this is the case with the Hyrax Synacus Arabs is clear from tae remarks in Soljni!
(W> the same ammal as 1S still to be PolyMstor, xxxiii. 4, and Jerome, Adv.
found in great numbers in Palestine, living Jovin. lib. ii. (iv. 2, p. 200 sq. ed. Mart.).
'^ 3 P 32
in holes in the ground, but now called , , , ^. . '.. „„,
6 j> • Hist. n. 221 sqq.
for neither does this chew the cud, ac- 5 We may notice how expressly the
cording to John Wilson's Lands of the denunciation of them is repeated at the
Bible, ii. p. 28 sqq. Whether the LXX end, Lev. xi. 41-44.
understood by n3J"]S. the Xo'poypv\Kios e Not witnout reason is ;t wanting in
or the Smriivovs, is so far doubtful, as, Lev. xi., although the Deuteronomist, no
without the substitution of |3S>> for the doubt, at once supplies it, xiv. 21. On
latter, which occurs in Deut. xiv. 7, comp. the other hand, it is found in the old
Lev. xi. 5 sq., they preserve the same legislation, Ex. xxii. 30 [31], though this
l2

148 WHAT IS UNCLEAN IN NATURE.
sition to the prohibition, of very different origin, against eating
blood and the altar-pieces of the animals which were sacrificed.1
But while the Book of Origins2 insists that all meat which
might not be eaten in Israel, was also not to be eaten by the
heathen in their midst, we recognise in Deuteronomy3 the
token of a later and degenerate age, when permission is given
to dispose of it to the heathen as presents or by sale.
How much these two prohibitions differed from one another
both in origin and importance, is further sufficiently manifest
from the penalties which are legally attached to the transgres
sion of them. In what way eating an unclean animal was to
be punished, the law does not tell us, the surest sign that the
observance of this prohibition was largely left to the care of
conscience alone, and in stress of hunger it was not difficult for
it to be gradually set aside.4 The most extreme penalties, on
the other hand, are denounced against the eafing of blood ! 5
Even towards the close of this whole history, when the prohibi
tion of these unclean meats fell altogether in abeyance, this
was still quite properly distinguished from that relating to
blood and the flesh of suffocated animals, as well as from that
referring to heathen sacrifices.6
!69 Of a somewhat different character was the custom not to
eat, but carefully to search out and remove, one of the sinews
of the hip-bones which is necessary for walking well, and espe
cially for movements in wrestling. This custom was certainly
very ancient in Israel, and its explanation is therefore given in
the primitive history,7 but probably it rested on some old belief
which the law could not allow. There may have been an ancient
belief that the sinew which was indispensable for walking well
was too sacred to be eaten with the rest of the meat, just as in
the case of the blood. This might have become interwoven
with the history of Jacob ' the limper,' so that the narrative
represented him as limping because God had touched this
sinew, and his posterity must accordingly reverence it to guard
themselves against a similar injury. But whhe Jahveism
does not think it worth while saying any are already made in Ezek. xxxiii. 25
more about clean and unclean meat. (comp. p. 38). and proper conduct is re-
1 Special prominence is given to the quired only of the priests, xliv. 31.
last, Lev. vii. 23-27; comp. above p. 7 Gen xxxii 25_33 with'nOT
37 sq. 2 Lev. xvii. 15. comp. . . Tabari, Ann. vol. i. p. 194,
q Deut. xiv. 21. U~J r
4 As 2 Kings vi. 25. 17 sq., where the sinew is somewhat more
5 P. 110. closely described; Harit's Moall. ver. 53;
6 Acts xv. 29, xxi. 25; 1 Cor. viii. 1 Chalef el-Ahmar's Qasside, ver. 45 (s. 216
sqq., comp. Ex. xxxiv. 15. Nevertheless, sq. ed. Ahlw.).
complaints against eating what is bloody

UNCLEAN OBJECTS. 149
retained the sanctity of the blood, it would have had much
greater difficulty in connecting the old belief about this sinew
with any higher truth, and it only followed its better impulses
when legally it ignored the matter, and only spoke of it his
torically.

6. What was too Unclean or too Unholy, or else too Sacred,
to be touched.
By merely touching an unclean animal even the holiest man
in Israel did not contaminate himself. There were, however,
natural objects whose touch was so contaminating for every
member of the community that a special purification was needed
before he could be again received into full membership. This
is particularly the case with all dead animal matter. An
ancient horror of stiffened life and blood, along with fatal ex
perience of the exhalations from corpses, may have contributed
to give occasion to this belief in the strong contaminating in
fluence of every dead thing.1 This is the unmistakeable source
of the euphemism by which, instead of a ' dead man,' they said
merely a ' soul,' i.e. a ' person,' a mode of speaking which was
stiU quite prevalent at the time of the Book of Origins.2 — If a
horror of stiffened life and blood as such was a cooperating
cause here, it is easy to understand why the law drew so sharp
a hne between human corpses and others, and required a far
more thorough purification after contact with the former than
with the latter. We see here only another consequence of the
deep dread of human blood which was so characteristic of
Jahveism.3 Now whenever from this or some other cause, a man, and
it was the same with any other object, was deemed unclean, i.e.
polluted, he was thereby excluded from the community, and
1 Later refinements on the subject flesh, for the sexual organs, Lev. xv. 2
may be found in Joseph. Contr. Ap. ii. sqq. — It was probably this impurity
24-26 ; Porphyr. De Abstin. iv. 19 sq. which once kept Jeremiah at home, Jer.
p. 366-370. The same custom also occurs xxxvi. 5; comp. a similar case, Neh. vi. 10 ;
among the Egyptians and others, see and as those who were ' prevented ' from
Origen, Contr. Cels. iii. 6. 3, and we see coming to public business or processions
how many legal similarities there were from this or any other of the causes which
among the Hindoos in Manu, v. 57-146. will be explained here, would be at once
2 The existence of this euphemism is known, and the whole people, therefore,
seen plainly in Lev. xix. 28, comp. Deut. be separated into two divisions, we can
xiv. 1 Lev. xxii. 4, Num. v. 2, comp. vi. understand from this fact the meaning of
6, Lev. xxi. 11 ; and, without assuming a the proverbial phrase 3-ltyi "I-1¥5?> Hist. i.
euphemism, the phrase cannot be ex- i2i, note 3, IZ3, note 3.
plained. A perfectly similar euphemism s p, 37 s„„
occurs in the Book of Origins in -|tj>3,

150 WHAT IS UNCLEAN IN NATURE.
could not re-enter it till his purification was completed. The
simplest way of effecting this was by washing, and when human
beings were concerned, washing the clothes was always included.1
1. Accordingly, whoever touched, even though only acci
dentally, the corpse of an animal, clean or unclean, whoever
came into closer contact with it, e.g., in order to carry it away,
or whoever ate of the corpse of a clean beast, was to be unclean
171 tiU evening, i.e. for a whole day. This meant being shut
out from society, and having first to wash oneself and one's
clothes before one could re-enter it.2 This shows, however, of
itself that the slaying and preparation of a clean animal had
no contaminating effect. But what was competent to defile a
man had the same effect on everything that pertained to him
— clothes, skins, bags, tools, must be washed and be unclean
until evening ; earthenware must be broken and its contents,
ordinarily cooked food or drink, be regarded as unclean, i.e., as
uneatable, a cooking-oven or a seething-pot (things very simply
constructed in the earliest times) must be destroyed. Springs
and reservoirs were nevertheless not polluted by the corpse of
an animal which had fallen into them, nor were seed or corn,
except when they had already been moistened with water and
destined for food.3 Even in war no exception could be made
to these rules.4 While the smallest animals, e.g. flies, have no
notice taken of them, it was different with somewhat larger
species like mice .and lizards, which lived here and there in
houses in considerable numbers, and are on this account care
fully enumerated.5
2. The above-mentioned first grade of necessary purification
is succeeded, when there had been contact with a human
1 This last is also clear from Gen. omits all these distinctions, perhaps be-
xxxv. 2, Ex. xix. 10-14. cause in his time they seemed no longer
2 Lev. xi. 8, 11, 24-28, 31, 39 sq., applicable.
comp. Num. xix. 7 sq., 10, 21 sq., Lev. 4 Num. xxxi. 19.
xvi. 26, 28. From such passages as Lev. xi. 5 Lev. xi. 29 sq. Altogether there
24-28, we might suppose that there were are eight of these ' creeping things ' enu-
cases when a person was unclean till the merated here, and it is remarkable that
evening, without being compelled to wash no mention is made of that small animal
bis clothes, but only to take a bath him- spoken of in Prov. xxx. 28, to be found
self (for that uncleanness in every case in abundance creeping about the finest
could only be removed by washing is houses, but it may yet be reckoned as
obvious). But that the phrase ' to be belonging to some one or other of the
unclean till the evening' is merely an species oi those that are mentioned. — The
abbreviation follows from passages like unclean birds, Lev. xi. 13-19, must pro-
Lev, xv. 16-24, to say nothing of other bably have been, according to a fuller
reasons. Washing clothes in the earliest catalogue, Deut. xiv. 12-18, originally
times was done without much difficulty, twenty-one in number ; and round num-
Conversely, we often find washing clothes bers show that by the time of the Book of
as an abridged phrase. Origins such regulations had been long in
3 Lev. xi. 32-38. The Deuteronomist force.

PURIFICATIONS. 151
corpse, by a second grade of sevenfold stringency, and extreme
solemnity.1 For the purpose of this purification, a water was
specially prepared with peculiar materials and appropriate
sacrificial rites, as though pure water was far from being
adequate here. But whilst the rite, which elsewhere retained 172
its simplicity, appears here in fully developed and pronounced
forms, these only bring into the clearer daylight the most
intrinsic thoughts and impulses which are the source of all
such purifications. And accordingly in the case of other puri
fications of equal efficacy, which will be described below, very
simUar phenomena make their appearance. We have then
now to speak more closely of the general meaning of sacrificial
purification. When any pollution had arisen in the sacred community,
some one of its fundamental laws had been transgressed,
something repulsive and unholy introduced into it, and
the serene countenance of Jahveh become clouded. This neces
sitated an expiation, and an expiatory-offering if the pollution
were of sufficient importance. In the s'econd place, the special
impurity attaching to a member of the community must be
removed. This must be done where the impurity was very
great by the aid of certain special materials which were en
dowed according to ancient belief with potent cleansing powers.
Such materials,2 according to old custom in Israel, were to
be found primarily in the wood of the cedar-tree, to which a
special medicinal virtue was also ascribed in those regions ;
further there were the threads of scarlet cloth, to which was
ascribed a special healing virtue, just as in Italy at the present
day the same is believed of the red viper's-grass, as it is called,
and to which the impurity which was to be expelled was ex
pected to cleave ; finaUy, there were the leaves and stalk of the
hyssop, a small plant which Antiquity supposed to possess a like
purifying power, whose leaves were mixed up with bread to
purify it, and whose stalk was on this account employed by
preference whenever blood or water was sprinkled for cleaning
purposes.3 In the next place an expiatory-offering was made, but this
was brought into the closest connection with the specially pre-
1 Num. xix. Mat. Med. i. 105. For the use of hyssop
2 Lev. xiv. 4, 6, 49-52 ; Num. xix. 6. among the Greeks, who coupled it with
3 See p. 44. This last circumstance cedar-oil for purposes of sanctification,
follows from Ex. xii. 22, Num. xix. 18, see the same passage, and also iii. 29, ed.
also Ps. li. 9 [7]. In respect to this Spreng. ; comp. my Erkldrung des Schrif-
virtue of cedar-wood, reference has already ten des Apostels Johannes, i. s. 412 sq.
been made by earlier writers to Dioscorid.

152 WHAT IS UNCLEAN IN NATURE.
173 pared water of purification, or rather, as it is more exactly
termed, the water of pollution, i.e. to purify from pollution.1 At
the same time, in view of the great frequency with which contact
with human corpses is unavoidable, every death rendering this
necessary, it became desirable to find a suitable substitute for
bringing an expiatory-offering for every separate case. A red
heifer was therefore chosen as the most perfect type of an
animal for expiatory sacrifice,2 and this was slain before the
eyes of a superior priest as the representative of the whole
community, and outside ofthe camp (or town). Its blood was
sprinkled by the priest seven times in the direction of the
Sanctuary, and then the whole of its body along with the rest of
the blood was at once burned in the way already described,3
while the priest threw into the flames the three purifying
materials just spoken of, and all was reduced together to ashes.
These ashes were next brought to a clean spot, stiU without
the Sanctuary, and there carefully preserved. When a pollu
tion was to be effaced, they were mixed with fresh water into a
kind of lye, and sprinkled with a stalk of hyssop on the polluted
man, as weU as on aU implements or places that were considered
to be tainted. Everything which had to be sprinkled was ex
cluded as unclean for seven days from the community, and
sprinkled on the third and on the seventh day, if they were to be
purified in the course of the sacred period of a week.4 Moreover,
not only the priest who received and sprinkled the blood of this
expiatory-offering and rendered 'active assistance at its burning,
but also the man who carried the ashes to the clean spot, and
he who sprinkled the water mixed with them, and even everyone
who touched this compound only accidentally, at once incurred
the above-mentioned first grade of uncleanness.5
3. A stiU more stringent law applied to the priests, which
will be described when we come to them. Most severe was
174 it, however, in the case of the Nazirites.6 If one of these had
unawares been made unclean through a corpse, in addition to
the above purifications, he must on the seventh day shave the
hair of his head, i.e. recommence his whole vow from the very
beginning, then on the eighth day he was to offer two pigeons,
one as an expiatory- and the other as a whole-offering, in order
that he might therewith be freed from the impurity, and

1 -,•?

ni?"'©. should read \ as explained in Lehrbuch,
2 P. 60 sq. § 347a), 19, comp. xxxi. 23 sq.
3 F. 64. 5 This is sufficiently manifest fro
4 Num. xix. 12 (where, according to the explanations given on p. 63 sq.
the LXX, instead of the first nriD* we 6 P 84 sqq

PURIFICATIONS. 153
finally he had to pay for the suspension of his consecration by
a lamb as a guilt-offering. At the same time, if his consecra
tion had been vowed only for a definite period, the time which
had already elapsed was not counted.1
The transgressors of any of these stringent laws were
punished with extirpation, because they had ' defiled the
sacred dwelling of Jahveh,' 2 and in the actual life of the ancient
nation there are many other traces which clearly show the ¦
penetrating effects produced by the laws. Since the man in whose
house any one died found himself with his whole household
rendered unclean, and as even the food which might be standing
there in open vessels at the time shared the same fate,3 good
manners required that his friends should come to him to
share his solitude, to eat with him the funeral meal at the risk
of making themselves unclean thereby, and even of bringing
their own bread and drink with them, that there might be no
want either of the necessaries of life or of consolation, a prac
tice to which allusion is not unfrequently made.4 Again, the
custom of deeply lamenting a departed one for seven days finds
a natural place for itself here,5 although this period was easily
extended to thirty days in the case of deceased persons of high 175
distinction.6 Again, the speedy burial of the dead, now so
general, appears to have gradually originated in consequence
of the burdensome character of the corpse ; this custom, how
ever, is probably not particularly ancient.7 On the other hand,
the undefinable shrinking from a corpse was not carried to such
an extent in Israel as it was among other ancient and in part
highly civhised nations, where it was a custom either to expose
corpses on high places to be consumed by the birds, so that no
trace of them might remain (as was done among the Zarathus-
trians, and is stUl by many tribes of Central Asia), or else to
burn them and coUect only their ashes, as was done among the
Greeks and the Eomans. It is true that the interment of a king,
1 Num. vi. 9-12. Tamachek, p. 194 sq. — Ghevond, Hist, de
2 Num. xix. 13, 20. VArminie, p. 147.
3 Deut. xxvi. 14; comp. with Num. 5 1 Sam. xxxi. 13; comp. similar in-
xix. 15. stances, Job ii. 13 ; Ezek. iii. 15 sq. ;
* 2 Sam. iii. 35; Hos. ix. 4; Deut. Sir. xxii. 11, 12; Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 1. 1.
xxvi. 14; Jer. xvi. 5, 7; Ezek. xxiv. 17, It is still the same among the Lesghians,
22. The degeneration of this custom, at Houv. Ann. des Voyages, 1852, i. p. 75.
any rate in later times, when the house " Num. xx. 29 ; Deut. xxxiv. 8.
of mourning was compelled to go to most ' Undoubted allusions to it are not to
inordinate expense, is touched upon by be found before the New Testament, e.g.
Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 1. 1. It is the same Acts v. 6. Totally different customs are,
now in Central Africa, see Tutschek, in however, everywhere presupposed in the
Ausland, 1853, s. 16 sq„ 1855, s. 1222. primitive history, Gen. xxv. 9, comp. xxi.
Hanoteau's Grammaire de . la Langue 20 sq. ; xxiii. 2, comp. xxiv. 62.

154 WHAT IS UNCLEAN IN ATURE,
or possibly of any rich man, was accompanied by the burning of
much costly incense, as its traditional mark of honour,1 so that
to bum anyone came to be the standing phrase for honouring
him in this way.2 But the burning of the corpse itself was
deemed (as will be shown below in connection with the modes
of punishment) an aggravation of the penalty of death. Em
balming, however, and preserving the bodies of the dead, which
can be explained only out of the Egyptian religious belief about
death, was indeed introduced during the temporary sojourn of
the people in Egypt,3 but from the time of Moses it was com
pletely abandoned as a custom essentially connected with a
false religion.
As the law further decreed that anyone who touched a human
bone or a grave must submit to this onerous purification,4 it
became customary to make arrangements for burial in places
as far removed as possible from human habitations or from
temples, and by preference on high ground and in deep caverns
in the rock, and in addition even to strew them over with lime,
and thereby make the ground safe again to tread upon.5 What
a complete contrast this presents to the custom of building
Christian churches exactly over graves and round about the
176 scenes of martyrdom ! When, later on, certain kings began to
erect tombs for themselves within the temple of Solomon the
act is expressly censured.6
The possessions of an enemy when taken as booty had the
same contaminating effect as dead bodies. AU which were not
fireproof were merely to be washed, but whatever could be
purified by fire, such as metals and the like, had to be cleansed
in the fire, and then purified with the water of pollution.7
This stringent treatment is explained by the profound horror
which Israel felt towards aU heathen goods, which expressed
itself most strongly in the ban described already,8 and about
which there will be more to say below.
1 According to Jer. xxxiv. 5 ; 2 Chron. rich men was in striking contrast to the
xvi. 14, xxi. 19, comp. what is said 'graves of the common people,' or the
Hist. iii. 273 sq. places where the corpses of all the poor,
2 1 Sam. xxxi. 12. of criminals, and other despised beings,
3 According to the reminiscences in were all thrown together, and this made
Gen. 1. 2 sqq., 26, comp. Ex. xiii. 19. It the latter graves seem all the more hor-
evidently connects this with the rejection rible. bk. Is. Iiii. 8 [9], Jer. xxvi. 23.
of the whole of the Egyptian ideas about Such a place was the valley of corpses
death and immortality, which is spoken and ashes to the south of Jerusalem, Jer.
of Hist. ii. 133 sqq. xxxi. 40.
4 Num. xix. 16. 6 Ezek. xliii. 7-9. This may not
5 The latter is alluded to Matt, xxiii. have been done till the time of some of
27, Luke xi. 44, comp. Beule's Fouilles a the latest kings, comp. Hist. iii. 273 sq.
Carthage, in the Journ. des Sav., 1860, 7 Num. xxxi. 20, 21-24.
p ggg, — The magnificence and scrupu- 8 P. 76.
lously protected purity of the tombs of

WHAT WAS TOO HOLY TO BE TOUCHED. 155
— But just as, according to this ancient feeling, there existed
things too unclean or too unholy for man to be aUowed to touch,
so also were there things which, from the same cause, were too
holy to be touched without the contact being immediately penal.
The two feelings are in mutual correspondence; and the more
imminent seemed the possibility of the Holy Presence vanishing
again from the world, the more anxiously, nay, the more reck
lessly, did the endeavour to keep guard over it assume its dif
ferent forms. Jahveism, too; thought it possessed objects so
sacred that their mere contact with improper hands must neces
sarily be punished by nothing less than the ban.1 As accor
dingly, the highest sacrifice was deemed most holy 2 (i.e. a sacra
ment) anyone who touched its flesh when it was already conse
crated, was forfeited to the Sanctuary itself, i.e. came under the
ban ; whhst any of its blood which might have been accidentaUy
spattered on the dress must be scrupulously washed out at a
sacred place.3 Similar rites will have to be explained below 177
under the Priesthood. But all this gave rise to further scruples
of the strangest kind,4 and it was one of the Messianic hopes
that aU such painful fetters would finally disappear.5

c. Material Impurities in Human Beings, and elsewhere.
In the last place it was the ancient belief that certain sub
stances in living human beings rendered them unclean. This
arose in part from a natural dread of mysterious, enervating,
or shameful issues from the body, which sometimes of themselves
remind humanity strongly and suddenly enough of its helpless
ness, and chain the sufferers to their homes. In part it was at
the same time due to the bitterest experience of infection, and
the propagation of appearances on the human body, which,
being incomprehensible, were the object of special dread to
remote Antiquity. The law here only regulated more carefully
1 P. 75 sqq. Comp. also the Can. Apostol. lxv.
' P. 108. 4 Lii^e Haggai ii. 12 sq.
3 Lev. vi. 20 [27]; comp. Lucian, De 6 bk. Zach. xiv. 20 sq., comp. xiii. 1.
Dea Syra, Iiii. sq. When, later, the —If anyone would see how many utterly
Rabbis, according to the Mischna Jadajim trivial laws of purification were ultimately
iii. 5, passed a law that the holy Scrip- derived from the few that occur in the
tures made the hands unclean (so that Old Testament by the schools of the
auyone who touched them, or anything Pharisees, and with what strictness they
in contact with them, must wash their were to be observed, he should read the
hands), its source is to be found in the long articles M. »KD"I> Dv3> Tll?nN»
same feeling. Among the Peruvians even ni"inD> and others, but also compare with
every article of clothing or vessel which them such passages as Mark vii. 3 sq.,
had belonged to the king had to be which clearly show that these laws were
burned, as too sacred for another, as soon not even confined to the Talmud.
as he ceased to use it. Prescott, i. s. 347.

156 MATERIAL IMPURITIES IN HUMAN BEINGS.
a force which had long been operative in vague feelings and
impulses, but it gives us a vivid illustration of the extraordinary
striving to keep the sacred community perfectly clean and
pure, which was peculiar to Jahveism, and of its unparalleled
scrupulousness in avoiding everything which would destroy
this, or in stamping out again whatever had actuahy made its
appearance. The details are as follows : —
1. Seminal issue, whether in the usual case of the copulation
of the two sexes, or in the unusual case during the sleep of the
man, caused the above-mentioned uncleanness of the first grade ;
at the same time, any clothes or skin that was stained with it
had to be washed.1
178 2. The monthly period of the woman brought with it the
second grade of uncleanness, which lasted the space of seven
days, but without rendering necessary the use of specially pre
pared water. Everything on which the woman sat or lay
during this time, and every one who touched such things or
her, incurred the uncleanness of the first grade, but the man
who slept with her during this period had to suffer the same
more onerous uncleanness for seven days.2
The similarity to the latter case3 was of itself enough to
cause every mother to be unclean for seven days after the birth
of her child ; on the eighth day a son would be circumcised, in
which solemnity she would participate quietly at home ; but
after this week she had still to remain for thirty-three days
longer in the house, without touching anything sacred or going
to the Sanctuary. If it was a female child the seven days were
extended to fourteen, and the thirty- three to sixty-six, mani
festly in accordance with the ancient belief that a female child
causes the mother more labour and a longer illness. This belief
(even though it may have little ground in fact) was itself caused
by the weU-known primitive disfavour with which the birth of
a girl was regarded ; and like every ancient custom in this par-
1 P. 150. — Lev. xv. 16-18, convp. Deut. Origins legally determines it; but ac-
xxiii. 11 [10] sq. ; and as historical cording to the words in Lev. xviii. 19,
examples, 1 Sam. xx. 26, xxi. 5 [4] sq., xx. 18, the oldest law assigns the penalty
2 Sam. xi. 4. Comp. Jamblichus' Vita of death to this breach of purity, pro-
Pyth. xi. (lv.), and similerinstances among bably meaning in cases where it was be-
the Babylonians, Arabsand others. Herod, coming a regular practice. Nevertheless,
i. 198 ; ShahrastAni's Elmilal, p. 443. 11. — we find complaints of contempt of these
Josephus quotes an example of it, remark- as well as of other similar enactments in
able on account of its consequences, Antiq. Ezek. xviii. 6, xxii. 9-11.
xvii. 6. 4. . 3 It was even similar with the \oxe'a
2 See Lev. xv. 19-24, and the corre- of the Greeks, Thucyd. Hist. iii. 104.
sponding historical incident, Gen. xxxi. Eurip. Lphigen. in Tauris, ver. 384; still
35, with the allusions to it, Is. xxx. 22, more so among the Zarathustrians, see
lxiv. 6 [6]. This is how the Book of Vendiddd, xvi.

PURIFICATION AFTER CHILDBIRTH. 157
ticular sphere, it was able to persist for a very considerable
time, although under Jahveism the disfavour graduaUy declined.1
— When the one or the other period had elapsed, and when
therefore the bodily purity could be restored, the mother had to
bring an offering of purification which was of a similar kind
to those that belonged to the other stUl more stringent puri
fications which will be next described. After deliverance from 179
so trying a bodily evil, it seemed too little to bring' a single
expiatory-offering, at least a whole-offering seemed due to
Jahveh from one who was again to be received into partnership
in aU the good things of life. So what was required was a one-
year-old lamb as a whole- offering and a pigeon as an expiatory-
offering, or if poverty interfered with this arrangement, at any
rate the latter was to be supplemented by a second pigeon as
a whole-offering. Not till aU this was over did the priest
officiaUy pronounce the mother's restoration to purity.
3. What the nation found most intolerable were the extra
ordinary tedious appearances on the human body which told
of dire internal disorder. Two such kinds have prominence
given to them, undoubtedly only because they were then the
most frequent.
In the first place there was the issue from the sexual organs,
to which both men and women were liable, which might also
cease without being healed, and then only grow worse again.
Everyone who touched such a patient, or whom he touched
with unwashed hands, as well as all utensils of which he made
any use, became unclean in the milder sense, even his spittle
defiled anyone who was clean. If he was cured, he might,
when seven days had elapsed, be purified in body, and on the
eighth day had to offer a couple of pigeons.2 That this was, at
that time, a formidable disorder is plain, and we can have
equally little doubt that it bore the greatest resemblance to
gonorrhoea prevalent in Europe among males, and the fluor
albus among females. The whole description would make it
seem that it was not infectious.3
The other, and still far more fearful disease, was leprosy,
'Jthe stroke of God,' as it was universally termed, an evU which
suddenly produces small white spots, especially on the counte-
1 That the law in Lev. xii. really pre- beginning of the fifth chapter of the De
supposes a longer weakness of the mother Nat. Pucri.
in the case of the birth of a girl, follows 2 Lev. xv. 1-15, 25-30.
£rom the word an"J3|, ver. 5, comp. the » p^aps we have an historical ex-
corresponding, only more definite, words ample of the illness with women in Mark
in ver. 2. With this was long ago com- v. 25-34, where it is true no allusion is
pared what Hippocrates says just at tlie made to uncleanness.

158 LEPROSY.
180 nance, but which is so wearisome and so hideous, that the
ancient belief held that it always came as a curse ordained
by God on him who felt its sudden stroke,1 as though God had
so marked him, as an enraged father might spit in the face of
his chUd.2 The cure of it, too, was regarded as requiring
extraordinary skill. This evil was very common in Israel
during the latter years of its stay in Egypt,3 and appears to have
grown rarer during the new elevation under Moses, so that it
was related of the great national leader that he had removed
it by his intercession, and that he could draw his hand out of
his bosom either in a leprous state or not, just as he, or rather
as his God, willed.4 It lasted, however, among the people, long
after his days down into the latest times. The law, therefore,
strictly commanded the priest to examine most carefully and
repeatedly every one who was even suspected of leprosy, and to
pronounce him unclean if the evil really did show itself on
him.5 On account of the danger of infection, such a person,
with clothes rent for mourning, and bare head, concealing his
chin with his hand, and proclaiming aloud his own unclean
ness, must withdraw from all society and only settle down in
some utterly lonely spot, where at most he would have the
company of those who were suffering the same affliction.6 Should
his cure be effected, a most solemn, and, at the same time, most
cautious reception back into society was prescribed. When
the priest was satisfied that the cure was thorough, the simple
cessation of the evil was first celebrated. The convalescent
appeared with two clean birds, one of which was slain in an
earthen vessel over fresh water ; the other, still living, along
with cedar-wood, threads of scarlet cloth, and hyssop, was then
baptised in its blood,7 and after the blood had been seven times
181 sprinkled towards the person who was to be purified, the bird was
allowed to fly away free, as though it were itself to bear away
into the wide world aU the impurity which was now unattached.8
1 Comp. 2 Chron. xxvi. 19. ' P. 151.
2 According to Num. xii. 14. 8 Comp. what is said of this imagery
3 Hist. ii. 80 sq. Berlin Akad. MB. under the day of atonement. Similar
1859, s. 341 sqq. and stronger symbolical language is not
4 Num. xii. 11-13, Ex. iv. 6 sq., un- rare either among ancient or modern
doubtedly with ancient legends as their nations ; e.g. in Bali at the present time,
foundation. when the Sati spring into the fire, a dove
5 The remarkable, from a medical is let loose from their heads as an image
point of view, and exhaustive description, of their pure soul soaring to heaven (see
Lev. xiii. 1-44, is clear enough of itself; Ausland, 1852, s. 40); just as formerly,
the whole law is briefly referred to Deut. according to Herodian, Hist. bk. iv., 2.
xxiv. 8. Comp. also Seetzen's Beisen, ii. 22, an eagle (the spirit, the soul) was
s. 315 sq. allowed to fly to heaven from burning
6 Lev. xiii. 45 sq., comp. the historical funeral piles. For the rest comp. Knud-
ease, 2 Kings vii. 3. sen's Gross-Namaqualand (Barmen, 1848),

PURIFICATION FOR LEPROSY. 159
The convalescent washed, shaved, and bathed, and was now
pronounced clean for civic purposes, but had to keep away from
his house for seven days more, and this interval was deemed so
indispensable for repentance and for preparation for the great
joy of his life that was coming, that, according to the ancient
narrative, even Miriam the sister of Moses could not escape it,
when, on account of an offence towards Moses, she was pun
ished with a brief attack of leprosy.1 On the seventh day the
shaving, washing, and bathing were repeated with still greater
carefulness,2 and on the eighth day a most solemn sacrifice of
purification was offered. A male lamb was slain as a guilt-
offering, the priest put a streak of its blood on the tip of the
man's right ear, on the thumb of the right hand, and the great
toe of the right foot (i.e. he cleansed the whole man) ; then,
holding in his left hand the sacrificial oil (to which a healing
virtue was ascribed), he sprinkled it seven times towards the
Sanctuary, anointed with it these same terminal members of
the man, and poured the rest of it upon his head. Thus the
man was once more sanctified, and now a female lamb as an
expiatory-offering, and lastly a male lamb as a whole-offering
together with the corn belonging to it, were offered on his
behalf. The last two animals might, in case of poverty, be
replaced by pigeons.3
All who were unclean on account of any of the above-
explained causes, were not only to avoid the Sanctuary, but 182
were excluded from all assemblies of the community, and in
particular from the army and the military camp, a point which
in the early times was no doubt very strictly insisted on.4
Deuteronomy is still very strict as regards the military camp,
and has the additional requirement that every warrior shall go
to a certain place outside the camp to ease nature ; and a
mattock, which in other respects would be very useful in war,
was to be carried in his girdle in order that the excrements
might be at once covered up.6
— The law further assumed the existence of a similar leprosy
in clothes and houses, and laid down similar enactments for
the priests to observe in respect to it. It required that an
s. 27 ; and for the Hindoo Badaga, see s Lev. xiv. 1-32.
the Ev. Heidenboten, 1849, s. 103 sqq. 4 Lev. xv. 31, Num. v. 1-4. For the
1 Num. xii. 14 sq. The Book of rest comp. Dichter des A. B.s, iii. s. 22
Origins gives at the same time, according sq., 80, 2nd ed.
to its custom, an example of the law it 5 Deut. xxiii. 10-15 [9-14]. For-|JTK
describes ; if even Miriam had to submit we must read with the LXX T]~irK, and
tn it, how much more must everyone ^ mugt be understood as ' derived
2 Comp p. 152. from 3^*- according to Lehrbuch, § 234c.

160 UNNATURAL COMBINATIONS.
article of clothing on which the signs of leprosy had ap
peared should be burned, and that a house in which the
disease was gaining ground, should, if an attempt to cure it
proved futile, be utterly destroyed, and all the materials be
transported to some solitary unclean place. But a house which
was, as it were, restored to health at the first attempt to heal
it, must be reconsecrated by the same solemn procedure of
purification which was necessary for the human leper1 (though
as a matter of course without the seven days of penitence or
the guilt-offering). What was the nature of this leprosy which
attached to clothes and houses, it is very difficult to determine
with our present knowledge of the facts. It may be that human
leprosy then, as a new disease, possessed such far greater powers
of devastation that under certain conditions its matter might
even communicate itself to clothes and houses (in a simUar way
as infectious disorders are believed to propagate themselves
amongst us). Or it maybe that the ancient nation, on account
of its extreme horror of human leprosy, thought they detected
it in appearances where the resemblance was only superficial,
and have acted accordingly.2 The whole matter must await
183 future investigations for its closer determination. — With regard
to contagious diseases in cattle, the law is sUent, at least so far
as it is preserved. 2. Unnatural Combinations.
Two things, though neither of them of a nature to cause
impurity of themselves, might nevertheless by being united and
intermingled produce something quite repulsive, shocking to a
pure taste, and at the same time injurious. That things which
are of two different kinds, i.e., which cannot be united, should
not be mingled contrary to the order of nature, and therefore
also against the will of the Creator, is indeed a universal and
quite justifiable prohibition, to which Jahveism, with its in-
dweUing delicate feeling for whatever is fitting, and its stringent
horror of all that is unnatural, gave emphatic prominence, and
endeavoured with no less consistency to carry out in common
life. It is the lofty simplicity and purity of all its sentiments
and aims so peculiar to Jahveism, which here, too, finds ex
pression, and maintains its position against so many unnatural
1 Lev. xiii. 47-59, xiv. 33-57. lings, as it is called. But the description
2 Thus J. D. Michaelis thinks that of the latter in Seetzen's Reisen, i. s. 204,
.the leprosy in houses is corrosion due to does not harmonise, and neither are just
saltpetre, and that that in clothes is mort- the thing.

UNNATURAL COMBINATIONS. 161
or even;pernicious excrescences of Egyptian or other heathen
advanced civilisations. No doubt the horror of this mixing of
different things may easily be carried too far, and in the dawn
of Antiquity when the special applications of this principle
passed into law, man had not nearly enough knowledge and
experience in order to settle the unalterable boundaries in all
particular cases. But we need not on this account fail to recog
nise the truth of the principle.
The individual applications of it which the oldest law1
already gives as examples are the following : — 1. Animals of
two different species were not to be allowed to copulate. This
was right enough ; only the question arises here, how far the
animal species are related one to another, or whether they are
totally unrelated ? However, the law could not have forbidden 184
the crossing pf the horse and the ass, so far, at least as the oft-
mentioned mule proves this. Deuteronomy forbids in like
manner yoking cattle and asses to the same plough.2 — 2. The
field (as well as the vineyard, according to the later addition of
the Deuteronomist3) was not to be sown with different kinds of
seed. What primitive custom may have given occasion for this
prohibition, we are now unfortunately unable to determine ; but
the law assuredly meant more than that bad seed should not
be mixed with good, or that weeds should not be tolerated on
cultivated land. — 3. No clothing was to be worn which was
made of two different materials, e.g., of wool and of linen.
There are clear traces4 that this was common in Egypt, and
probably the material was adulterated for purposes of decep
tion. All the more stress, therefore, would the law place on
absolute purity and simplicity in articles of clothing. The full
meaning and the final occasion of this enactment may, however,
be recognised somewhat more closely when we remember the
ancient estimation in which wool was held as a material for
dress, a point which is spoken of below in connection with the
dress of the priests. — Nor must we suppose that the law lightly
1 Lev. xix. 19, the oldest law concern- fore, at that time have been a name still
ing D'N/S, different things, which must generally understood. But as by the
not be "brought into union. The way in ^ime °f the Deuteronomist the word may
which the Deuteronomist translates such ^v? hecome °b.s™re- h« explains it xxi,
primitive phrases into the language of l1' b? the addition 'of wool and linen.
his own day may be seen very clearly in In ,fae<r ]l may easily be tlie same form
xxii 9-11 v/ith dialectic changes as the two words
2 Deut. xxii. 10. still retained in Coptic, Ci.pT ftli-T,
" Deut. xxii. 9. i.e. wool-linen, as a compound. The
4 In the primitive law, Lev. xix. 19, transition of an r into a j; can be ex-
T3t2J?ES', the Egyptian name for such plained, and the last word may have
mixed material, is added, clearly for the ended in the earliest times with a z (r),
purpose of explanation. It must, there- passing finally into a u.
M

162 UNNATURAL COMBINATIONS.
regarded the transgression of these enactments. There is one
passage1 which shows us that a field improperly sown, together
with its fresh seed or with its crop, was in danger of being
confiscated without further ado.
A similar prohibition forbids men to boil a kid in its mother's
milk. It seemed as though it was most harsh and shocking to
all humane feeling to cook the young creature in the very milk
which should properly nourish it, and as though even in death
it, as well as its mother, could feel the pain occasioned thereby.
We no longer know what more or less shocking spectacle may
185 have given occasion to this prohibition, at the very least it may
have been the growth of a custom of slaying and cooking both
the old and the young animal at the same time. The words,
however, evidently became a kind of proverbial saying by which
Jahveism was reminded of the gentle kindness and considerate
forbearance which ought always to distinguish it from ruder
religions. As a short pithy maxim of this sort, this sentence
concludes the whole series of laws in the Book of Covenants,
and in later legal compilations it recurs in a position which of
itself shows its importance.2 In like manner the Book of Origins
requires that a full-grown animal and its young shall never be
slain for eating on the same day.3 But when the Jews much
later thence derived the theory and established the practice that
meat should never be cooked with butter4 (because it is impos
sible to tell whether the butter does not come from the mother
of the calf or buUock), they then in part exceed the meaning
of the saying, in part fall short of it.
In the next place forbidden marriages would in great
measure belong to this section, but they will be better spoken
of below. This, however, is quite the place to notice the
stringent prohibition of all the unnatural lusts mentioned by
the law,5 as well as of intercourse between men and beasts.6
1 Deut. xxii. 9. For the verb J»Hp> the fat of its mother,' would not suit the
see p. 79. 5n-jn i"IN^J?n means, accord- case '> the s.ense "^ould be the same, but
. t i 7 "i" e ooii onr, . iL ^ the connection between the milk and the
ing to Lehrbuch, J 281 A 290,, that ,. stin suckj k;d would be lost_
filled with the seed, i.e. the vineyard in , T .. „ ... ...
which the seed is about to spring up. .. £ev' xx'.'.' 28' A elmllar prohibi-
2 Ex. xxiii. 19.— xxxiv. 26 ; Deut. xiv. t,on' Deut X3m' 6 s1-' ,s further touched
21. If it said here only ' thou shalt not on below' ,
slay (sacrifice),' we might perhaps take . ' 0r 37113 "ISO. as it is found M.
the intermediate words in the sense ' on ' 'W> T- 9> anc' which they would deem
its mother's milk,' so that the prohibition absolutely forbidden.
would only apply to the slaying of a very * Lev. xviii. 22, repeated in the Book
young animal. But then it could not be of Origins xx. 13 ; comp. also what is
to ' cook ' or ' seethe ; ' and the special sig- said below in connection with marriage.
nificance which it is manifest the saying « Lev. xviii. 23; xx. 15 sq.; Deut.
has would not be explained. — Even the xxvii. 21.
conjecture to read, as in ver. 18, 3jr)3, ' in

MUTILATION OF THE BODY. 163
All such abominations were to be, punished with death, and the
animal was to be killed along with the human brute.
Even the prohibition against interchange- of dress between 186
the sexes 1 finds its place here, so far as it is capable of bearing
a general significance. Eor as an actual fact, such interchange,
when made on purpose and of itself worthy of censure, occurred
for the most part in certain heathen mysteries, where men put
on the dress of women or women that of men.2 Not need we
doubt that some such abominable spectacles' were present in
the mind of the legislator, for they were in existence early
enough in Egypt and among the Canaanites. But, the law, in
the universal form in which it was conceived, undoubtedly
admits a more general application.3
Unnatural Mutilation and Disfigurement of the Body.
Nearly allied to the prohibitions of unnatural combinations,
are those which relate to the mutilation and disfigurement of
the body. It is really very surprising- to see the warmth and
decision with which at so early a date Jahveism set its face
against every kind of savage disfigurement of the body, and
especially of the human frame. Only a religion which saw in
the whole of creation the self-constant power of a single, infi
nitely exalted, wise and good Creator, and in the human body
the possible abode of the holy spirit of this all-perfect God,
coidd have successfully demanded in its legislation so deep a
horror of arbitrarily injuring and defacing the lovely work of
God. No doubt circumcision presents a manifest exception in
this legislation ; 4 but apart from this case, which came down
unaltered from a very early time, the law shows here as else
where, the grand self-consistency with which it endeavoured to
carry out what it deemed needful. The details of the following
cases specially concern us here.
In the first place, the law forbade every sort of human
1 Deut. xxii. 5. an offering to a goddess, and received in
2 It was just the same habitual con- its place for the period that the myste-
ception and desire which expressed itself, ries lasted women's clothing which the
e.g. in the representation of Hermaphro- priests kept in readiness, an 1 which they
dites ; comp. Gerhard on Eros, in the received back again when all was over.
Berl. Akad. Abh. 1848, s. 290 and 109. • — There is a ludicrous reference to change
Raoul-Rochette in the Memoires de I'ln- of clothing in a battle in Joseph. Antiq.
stitut, xvii. 2. p. 92 sqq., 287. The best bk. iv. 8. 43.
known case is the clothing of the priests 3 As Tiberius, in the Annals of Tacitus
of Kybele as women, comp. Hist. iv. 100 iii. 53, severely condemns in sweeping
sq., and Meliton in Cureton's Spicil. Syr. terms the promiscum viris et jeminis
p. 28, 2. It was done, e.g. in this way. vestes.
The men brought their richest attire as 4 P. 89 sqq.
M 2

164 MUTILATION OF THE BODY.
castration, so much so that any man thus mutilated was shut
out from the community and its rights.1 The life at the
Egyptian and Assyrian courts had undoubtedly introduced this
immoral practice at a very early date.2 All the more strongly,
therefore, did Jahveism oppose it ; and it is plainly due only to
a renewal ofthe Egyptian and Assyrian influence when in later
days eunuchs are to be found at the courts of the kings of the
Ten Tribes and of Judah.3 David certainly did not introduce
this court-practice, nor yet in all probability did Solomon.
Nevertheless, when later on, an undeserved contempt for those
who had once been castrated had not unnaturaUy become pre
valent, we find one of the later prophets speaking strongly
enough against the universal belief in the inferior moral worth
of a eunuch.4 — The consistency so often mentioned of the pri
mitive legislation procured the extension of this command even
to all domestic animals.5 This must have caused the rearing
of cattle to have assumed a remarkable form in many respects,
but we cannot doubt that at one time the law was carried out
with extreme stringency.
In the second place, there prevailed in those countries from
very early times, the varied expressions of a wildly-excited
mourning for the dead, which had no scruples in exercising its
188 raging violence on the body, and thought that propriety de
manded its disfigurement or mutilation. The hair of the head
and beard, man's adornment according to the oldest represen
tation of the Hebrews, was shaved, wholly or partially, and the
body beaten or scratched to wound it.6 The law did not
indeed forbid those signs of excited grief and wailing which
can soon be effaced, such as tearing of the clothes in front
downwards from the breast (which was but a sign that mourn
ing garments must now be put on), or beating of the breast ;
but it did prohibit the above-mentioned manifestations which
would permanently disfigure the body.7 However, the Book of
Origins is moved to increase the stringency of this prohibi
tion, especially in regard to the priests, as though elsewhere
it was not always adhered to so strictly ; 8 and this latter fact,
1 The law on the matter is now to be 3 See Hist. iii. 271.
found only in Deut. xxiii. 2 [1] ; but 4 ek. Is. lvi. 3-5.
according to all tokens it dates from the 5 This is implied in the words Lev.
origin of the community, and its omission xxii. 24, although this law is spoken of
from the earlier sections of the Pentateuch here only in connection with sacrifice.
which are preserved to us is only accidental. 6 The T^jnili Deut. xiv. 1: comp.
2 As may be seen so vividly, as re- 1 Kings xviii. 28.
gards the ancient court of Nineveh, on the ' Lev. xix. 28, and with a fine reason
Assyrian antiquities dug out by Botta and for it, Deut. xiv. 1 sq.
Layard. " Lev. xxi. 5.

MUTILATION OF THE BODY. 165
especially in relation to cutting the hair, is plain also from
other tokens.1
In the third place, just the same disfigurements ofthe beauty
of the body were customary as an imagined mark of reverence
for a Deity, as has already been more fully described.2 These
superstitious practices were forbidden by the oldest law with
the utmost decision,3 and here there can be no doubt that
the practice in ordinary life in Israel was no less strict. Even
the branding or tattooing on the skin of the name or symbol
of the Deity, as well as of sundry sacred guardian words,
which was a custom very extensively prevalent among many
ancient nations of those regions,4 is forbidden by the earliest
law ;5 and as a matter of fact the practice does not seem to have
prevailed extensively in the nation, although the Bible not
unfrequently alludes to such symbols on the body by which
the confessors of a God deemed themselves protected. s-
Finally, it was undoubtedly another consequence of Jahve- 189
ism's peculiar horror of all mutilation and laceration of the
human body, that it did not legalise any intentionally horrible
capital or corporal punishments, so that wherever such are to
be found in the Bible, they appear to have been first introduced
from the royal courts among the heathens.7 The matter cannot
be further discussed till we come to the judicial penalties.
Equally decided, however, is the injunction of the law
not to despise nor yet deride or persecute anyone on account,
of a bodily infirmity or of an obscure terrible disease and
1 Amos viii. 10, Is. iii. 24, Mic. i. 10, b. 187 sq.
Jer. xvi. 6, xli. 5 (comp. xlvii. 5). 7 Like the death inflicted in a thou-
2 P. 89 sqq. sand cruel forms by slowly tearing apart
a Lev. xix. 27 sq. That in these two or cutting off the limbs, e.g. a right
verses, only the first member of the second hand and a left foot, the Sixoto/j.s'hi or
verse refers tomourmngforthedead.isalso -\\. \- , . , ,, ,
clear from the addition tfe£. which is ^^ cT t^ whloh Mahomet so
found only here, and on which comp. often speaks of in connection with cruci-
p. 149, nt. 2. fixion, Sur. v. 37, vii. 121, xx. 74, xxvi.
. T„ . ., , ... .. „  49, and which is still practised e.g. in
4 It is the ^ which the women Ethiopia (Sapeto>s yiagg% traiBogos,V.
used to do in the early days of the Arabs, 1 19). ™ ^ also was in Persia, Dan. ii. 5,
Lebid's Moall. ver. 9 ; and even now the Matt. xxiv. 51 ; or by sawing m pieces
pilgrim to Mecca receives three cuts on (comp. Cureton's Ancient Syriac Docu-
his face (Maltzahn's Wallfahrt nach ments, p. 59 sqq., and ire . in Lagarde's
Mecca, ii. s. 132, 244). Comp. also the Anai p 57i 22 . Suet. Calig. s. 27 ; also
Britonum stigmata, in Tertull. De Vel. mentioned in Shahnameh as practised
Virg. x. among the Persians), and smashing in
5 Lev. xix. 284. _ in pieces, Heb. xi. 35-37; by crucifixion,
6 See note on the Apocal. vii. 3, comp. <.am^ ff{st_ v. s. 482 sqq. [German ed.] ;
Ezek. ix. 6, but not bk. Is. xliv. 5. For ^y slowly roasting e.g. in glowing ashes,
the Maccabean period see Psalm. Sol. xv. jer xxjx 22, 2 Mace. xiii. 5 ; lastly, by
10; 3 Mace. ii. 29, and on the fffa^ Uindi^ In *", ™geance was ofteQ
, „ j.j.nv.i,. ^, m^.-t. very severe, see below.
of the Hindoos see Gott. Gel. Anz. 1852,

166 CONSIDERATION FOR NATURE.
distress.1 On this matter the Book of Job has something more
to say. 3. The Consideration shown for Nature.
All these prohibitions lead up to the one great command, to
honour and be considerate towards Nature as the work of God,
nay, even to sympathise with her and live in her life. Thus, not
only wiU the Creator's will be done, but the benefits which man is
instructed and permitted to draw from her will increase. Even
the legislation of Jahveism is penetrated, with a kindly feeling
of this sort. The young fruit tree was to be three years before
it was pruned on man's behalf, and even if it bore fruit, no use
was as yet to be made of it. In the fourth year its fruit was to
be offered to Jahveh,. and only in the fifth year did it belong
regularly to man. This is what the Book of Origins prescribes,2
and promises thereby with justice that he who does not pre
maturely usurp or use greedily the fertility of Nature, shaU
190 reap all the richer blessing. Deuteronomy even enacts that in
war no fruit tree in an enemy's country shall be cut down
for the purpose of using its wood for the operations of a siege,3
and thereby puts to shame those cf our time who would for
get ' that it is not with trees that war is carried on, but with
men.' In particular the law enjoined consideration for animals, as
the objects which in all nature stand nearest to -man, and whose
sufferings he himself is most able to share. No doubt Deuter
onomy, true to its whole spirit, is the first to find a definite
place for these feelings in the various details of legislation, the
ox treading out the grain was not to be muzzled, eggs or young
ones -were not to be taken out of the nest along with the
mother, but the latter was to be allowed to fly away.4 But
the . genuine Mosaic comments on the Ten Commandments
already show that even as the benefits of the Sabbath were
especially to be shared by all the hard-toUing dependent human
beings, so too they were to come to the rehef of the similarly
toiling domestic animals,5 and an equally kindly tone sought to
prevaU permanently among the people.6
1 Lev. xix. 14; brought very strongly p. 162.
.into prominence, Deut. xxvii. 18. 5 Ex. xx. 10, Deut. v. 14, comp. Hist.
2 Lev. xix. 23-25. ii. 163 sq.
3 Deut. xx. 19 sq. __ 6 Comp. Prov. xii. 10, Hos. xi. 4.
¦ " Deut. xxv. 4, xxii. 6-sq„; comp.

PERSONAL SANCTITY. 167

II. Sanctity in Human Beings, or Personal Holiness.
For man as distinguished from other beings, Jahveism set
up a highest truth, which was capable of serving in all laws as a
guiding principle in respect to man's various legal relations. This
is the conception that man from the time of the creation, bears
the image of God, that is, possesses a worth which raises him
above the rest of creation, which, just because it had been given
to him at the creation, never again could be wholly lost, of
which all men without distinction essentially partake, and
which, as a germ implanted in each individual, must freely
develope itself there, so as to fulfil its divine destiny and bring
forth the flower of its hidden nature. This is aheady the posi
tion taken by the Book of Origins ; • and the same fundamental 191
view of the worth and destiny of mankind, even apart from this
fine idea of man being formed in the image of God, penetrates
the whole of the Old Testament in the most manifold repre
sentations and phrases. Thus a sure foundation was laid for
aU particular legal enactments in regard to man in aU the
conditions of his life, if only this fundamental truth were car
ried, with unfaltering consistency and determination, right
through aU the ancient obscurities and complications which
had become traditional in the common and lower life.
But nowhere have so many difficulties been at all times
accumulated against the carrying out of a lofty truth, as in
that province in which a man feels himself primarily a mem
ber of a particular household, or tribe, or nation ; and these
relations are mostly to be found where the distinctive charac
teristics of man are concerned. Long before the truths of an
elevated religion tried to penetrate the world, the sanctuaries
of the house, of the tribe, and of the nation, were the firm seats
of customs which offered the most stubborn resistance when
ever it seemed as if the only things that were concerned were '
man himself and the lower primary conditions of the existence
of a human household. If this fact still proves true everywhere,
how much more would it be the case in those early days when,
for the first time, such higher truths were revealed, and the
establishment of their authority was attempted ! In conformity
1 In order to understand the complete repeated along with other similar primary
idea of the Book of Origins we must laws. How other writers, though without
compare Gen. i. 26 sq. with v. 1-3, ix. 6, this special conception, proclaim the same
and remember that the fundamental truth fundamental truth, may be seen in the
(ix. 6) is repeated in a primary law on example Job xxxi. 15.
the worth of man ; it may also have been

168 THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE.
with this fact, we can distinctly observe that this loftier prin
ciple was allowed freer play, and soon secured greater successes
in all those distinctions where it was least hampered by primi
tive domestic customs. At the same time so much genuine
192 motive power dwelt in it, that in the course of time it did
imperceptibly modify and finally completely transform the life
of the ancient community in spite of all the mighty force of
opposing customs.
We shall now consider this personal sanctity of man in its
separate aspects, and commence with the one which is nearest
to hand and is at the same time the most momentous of all.

1. The Sanctity op Human Life.
That the life, or, to express the idea in another more Hebrew
word, the ' soul ' of a man, possesses of itself an inviolable
sanctity, is one of the first principles which was firmly esta
blished among the nobler races from the very earliest times,
and in which all those presentiments of something Infinite
being implanted in man sought to find the clearest expression
possible. All more particular historical reminiscence begins
with the fact of the sanctity of human life being already ter
ribly violated in every variety of way ; and the sinful im
pulses had also become sufficiently pernicious and excitable in
this direction before the human race set about repressing them
energetically. Then, in order to uphold the true principle,
there arose among the nobler and more spirited races what is
known as the vengeance of blood. This was already an esta
blished custom in tho primitive days when the household was
still everything, and when a kingdom embracing all individuals
was either extremely weak or altogether wanting, and at that
time it alone furnished this most indispensable reciprocal pro-
" tection for life. The avenger of blood is the redeemer,1 he is
the next heir ; he inherits not merely the goods but the corre
sponding debts and duties of the dying man. If, then, it is one
of the first duties of a living man not to endure any wrong that
has been put upon him and to avenge all insult, if, moreover,
•having been wrongfully murdered, he is himself unable to dis
charge this duty, then the nearest of kin or his representative
inherits, along with his other new duties, the vengeance of
1 It is originally ?K3, the redeemer, self from another who now possesses oi
ransomer, he who desires to redeem a Ietains it contrary to justice.
person or a thing which belongs to him-

THE AVENGER OF BLOOD. 169
blood as the most sacred of them all, and the full burden of
infamy rests on him should he not discharge this most burning
obligation. Accordingly, it was a further and natural conse
quence that the whole family of the murdered man took this
duty upon themselves,1 and however long, or with whatever
craft, the murderer might seek to baffle the avenger, this only 193
called for more craft and persistence on the part of the latter.
The investigation whether a murder were intentional or not
undoubtedly led very early to simple expiation for what was
done without purpose ; but among many nations, even in the
case of intentional murder, it became a custom to compound
with blood-money for the life which was forfeited to this right
of retaliation. Among the people of Israel this ancient vengeance of blood
lasted a very long time with little essential alteration. Even
in David's time his first general Joab suffers himself to be
carried away in executing it with the aid of his brother, without
being at once seriously punished by the king ; 2 and images and
phrases originating in its practice, and in the most vivid ideas
about it, abound in the Old Testament.3 It is true that the
Book of Origins requires that the community should first insti
tute an investigation into the guilt of every murder, and that
at least two witnesses should come forward against the accused,
a regulation which assuredly comes from Moses himself.4 But
this law may have been often infringed, especially by men of high
station full of vain notions of their social honour ; and in all cases
there at any rate remained, this significant relic of former days,
that the murderer when condemned to death was simply handed
over to the avenger of blood and his family for the vengeance
to be inflicted. Thus it was still the avenger of blood alone
who insisted on the accusation and the passing of the judgment.6
1 Like 2 Sam. xiv. 7, from wl ich the that the D>B»'?E', are great-grandchildren
-plural Q^i may be explained. Ruth ii. (aa(J therefore' Q^ v,3, great-great-
20. Among the Bedouins at the present grandchildren)j reckoned" as the third
day, the ,\j extends even to the fifth generation from the father of the race,
degree of kinship ; Burckhardt's Notes on is proved by the derivation of the Mon-
the Bed., p. 85. Layard's Discoveries, p. g°lian word ghotschi, great-grandchildren,
305 sq. If we reckon this number five from gho, three. Comp. also Lehrbuch,
according to a series of consecutive gene- § 155 e.
rations, and remember that so many, 2 2 Sam. iii. 26-30, comp. 11. 23.
according to Gen. 1. 23, were the utmost 3 Gen. iv. 10, Job xvi. 18 sq., comp.
that could be thought of as living to- «. 27, bk. Is. xxvi. 21 ; the expression
gather with the father of the race or his 2 Sam. i. 21, has less connection here
sons, we shall be able to explain from it 4 It follows from Num. xxxv. 12, 24
the indent way of speaking of the Diviue SQ,°,-> 30-
vengeance extending unto the fifth gene- 5 Num. xxxv. 19, 24 sqq. ; repeated
ration, Ex. xx. 5, comp. xxxiv. 7. For Deut. xix. 12. Very similar was the

170 THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE.
191 But what is really peculiar to Jahveism in this matter is the
universal extreme dread of in any way poUuting the holy land
by human blood, and the mighty efforts corresponding to so
unusual a dread which it made to wash out any stain of this
kind which had been contracted. Here, again, we have a fine
manifestation of the earnest moral tone of Jahveism, which,
partly by means of the persistence of these most vivid ideas
about the vengeance of blood, partly by means of the loftier
conceptions which now for the first time began to prevail
respecting the worth of mankind, stimulated the feelings till
they appeared in the form of this most profound dread. With
the prohibition of murder the second half of the Ten Command
ments begins ; • the legislation in the Book of Covenants in like
manner assigns with terse emphasis the penalty of death for
every murder,2 and wherever the nature of its theme gives occa
sion for it, the Book of Origins repeats the same lesson with a fine
copious flow of the most serious discourse ; 3 and again, Deute
ronomy commands that no outburst of pity shaU stand in the
way of removing the stain of innocent blood from Israel.4 It is
besides distinctly stated that this law shaU come into operation
in the case of every murder without exception, so that even the
sanctuary of the house, should a murder take place there, will
not protect the criminal.5 Even if a human life is destroyed,
e.g., by a buU, this must not pass without punishment. The
buU himself, as bearing an immeasurable weight of guilt, must
be stoned, and as an unclean beast might not be eaten ; even
the life of its master, if he were acquainted with the animal's
tendency to gore, must also at the same time be forfeited.
Such were the requirements of the earliest law, which came
195 into existence while this profound dread was still fresh.6 But
if the murderer of a corpse, e.g., found lying out in the fields,
could not be discovered, then the Elders of the nearest town
were to slaughter a young clean heifer over the waters of a
brook which was never dried up, and then while the water was
carrying away the blood of this heifer — which was shed instead
procedure of the Arabs under the first have been arbitrary.
Chalifs ; comp. the conclusion ofthe nar- 2 Ex. xxi. 12.
rative, a most instructive one for this 3 Gen. ix. 5 sq., Lev. xxiv. 17, Num.
whole legal system, Hamasa, p. 235 sq. xxxv. 33 sq.
Comp. also the ancient phrase, Gen. xvii. 4 Deut. xix. 11-13.
14, which will be explained under the 5 Ex. xxi. 20, Gen. ix. 5, Lev. xxiv.
judicial punishments. 17, 21.
1 In the Cod. Vat. of the LXX in » In the legislation of the Book of
Ex. xx. 13, the prohibition of murder Covenants, Ex. xxi. 28-32; comp. above
comes after that of stealing; not so in p. 8 sq,
Deut. v. 17. The transposition seems to

BLOOD-MONEY. 171
of that of the criminal, and for this reason could wash away
the innocent blood of the murdered man — they were to pro
test their own innocence and make entreaties for Divine com
passion. Deuteronomy is the first to give this command,1
but here, as in certain instances elsewhere, it is plainly only
supplementing, according to its own style of composition, a
primitive sacred custom which had not till then been committed
to writing. For the essential element in this practice is wholly
derived from this profound dread belonging to the original
Jahveism. It was an important consequence of this stringency that the
acceptance of blood-money was not permitted in any form what
ever, and so deep were the roots of this feeling that no special
Hebrew word was found to express this mode of compensation.2
The guilty owner of a bull with a propensity for goring was the
only one who could redeem himself by such a payment, the
amount of which was to be determined according to the will of
the avenger of blood.3 All other blood-money is expressly for
bidden by the law,4 although there are many tokens5 to show
that in later times it was nevertheless sometimes accepted.
StUl more remarkable is it that even for unintentional man
slaughter 6 no money might be paid as an expiation, notwith
standing that this had always been allowed by the ancient
Arabic legislation. The holy land seemed to be too much dese- 1 96
crated by human blood shed even in this manner, for it to be
possible to efface the stain by so inadequate a means as money.
The law provided for such a case in this way : a man who,
through no fault of his own, against whom no evU purpose
(i.e. hatred) could be established, and who without any lying in
wait for his victim, but purely through misfortune, had slain
another, might flee to a sacred spot, and there shelter himself
under its superior sanctity from the human vengeance of the
victim's relatives. No place, however, but one specially sacred,
was competent to protect one whose hand had been dyed with
human blood, and accordingly when the holy land was taken
1 Deut. xxi. 1-9. This would be ac- more extended use of money as compen-
corclingly the 6iW ra KaXvrfipia, Aver- sation, do not apply here ; the only ones
runcatoria Sacra, Jamblich. Vit. Pyth. that are decisive are such as Prov. xiii. 8
ch. xxviii. (141). (if we are not to think here merely of
2 "123. properly expiation, according the case in Ex. xxi. 30) and Ps. xlix.
to p. 123, nt. 4, stands for blood-money. 8 V] *h «• Job xxxvi. 18 (here, how-
Comp Sur vi 69 eTer' neatnen practices may have given
3 Ex xxi 30 ' occasion to use the phrase).
4 Num. xxxv. 31. 6 Of course heathen legislation, too,
5 Not such phrases as bk. Is. xliii. 3, punished this, see the later subtleties on
1 Sam. xii. 3, which, on account of the the point in Porphyr. De Abstin. i. 9.

172 THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE.
possession of and divided, three specially sacred places on either
side of the Jordan had this right of refuge assigned to them,
receiving however along with it the duty of executing the
blood- ban.1 Each one of these places was at such a distance
from the rest that six cities of refuge were enough for the whole
of the twelve tribes. Nevertheless, as during the period of the
Judges, the possessions of the nation passed altogether into a
state of great insecurity, it may be that only the one place
where the ark of the covenant stood was deemed a consecrated
secure refuge.2 On the other hand, in the later times of the
kings, the growing population seems to have necessitated an
increase in the number of those on the nearer side of the Jordan,
as is proved by the expression in Deuteronomy.3 The fugitive
had to state the grounds of his petition for security at the gate
of such a city; and only when these reasons were approved
197 was he admitted and taken under the protection of the commu
nity of the sacred place. The avenger of blood could, however,
still demand a legal investigation before the great national
assembly.4 If this investigation proved the real guilt of the
manslayer, he was bound and handed over to the avenger of
blood and his allies, and these executed the death-penalty upon
him in what way they pleased.5 But if the result was to show
that the man had caused the death of the other without inten
tion, he was then permitted to dwell quietly within the precincts
of a secure place of refuge of this kind ; being sufficiently
punished in never being able to leave its narrow boundaries,
for should the avenger of blood meet with him outside, he might
kill him without punishment. Only when the death of the
High-priest took place, did a new era of judicial decisions
commence, and the innocent manslayer, if in the mean time no
new grounds for suspicion had been discovered against him,
regained his full freedom.6 The reason of this will be explained
hereafter. The law, however, forbade as utterly inadmissible,
and defiling the sanctity of the place, any convention between
1 Book of Origins, Num. xxxv. 9-24, see added are to be placed on the nearer
Josh. xx. Of the three on the nearer side of the Jordan, is clear from the ex-
side, the most northern city, Kedesh, was pressions in ver. 1-7, comp. iv. 41-43. for
already, by its name, a sanctuary in the there is no reason for making the Deute-
north from primitive times ; Shechem and ronomist contradict himself here.
Hebron were so also by other well-known * Num. xxxv. 12, 24 sq., according to
adequate tokens. We know less of those which the words in Josh. xx. 6 are to be
beyond Jordan : Bezer in the south, Ra- understood.
moth in the middle, and Golan in the 6 It follows from the words 2 Sam.
north. iii. 34, as well as from the nature of the
2 This appears from Ex. xxi. 13 sq. case itself.
_ 3 Deut. xix. 8 sq. That the three « Num. xxxv. 25-28, Josh. xx. 6.
cities which the Deuteronomist wishes to

CITIES OF REFUGE. 173
the manslayer and the avenger of blood. The former, if he
were really guilty, might pay no blood-money to the latter in
order to obtain the privilege of sheltering himself within the
sacred place of refuge.1 Nor could any altar to which he might
have fled protect the guilty criminal.2
The Book of Origins seeks further to define the cases of
intentional murder more closely,3 but the law allows no inter
mediate cases between intentional murder and unintentional
manslaughter. So long, therefore, as the stringency of Jah
veism prevailed, we may be sure that unintentional manslaughter
was restricted within extremely narrow boundaries, so that a
man of a more noble disposition even expresses his pity for the
unhappy one, who ' laden with blood ' has to make his way,
perhaps through a thousand perils to a distant place of refuge,4
and it was censured as an infamous transgression to slay such 198
fugitives on the way ere they reached the sacred spot, and a
regular judicial procedure could be instituted.5 And while
Jahveism gave great prominence to the inconsolable state of
the guilty man tortured by an evil conscience, even though he
had committed a murder only in unpremeditated haste and
passion ; 6 so also did it depict in the example of the wicked
patriarch, Cain, the possibility of the control of a higher Divine
grace being exercised in the case of a murder, and the fearful
Consequences of a wild vengeance for blood.7 Indeed, we cannot
fail to recognise that it clings to the possibility of sparing
the life of the murderer, and maintains, at any rate in this
example out of primitive times, that even he may become a
member of the human race, and one not without its utility.
This was as though to prove that what seemed impossible in
the actual state of the human race, might yet be restored in
the days of Messianic perfection, even as it had been in the
remotest primeval times.8 — When the institution of the human
1 Num. xxxv. 32. agitated in our times about the possible
2 Comp. 1 Kings ii. 28-34. abolition of capital punishment, we must
3 Num xxxv. 16-24 ; comp. the much primarily commence in the Bible with a
briefer distinctions of the earlier legisla- correct explanation of this legend, Gen. iv.
tion, Ex. xxi. 13. Unintentional man- 1-17, as it is given in the Jahrbb. der
slaughter is distingnished most clearly of Bibl. Wiss. vi. s. 1-16, and is supple-
all in the example Deut xix. 5. mented here. If the issue of all history
4 Accordingly Deut. xix. 3 gives an may correspond to its origin, and the
exhortation to smooth the way to the sacred Messianic perfection restore the simplicity
places ; and this, along with the addition and purity of primitive days, then the
similar in spirit explained above, is all Divine power to inflict punishment en-
that is new in Deut xix. 1-13. trusted to mankind (p. 138) lor these ex-
5 Hos. vi. 9. treme cases, as it was given in the course
" Prov. xxviii. 17, Gen. iv. 10-12. of history, may in like manner be recalled
7 Gen. iv. 13-15. in the course of history. After the Divine
8 As regards the question so much permission to inflict capital punishment,

174 THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE.
monarchy made it possible to make the rigid, stringent law
more humane and mild in certain suitable cases, without its
becoming too pliable and yielding, we see the kings using their
highest and fairest prerogative — that of remitting a deserved
penalty — for the benefit even of a murderer. History, however,
teaches us how extraordinarily difficult it was to take the first
step towards bending the rigidness of the old law.1
As a precaution against causing accidental death, Deutero
nomy requires that the (almost flat) roof of any new house
should be surrounded with a parapet, so that the owner might
not bring upon his house the guilt of blood in case of a fatal fall.2
Probably a house where this did happen would need some sort
of expiation. Suicide in the earlier and healthier days of the nationality
was of very rare occurrence among ordinary people, and the
ancient law determined nothing special in regard to it. Nor
does it seem, if we may draw this conclusion from an ancient
narrative, to have involved any civic disgrace as its penalty.3
It was not till later times when all ideas of soul and life were
in greater and more desperate confusion, that it occurred more
frequently ; then, however, it was always abhorred at least in
199 the popular estimation as a transgression of the deepest hue.
The corpse was not buried before sunset, the soul was supposed
to wend its solitary way to the deepest hell, while the murderer
himself was deemed for ever cursed in his posterity.4
Equally little is said of infanticide, because to the ancient
nation it was as good as unknown. On one side it is true this
abomination penetrated deep into the heart of the highly civi
lised nations of antiquity, as well as of those that were uncivi
lised. The ancient prejudice that the birth of a daughter was
an undesirable event, nay was even a misfortune, as well as the
poverty of many parents, and the perverse notions of social
position (as was the case among Hindoo hereditary royal
families) were causes which early led to a very wide extension
of the practice of putting daughters to death,5 and it stiU
which had been given for a considerable 4 Fl. Josephus, Bell. Jud. bk. iii. 8.
period of time, had displayed itself as the 4-7. There is an allusion to the concep-
most extreme madness in the execution tion in regard to hell in John viii. 22.
of Christ, the question of its abolition has 5 Exposure, and therefore the murder,
become only a question of time. The of daughters occurs already in the Veda
question is whether Christ may not have (A. WebeI. fjber dk Namt ;;. s. 314),
done enough for this. The aQci(mt Arabs hgA eyen & ^
' Hist, m.117 sq., 173 sqq. s. r
2 Deut. xxii. 8, comp. the important worc1' A' for burying daughters alive,
historical example, 2 Kings i. 2. see Hamasa, p. 117, last line, sqq., with
3 Comp. 2 Sam. xvii. 23. the further remarks there.

DAMAGES FOR INJURIES. 175
prevails extensively in the Chinese Empire. So long, more
over, as the rights of parents over their children were upheld
in their earliest one-sided stringency, it was not easy to make
child-murder of any sort punishable. But the spirit of the
higher religion of the Old Testament was evidently opposing
such violence from the first with all its might. If Mahomet,
along with aU his perversities, has at any rate this great merit
of having rigidly put a stop to all infanticide, especially with
regard to daughters,1 Moses deserves the credit of having done
the same much earlier and in a more enduring form.

Legal Bights in regard to Corporal or Moral Integrity.
If human life as a whole is sacred, it must also be inviolable
in all its several corporal or mental constituents, and damage
done to these by neighbours must be punishable.2
With regard to corporal injuries, the law which is so strin
gent in the case of murder, proceeds consistently to demand
that as life must be exacted for life, so must eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, wound for wound, and so on. The ancient legislation
of the Book of Covenants enacts this with the utmost distinct
ness,3 and the Book of Origins deems it sufficient to repeat this
incidentally in a shorter form.4 That unintentional injuries
would not be intended here, is a matter of course. Even in the
case of those that were intentional, the law interfered only at
the express suit of the injured person, and undoubtedly in later
times compensation for injuries were mostly made in money.5
Such compensation, to be estimated by the judges, was already
allowed by the ancient law, where a woman with child was so
injured as to be brought to premature confinement ; 6 and only 200
indemnity for time and expense was required when anyone was
seriously hurt in an angry quarrel.7
But freedom from moral injury is as needful as from cor-
1 Sur. Ixxxi. 8 sq., comp. xvi. 59 sq. saw above) will be able to pass over it.
* * s Ex. xxi. 23-25. How such a law
They had even a ^^.^ t_>b£ of is still putin force at the present day may
the old narrator el-Ke\bi,'journ. As. 1861, b„e s*ea in Munzinger's Ostafrikanischen
_ j 42 Studien, s. 502.
2 Here the question arises, whether 4 Lev. xxiv. 19 sq.
the law, if it had no more adequate civic 5 Although passages such as Prov.
penalties for those who injured themselves xix. 19 are too general for them to
corporeally or morally, could punish the prove this, the fact itself admits of no
above-mentioned suicide with civic penal- doubt, see p. 171.
ties f The presumption, according to the 6 Ex. xxi. 22, which has ¦ no close
connection given above, must be in the connection with ver. 23-25.
negative; at any rate, in times when ' Ex. xxi. 18.
suicide was still very rare, the law (as we

176 THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE.
poral. It is a duty of equal importance not to slander, not to
hate, not to bear false witness, not to be partial towards either
rich or poor, and the law is equally bound not to tolerate any
thing of this kind. Already the Decalogue forbids bearing
false witness, and the earliest laws treat all that pertains to this
as of great importance.1 Nevertheless, they do not assign any
penalties for particular cases, manifestly because they deemed
it sufficient to leave this to the estimation of the judge.
Deuteronomy is the first to demand with great earnestness the
application of the old law of retaliation against deceitful
witnesses, who out of malice seek to destroy the innocent.2
In earlier times so much wickedness within the meshes of the
external legal institutions may have been unheard of.

The Sacredness of Property.
Property is one of the fruits of personal activity, and this is
especially true in the sense in which it is ordinarily taken, viz.,
the possession of earthly goods and utilities of every possible
kind. Eor whatever be the extent to which property may also
be merely inherited by a son from a father, or conveyed in
various other ways from one possessor to another, and however
obscure the origin of much of it may have become in the long
course of centuries, still there can be ho doubt that all property
was due in the first instance to the suitable exertion and capa
city of some particular human mind in appropriating the utili
ties of Nature, mastering and guiding her forces as well as
her matter, and founding a new and more salutary order of
201 things which becomes a power in the world. Property is
accordingly the fruit of the activity of particular individuals,
whether one man works by himself on his own account, or
several co-operate at the same task, and when once the intelli
gence of any individual has been at work in a special way and
for special reasonable ends, whatever portion of the goods of
the world he has conquered and won, (of course) by fair means,
belongs to him as his private property. However, it is equaUy
correct that true religion teaches man not to estimate all that
is called property in this sense, viz., the external possessions of
life, higher than the spirit which first brought them into
existence, and again, not to place them higher than the main
tenance and well-being of the spiritual commonwealth on the
earth, where he is placed as an individual moral being. All this
' Lev. xix. 15-18, Ex. xxiii. 1-3. " Dent. xix. 19-21.

REAL PROPERTY. 177
finds full justice done to it in the various laws and the advice
which Jahveism utters in respect to property. Only we must
here connect properly together all that belongs to the subject,
and in reality, according to the strict meaning of the truths,
cannot be entirely torn asunder. We shall then readily
see that the ancient law was no doubt still imperfect in this
respect, but nevertheless already contained the soundest prin
ciples. a. Fixed and Movable Property.
1. The existence of property is assumed by every system of
legislation, even the earliest, because such a system can only
follow on a long period of social development and exertion.
But Jahveism assumes more than this. Eor according to it
each of the twelve tribes of Israel is to have its landed pos
sessions, and each individual household in the tribe is to have
its definite portion of the land belonging to the tribe, which is
for ever to remain the inalienable heritage of this house, and form
the sure basis of aU property. This is the enactment of the
Book of Origins,1 manifestly in accordance with a primitive 202
settlement in the community after it had obtained a permanent
residence. Of a truth nothing is more desirable among a people for the
most part engaged in agriculture than that each household
should possess a landed inheritance of this nature, the cultiva
tion of which shall afford its members the most indispensable ,
necessaries of life, assure to them a trustworthy foundation for
further toil and acquisitions, and bind them firmly to their
fatherland and all their fellow-countrymen. And where a
state, like that of Israel under Moses and Joshua, is founded by
conquest, it is only fair that the conquered fields should be
divided as equally as possible among those who shared the
burden of the war and conquest, and thus form such hereditary
estates. Accordingly, we find a similar institution among many
an ancient nation which desired to cultivate its conquered land
in peace, and to defend itself against fresh attacks.2
The Book of Origins was to this extent justified in referring
1 It is true that just that passage in to the circumstance is made in such
it, where this is properly dealt with and images as Ps. xvi. 5 sq.
established, is no longer extant ; but in 2 The constitution of Lycurgus in
many places this legal institution is pre- Sparta is especially to be compared, but
supposed, such as Lev. xxv. 13, 23 ; Num. also in Peru the legislation took similar
xxvii. 1-11 ; xxxii. 18 ; xxxiv. 13 ; xxxvi. : precautions, see Prescott's History of the .
comp. in particular xxxiii. 54. Allusion Conquest of Peru, i. s. 37.
N

178 SANCTITY OF PROPERTY.
this institution, which in his time had been long in force to a
settlement made by Jahveh himself; just as in general it treats
as divine the entire occupation of the holy land, and the division
of it among the twelve tribes.1 It was not the people of Israel
by their merely human desire and ability that had won this fair
domain. In a higher and a better sense God had conquered
the country for them. Their God was therefore the real lord
also of it, only from his hand did they receive possession of it,
to enjoy it so long as they were worthy of it ; and along with
the whole nation, each individual member received accordingly
an hereditary estate, which nevertheless permanently belonged
not to him as something contingent on his personahty, but to
his God.2 This is the light in which the whole relation is
conceived, and in its higher aspects nothing could be more true.
How happy a valiant Israelite could be in the possession of his
share of landed property, and how tenaciously he would cling
to his ancestral estate, is seen in the story of Naboth, who
refused to give up his even in exchange for a better one,
and at the demand of the king.3 If any external institution
could serve to secure the attachment of the entire nation to the
possession of the land which they had won, and to stimulate a
peaceful dhigent life in it, it was this agricultural settlement
which was carried through with a firm hand immediately
after the conquest. But it was equally the case that the settler
might always have the consciousness that this possession
which he rejoiced in as his own property, even as it had been
given him by a higher power, could be taken away again from
him in the same manner. And thus in this conception we find
the impress of what alone is the true way of finally regarding
all human property.
It wiU of course be understood that this hereditary estate
was only the minimum of landed property which the head of a
family might possess. Eurther possessions, especially in the
case of the chiefs, were of course not excluded ; they would
consist partly of larger sections allotted to a deserving chief
after the conquest or on some similar occasion, partly of private
acquisitions. Instances of these larger sections are given in
the Book of Origins, in the case of the estates of Caleb, of
1 Hist. n. 255 sqq. this by no means meant that the priest-
Lev, xxv. 23.— What would now be hood, or some other ruling house, could
called state-loan land, or royal loan take Jahveh's place as ultimate owner or
estates, was at that time regarded as feudal lord.
being more directly Jahveh's estates, as 3 i Kings xxi. 3 sq. ; 2 Kings ix. 10,
hereditary lands which the individual 25 sq.
had on loan from Jahveh. But assuredly

INHERITANCE OF PROPERTY. 179
Joshua, and of the high-priest Eleazar.1 To manage these
larger properties a grandee would keep a steward as ' servant,'
i.e. as a bondsman or a vassal, a relation of which we have a clear 204
example in the case of Ziba the ' servant ' (i.e. client) of the
royal house of Saul, who also appears to have been well off on
his own account.2 But there are other distinct allusions to it
in the Old Testament.3
2. How this ancestral estate was to be inherited in the
family of which it was the inalienable possession, we cannot
now definitely tell. It is not likely, however, that the law
forbade its being divided among all the sons of the father, or
in general being cut up. Probably, however, the double portion
which the first-born legaUy received,4 consisted not only in the
share in the ancestral estate, but also in a corresponding portion
of the movable wealth, and of whatever other fixed property
there might be. As far as this goes, all the domestic arrange
ments always remained during the formation of the laws of
Jahveism as they had been established in the primitive times.
The first-born was the principal heir and the proper represen
tative of the family, but undoubtedly under the condition of
taking on himself more of the duties of the head of the family
than the other brothers, of maintaining the widows, and of
providing for the unmarried daughters. Exceptions to these
rights of the first-born were always occurring, as the legendary
history reveals in its own way in the leading examples of Reuben
and of other early heads of tribes ; and in consequence of the
great power and responsibilities of the heads of families in
early days, such exceptions may often have been salutary. But
it is quite in harmony with the progress of social development,
that for the later times of civic peace and order the Deuterono
mist forbids any exception of this kind, if it rests merely on the
arbitrary will of the father.5 — Sons of a concubine had only 205
gifts to hope for;6 those of meaner origin could expect nothing.7
Daughters inherited fixed property only under exceptional
circumstances, with the consent of their father or their brothers,
so that when a case of this kind occurs the reason for it is
always expressly mentioned, sometimes as a rare instance of the
utmost mutual affection of all the members of a family.8 If
1 Josh. xiv. 6-14 ; xxiv. 30, 33 : ' "We learn this only from the inci-
comp. Num. xxxiii. 54. dental mention of it, Deut. xxi. 17.
2 Hist. iii. 135, 181, 191. 5 Deut. xxi. 15-17.
8 The whole imagery of the ' servant 6 According to Gen. xxv. 6 comp.
of Jahveh,' bk. Is. xiii.— Iiii. is only to be xxiv. 36.
explained in this way ; comp. Die Pro- * Judg. xi. 1-7.
pheten des, A. Bs. ii. s. 404 sqq. '. See the narrative of Caleb's
N 2

180 SANCTITY OF PROPERTY.
there were no sons, the daughters shared all the property alike ;
but this was a new right acquired by the female sex, the origin
of which only goes back to Moses.1 The inheritance of a daugh
ter then accompanied that of her husband, and if he belonged
to another tribe, it must have passed over into the bounds of
the latter. But from the time that the boundaries and the
constitutions of the separate tribes in the holy land were pro
perly determined, such a dismemberment of the boundaries of
a tribe became more and more prejudicial ; so that the Book of
Origins enacts that heiresses may marry only within the limits
of their own tribe.2 — If there was not even a daughter, the
inheritance came in due course to the father's brothers, next to
the father's uncles, and finally, if these too were wanting,
to the nearest of kin.3 But it was not rare for the law to be
evaded by treating a faithful slave as a son, marrying him to
the heiress, adopting him altogether if there was no child, or
even putting him on an equal footing with the sons of the
house.4 3. This last fact is also an indication that to a certain
206 extent an owner was at liberty to make his own will, and so
dispose of his heritable wealth at pleasure.5 An oral declaration
of his wishes seems to have been adequate to this purpose; but
we have now no further information on the subject.
Buying and selling, or exchange and cession, according to
the above conditions, could apply without limitation to fixed
property only when it formed no part of the ancestral estate.
The latter, if it ever went out of the possession of the original
owner, reverted to him in the year of Jubilee (which will be
spoken of below), so that only the usufruct for the intervening
time could be disposed of to another, and it must be then- re
deemed if this had not been done previously. — In the earliest
times all business of this kind was done by public transactions
in the market, so that the witness of the whole community, or
at least of ten of its elders, served to confirm it.6 As, however,
at such times the strongest visible tokens would be needed
to assist the memory, the custom of drawing off the shoe at a
daughter, Hist. ii. 285 ; further see Job ruling on this side of Jordan. Instances
xiii. 15; comp. i. 4; Langlois' Harivansa, from a more historical time are found in
i. p. xi. sq. 1 Chron. xxiii. 22 ; Ruth iv. 1 sqq.
1 Num. xxvii. 1-8. 3 Num. xxvii. 8-11.
2 Num. xxvi. 1-11 ; Josh. xvii. 3sq.; 4 1 Chron. ii. 34 sq. ; Gen. xv. 2 sq. ;
1 Chron. vii. 15 sq. The five daughters Prov. xvii. 2. Comp. also Prov. xxx. 23.
of Zelophehad, however, originally indi- 5 Other instances are 2 Sam. xvii. 23 ;
cated, according to Josh. xvii. 5 sq., the Is. xxxviii. ] sq.
five bastard races of Manasseh (Hist. i. 6 Gen. xxiii. ; Ruth iv. 1 sq.
378 note 1) as contrasted with the five

THE LAW OF BORROWING. 181
redemption or an exchange long held its place ; the man who
gave up a possession drawing off his shoe so as plainly to strip
himself of something before the witnesses, and thus indicate
that he withdrew from and handed over the property.1 From
the time, however, when it became more and more customary
in Israel to use writing for all the incidents of ordinary life,
written documents became usual in such cases, so that the old
practice fell out of usage. The documents signed by the wit
nesses were then prepared in duplicate; one copy remained 207
public for everyone's use, the other was sealed, to be opened
only officiaUy and compared with the public copy, if anyone
doubted the genuineness of the contents of the latter.2

b. The Law of Borrowing and Lending.
Whoever possesses external property, and makes a diligent
use of it, finds it increase under his hands. It is therefore no
more than fair that such a possession, if borrowed for a time
by another, whether merely in consequence of indigence or in
order to extend his business therewith, shall be returned by
him to its owner along with a corresponding increase. Thus
even property, money or anything else, which is lent to another
bears fruit for its owner, grows, sometimes most luxuriantly,
and increases for his benefit with greater or less rapidity.3
1. But the evU of this among the ancients was that the
percentage of the interest was entirely left to the freewill of
individuals. The rate varied much, but was for the most part
1 Ruth iv. 7 : comp. Deut. xxv. 9 sq. crease, and ¦n£j»a comp. ...j and ^33
Such antique images, as in Ps. lx.106 '¦''•'' ^?_ '•''•'
|8i], are quite a natural product of the prop, birth, for interest. So with t6kos ;
living feeling embodied in this usage. In d ; ^ ; frQm
the Ramdyana, 11. 2142 sq. a similar BJS^ *x.m..i jm.0.1.,
custom is described ; comp. also Qirq progeny, in Javanese hanak dhuviet, i.e.
Vezir, p. 70, 12. According to the an- child of money, in Dajaken matak, have
cient Saxon custom (in Adalb. Kuhn's the same original signification, see
Sagen in Westphalen), the bride, on be- Hardelands, SL. s. 128, comp. also the
coming the wife, forfeited her shoe to her good explanation in the Clouds of Aristo-
husband. phanes ver. 1269 sq. Nevertheless, we see
2 Jer. xxxii. 9-14 : comp. Is. xliv. 5 : from Lev. xxv. 37, that the former word
comp. the closely corresponding ypcupti was more frequently used of the increase
and avrtypacpov, 1 Mace. xiv. 48 sq. ; Lee- of the fruits, the latter for increase of
man's Description raisonnee des Antq. money; but later, Deut. xxiii. 20, [19]
Egypt, p. 118 (Ms. dem. 374) ; and the wjJj is also put for the increase of fruits.
Charta indentata, Bea-pos 5foAa£ ; also the An" express;0n exactly corresponding to
examples in the Gott. Nachrichten, 1864, our zins> ie_ cenUsima> is first to be
s. 138, which have lately been discovered found jn Nellp v> n,_in' other cases
on inscriptions. Comp. the Propheten words mean;nS dividing, gaining, like
des A. B. ii. s. 272, and Ausland, 1867,. ...
s. 610. 37 Vt?-! ^i-9 have been readily applied to
3 Hence the name rV3"!», F°P- irL" this idea.

182 SANCTITY OF PROPERTY.
extravagant, and this often led to a cruel oppression of the
poorer classes, and consequently to dangerous disturbances of
the public peace. A debtor was regarded as completely at the
mercy of the creditor, almost as his bondsman and subject, as
the ancient languages are of themselves enough to show in the
208 strong expressions they employ to express this relation.1 In
addition, among nations which took as little part in foreign
trade, as was the case with Israel in its earliest days, loans
were demanded not so much in order to carry on the business
of production and commerce with greater energy, as in con
sequence of sheer poverty. We must remember that every
family in Israel ought properly to have possessed its here
ditary estate, and in it the means to support life decently, and
further that such a nation at first formed a compact unity
and a close brotherhood, especially towards other races subju
gated by it. We cannot then be surprised that the law, rather
than suffer the pernicious usages which existed elsewhere, pre
ferred trying to abolish all taking of interest whatever. The
same prohibition is to be found under similar circumstances
outside of Israel among many nations which led a life of up
ward striving, including some of the early Greek races. But
it was incumbent on Israel to show itself a nation more ready
than others to follow wherever possible the laws or rather the
counsels of the higher life, a nation whose members willingly
sacrificed the advantages of the lower life to the higher good
of the whole. And as a fact, it is worthy of wonder, how long
and, comparatively speaking, with what unusual stringency the
legal exhortations not to take interest kept their place in the an
cient kingdom of Israel, and what prominence was given to the
importance of this higher duty of life for one who truly honoured
Jahveh. The legislation of the Book of Covenants exhorts
men to exact no interest,2 and the Book of Origins repeats this
209 with greater distinctness ; 3 but both legislative codes expressly
1 'To owe interest (to borrow) is to Ex. xxii. 24 [25], the LXX. translate ntj>}
bind oneself to become bound to the very happily by KaT^iyav (exigens).
creditor, ni5, comp. the Talmudic Again ^ pl. Di;un? Prov. xxix. 13,
t\*$n, borrow ; to be a debtor is as much interest> is pr0perly 'pressure ov compulsion,
as to be knocked, to be crushed, to toil which the debtor could be forced in any
(suffer), SM or fljjjj taken from the . ,- .
Tr. . .TV ... , way to give. Also in Arabic -lA IS to
active meaning of this word to knock C/-
(elsewherepnshaway, seduce, deceive); and be pledged, or to owe, Hamdsa, p. 148. 15.
hence is formed "n KM, the creditor, 2 Ex. xxii. 24 [25].
like 13 13JJ the liege lord ; hence also ,* LeT- xxv- 35-38, comp. the rhe-
., i •" ^. ¦ , tJ . torical exaltation of the law, 4 Mace. ii. 8.
the combination T HtJ-D, a debt, i.e. a The same ig CTen tQ be 'found in the
pressingof the hand (violence), Deut. xv. 2; Koran, Sur. ii. 278 sqq. ; xxx. 38 : comp.
Neh. a. 32 [31]. In the Book of Covenants, lxviii. 24 ; lxix. 34.

INTEREST ON LOANS. 183
limit this exhortation to the poor brethren of the national
community, without saying whether it should hold good of
any one else who sought a loan. When, however, the Deutero
nomist repeats the ancient prohibition, he found it already
needful to speak more clearly in regard to this exception, de
claring that to those who were not Israelites, e.g. the neigh
bouring Phoenician merchants, it was lawful to lend money on
interest.1 Eor by his time foreign trade and commercial inter
course had long become so widely extended and so complex
among the people of Israel, that it seemed aU the more neces
sary frankly to abandon in regard to strangers what was stiU
to be maintained in its integrity among their own countrymen.
From these facts we cannot doubt that the ancient prohi
bition in the kingdom of Jahveh remained intact throughout
the whole of the thousand years of its existence down to the
first destruction of Jerusalem, at any rate in regard to their
own countrymen. It is equally clear that for the national and
commercial relations ofthe times from Solomon onwards, it was
no longer equally applicable, and in these later days did little to
secure the maintenance of the kingdom, if it did not actually
contribute gradually to weaken it. It may also be readily
understood that such a law (as the above passage in the Book
of Origins especiaUy shows) had only a moral position, and
interfered only to teach and exhort, not officially to inflict
penalties, and thus all the passages referred to denounce no
legal punishments for those who will not conform to the law.
Accordingly, all didactic poets and prophets from the time of
David do no more than exalt the not taking of interest as the
higher duty of a true worshipper of Jahveh,2 and thereby give
us clearly to understand that there was already in the nation a
vigorous endeavour to act contrary to this brotherly duty taught
by the ancient religion.
2. Lending to needy brethren, however, without interest,
was strongly encouraged by the law. As the creditor is always
anxious for some outward security for the replacing of his loan 210
when it falls due, it was the more important that the ancient
legislation should regulate this.
We have, then, first to consider the system of pledging.3
1 Deut. xxiii. 20 [19] sq., comp. the further restrictions.
words, very characteristic, but still in __2 Ps. xv. 5; Ezek. xviii. 8, 13 sqq.;
prophetic diction, Deut. xv. 6; xxviii. 12, xxii. 12.
and the similar cases explained above, 3 A pledge is called ^'aft or 03J?:,
pp. 146, 148. — But from Joseph. Antiq. prop. a band, it is therefore essentially
iv. 8. 25 sq., it is clear that by that time the sameidea as that which gives its name
the scribes had hunted out all sorts of to lending, p. 182 nt, 1. In Phoenician,

184 SANCTITY OF PROPERTY.
The creditor naturally wished to appropriate as pledges what
ever was best or most prized of the debtor's goods and con
tained in his house, nor could the law forbid such keeping in
pawn, because it would only ensure a reasonable security, espe-
ciaUy when no interest was to be paid, for repayment. Never
theless, the legislation in the Book of Covenants tries to put
limits to the hard-heartedness which might be displayed here,
forbidding that a poor man should be deprived for a night of
anything so indispensable as the broad upper garment which
served him during the night as a covering,1 and the Deutero
nomist makes a further exception of the implements of the
handmul which was at that time indispensable to every house
hold,2 and in addition demands that the creditor shall not him
self enter the house of the debtor to seize as pledges whatever
things were most attractive to himself.3 But here too the law
could inflict no civic penalty, and in somewhat later times
complaints are not rare against creditors who took away the
most indispensable articles, such as clothes, the ploughing ox
or ass, from those who were in distress.4
In the second place, the personal security of a friend on
behalf of the debtor became of all the more importance if the
latter had nothing which he could or might pawn. The law
is shent on the matter ; frequent aUusions to it, and warnings,
especially to young folk, not to stand surety without due con
sideration, are first to be found in the Books of Proverbs and
211 of Job.5 According to these indications it was a very formal
proceeding. The surety gave his hand both to the debtor and
to the creditor before an assembly legally convened, he de
posited a pledge, and in accordance with this two-fold promise
was regarded by the creditor in just the same light as the
debtor himself, and treated accordingly.
3. If the debtor, or in his place, the surety, was unable
to pay the debt when it feU due, he was entirely at the mercy
of the creditor. The authorities troubled themselves but little
about these relations, and the law, so far as it is preserved to
on the other hand, a pledge was called xvii. 3.
j'mj?, a word which came into circula- ' Ex. xxii. 25 [26] sq. ; Deut. xxiv.
tion through the Phoenician and Cartha- 12 ^ = c°mP- ^ v- 40- a „
ginian commerce in the form tyfaSc^ and . ., Deut- ™7; 6 : c.omP- ™;6' . °°mp'
arrhabo, and abbreviated, arrha, with the »™lar cases in the early Greek legislators,
i, .' . , Diod. Sic. l. 79.
meaning of earnest money. It is, how- s -,-: .
ever, also found in Hebrew in the primi- -Ueut. xxiv. 10 sq,
tive history, Gen. xxxviii. 17-20 ; comp. - //^l"' ?¦> ^V*"' ' ™,\'
the verb yy to give as a pledge, Neh. v. W° ipEzek' XV1V' 7' 12..6^-j ™m-11«-
-*r' " " * Prov. xi. 15; xvn. 18; xx. 16:
3, but also to stand for a man, i.e. to comp. xxvii. 13; xxii. 26 sq. ; vi. 1-5;
make oneself a surety for him, Job Job xvii. 3.

DEBTORS AND CREDITORS. 185
us, gave no directions in the matter. We see, however, from
many allusions and narratives what harsh forms these relations
actually took, especially in later times, when the ancient
national brotherly love which the law presupposed was more
and more dying out. The creditor could not only forcibly
appropriate all the fmovable, but also the fixed property
including the hereditary estate (this at least till its redemp
tion in the year of Jubilee), nay he could even (if he could
find nothing else of value) carry off as a prisoner the body of
his debtor, or of his wife or child, to employ them in his
service, though this .could only be done for a definite period (as
will be explained below under the subject of Slavery). The
violent abstraction of such valuables may in like manner be
caUed pledging ; '- and already in the time of David one who
could pay with nothing but his own body and service, found
refuge from his creditor only in flight.2 Indeed, in the eighth
century there were already bitter complaints made in Judah
over the accumulation of too many acres in a few hands.3
Hiring of either human or animal power was not forbidden 212
by law. If an animal hired for agricultural purposes died
during the work, nothing but the hire was to be paid ; if it had
been merely lent, and if the owner was not present when the
misfortune happened, its full value was to be replaced.4

c. Protection of Property by Law.
So far as property possessed a sacred character, according
to all the explanations already given, it was taken very strictly
under the protection of the law. The universal prohibition of
theft seemed weighty enough to occupy the eighth place in the
ten fundamental Commandments of Jahveism ; and as the true
religion felt that there was more to be required than the
avoidance of the open transgression, it also prohibited in the
tenth and last fundamental law every sinful desire for whatever
was the property of another, and thus condemned the first step
to countless secret or open offences which no law can enume
rate and punish.5- — The details in respect to this law are as
fohow : —
1 Such cases as Job xxii. 6 ; xxiv. 9, Prov. xxxi. ] 6. Of special significance
for the rest, comp. 2 Kings iv. 1 ; Mic. ii. here is also \ihat Ezekiel says, xiv. 8 sq. ;
9 ; bk. Is. 1. 1 ; Neh. v. 5. xlvi. 16-19.
2 1 Sam. xxii. 2. ' Ex. xxii. 13 [14] sq.
s Is. v. 8 ; Mic. ii. 2 : comp. the 5 Comp. a similar, very ancient, ex-
phrase, very significant for the primitive pression, Lev. xix. 11.
system of dividing the land, in ver. 5. —

186 SANCTITY OF PROPERTY.
1. The thief was to replace the stolen property, if it was
found with him still uninjured, along with its equivalent in
value. Should he be struck dead whilst effecting his burglary,
this involved no blood-guiltiness if it took place during the
night. If, however, the stolen property had already been
appropriated to some purpose or other, then he was to replace
one ox with five oxen, as the most useful and valued domestic
animals, and one sheep or goat with four; but if poverty prevented
him from furnishing the requisite compensation, then, even if
hunger had induced him to commit the theft, his own body
was at any rate legally forfeited to the person who had
been robbed and he became his slave, though only for a
definite period,1 (as will be further explained below). These
are the regulations of the Book of Covenants for these rela-
213 tions as they existed in the earliest, simplest times, when
domestic animals (which alone are separately specified by the
law) still formed the great bulk of the nation's wealth. This
penal code will not be found too stringent. In the case of theft
induced by hunger it was properly only house-breaking which
the law punished, for the poor and helpless were allowed to
glean freely among the fields and vineyards ; indeed anyone
without distinction might pick so much of the grapes or the
ears of corn as should suffice for his needs for the time being.2
Far more stringent, as is fitting, was the penalty for . the theft
of human beings. The thief was punished with death, whether
the stolen persons had been sold by him or were still found on
his premises. This stringent law was deemed worth repeating
in Deuteronomy in relation to the slave-trade, which in later
times was continually expanding.3 Another serious transgres
sion, which it is remarkable to find mentioned for the first time
by the Deuteronomist,4 was the removal of boundaries, whose
sanctity ancient nations often sought to protect by the erection
of special Divine images (Termini).
2. Property intrusted to another was to be protected in
just the same manner.5 If it was inanimate and was stolen
from its keeper, it was to be replaced by the thief in a similar
_ * This is the meaning of Ex. xxi. 37 ; proverbial phrase, Hos. v. 10. The utter-
xxii. 3 [4]. A seven-fold restitution is ances of the earlier legislation must have
spoken of, Prov. vi. 30 sq., only poeti- been lost ; however the Tenth Command-
cally and colloquially. ment may be brought forward here.
2 Lev. xix. 9 sq., and the latter expla- Comp. Alexandre on the Libri Sibyll.ii. 2,
nation of it, Deut. xxiv. 19-22 ; Ruth ii. p. 169.
^sqq.-Deut. xxiii. 25 [24] sq.; Matt. ' „ To intrust anytning to anycrae is
3 Ex. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7. TR9tf, ProP- to mSik6 nim ite over-seer,
4 Deut. xix. 14 ; xxvii. 17 : comp. the comp. Ps. xxxi. 6 [5],

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. 187
manner. If, however, it was not to be found, and the person
intrusting it would not be satisfied, then the highest court
was to decide whether the person in charge of it was to blame
for the loss, and if he was, he had then to pay double its value.
If the intrusted property consisted of cattle, and was therefore
particularly exposed to various mishaps, then its keeper had
to replace what was stolen, but not what was torn in pieces if
he produced evidence that he had vainly called for help ; nor
was he reponsible for other misfortunes if he could swear to his 214
innocence before the court.1
All property that had gone astray, that was in distress, or
was lost, was to be brought back, assisted, and kept in safety
by the finder as though it were his own. This is already the
exhortation of the oldest law.2
3. When property was damaged in such a way that another
than the owner was more or less responsible, e.g., by a man's
ox, the latter person was to make good the damage, either in
full or as much as was equitable, of which the earliest law
gives several instances.3 2u The Sanctity of the Home.
From first to last, however, the law regards the individual
only as a member of a household, — the primary, and the closest,
and also the most permanently enduring human community,
whose benefits he shares, and where on this account he inherits
such benefits as are capable of being bequeathed. This com
munity is, therefore, the ultimate foundation of all human culture
and activity, and acquires from all these causes a peculiarly
important sanctity which exists long before there is any attempt
to establish a similar but infinitely wider and freer community in
the state. Accordingly, the national customs, good as well as
bad, nowhere maintain their position with greater persistency ¦
than when sheltered by this almost impregnable sanctity of the
home. Much which was more or less opposed to the purer
1 Ex. xxii. 6-12 [7-13]. cattle merely eat some of the crops on
2 Ex. xxiii. 4 sq. ; repeated, Deut. xxii. another man's land, their owner shall
1_4, make a proper compensation from the
3 Ex. xxi. 33-36 ; xxii. 4 sq. ; more _ crops of his own land; if they eat up the
briefly in the Book of Origins, Lev. xxiv. 'whole of the crop, then the compensation
18. The case in Ex. xxii. 4 [5] is, how- shall be taken from the best land of the
ever, obscure, according to the Massoretic owner (because it could no longer be told
interpretation ; we must here insert after whether the fields that had been injured,
inS the words contained in the LXX, would have borne good or bad crops).
and which still stand in the Samaritan Only in this way again is the_ series of
recension. The meaning is this : if the ten made complete, comp. Hist. ii. 166 sq.

188 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
215 laws of Jahveism was still retained for many centuries in the
' houses of the fathers ' (i.e. families) of Israel, and yielded only
very gradually to higher claims. This point is to be carefully
attended to in regard to details, to avoid confounding things
which have very different origins and only external points of
resemblance. But the indispensable basis afforded by the
home and its eternal sanctity, no superior religion and legisla
tion should seek to destroy or even to disturb, and if the
token by which to recognise a true religion is its promoting a
strong, healthy, domestic life, and powerfully protecting its
indwelling sanctity, then, in this respect too, Jahveism has
triumphantly vindicated its lofty station. On a comprehensive
survey we cannot fail to recognise that there is no other ancient
nation in which, during the days of external power, domestic
life remained for a long period so vigorous ; and secondly,
during the gradual decline of the external power, became so
little weakened and corrupted, as was the case in Israel. We
shall equally see that whilst the higher religion and more
stringent tone was at first hard to be reconciled with the ancient
customs of the home, so conversely it finally transformed the
home most thoroughly, and in the sanctity of the latter estab
lished its deepest and most indestructible seat. Let us look
at this more closely in respect to the three principal relations
which are possible in every home.

a. The Relations of Parents and Children.
The closest union between chUd and parent, and the
strictest dependence ofthe former on the latter until marriage,
is a consequence of the ancient domestic life, so long as it is
able to develope its own tendencies undisturbed. How impor
tant were the duties of the child to the parent, is shown in the
primitive typical relation, of Isaac to Abraham,1 and may be at
once learned from the placing of the law on the subject among
the Ten Commandments, and from its position here in imme
diate proximity to the commands relating to the duties of man
towards God.2 Tender affection for parents and childlike reve-
216 rential awe we see pervading the whole history of Israel from
its very commencement. This is the clear utterance of the old
legends and histories ; and the evil nature of the Canaanitish,
i.e, non-Israelitish, character, is nowhere delineated more
strongly than by pictures of its undisciplined relations, dis-
1 Hist. i. 339 sq. 2 Hist. ii. 160 sqq.

PARENTS AND CHILDREN. 189
honouring alike father and child.1 So again, in later times, the
same profound horror of improper domestic relations is displayed
in the strongest expressions, just as the delight felt in a true
home is revealed in the most touching phrases.2 In particular
the contempt existing among many nations for old people who
have grown weak and helpless, is so far from being character
istic of Israel, that the law never alludes to such an impropriety,
but in its earliest portion it does expressly command every one
'to stand up before grey hairs, and to honour the hoary head.'3
Just as little do we find the remotest trace of exposing or even
putting to death new-born infants, particularly girls ; although
numerous traces of such a custom are to be found among the
ancient Arabs.4
But the one-sided development of the strict dependence of
the child easily leads to evU consequences ; and the next question
is how the law dealt with such cases.
Disobedience and other improper conduct was left by the
custom of many ancient races to be punished by the father just
as he thought best, even with death. The ancient law of
Jahveism requires with equal strictness that death shall be the
penalty for the child who strikes his parents or even curses
them,5 the latter clause being repeated with great emphasis by
the Book of Origins.6 But that parents themselves without
further responsibility could inflict this penalty is so far from
being herein implied, that the ancient proverbs of Solomon,
which in other respects desire to draw the reins of discipline as
tight as possible, utter an express warning, against doing so ; 7 217
and afterwards Deuteronomy distinctly lays it down that in
such cases parents were to have recourse to the whole com
munity, and that only the latter could inflict the penalty of
death.8 — A perplexing antagonism between the filial duties owed
to parents and those owed to the priests as protectors of what is
sacred, is a thing not heard of tiU the time when the hagiocracy
was fully developed.9
When, again, child and parents form so close a unity that
1 Gen. ix. 20-27 ; xix. 31-36. legitimate, and to place it on his knees to
' Prov. xxx. 15-17, a fuller expansion bless it, or else to repudiate it.
of xx. 20 ; Ps. cxxvii. 3-5 ; cxxviii. 2 sq. 5 Ex. xxi. 15, 17.
3 Lev. xix. 32. 6 Lev. xx. 9; also Deut. xxvii. 16.
4 Comp. above p. 174. Such a girl, if ' Prov. xix. 18, in another application
she survived the exposure, was termed xxiii. 13, 14.
kji!, originally ikjj) (comp. Hamasa, \ ^£ ™" "T^p. the treatise on
s. 4, 6 sq.) one who is picked up on the die drei ersten Evv. s. 264, and more
ground. The words, Job iii. 12 a, on the particularly Philo in Euseb. Prop. Ev.
other hand, refer only to the father's right viii. 7. 3, 4, for one of his lost works on
either to recognise a new-born child as the Mosaic legislation.

190 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
no superior power of the state separates them, then they cannot
be legally distinguished, and the former, as far as externals are
concerned, may have to atone and suffer for the latter. Thus,
while the old law did not lend its sanction to the practice,
neither did it forbid a child (most likely a daughter) being
sold by its parents to relieve their distress,1 or being accepted
by a creditor as a pledge.2 In fact, so long as the strict con
ception of the ancient household was upheld in its integrity,
the fact that the house stood or fell with the father readily
affected not only the children, but also aU its other members ;
and in extreme cases of high treason it was long customary
to make the children as well as the guilty party expiate the
offence.3 But by the seventh century the principle was already
felt in full force, that every human being, as he was estimated
before God according to his individual worth alone, must be
treated in the same way by human law, so that the son ought
not to suffer for the father, nor the father for the son.4 And
from that time it was only a question of temporal legislation or
interpretation of the laws whether the asperities of the kind
we have mentioned, which the ancient legislation permitted
218 without enjoining, were any longer to remain in force or not.

b. The Relations of Man and Wife.
The relations between the sexes took a very similar form,
as we see in the foUowing respects.
1. There is no ancient religion which of itself is so sternly
opposed to misconduct in these relations and yet so free from
unnatural limitations of their due rights as Jahveism. What
importance it attached to their purity, and how it sought
to protect real marriage as the primary basis for all true life
in common among human beings, is at once shown by its
stringent laws on the subject. The universal prohibition of
adultery was deemed of sufficient moment to be received among
the Ten Commandments, and to be placed here in immediate
conjunction with the one protecting life, as though chastity
were a good equal to life itself.5 This same law is repeated in
the oldest legal compilations with similar, but stiU more definite
1 Ex. xxi. 7. D^n, see p. 75 sqq.
2 P. 185. ''4Deut. xxiv. 16; Jer. xxxi. 30;
3 Josh. vii. 24; 2 Kings ix. 26 (Hist. Ezek. xviii. 20: comp. 2 Kings xiv. 6 ;
iv. 74 sq.) ; comp. similar cases among the but even the sons of Korah were not
Romans even in the times of the emperors, exterminated, according to Num. xxvi. 1 1 :
Tacitus, Ann. v. 9. This severity is comp. xvi.
explained, if such cases were regarded, as 6 Comp. above p. 168 sqq.

MAN AND WIFE. 191
expressions, and the legal penalty here was death, not only for
the adulteress, but also for the adulterer.1 The mode of exe
cution, as was almost understood of itself from what will be
explained below, was stoning in the assembled community.
Simple prostitution, which did not involve adultery on either
side, was not punished with loss of life ; but just as little was
it regarded with indifference,2 and neither the man nor the 219
woman escaped with impunity. If, however, the guilty one
were the daughter of a priest, then the bodily punishment
must be the severest possible,3 just as was the case among the
Eomans with regard to the vestal virgins — only with this great
difference, that Jahveism forbade marriage neither for the
daughter of a priest, nor to anyone else connected with the
sacerdotal orders. Public prostitution, as it was practised
undisturbed and even required in the temples of certain heathen
divinities, was in no way to be tolerated ; and parents were to
be severely punished who brought up or disposed of young
children, especially girls, for such practices.4 Nor might
' money or gifts which come from such a source be accepted by
any sanctuary in Israel,5 although there were Israelites by
birth who would often seek to quiet their consciences by devo
ting a portion of the ' reward of harlotry ' to their country's
sanctuary. It was not indeed till the days of Solomon that
Israel had sunk so low that it became necessary to include such
a prohibition among the laws, and the history shows clearly
enough with what vigour aU unchastity, if it only tried to find
entrance into their midst, was put down in the earlier days.6
1 Lev. xviii. 20 ; more definitely with special causes, in Gen. xxxiv. 7-14 ;
a statement of the penalty, xx. 10; 2 Sam. xiii. 12 sqq.
similarly Deut. xxii. 22. The almost 3 Lev. xxi. 9.
literal repetition of the sentence, Lev. xx. s Nevertheless the prohibition, in the
10, is due entirely to the emphatic diction. Book of Origins, Lev. xix. 29 is still made
Comp. Ezek. xvi. 40 ; Joseph. Contr. quite general, just as accordingto the nar-
Ap. ii. 24. — Dater writers have imagined rative of this book, Num. xxv. 1-15,
from Deut. xxii. 24, that only in the case Israel only becomes seduced to unchastity
of the betrothed bride the penalty was by foreign women. The prohibition in
death by stoning, and that in other cases Deut. xxiii. 18 [17] sq. ; Apoc. xxii. 15,
the execution was simpler; but all this runs quite differently; but all surviving
is without foundation, according to ver. historical tokens indicate that the names
25, comp. ver. 22. On the contrary, there i"IKOp, f°r a consecrated professional or
can be no doubt that originally every temple-harlot, and KHp or 3^3 (dog),
adulterer incurred death by stoning, . ••'*¦ -?''•'-,.,
although it is only in the former passage fo\ a *fe similarly consecrated did not
that it is expressly mentioned as not too enter the country till after David s time,
severe even for that case, and as not to be ?.l°ng ™& &e corresponding heathen re-
neglected. Accordingly, in John viii. 4 sq. bg10DS- Comp. Hist. iv. 44.
we need not think of such a betrothed * This too is first enacted, Deut. xxm.
bride. 19 [18].
2 Comp. the judgment in the cases, 6 Hist. ii. 351 sqq.
which it is true were strengthened by

192 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
Another mark of the strict discipline which Jahveism intro
duced into the relation between the sexes, may be found in the
laws relating to prohibited marriages. What unions were not
220 allowed can only be explained in detail further on ; but in
general terms we may notice that Jahveism was far stricter in
this respect than even the more serious of the ancient heathen
religions. Now if we enquire into the source of such prohibi
tions in general, we must guard ourselves against seeking for
only a single cause for all of them without exception. Of course
there does prevaU here one chief and fundamental cause rooted
in the very nature of marriage. Only in the riper years of life
should marriage unite those who have been separated, but have
been ultimately created for one another, so that they may come
together in the firmest bond, and form the commencement
of a new house. It seems as though the partnership thus
founded is to be quite other than that given from the commence
ment by common blood, or birth, or by living together in one
house. It gives something new as an addition to what has
already existed, a love distinct from what is always bestowed
among blood-relations, which is indeed great enough of itself
and can satisfy its own demands. The more distinct and
remote therefore the graft which is inserted into the stock, the
freer and the fresher may be the inter-action and the new
unfolding of the good on both sides, and the less propagation
is there of what is one-sided and therefore weak. It is as
though that which is isolated were itself seeking with all the
greater force to supplement its nature from foreign sources, and
in like manner it becomes a thing of national importance,
inasmuch as marriage is one of the most powerful and happy
means of preventing a pernicious isolation and estrangement of
the households and tribes, and of nations and communities of
every kind. An obscure recognition of this leaning towards what
is foreign, and therefore a dislike to marriage within too close
a degree of relationship, may have been excited very early in
Antiquity among the upward-striving, healthy races, and this
is undoubtedly the primary cause of the prohibitions which we
are considering. To this was soon added, however, regard for
good discipline, and a salutary mutual reserve among the
members of a household which such prohibitions endeavour to
provide. But stiU both causes have not of themselves sufficient
221 power to prevent many a nation allowing itself considerable
freedom in this matter, and the heathen races with which
Israel came into close contact, whose life was never of a really
high order and gradually became less and less restrained, set

MARRIAGE WITH THE HEATHEN. 103
aside matrimonial relations with great freedom.1 Even among
the early ancestors of Israel these limitations were far laxer,
for unless there had been distinct reminiscences to this effect, tho
legend of Abraham's marriage with his half-sister Sarah, or of
Jacob's with two sisters at the same time, could never have
originated. When, accordingly we find Jahveism from the very
first2 laying down in the matter the strictest limitations — such as
had the. widest sphere of operation — and when history teaches
us with what thorough consistency it maintained their sanctity
inviolate,3 then we see how decisively it took a chaste domestic
life under its protection, and with what success it promoted
the formation of valid marriages.
TotaUy different in kind is the prohibition against alliances
with heathen families. As far as the mere nature of marriage
is concerned, we should not expect to find this restriction by
the side of the ones already mentioned. And we also see as
a matter of external fact that the two la.ws were by no means
originally placed together in one series, for this latter is com
pletely wanting just where the ancient legislation gives an
exhaustive enumeration of forbidden marriages. An obscure 222
dread of close connection with alien races is naturally found in
every nation; and it is certain that he who enters on such
a contract, even if he does it with his eyes open, may thereby
expose himself to new embarrassments and undertakes heavier
responsibUities. EspeciaUy a proud victorious race will never
be much inclined to mingle its blood with that of a nation
which it has conquered or which it regards with contempt.
Such a pride had Israel during the early days of its power
and dominion ; and at that time it would have been a most
unlikely thing for any of the noble stock of Israel to have
mingled their blood with aliens. But no kind of prohibition
against such marriages was at that time uttered, and excep
tions to the prevailing custom found entrance here and there,4
1 The expression, Lev. xviii. 24, is prohibitions were sometimes set aside, as
quite confirmed by our other sources of in- by Herod Antipas, who is, however,
formation. It is true that we know little of severely reproved on this account, Mark
Israel's nearest neighbours beyond what vi. 17 sq. But that Moses himself was born
may be learned from Gen. xix. 32-38 ; from a marriage of his father with his
hut the Egyptians and the Greeks may (Amram's)auntonthefather'sside.doesnot
furnish us with a picture of heathendom necessarily followfromEx.vi. 20; for HIT
in general. as the Lxx take it, may also denote a
2 The oldest legislation treats this and cousin,'comp. Jer. xxxii. 7, at any rate just
kindred matter exhaustively and syste- as well as a brother's son may more
matically, Lev. xviii. 6-23 ; the Book of briefly be termed a brother, Gen. xiv. 16 ;
Origins repeats the principal points in its xxix. 12.
own way, Lev. xx. 11-21 ; still briefer is <> As Josh. vi. 25 (Hist. ii. 247 sq.);
Deut. xxiii. 1 [xxii. 30], xxvii. 20-23. Judg. xiv. 1-3 ; bk. Ruth. Often an excuse
3 Of course in extreme cases these for this 'was deemed needful, and oven

194 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
especially many a foreign wife captured in war became grafted
on to the stock of Israel.1 Not till the days of the gradual
decline of the national might of Israel from the time of Solomon
onwards, when heathenism in continually more and more seduc
tive forms was pressing in by a thousand ways, and experience
had shown often enough how easily a heathen wife might lead
her husband astray to heathen practices, does the Fourth
Narrator of the primitive history utter his warning definitely
against such alliances, and the Deuteronomist follows still
more strongly.2 These aUiances were then doubtless becoming
more and more frequent, in proportion to the increased influence
223 and wealth which the heathen were threatening to acquire
here and there in the midst of Israel.3 In the times after
Solomon it would not be so much the proud and the high-born
who shrunk from such marriages, as the pious ; nor was this
without consequence, since on its account quite a new truth
could be found in the lofty words 4 which spoke of Israel as ' a
people dweUing apart, not mingling with the heathen, neither
reckoning itself with them.' Nevertheless, this boast was the
boast of a race that was already on the way to meet its outward
doom,5 and what unhappy complications developed themselves
out of it in course of time will be learned in the later volumes
in the history of the new Jerusalem.
The fair type of true matrimony which the old legend pre
sents in Isaac and his Bibeqa (Bebecca),6 accordingly does no
more than represent with little alteration marriage as it really
existed in the majority of families during the best days of the
nation. Simple fidelity, pious love and attachment, and hence
a certain amount of foresight in the choice of a wife from a
worthy race, were not less in reality than they are in that type,
the foundation on which a new family in Israel was erected.7
Moses had to listen to harsh reproof from presented itself why the prohibition
his relatives on this account, Num. xii. should not be extended further, and that
1 sqq. ; but the very narrative shows how this did not absolutely contradict even
groundless and how worthy of divine the spirit of the Deuteronomic legislation
punishment such reproof may be. is shown by the final editpr of the Books
1 As is even admitted in Deut. xxi. of the Kings, 1 Kings xi. 1 sq.
10-14. 3 P. 183.
2 Ex. xxxiv. 15 sq. ; Deut. vii. 1-4: i See Hist. ii. 303 sq.
comp. Josh, xxiii. 12. In these passages, 5 Just as the more modern prohibi-
according to the context, the prohibition tion of mixed marriages within the pale
refers in the first instance to the tribes of of the Romish Church have only been
the Canaanites, and undoubtedly in those a sign of internal weakness, and "of the
times it was these who were most dan- commencement of disruption.
gerous to the people of Israel, as is 6 Hist. i. 339 sq.
further indicated by many earlier descrip- * We may accordingly compare in
tions, Gen. xxiv. 3 ; xxvi. 34 sq.; xxvii. many respects the example of the Canca-
46-xxviii. 9. But as a fact, no reason sian nobles of the present day, who marry

MONOGAMY. 195
¦ AU else that we know from history is in harmony with this ;
and here, too, we may clearly recognise the mighty working of
an elevated rehgion.
2. But another powerful influence was exercised on these
relations by customs which had become firmly established long
before the origin of Jahveism during the undisturbed dominion
of the primitive household system. So long as no higher
power, superior to aU the various families, is securely founded, 221
and the head of the family possesses a legal and unlimited
power, the consequences of the fact will appear in an unduly
inferior station for woman, in polygamy, and in great facility
for divorce : three phenomena which are most intimately asso
ciated one with another, and of which the one invariably leads
to the others. It was the more difficult for Jahveism to break
with these consequences of primitive family life, inasmuch as
its origin in opposition to an Egyptian civilisation tended
to drive it back into the freedom, marked with so little ex
ternal restraint, of the ancient Israelitish mode of life. It is
instructive in the highest degree to see what a struggle
took place between the loftier truths and the noble impulses
of Jahveism and family customs consecrated by immemorial
usage, and how the former here too gradually achieved the
victory. The truth — which survives aU else — of monogamy is already
represented as alone worthy of imitation in the two narratives
of the creation, all the more so as the second narrative makes
use of the occasion to throw the true light on the essence
and the higher necessity of every marriage.1 To this may
be added the genuine national type given, as has been already
mentioned, in Isaac and Eebecca. And whenever a prophet
alludes to matrimony he invariably presupposes monogamy,
faithfuUy and sacredly observed for life, to be alone right.
Again, the true prophets, so far as their real hfe is depicted,
never have more than one wife at one time (for any doubt as
to the lawfulness of a second marriage entered the head of no
one). Moses, it is true, when he was advanced in years, took a
Cushite woman to wife ; 2 but undoubtedly at that time the
Midianitish Zipporah, who was the wife of his youth, was already
dead. Hosea, Isaiah, and also Ezekiel, are shown by clear
in their own rank, but not among their 2 Num. xii. 1 ; the death of Zipporah is
own relatives, see Bodenstedt's 1001 tag, not, it is true, alluded to in our present
ii. s. 134, 136. Pentateuch, but this is indisputably due
1 Gen. ii. 18-24: comp. Jahrbb. der only to the abridgment of the original
B. W. ii. s. 154 sq. narrative.
o 2

196 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
indications about their domestic affairs to have had each but
225 one wife. But the law did not insist on monogamy, and there
were many chiefs or other rich men in Israel who preferred to
follow the example of Jacob with his two wives, in spite of the
accumulated warnings afforded by his example,1 instead of the
purer type given in Isaac's case. Just this number of two
wives was very frequent in such circles in accordance with
ancient custom;2 a larger number served only to give splendour
and distinction to a powerful national leader,3 and to the
kings. Bulers, moreover, in polygamous countries, even at
the present day, often take wives out of powerful houses or
tribes for no other reason than to secure the greater fidelity
of the latter. Nevertheless, as the kings had gone to excesses
in the matter, the Deuteronomist enjoins a wise moderation.4
The legislation does not approach the question in general
at aU closely tUl we come to Deuteronomy, even to obviate
the injustice which might easily arise from a man's pre
ference for one of two wives.5 But although polygamy was
never abolished by law, it evidently gradually disappeared as
the improvement which the higher religion was in the course
of time imperceptibly bringing about in morals became more
and more decided ; so that the history of Israel concludes, at
any rate in Christianity,6 with the unforced but decisive victory
of monogamy. The possibUity of this polygamy is taken into account by
the ancient law in regard to prohibited degrees of marriage,
226 thereby adding to their number. This number was further
increased owing to the fact that the prohibition presupposes
all through the strict domestic life of primitive days to be
intact, where a very large number of relatives were firmly
linked to a single father, and the immense respect for this
father could be easily transferred to any member of the family
holding a similar position. If now we also take into considera
tion the principles already spoken of,7 it will become clear why
aU the particulars assumed the foUowing forms. Marriage was
1 For in Gen. xxix. sqq., this double Judg. viii. 30 sq.
marriage of the patriarch is represented * Deut. xvii. 17.
as not having been desired by himself, and 5 Deut. xxi. 15-17.
as being moreover the source of countless B For apart from Herod's many wives,
ills to himself. some of the men spoken of in Ezra x. 44,
2 1 Chron. ii. 18; viii. 8-12; 1 Sam. still had » plurality; and even Joseph.
i. 2: comp. Gen. xxxi. 50; also iv. 19, Antiq. bk. xvii. 1. 2, calls polygamy a
and Deut. xxi. 15 ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 3. It Trdrpiov in Israel (as opposed to the Roman
is something peculiar to find in 1 Chron. practice), out manifestly only lays any
vii. 4, the richness of the tribe Issachar in weight on the fact because his own incli-
wives and sons praised. nation went in that direction.
3 As already in the case of Gideon, ' P. 191 sq.

FORBIDDEN MARRIAGES.

197

forbidden 1) With the mother; 2) With the step-mother, or
with any of the father's wives, even if they were not step
mothers in our sense of the word l ; 3) With the mother-in-
law2; 4) With the daughter or grand-daughter of any kind3;
5.-7) With the aunt on either the father's or the mother's side, as
well as with the wife of the father's brother (on the other hand
— what is quite opposed to the ancient Eoman practice,4 —
connections between the uncle and the niece were allowed,
manifestly because here the respect due to the father appeared
to be less infringed) ; 8) With the daughter-in-law, should she
be widowed or put away; 9) With the daughter or grand
daughter by marriage; 10) With the sister (including the
half- or step-sister) ; 11) With the sister by marriage on the
father's side ; and 12) Probably also on the mother's side 5 ;
13) With the sisfcer-in-law, i.e. the brother's wife (who accord- 227
ingly was on the same footing as a sister, and often dwelt along
with the brother-in-law in the house of his parents) if she
were widowed and had children by the brother (the opposite
case of her being without children wUl be spoken of below) ;
14) With the sister of a wife who was still living.6 It is easy

1 The step-mother in Semitic lan
guages is ordinarily coldly designated the
father's wife, the step-father, the mother's
husband, and, in like manner, sons of the
mother are step-brothers, see a remark
on Sol. Song, i. 6. This can be under
stood, if polygamy was very ancient among
the Semites.
2 That this prohibition is wanting in
the text of Lev. xviii. is very surprising,
but assuredly it was there originally. It
is found even now where the author of the
Book of Origins is speaking more inde
pendently, Lev. xx. 14.
3 Evidently in Lev. xviii. 10, the
daughter is omitted from the present text
through oversight, for she cannot possibly
be included in, ver. 7.
4 Comp. Sueton. Claud, xxvi., xxxix.
s In the present text of Lev. xviii. the
traces of an originally well-considered
arrangement are so clear and numerous,
that we certainly do no wrong in as
suming that verses 9, 11, and 16, origi
nally stood before ver. 18. And as
there is no reason why a sister by mar
riage should come within the prohibition
only on the father's side, it is probable
that either before or after ver. 11, there is
a verse fallen out commencing with the
words: ^ 2>i$ ri3 DyiS!. If we re"
store the primitive text in this way, a
further remarkable arrangement appears.
The prohibitions commence with an intro

ductory verse (ver. 6), or rather the pro
hibition of marriage with a daughter is
regarded as independent of the rest, and
then follow three series of five verses
each, the whole being arranged with equal
precision and appropriateness. This was
probably succeeded by five verses of more
general but cognate import (comp. verr.
19-23) ; comp. Hist, ii .166. For the case in
respect to the wife of the mother's brother
was still more remote, and can hardly
have been regarded as parallel. — All these
laws are summed up, certainly very briefly,
in three very general ones, Deut. xxvii.
20, 22, 23. — Indications that even the
ancient Arabs possessed similar laws, do-
rived from an earlier, purer religion, will
be found in Shahrastani's Elmilal, p. 440.
10 sqq. 6 That the first wife is still living is
so expressly presupposed in the words,
Lev. xviii. 18, that any one might have
seen long ago how groundless is the repu
diation by the English law of marriage
with the deceased wife's sister. The
words can mean nothing but that the
sister shall not be taken in marriage
along with the still living wife "hy?, in
order to stir up jealousy, like ¦¦ y j ^. The
verb is, according Lehrbuch, § 238 b, an
infinitive of a strong, because new and
purely active, formation. Comp. on tha

108 SANCTITY OF THE HOME
to explain, however, why marriage between brothers and sisters
in the widest sense was forbidden, whhe that between cousins
was permitted.1 The latter did not form one united household,
and the more each house stood strictly by itself in the ancient
fashion, the wider seemed the separation between cousins. If
now we take into consideration the true grounds of these pro
hibitions, we cannot fail to recognise in these regulations not
only an arrangement externally most suitable, but also a well-
conceived and internally compact system. Nor will this fact
surprise us if in this, as in similar cases, we think of the regu
lative spirit of Moses as determining the exact form which
they assumed. The penalty for breaking these laws is always
death, viz. by stoning as it wUl be subsequently described, or
in the worst cases,2 by burning ; and the punishment with
which prohibited marriages of this description were visited,
applied also (as something which was self-evident) to all forni
cation between such persons.
These laws preserved Israel not only from the grosser
offences against healthy morals, examples of which were fur
nished by many a nation kindred to itself though profoundly
degenerated from former better days,3 but also from the subtler
errors of marriage between children of the same parents which
was permitted even by such peoples as the Hindoos and
Persians, the Greeks and the Egyptians. And with all its
brevity the old law in Leviticus xviii. indicated, by its mode of
speech in expressing all the prohibitions, the profoundly
abominable character of such actions. In graphic brevity and
comeliness this ancient section far surpasses aU later passages
of similar import ; more delicately and at the same time more
seriously such matters cannot be spoken about. ' The shame
of a woman who may not be thine thou shalt not uncover';
what hateful shamelessness would be involved in this first step
228 of the outrage ! And in this connection the feelings of abhor
rence which ought to exist in every human being are very
briefly enumerated as follows : 1) The feeling of filial dread
towards relatives who stood above him : who might lay bare
his parent's shame ! 2) The paternal feeling of shame in
regard to those who come below him : he who dishonours
his daughter, dishonours himself ! 4 3) Among those who were
subject the Gott. Gel. An:. 1862, 2 As Lev. xx. 14; Gen. xxxviii. 24;
s. 1193 sq. for the rest, comp. Ezek. xvi. 40 ; xxiii.
1 Although this had already come 47.
under the Christian prohibition, according 3 Gen. xix. 30-38.
to the narrative in Abdias' Apost. Hist. 4 In ver. 17 we have accordingly to
iii. 11. read with the LXX ^"ISB' for T*,XB».

CONCUBINAGE. 199
sisters in the widest sense,1 the feeling of shame on behalf of one's
own flesh, i.e. on behalf of those who are most nearly related to,
and consequently on behalf of oneself; and in the case of the
second sister, there was added the abhorrence of exciting a
hateful jealousy between two sisters. This will enable us to
recognise what were the feelings on such matters which were
most active at the time of Moses, or rather under the influence
of his spirit.
3. When once polygamy is recognised as lawful, the possi
bility of different estimations and positions of wives is naturally
admitted at the same time. And thus Israel from the earliest
times allowed the half- wife or wife of the second rank (the con
cubine) ; she would be taken either from the prisoners of war,
which would be the most frequent case in the better warlike
days, and in regard to which Deuteronomy utters some humane
precepts,2 or else from a man's other possessions. Nevertheless
the special name for a concubine3 suffices to show that the
custom of taking them in those countries spread further and 229
further outwards from an ancient luxurious court, and that
their whole relation is artificial rather than natural. All that
related to forbidden connections was of course equally valid for
wives by every form of marriage.4 A concubine and her chil
dren, however, had not an equal legal title to authority, she
was evidently neither taken nor put away with the same degree
of formality as the real wife by marriage. The earlier legisla
tion did not trouble itself about this relation except in so far
as the question of slavery was mixed up with it.5 How frequent
it was, at any rate in the earlier days, is shown in the old
1 ' The daughter of the wife of thy couple of thousand years, more or less,
father, who is (as good as) one of the before Christ ! It would be instructive for
family of thy father, thy sister,' ver. 11. primitive history to learn from what spot
This is how the words should be under- this word pellex originally came ; we can,
stood. however, see with sufficient certainty that
2 Deut. xxi. 10-14. it was derived from an ancient Aryan
3 Pttegesh lengthened from pilleqesh. language of more northern Asia, comp. the
It is equally remarkable that the Hebrew Gott. Nachrichten, 1862, s. 371 sq. And
is here similar to the Greek and the the remarkable fact remains that only the
Latin, as it is noteworthy that every other Hebrew language used this northern
Semitic language, even the Syriac word, foreign to Semitic speech, for a con-
(1AS05?) and Samaritan (nAM) al- C^nComp. GeD. sxsv. 22 ; xlix. 4. Th,
ways has a different but genuine Semitic king8 certainly form an exception, in the
term for the same idea, and that the case of tllejr numerous wives taken to in-
Chaldaic K3<n? only bears a slight re- crease the spiendour of the palace, 2 Sam.
semblance in sound. So little does this xii. 8 ; xvi. 22. In the History, in. 170sq.
conception belong to tlie original concep- notice is taken of other exceptions to the
tions of humanity and of the earliest stringent law, due to the urgency of special
nations, although this agreement of the causes, as, e.g. when each wife of a king
Hebrew with certain languages of a, formed a distinct household for herself.
different stock undoubtedly goes back a s See below.

200 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
legends respecting the two concubines of Abraham as weU as
of Jacob, while conversely in the model marriage of Isaac with
Bebecca no inferior wife finds place. Where many wives were
taken merely for the sake of splendour, e.g. at the courts of
the early kings, there the same splendour would require more
concubines and female slaves.
The concubine was regarded as little more than one ofthe ex
ternal possessions of her master, so that the terms maid-servant
(female slave) and concubine are frequently convertible ; ¦
although elsewhere they are also carefully distinguished,2 and
the concubine was looked upon as living in real marriage, and
therefore as only to be put away on competent grounds. Many
a one, too, in the earlier days undoubtedly took a concubine
only because it was less expensive.3 But the complete wife as
well was for a long time in many respects regarded more as an
external possession than as a being of independent worth;
so difficult was it to cause the lower view, which had firmly
estabhshed itself in actual life from primitive days in conse
quence of the one-sided development of family life, to give place
to the higher view, although this made its appearance early
enough, and was exhibited with equal beauty and clearness.4
230 The wife, accordingly, did not yet enter into full marriage
with her husband as an equal in consequence of her own pure
inclination and deliberation. The old custom maintained itself
very tenaciously of buying a wife from her relatives, or of
winning her by giving them presents, or by performing some
service which would be acceptable to them and was appointed
by them. The special and most natural protectors of a free
maiden were, besides her parents, her brothers, especially the
eldest of them, who often showed themselves far more jealous
and active in the matter than the father while he was yet alive.5
This caused the betrothal and marriage of daughters only too
often to be a pecuniary transaction between these protectors
and their future husbands.6 The legislation did not concern
1 ffipK, female slave, occurs as identical word irib ("iHD is identical with -QDj
with pcllcx, Judg. ix. 18: comp. viii. 31 ; to buy) denotes the bride-money, which
also Gen. xvi. and xxi. was to be paid to the bride, or to her
2 Sol. Song vi. 8. father's family ; its amount might vary,
3 Like the priest, Judg. xix. hut without it marriage was not valid.
* As in the earlier proverbs, see the 0n account, therefore, of its legal cha-
DichterdcsA. Bs. vol. iv. s. 19 sq. . comp. racter.it was natural to distinguish it
Hos. ii. 18. from the more voluntary gifts, n'WlJD
s Comp. Hist. iii. 171 sq. or JYOfiD, Gen. xxiv. 53 ; xxxiv. 12.
6 Gen. xxxiv. 4-12 ; Sol. Song i. 6, The latter, however, are more modern
8: comp. Gen. xxiv. 53 ; xxxi. 15; xxix. terms than the former primitive one,
18 sqq.; 1 Sam. xviii. 23' sqq. The which recurs in all Semitic languages

PENALTIES FOR SEXUAL TRANSGRESSION. 201
itself with the matter. However, there would necessarily be a
minimum price for ordinary cases, and the law took this into
account so far as to compel the seducer of a maiden to make
her his wife in the ordinary way, consequently by purchase, or
if the father refused to give her to him, to pay the latter the
ordinary and therefore the average price.1 The Deuteronomist,
in case the seducer had employed the smallest violence,
increases the penalty by enacting that he must not only take
her at the ordinary market price, but that he might never
subsequently dismiss her, so that he would be compelled to
support her all her life.2 A maiden, who had sinned without
being seduced either by words or by violence, may have been
deemed sufficiently punished by the loss of the tokens of vir
ginity (which are spoken of below) ; at any rate the present 231
Pentateuch does not inform us whether there was any additional
legal penalty. One who was betrothed was regarded in almost
the same light as one who was married ; the stern penalty of
death was enacted in the case of sexual transgression here. It
applied invariably to the seducer, and to the betrothed as well,
in case she had neglected to call for aid when the place was
one where she might have done so.3 — Parents in good circum
stances would give the young wife maid-servants or some simUar
dowry of small amount towards the new establishment,4 but for
the rest only rarely and exceptionally a share in the actual
fortune.5 From this we see that even full marriage was little more
than a particular kind of contract, legally valid only to the
same extent as any other similar contract. But assuredly
Jahveism regarded it in respect to its real essence and its
higher function, as a sacred covenant concluded before God,0
and it may be taken for granted that a consecration appropriate
to this conception took place on the day of betrothal or wed
ding. But the particulars have not been preserved in any
(except the Ethiopic), but which met i Something of the kind is presup-
with a somewhat different historical fate posed in Ex. xxi. 9.
among the individual races. 5 As in the case mentioned, Hist. ii.
1 Ex. xxii. 15 [16] sq. That the 264 sq. At what date writing became
average price for a half-wife was from 20 part of the procedure in determining ma
lo 30 shekels of silver, and for a whole- trimonial settlements, as spoken of in
wife about 50 shekels, follows from Tobit vii. 14, is not precisely known.
Hos. iii. 2 ; comp. Ex. xxi. 32 ; Deut. xxii. Deuteronomy, however, already mentions
29. written procedure in regard to marriage
* Deut. xxii. 28 sq. That violence is generally.
supposed here follows from the selection " According to Prov. ii. 17; Mai. ii.
ofthe words in ver. 23: comp. 25-27 ; 14. This idea of the bond was brought
and it is the only passago which treats of into prominence in other respects by the
the rape of a virgin. Prophets; Hos. ii. 20 [18] sqq. ; Ezek.
3 Deut. xxii. 23-27. xvi. 8.

202 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
ancient description,1 and it cannot be proved that the ceremony
by means of the assistance of a priest crossed the boundaries of
mere private life. As a matter of fact, the Levitical priesthood,
as one particular national tribe, still stood at too great a
distance from the life of the individual households of the
nation, while on the other hand, each individual household was
too much shut up within its own limits.
232 The national wedding customs in Israel, however, with
their public parades and processions at night by torchlight
which usually accompanied at any rate a full marriage, were
much the same as they have ever been among all the nations
of those regions, and as they still exist at the present day.2 It
is more important to notice that according to the primitive
custom of those countries the characteristic token of a woman's
being married or betrothed was wearing the veil, by which she
became easily and purposely recognisable everywhere in public ; 3
but even when she met, or suspected the presence of, the man
to whom she was betrothed, etiquette required that she should
veU herself. The veil over the concealed head might thus pass
as an undesigned proof that the woman no longer belonged to
herself, but had something on her head which would always
remind her of him to whom she belonged, and who was so far
her lord, and was, as it were, the visible head of her own head.
This is a true thought, and it moved the Apostle to caU the
indispensable veil itself, in an appropriate context and in the
heat of discourse, briefly and sharply a power or a compulsion
which the woman must have on her head.4 And inasmuch as
the woman's veil had been a subject of conversation, playful as
well as serious, for thousands of years previous to this, it has
even found its way as a thing of significance into the typical
narrative of the model marriage of Isaac with Bebecca.5
1 The most complete description of Paul includes here the maidens, as Tertul-
this is still, Ruth iv. 11-13. lian supposes in his well-known tiea-'
2 See a brief notice in the Erkldrung tise De Velandis Virginibus. But both
der drci crsten Evv. s. 339. the words themselves, as well as the
3 That widows did not wear it during ancient practice, show that maidens are
their days of mourning because they not spoken of here at all, and that Tertul-
might not appear in public, is clear from lian arbitrarily extended the meaning of
Gen. xxxviii. 14, 19. — At the present day the passage to them  But the same con-
the maidens of Tuarik still wear no veil, elusion may be inferred from the words
soe Hanoteau's Gr. de la langue Tamaclwk, which are so easy to misunderstand, which
p. xix. The same is the case in North- describe Abraham as the eye-coverer, i.e.
oast Africa (Munzinger's Ostafr. Studien, the veil of Sarah ; only the fact that he
p. 146), but also by the Tigris (Loftus, was her husband onabled him to protect
Trav. in Chaldea and Susiana, p. 383 her adequately from every lustful eye,
sqq.). Gen. xx. 16 ; comp. Lehrbuch, § 327,
4 1 Cor. xi. 10. All that is obscure in eighth ed.
this passage which, in other respects, is s Gen. xxiv. 62-67. Tha meaning of
perfectly plain, verr. 3-15, is whether this whole passage will be sufficiently

MARRIAGE OF ISAAC WITH REBECCA. 203 '
Eebecca is betrothed" to Isaac of her own free determination, 233
and without having seen him first, and makes the long journey
over the Euphrates and the Jordan to him accompanied by
Eliezer alone. She is seated aloft on her camel and through
out the long wearisome journey has no thought about a veil, as
she expects to meet her betrothed first in his own house. But
he one day, having just returned to his dwelling in the south
after attending his mother's funeral, and full of anguish for
her loss, is gone out alone into the fields towards evening, in
order the more freely to indulge his grief. He, too, on his
side, is as far as possible from expecting the compensation and
comfort which is so near him. But at the first quite unex
pected view of the solitary wanderer in the distance, whom she
has never seen before, she is as suddenly as irresistibly filled
with the conviction that he is her betrothed. Down she comes
from her camel in all haste, afraid of having to meet him in an
unseemly fashion, and not till then does she ask Eliezer who
it is, veiling herself almost without waiting for his answer. So
truly did her feeling guide her here, as it did in all that she
thought or did in the matter both previously and subsequently.
This is the type of true love from beginning to end ! And this
appropriate and beautiful trait concludes this whole typical
narrative section, which was not above depicting even the
mysterious omens and bounding presentiments of genuine
love. 4. Finally, we must not blame the husband severely, if
when the preliminaries to his marriage were such as have been
described, he considered that he still kept in his own hands a
certain right of dissolving it. The earher legislation contains 234
nothing definite in regard to this marital authority; and in the
earlier days when all domestic life was marked by a stricter
morality, it would only be in exceptional cases that a husband
would make an evil use of his rights in this respect. Just as
the great prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries depict
Jahveh as repelling the community of Israel which had become
unfaithful, and driving it from its visible home back into
clear after what has been said above. It take possession of the inheritance, inclu-
is true that the whole of chap. xxiv. has ding tho ancestral estate of his mother, •
been borrowed somewhat abruptly from which now camo to him. The Fourth Nar-
the Fourth Narrator, so that we do not at rator must have mado mention of this
once see the relation of the first words of earlier in an account which has not been
ver. 62, 'Isaac was come from coming,' presorved to. us. Nevertheless, it is easy
i.e. ' was just come to Boer L. R.,' for to supply the deficiency from yer. 67 :
nothing is' said previously of his having comp. xxiii. 2, xxv. 11. Something very
been present at the death and burial of similar is related in Munzinger's Ostajr.
his mother in Hebron, and of Abraham Studien, s. 147.
having then sent him to Beer L. R. to

204 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
the desert, but nevertheless cherishing in the very bottom of
his heart no malignant wrath, and ever ready to receive the
penitent once again into his glory : so, undoubtedly, every
honourable man felt in regard to his own little household.
But the morals of the whole people were gradually becoming
more and more licentious from Solomon's, time, and when the
ancient conscientiousness and feeling of honour had become
impaired to an intolerable degree, the Deuteronomist attempted
by some stringent enactments at any rate to limit the excessive
arbitrary power of the husband. One of these laws, which
really supplemented the ancient legislation, shows us that by
the time of the Deuteronomist these matters had long been so
far reduced to system, that the husband was obliged to give a
bill of divorce to the wife whom he put aside.1 This would
serve her as a token that the marriage had been legally dis
solved, so that she might marry again ; and undoubtedly such
a bill did not contain further charges against the wife, as
though it had been a bill of accusation, but served as a proof
35 that nothing stood in the way of her second marriage. But
by that time experience had already shown that couples who
had been thus separated, often wished to be again united in
marriage, after the wife had found a second husband. Not
only was all the permanency, but also all the worth and sanc
tity of marriage destroyed by the dissolution of relations which
might go on being formed and broken off again indefinitely,
even in respect to the same two men. It was, therefore, very
properly enacted that a wife who had been put aside might
never again be married to the same husband ; he had accord
ingly to consider well from the first what he was doing if he
demanded a separation. — The other law related to an allegation
of the lack of the tokens of virginity made by a young husband.
The old custom was that a maiden who lacked these tokens
should be punished as a prostitute, and consequently, in this
case, as an adulteress,2 and this the law could not alter, because
it was manifestly the most powerful means of deterring
daughters from prostitution. But on this account it required
with all the more justice that he who made such an allegation
1 This, in the law, Deut. xxiv. 1-4 which was still left to the husband by
(comp. Jer. iii. 1,8). is not commanded Deuteronomy, was beginning to be looked
for the first time, but assumed as well upon as too great, The phrase there
understood; comp. bk. Is. 1. 1. The con- (comp. xxiii. 15) is equivalent to 'a
troversy mentioned by the commentators hateful thing of any kind,' i.e. according
on Matt. v. 31 sq., between Hillel and to Lehrb. § 286 d, anything hateful, dis-
Shammai about the meaning of the words pleasing.
"I3"! ITl")!) Deut. xxiv. 1, could only have s -p oni
arisen in a time when the arbitrary power,

ORDEAL FOR JEALOUSY. 206
out of mere malice, should have to pay a pecuniary penalty to
the aggrieved parents of the young wife, amounting to twice
as much as the price paid for the marriage,1 and should lose
his right to a legal separation from the wife whom he had
maliciously calumniated, the last clause having the same ground
as the similar case already mentioned.2
Still, in the earlier and better days, if a husband was
stung with matrimonial jealousy but did not purpose imme
diate separation on mere suspicion, the Book of Origins
interested itself in the case of the defenceless wife, at any rate
as far as the spirit of that age rendered possible.3 If the hus
band was troubled about the fidelity of his pregnant wife on
grounds of suspicion which he could not prove, the law bade
him neither keep silence nor yet take vengeance into his own
hands. Bather did it recognise his obligation to act in the
matter, and his guilt if he neglected to do so,4 just as might have 236
been expected from the extreme dread shown everywhere by
the ancient community of even any possible defilement of their
corporate sanctity. But the belief still prevailed that in such
a case the possibly defiled external sanctuary must and could
itself render assistance, and that accordingly an ordeal, pro
cured through the instrumentality of a priest, was to be sought
for at the most holy place. The husband was to bring the
wife to the priest, who would conduct her right in front of
the inner Sanctuary, in order that the ordeal might be
obtained by means of a sacrifice and a peculiar drink which
the priest himself prepared. The sacrifice, since the guilt of
the wife was assumed in the first instance, was a kind of guilt-
offering, being without oil and incense.5 Nevertheless it could
not be deemed a complete guUt-offering ; its purpose was
rather to warn the wife of what was so strongly denoted by
the husband's jealousy, viz. the possibility of her guilt and its
fearful consequences. Accordingly it was not as much as a
complete guilt-offering, it consisted simply of meal and even
of the poor barley-meal, and was called a warning-offering
or a jealousy-offering. When all was made ready for this
sacrifice, the priest was to take an ordinary earthen vessel and
mix in it sacred water (i.e. water drawn from a fountain in the
temple) with dust taken from the floor of the inner Sanctuary.
In this way he prepared a most peculiar drink, holy in a
twofold degree, and very hard to swallow. Next, as the woman
i p. 200Tsq. * This is clear from the arrangement
2 P. 20L Deut. xxii. 13-21, ofthe words in ver. 31.
3 Num. v. 11-31. 5 F. 62.

206 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
was standing with bare head and holding the sacrifice right
in front of and facing the inner Sanctuary, he told her before
hand what would be the fearful curse which would befaU her,
in case she were guilty, when she had swallowed this drink;
then he took her oath, next dipped in the water a document on
which was written the words of the curse, and when all this
had been gone through made her drink some of it; after
this he took the sacrifice from her hand and solemnly offered
237 it up, and lastly made her swallow all that was left ofthe drink.
The effect of this long and awful rite was beheved to be that
the woman who knew herself not to be innocent, could not
fail to be instantly destroyed by the water and earth of the
Sanctuary drunk under such impressive circumstances, her
pregnant body to be burst,1 her hips to rot into dust. And
as a fact, in the early simpler days, as long as the belief
remained operative, a consequence like this may have been of
no such rare occurrence ; while, on the other hand, the drink
was without serious danger to the woman who was conscious of
her own innocence, and did not impede the progress of her
pregnancy. The author of the Book of Origins undoubtedly
found this usage already existing, and it is quite in accord
ance both with the old sacrificial ideas of Jahveism, and with
certain other traces of the early belief in ordeals to be found
there.2 But we know also that it passed out of use tolerably
early.3 What was the fate of a divorced wife who found no other
husband,4 we do not exactly know. A priest might not marry
her.5 It cannot be proved that the husband had to endow her
at the separation with even the smallest portion beyond the
fortune which she might herself have brought him,6 (as Moham-
238 medanism prescribes, assuming a much greater frequency of
such cases) ; they are often placed side by side with the
1 !"Dy> ver' 21 sq., 27, can by no usages to those described hero, see e.g,
means signify merely to swell, but must Not. et Extr. torn. xii. p. 649 ; Recueil des
also indicate the consequence of this, viz. Voyages, torn. ii. (Paris, 1825), p. 9.
bursting. In like manner D'lD, Terr. 18- H. Halleur, Das Leben der Neger West-
27, certainly means according to Lehrb. o/Wca's (Berlin, 1850) s. 3i; Ausland, 1852,
8 179a, as much as PHD 2 Sam. ii. 26, s- 10?5 sq. ; Livingstone's Travels, n.
, . . . TT' t. „ . s. 82 sq., 281 sq. ; Bastian's Reise nach
and is used as a circumlocution for mis- & Salvador (1859), s. 90.
fortune, death. Ihe liAJs.. already went s oh. ¦ * ~ ¦ *v. d „<.,.
¦i , ' . ,, • • . t .. J„ ., . * The instance given m the Frotev.
far astray m their interpretation of this T ¦ ¦ n. • t. j. i 1
description of a matter which had become ^^ ls nothlnS but a leamed rePe-
obscnw toth^ ^ ^ ^ ^ t\^y ^ ^ ^^ name ^
of the high-priest, the oracle through the 5 Bev. xxi. 7, 14 ; Ezek. xliv. 22.
rods described Num. xvii. 16-28 [1-13]; « P.,173.
see below on the point. — For similar

POSITION OF HEBREW WOMEN. 207
widows,1 and shared, if they inherited no fortune from their
paternal home, the fate of the latter so often bewailed in the
Old Testament.
If, in conclusion, we once more look away from these details
to the whole condition of woman as it is revealed in its larger
and more general features in the history of the ancient nation,
we then for the first time see clearly what an influence ancient
Jahveism exercised in determining her worth and position in
the realm, in spite of the surviving restrictions of an earlier
stage of civhisation. There is no trace of the contemptible
and preposterous life to which Mohammedanism has gradually
degraded women. A woman, should she be possessed of
extraordinary gifts, might even be recognised as a prophetess
and a poetess, as a national leader and a ruler, and retain such
dignities till she met with a renowned death ; 2 although this
stepping out of the sphere into which she was born never
became frequent or connected with superstition. With what
success even a defenceless country damsel could defy the '
mightiest king, is seen in the Song of Solomon. Again, the
fact that the wife of Isaiah is called simply ' the prophetess,'
not on account of her own office, but of that of her
husband, is a sufficient proof that the true estimation of the
better nature and influence of woman and of her position
towards her husband early made powerful efforts to establish
itself. 5. During almost the whole period of the nation's existence
it retained undiminished its eager delight alike in the cultiva
tion of the soil and other arts of industry, and in matrimony
and the continuance of the family in the tribe and the great
community. Nothing is more alien to those days than prudish
and melancholy views in regard to marriage and children. In
the earher times, however, this fresh delight in life and this
zeal for the honour of the house not only found far more open
utterance, but assumed very peculiar forms in relation to those
blessings which at that time were regarded as almost the 239
highest of ordinary life. This shows itself most in the custom
of marriage by the brother-in-law (the leviratus, termed also a
marriage of duty). We know3 that to every free-born Israel
itish family there belonged a plot of land which could not be
alienated, that the continuance of this institution had the
closest connection with the whole national constitution, accord
ing to which such a hereditary portion was almost inseparable
1 Lev. xxii. 13 ; Num. xxx. 10 [9]. 3 P. 177 sq.
2 Hist, ii. 374 sqq.

208 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
from the family that should possess it, and was deemed its
dearest and most sacred possession. We know also,1 how self-
contained every family was in the earliest days, and how firmly
all its members grouped themselves around their common
father. If the owner of such an estate died without leaving a
son behind him, so that a whole family in Israel was threatened
with extinction, which, just as among the ancient Hindoos and
indeed among every healthy primitive race, was reckoned a
great and dismal misfortune, inasmuch as none remained to
uphold the fame of his house and his forefathers in the com
munity,2 then the widow, as though she were no true widow,3
was strictly bound to continue in the same house, and to
marry again no one except the nearest relative of the deceased,
who could best represent his flesh and blood, his brother,
therefore, or if such did not exist, a kinsman of the same
standing. This relative, whether already married or not, and
whether or not he wished to take another wife, was on his side
bound to beget by her a son, who should inherit the name and
house of the deceased. In return, however, he enjoyed together
with the widow, the usufruct of the outstanding estate, till the
son whom he had to bring up came of age. Thus the house
which was threatened with extinction was given a new lease of
240 life with as far as possible the same blood. The law, moreover,
only applied to brothers living at the same spot ; and a service
of love like this performed from a feeling of necessity or of
duty, thus made an exception to the laws already explained
concerning forbidden connections.4 If the nearest brother-in-
law refused to accept the obligation, perhaps because he did
not feel himself competent to undertake a second household,
he could then legally transfer his claim on the widow and the
property to the nearest relative whom he found willing to take
it.5 Even a widow who was no longer marriageable and who
was without a son, and who desired to give up her hereditary
estate and rest in peace, might legally summon aU who
laid claim to it in virtue of relationship, in order that they
might establish their respective claims in turn, under the
condition that he who was willing to acquire it should complete .
this marriage-at-law with an equally childless daughter-in-
1 P. 187 sq. clearly from the order to burn the harlot
2 Comp. Jer. xxix. 32 ; xxxv. 19 ; as an adulteress, Gen. xxxviii. 24.
Mai. ii. 12. This was of course the case 4 P. 197.
with the houses of the grandees of the s All this is according to Deut. xxv.
nation, 1 Sam. ii. 35; 2 Sam. vii. 11; 5-10, and Ruth i v. 1-10, the two repre-
1 Kings ii. 24 : comp. the opposite case, sentations mutually supplementing one
Is. xxii. 16. another.
3 This important particular appears

MARRIAGE-AT-LAW. 209
law. The jokes and surprises to which this might well give
occasion, are described pleasantly enough in the Book of
Euth.1 Moreover, the ancient custom was liberal enough in these
matters to excuse the wife for many a step which would otherwise
have been intolerable, just as when Tamar finally succeeded with
impunity in obtaining a son from her recalcitrant father-in-law,2
or when Buth gave Boaz to understand by means of a strong
hint, though with every propriety, what was the matrimonial
protection which she desired him to afford her.3
It is, however, most improbable that Moses was the first to
introduce this custom of marriage-at-law, since the circumstances
and views of such primitive nations are alone sufficient to ac
count for it, and it is actuahy to be found in a very similar
form among other, and completely alien races.4 Nor is it
mentioned in any earlier legislation than Deuteronomy. And
deeply rooted as the custom undoubtedly was during Israel's
earhest days,5 it was not difficult to see that this exception to
the other matrimonial laws ordained by Jahveism, might
easUy lead to most unfortunate complications, if in somewhat
less primitive times no wiUing relative could be found, and the
widow nevertheless believed herself bound to insist on her
right. This, indeed, is represented with the utmost ingenuous
ness in the narrative of Tamar and the patriarch Judah.6 24i
This caused the custom to die out tolerably early, so that it is
aheady explained as an antiquity in the Book of Euth. But
the Deuteronomist, who was always seeking to restore the
ancient customs which had become obsolete in his own days,
revived this too ; not, however, without aUowing the respon
sible person to free himself from his obligation by a public
declaration before court. At the same time he obviously re
vived it out of pity for the widow, whose marriage with anyone
else never seems to have been regarded with favour. But we
find an indication of the extent to which the custom had
then fallen into disuse in what this legislator permitted the
1 For this correct interpretation of de los Lndios, edited by Scherzer, Vienna,
Ruth iv. 3-5, see the Jahrbb. der 1857. The same, however, is to be found
Bibl. Wiss. viii. s. 156. For fiXD1> ver. 5, among the ancient Hindoos and Persians,
IIS QJ is to be read, comp. verr. 8-10. see Manu, ix. 57-70, 97 ; Spiegel's Avesta,
' 2 Gen. xxxviii. 24-26. "• s: x^7}il. , , , ,, , . ., .
3 Ruth iii 1-14 This is also shown by the fact that
* As is the case 'among the Caucasians a special verb was formed to express the
and many other widely separated nations, ldea: £33% t0 marry-at-law, i.e. to take a
see Bodenstedt's Vblker des Kaukasus wife in this marriage-at-law. An his-
(Frankfurt. a. M. 1848), s. 82. For torical instance of this occurs, Jud. x. 1,
Africa, see Livingstone's Travels, i. s. 222 ; according to the rendering of the LXX,
for ancient America, in Guatemala, see 6 Gen. xxxviii.
Franc. Ximenes' Las Historias del Origin

210 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
woman to do in court to the man who refused to accept his
responsibility. She might take his shoe off, caU him a bare
footed one, and spit in his face. For it will be easUy under
stood from what has been already said,1 that the drawing off
of the shoe in court was originally what a man did himself
when he gave up a right, and was consequently intended to
signify nothing but the renunciation of a right and of a pos
session ; so that in this respect the description given by the
Book of Euth is more ancient than that of the Deuteronomist,
who desired only to retain so much of the custom as was valid
and could be valid at his own time.
The adoption of children was permitted, but not very favour
ably regarded, as the typical case of the patriarchs shows.2
The custom seems to have been for the adopter to throw his
mantle over the child which was to be adopted as one of his
own, and a similar custom prevailed among other ancient
nations.3 c. The Relation between Slaves, Masters, and Free Men.
A respected and powerful house wUl always be a centre to
which a greater or smaUer number of people of less power and
242 consequence wiU attach themselves, as long as either birth
(nature) or fortune give rise to different grades of human capa
city or power. These weaker strangers wUl be the more closely
attached to the house, and the more a part of its possessions,
the more independently each house exists for itself alone, and
the more exclusive its dependence on the paternal authority.
Thus the earliest form which this attachment took was that of
slavery, i.e. of household property, its origin extending back into
pre-historic times. In the Old Testament it makes its appear
ance abruptly in the history of Abraham as a fully-developed
institution, without any earlier mention of it, except its predic
tion by Noah at the commencement of the history of the
present human race.4
However, we are able to recognise very accurately in the
Old Testament what were the sources from which slavery
grew up. The great majority of slaves may have originally
1 P. 180 sq. fin., ed. Cur. ; Qirq Vezir, p. 91, 5 par. ; also
2 Gen. xvi. 2. the Arabic passage given by Quatremere
3 Comp. the German Mantelkind. in the Memoires de VAcad. des Inscr. xv.
This affords the easiest explanation of the 2, pp. 319 sq., 326 sqq., and the descrip-
application of this custom to a similar case, tions in Sapeto's Viaggio ira i Bogos,
1 Kings xix. 19-21 ; similar, again, is the p. 119 sq., 173.
instance mentioned, Ruth iii. 4-14. Comp. * Gen. ix. 25-27.
further, Shahrastani's Elmilal, p. 440, ad

SLAVERY. 211
become such by their lives having been spared when taken
captive in war, although the ancient practice of Jahveism, as
will be shown below, put very narrow limitations to this sparing
of human booty, and consequently the number of male slaves
in Israel could not have increased in this way to any important
extent. The extensive trade in slaves carried on at an ex
tremely early period,1 may have arisen in consequence of a
surplus of such prisoners of war. But human robbery on a
great scale was soon added to this by means of military in
roads, against which the prophets of the Old Testament declaim
indignantly.2 Stealing human beings was punished by the
laws of Jahveism as one of the very worst offences.3 — But,
on the other hand, many from poverty, laziness, or moral
degeneracy, fell into a condition of dependence, or even chose
to offer themselves as slaves merely to escape the cares of pro
viding for their own maintenance. Thus, too, the patriarch 243
Noah, in the passage referred to above,4 proclaims slavery as
particularly the curse and consequence of moral turpitude.
When, again, the individual houses were united in the higher
organisation of an administrative realm, the debtor whom other
means failed would be then compelled to pay with the person
of his chhdren, his wife, or even himself.5 Many parents, how
ever, would also seU their children merely on account of poverty
or from slothfulness.6 — Finally, slavery spread by means of the
home-born children of slaves, who shared every variety in the
fortune of the house, and even in Israel were from the first
deemed the most faithful and best.7 Thus the mightier houses
early became the centres of very large assemblages of slaves of
every variety of character, who according to their several capa
bilities and trades discharged the most diverse, but often most
important household duties,8 and whose overseer, termed the
1 Presupposed already in regard to anything more than that this city was
Abraham, Gen. xvii. 23, 27. the one to which his family belonged, and
2 Amos i. 6, 8. he would himself go by preference should
3 P. 186. he receive his freedom. But we must also
* Viz. in that prophetic passage at the remember that ver. 3 is only an expla-
commencement of the whole history of the nation of the obsolete mode of speech in
present human race according to the true ver. 2. Moreover, the terms ' home-born'
meaning of the entire narrative, Gen. ix. or * son of a female slave,' as indicating
18-27. the best kind of slave, are often put for
s P. 184. slave in general, Ex. xxiii. 12.
6 Ex. xxi. 7 ; bk. Is. 1. 1 ; comp. 8 We may also notice that in the an-
Munzinger's Ostafrikanische Studien, cient view the slave had properly no per-
s. 245, 483. sonal name, enjoying no such honour, but
7 Ex. xxi. 4 ; xxiii. 12 ; Gen. xiv. 14 ; as a mere thing, used to be distinguished,
xvii. 23, 27. When Eliezer (Hist. i. 294) just like an animal, only by a number.
Gen. xv. 3, is called a home-born slave of Hence the witty enumeration in Hariri,
Abraham's, and yet in ver. 2 Damascus is s. 376 sqq. de Sac.
called his native city, this need not signify F 2

212 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
eldest of the household, although taken from their midst, was
often a most exalted personage.1
In ways like these, slavery in the old world had long struck
its roots very deeply into all domestic institutions when Jahve
ism made its appearance. To abolish it at once was not to be
thought of; but no other ancient religion, either in respect to
its actual origin2 or its unextinguishable impulses, was ever
so emphatically opposed to it, or at least to aU inhumanity con
nected with it, or made such sure preparations for its abolition.
The fundamental principle here finds clear utterance. If
244 Israel had once been the slave of Egypt, and knew therefore
how to value genuine liberty, what excuse could it have for
treating its own slaves harshly? How could it help (this
further consequence at any rate follows easily in thought) try
ing to extirpate all slavery ? And even the earliest law took for
the first time a decisive position above the traditional household
usage, inasmuch as it ordained universal commandments for
the benefit of all slaves without distinction of nationality, for
Hebrews and for aliens. Its requirements were as follow : —
1) Slaves were at any rate to be placed on an equal footing
with free men in regard to life's spiritual privileges ; before God
the former were not more insignificant than the latter, but on
the contrary enjoyed with equal rights all the blessings of the
higher religion. They were to rejoice in the sabbath,3 to be
circumcised,4 and therefore to enter the community of Jahveh as
thoroughly as those who were free ; how much was already
implied in that ! That their masters should also let them
partake of the joys of sacrifice is especially enjoined by the
Deuteronomist.5 Among heathen nations the customs in respect
to all these things were for the most part totally different.
2) The law gave them certain civil rights in regard to their
masters, without, it is true, putting them quite on a par with
free men. The slaughter of a slave shall not remain unpunished,
says the oldest law, but it does not determine here the amount
of the penalty, and it leaves the master quite unpunished if the
slave does not die till some days after a chastisement ; severely
maiming him was to be expiated with his manumission.6 All
these regulations applied equally for the benefit of female slaves.
Nevertheless the presence of national feeling even here
cannot be whoUy denied, as the law was more merciful to the
1 Hist. i. 294. 22 ; Ex. xx. 44.
2 Hist. ii. 138 sq. 5 Deut. xii. 12, 17 sq.; xvi. 11, 14;
3 Ex. xx. ii., and the passages corre- still mors simply Ex. xii. 44.
sponding to this one. " Ex. xxi. 20 sq., 26 sq. : comp. ver. 32.
* Gen. xvii. 10-14, 23-27 ; xxxiv. Very finely expressed, Job xxxi. 13—15.

YEAR OF RELEASE. 213
Hebrew slave than to others. It decreed ' that such a slave 215
after serving for six full years should be set at liberty, leaving
behind, however, the wife who might have been given to him
by his master during this period, and any chUdren whom she
had born him. If he already had a wife when he lost his
freedom, e.g. on account of debt, then they both went free.
A period of seven years in such a case was fixed by ancient
custom, if not for slaves, still for hired servants.2 But the
limitation of the period of servitude to six years, and the ex
press proclamation of the seventh year as the year of freedom,
is undoubtedly a subsequent result of the conception of the
sabbath ; but it is equaUy certain that it was established at the
time when the community itself was founded, a time when aU
these conceptions were in such fuU vigour as will be shown
further on. An appropriate addition to this, accordingly, was
that anyone who did not desire to avail himself of this conse
crated year of freedom, should receive from his master at the
Sanctuary, under the sanction of the highest judicial court,3 a
token which should serve as a memorial of his solemn determi
nation to remain a slave for ever. This was done by the priest
holding the slave's ear against the door or door-post of the
Sanctuary, whUe the master bored it through with an awl,
much in the same way as the nose is pierced of an animal which
is about to be tamed.4 This might always take place at one of
the yearly festivals when they were in the habit of making a
pilgrimage up to the Sanctuary. The fact, however, that it was
always necessary in the first place to take such a bondsman up
to the Sanctuary, proves that the Deity was deemed the supreme
guardian of the freedom and the freeing of the members of his
community. StUl the priests had to investigate the case more
closely, were able to hear what the bondsman had to say, and
only permitted the ignominy- to be inflicted on him when they
were convinced that he really did not desire his liberty.
1 Ex. xxi. 2-11. 3 According to the context the second
2 Gen. xxix. 18 sqq. An apparent 15J>»Jn> Ex. xxi. 6, is to be referred to
interchange of a similar kind between D^npNH. on this, however, see below.
the numbers six and seven is found * Comp. Is. xxxvii. 29 ; Ezek. xxxviii.
Gen. ii. 2, as well as Jer. xxxiv. 14. — 4. It was an ancient custom with certain
Relics of this primitive custom are even Arab tribes to bore through or shorten
yet to be found in these regions, having , s the ear of a captive who was to
been revived by means of the Bible, see *•£_ . '
several passages in Lynch's Narrative of become a slave, and whose life was there-
the United States Expedition to the River fore to be spared, Hamdsa, p, 114, 7.
Jordan (London, 1849). Among the Similar facts in Munzingers Ostgrik.
Lesghians the period of service is ten Studien, ss. 312, 383; Petermann's Retsen
years, see Nouvelles Ann. des Voyages, im Orient, ii. s. 108.
1852, i. p. 90.

214 SANCTITY OF THE HOME.
The servitude of a Hebrew female slave, a daughter e.g.,
sold by her father (as often happened) on account of domestic
poverty, was of course limited in the same way to the period
of six years ; 1 moreover, her master might not seU her again as
246 an ordinary slave.2 If he had chosen her for a concubine for
himself (as in the earlier days was undoubtedly often his pur
pose from the first), and after she had become marriageable
had publicly recognised her as such and thereby raised her to
a higher stage ; (for a concubine always stood higher than a
mere female slave,3 and was more like a liberta), then, in case
he afterwards got tired of and repudiated her, he might
not seU, but at the most might marry, her again to a
stranger. If, on the other hand, he selected her as a concubine
for his son, he had to give her a bridal portion as though she
had been a daughter. If he kept her but took another half-
wife along with her, then he was bound either to withdraw
from her none of the prerogatives of a half-wife, or else at
once to set her free,4 possibly before the expiration of the six
years. — Such a girl would undoubtedly often not know what
was her real position, in case her master had neither set her
free nor betrothed her to his son, nor yet practicaUy emanci
pated her in order to marry her to someone else like one of his
own daughters. Accordingly, if under such indefinite circum
stances, anyone were to lie with her, it would have been too
harsh to have punished him as an adulterer, as her owner
would be often ready enough to demand. The law was content
with requiring from him a guUt-offering,5 in addition to the
legal penalty inflicted on both parties for simple fornication, as
we may conclude from what has been said above.6
1 As is said still more distinctly in emancipate, Hamdsa, p. 442, last line,
-Dell,t-r5,T: 12> \1- . „ , and more on the meaning of the whole
2 This is the meaning of the words, . ., T , ,, , -n-n rtr;.„ „
E^. xxi. 7 : comp. Lev. xxv. 39, 42. PassaSB ln the Jahrhh- der Blbl Wm' *'
3 P. 199 sqq. s. 275 sq. — This also makes tho passage
* This is the meaning of Ex. xxi. 7- Lev. xix. 20, clear; only the words
11; ver 10 sq certainly refers to the n,nn rnba (which the LXX already ob-
master himself, with whom the whole " : ¦ --I, •
passage is dealing, not to the son. Ver. 8, scured by supplying outo«) must be taken
already misunderstood in many ways by thus: 'So let there be distinction! i.e. thusis
the earlier translators, only becomes this case to be kept distinct from another
intelligible if we consider N1? the same as case with which it is not identical,' viz.
"l1?, and give to the Hifil of n"|Q, which actual adultery. TlB"irU is much the same
occurs only here and in Lev. xix. 20, the as 'given up ' in the sense just explained.
meaning of 'to free, i.e. to make a con- But that TVp2 signifies punishment can-
cubine.' For the concubine must have , ',' ,_,,.. n ^/.
held a far higher position, she had, e.g. not be Proved from the Ethiopic 1 1 f(\'..
nourishing animal food assigned to her, as 5 Lev. xix. 20-22.
indicated' in ver. 10. Comp. ,_$aM, to 6 P. 58.

LIMITATIONS OF SLAVERY. 215
But this emancipation of a Hebrew slave after six full years
of servitude must have gone out of usage at a tolerably early
date. This we see plainly from the Book of Origins, which 247
gives great prominence to the distinction between Hebrew and
non-Hebrew slaves, and requires the former to be treated with
the utmost consideration, but nevertheless limits their emanci
pation to the year of JubUee (which is spoken of below), a
period which not nearly all of them could live to see.1 The
Deuteronomist, it is true, re-instates here too the ancient law,
and even enjoins that a small portion should be given out of
kindness to the emancipated slave, to help him at the com
mencement of his new independence.2 But even after the
national reformation effected under Josiah, the proper feeling
to procure the observance of this particular law was wanting.
The law had become obsolete for many centuries ; it touched
the civU rights of rich individuals ; and therefore no king at
that time, even if he desired to do so, could introduce it on his
own personal authority, after a totaUy different usage had been
long established. As a matter of fact, too, the execution of
this law would by this time have become far more difficult,
because the pecuniary circumstances of the citizens had now
become for a long time far more unequal and more complicated
than they were in the simplicity of the earliest days when the
community was founded. If an effort was now to be made to
carry out the spirit of the ancient law, it would seem com
paratively more easy to abolish slavery altogether in regard to
their own countrymen, and to substitute for it labour for hire, just
as the Book of Origins had previously recommended that these
slaves should be treated exactly like hired servants.3 And it is
really remarkable that an attempt to abolish by law all slavery
of this kind actually was made under the last king of Judah,
even though it achieved no permanent success.4 The opinion
was still maintained that a slave did double the daily work of 248
a hired labourer,5 and on this or other pretexts the attempt
was soon brought to nothing. The total overthrow of the
ancient kingdom was necessary before an end could be put to
a slavery which no one was able to take any further steps to
banish. In the days of the New Jerusalem, however, slavery
although not legally abolished, nevertheless seems to have
been more limited to the household institutions of the most
powerful and wealthy of the nation.
1 Lev. xxv. 39-46. priest is entirely omitted.
Q Deut. xv. 12-18. In speaking of 3 Lev. xxv. 40.
boring the ear, ver. 17, all mention of the * Hist. iv. 271.
Sanctuary and the co-operation of tha 5 Deut. xv. 18.

216 SANCTITY PERTAINING TO STRANGERS.
— During the course of these centuries, however, a new rela
tion had been growing up, which occupied an intermediate
position between slavery and free service for hire, a sort of
feudal dependence or allegiance (clientel). The client is no
longer the absolute property of his patron— his position is far
more independent ; but he attaches himself to his patron's house
hold, and receives his paternal protection in return for dis
charging certain services. Thus both have a new object in
life, one of permanent significance so that the relation be
comes hereditary, and one which neither patron nor client feels
he can easily achieve independently of the other. Such a
client in Israel might often be caUed the same as a slave (serf),
but for all that the difference is most essential. That a rela
tion of this kind was formed among the Hebrews, especiaUy
whilst the simplest modes of life were graduaUy disappearing,
even as it existed among many of the ancient Arabian tribes,1
has been shown beyond doubt by what has been already said,2
and the advance which this implies can be learned in the Old
Testament itself from two exceptional delineations of a similar
nature. One of the earlier narrators of the Primitive History
depicts the extraordinary grandeur of the function discharged
by Moses as the servant of Jahveh towards the community,
under the image of an overseer of slaves.3 The great Unknown
designates the true nature of the future Messianic servant of
249 Jahveh under the image of a client of Jahveh, who executes
his work independently.4 How much easier it is to give ah
appropriate representation of the function of the higher
religion under the latter, than under the former, of these
images !

3. Sanctity pertaining to Strangers.
By strangers we mean here all those who, in the widest
sense of the word, are aliens to a particular household, clan,
or tribe, or, finally, to the whole nation, but who nevertheless
come into close contact with one of these communities. Just
as the household in its most ancient form shuts out roughly
1 A client was called ~~\^, a plebe- oalled^U-, asHamdsa, p. 148, 7 sqq. 149,
. • -.. -n . • , ., u tt i 3. — Similar relations still exist in these
ian Hy,,. But just as the old Hebrew covmtries . comp_ Mllnzinger's 0stafr.
13 i.e. guest or cottager (tenant), easily Stud. s. 155, 311 sq.
passed, as will be shown below, into the „ XT' .. „ „ ,„„
meaning of client or vassal, in the same . v^fu"' ' COmp• P- 7
way among many Arabs the client was ' s°'

RIGHTS OF STRANGERS. 217
whatever is external to itself, so does every newly-arisen, more
comprehensive community act, so long as it has stUl to attain
to its full perfection. But the law, as has been already ex
plained, strives to break down this narrow exclusiveness of
the primitive household wherever its effects may be preju
dicial; and thus in respect to strangers Jahveism further
reveals its higher impulses. The circle of love and esteem,
of righteousness and equity, shall extend to those who are
strangers to the private individual, and who therefore so readily
meet with want of consideration and harshness at his hands.
Even the law demands this extension, and gives by way of
example some plain injunctions, the execution of which it must,
it is true, so far as they set forth equitable and handsome
treatment, leave over to the individual conscience. Certain
portions of the rich blessings of the fields and the gardens were
already ordered by the earliest law to be left ungrudgingly for
the needy, just as opportunity occurred in each case.1 What
ever the hungry man picked with his hands for himself of the
harvest was not, according to the Deuteronomist, to be made 250
a matter of accusation against him.2 Even the foreign slave,
whom ill-treatment had caused to run away from his master — ¦
the case quoted as the most frequent — is taken under the pro
tection of this legislation.3 In particular no unfairness of any
sort was permitted towards those who worked for hire, in
order to wring something to one's own advantage out of their
1 Lev. xix. 9 sq. ; Deut. xxiv. 19-22 : looked in haste, for, corresponding to 1, «',
comp from the history, Ruth ii. 2 sqq. it signifi6S to precipitate, to overlook
The former and earlier of these two pas- through exceSsive haste, or (where the
sages requires that both at the corn- arts ar6 referred to) to attempt to do
harvest and the vintage, the gleanings what a man has not been wim to learn
shall be left for the poor, and adds that in to do properiyi or to bungle, Amos vi. 5.
reaping the harvest a corner of the ripe In Hebrew this rare word D-,a evidently
field shall _be_ left untouched for them; became obscur6i and in accordance with
while in picking the grapes, only those iater, more Aramaic linguistic usage, it was
that were first left from pure oversight int6rchanged with tib and j^B, so that
were not to be gathered later for the it was thought to mean, what was seated,
owner; for as grapes do not all ripen at as thougll tn6 Tintagers were forbidden to
the same time, those that are unripe are ick the scattered grapes. Thus is it
naturally left, so that the gleaning of the expiained in M. nXQ, vii. 3 : comp. iv.
vintage came to be distinguished by quite a 10] but manifestly incorrectly. We may
special name, viz. rhb\V i.e. second pick- see generally from M. HXS with what
ing. Thus a distinction is made between scrupulosity, pettiness and want of sue-
the ordinary gleaning of the grapes that cms these teachers of the Law expounded
ripened later? and that of grapes which f *ess w°fs ™t «» -Pentateuch, and
had been overlooked. The Deuteronomist, £orf fc 07OT.ethe lstter a11 the sPmt and
on the other hand, only speaks of the Higher significance.
gleaning in either case, but adds to both, * De.ut- *™- f« P*]. «l- ¦ ""Jf.
1theoliviharvest,betrayingineachrespect ^^ ^e^sTZ^,
his later date. The word [3^., Lev. job xxiV] 10 sq.
fix. 10, should signify what has been over- s Deut. xxiii. 16 [17] eq.

218 SANCTITY PERTAINING TO STRANGERS.
scanty earnings.1 And that every stranger possessed a sacred
right to protection and assistance, that between one's own
countrymen and dependent foreign tribes no difference in this
respect should properly be made ; nay, that under the forms
of even the least known and most foreign-looking suppliants,
nothing less than the Divinity may draw near to mortals with
an entreaty not to be badly treated, this the twofold narrative
of the opposite conduct of Abraham and of the Sodomites shows
in a clear light and with insurpassable beauty.2
But if it was a hard matter for Jahveism to break down
the exclusiveness of the ancient household, it was stiU harder
for it to remove the boundaries of nationality. Eor the nation
was then only beginning to come into existence, and while
therefore it was vigorous enough, it was in the highest degree
narrow and rough ; and this was aU the more the case in Israel
since Jahveism itself had to endeavour to enlist the national
feeling as one of its supports. Sharp opposition to other races
was therefore essential to this nation. National antipathy to
the Egyptians was formed in the cradle of the community, and
was succeeded by the same feeling towards the Canaanites
and the PhUistines; this again, after the days of David and
Solomon, by aversion towards the smaller kindred tribes which
surrounded them ; and, finally, towards the great heathen do
minions in the three continents of the old world. All this time
the opposition was continuaUy growing deeper and stronger
with the growth of Israel, in proportion as nationality and
Jahveism gradually became more and more intertwined one with
251 another. Thus even the earliest law is unable wholly to conceal
a warmer inclination towards its own people. It enjoins love,
and readiness to give help, to make peace and atonement in re
gard to one's own countrymen.3 It takes the slaves of Hebrew
blood in quite a special manner under its own protection,4 al
though its tone towards strangers is invariably far gentler than
that of other ancient religions. But the step from this position
to a command to hate foreign nations and their inhabitants,
is a tolerable wide one, and the ancient law guards itself care-
fuUy from uttering any such thing, demanding, on the contrary,
that a man shall love even the stranger as himself.6 Not till
1 Lev. xix. 13 b: comp. Deut. xxiv. neighbour as thyself appears to be ex-
14 sq.; Tobitiv. 14. tended by the addition 'but hata thine
2 Gen. xviii. sq. : comp. Hist. i. 330 enemy,' this is due entirely to later inter-
sq., and Heb. xiii. 2. pretations. Comp. Die drei ersten
3 Lev. xix. 18 : comp. Deut. xxii. 1-4. Evang. s. 217.
When in Matt. v. 43, the second member 4 P. 212 sq.
of the first passage ' thou shalt love thy 5 In this way the expression of tha

LAWS ABOUT STRANGERS. 219
towards the period of the destruction of the ancient kingdom
did the growing needs and privations of the time secure a place
in the legislation itself for the expression and impulse of so
strong an aversion towards certain nations and inhabitants.
In this respect, too, it is a new feature to which Deuteronomy
introduces us. We have already seen this in regard to inter
marriage with heathen women ; 1 and it is very characteristic
of Deuteronomy to find it concluding a long series of com
mands respecting relations towards human beings with the
stringent order to extirpate Amalek.2
When the class denoted by the word stranger, as would
often be the case, coincided with the poor and helpless, then
neither the later nor the earlier legislation made the smallest
distinction between countrymen and strangers. On the con
trary, it is Deuteronomy which repeats with the greatest em- 252
phasis and frequency the principle which had already found
utterance in the earliest times, that the helpless of every kind
and every race, widows, orphans, strangers — i.e. those who
were not Hebrews — should meet with kind and gracious treat
ment.3 The most intrinsic impulse of Jahveism had a most
powerful influence in arousing such kindness towards the poor
and a readiness to assist them. This impulse exerted itself
everywhere, and operated vigorously at every period; but it
manifested itself most on the surface in the requirement that
the poor in particular should partake in the joys of the sacri
fice;4 for no joys could rival the elevation and comfort of
these. The particular relations of strangers and their customs
and institutions in regard to the civil and religious- com
munity of Israel and the extent to which they were allowed
the right of citizens in it, can only be explained below in
another connection.
second member, Lev. xix. 18 (comp. into the legislation in almost identical
verr. 16-18) is to be supplemented from words.
ver. 34. 3 Deut. x. 18 sq. : comp. xiv. 29 ;
1 P. 104. xvi. 11; xxiv. 19, 21 ; xxvi. 12 sq; ;
3 Deut. xxv. 17, 19 ; but here we also xxvii. 19 ; all these are after Ex. xxii.
see very plainly how what had occurred 20 8-5. ; Lev. xix, 33 sq.
earlier merely in history, and is narrated 4 P. 212, 52.
as such in Ex. xvii. 14, may at last pass

220 SANCTITY OF JAHVEH AND HIS KINGDOM.
III. The Sanctity of Jahveh and op his Kingdom.
1. The Sanctity op Jahveh and Veneration for Him.
The Sanctity of Truth in the Kingdom.
Over the sanctity alike of nature and of humanity stands
that of the true God, as human beings in Israel learned to know
him. It is he alone in the last instance who is absolutely
holy, who is the sole ruler and the only one to be feared, who
is perpetuaUy giving his community fresh means to recognise
him and reasons to fear him. He also it is through whom all
that is sacred in man and nature first receives its sanctity.
He is accordingly the sole person who shall be deemed ab
solutely holy even in speaking and words, the sole name which is
not to be defamed even to the most trifling extent, for otherwise
in him the existence also of all law and order would be caUed
in question, and at the same time that which was dearest to
every pious heart would be poUuted. That the glory of the
253 true God really stands too high to suffer defamation at the lips
of a man, even in an exalted community, was an idea too hard
to be grasped at that time. The knowledge of this God and
the founding of his community were then too recent, the
worship of him too much restricted to this one people, and the
reverence towards him eashy became over-anxious. He alone,
according to the ancient constitution, was king of Israel, so
that the crime of high-treason could only be committed in
respect to him, and as the Ten Commandments would lead us
to expect, the penalty for blaspheming his name was death.1
The Book of Origins accordingly relates how on one occasion a
semi- Israelite, son of an Israelitish woman and an Egyptian
father, in a brawl with the rest of the people, reviled and
cursed 2 the Name (that above aU names, therefore the glory,
majesty), how the community, shocked at the unlooked-for
event, sought counsel of the oracle, and how this commanded
the man to be stoned. A reminiscence of such a case had doubt
less been preserved out of Moses's time, although the Book of
Origins, according to its wont, only avails itself of this narrative
in order to explain, from its own point of view, the most funda
mental principles of the criminal code valid in the community.
That a nation might not publicly defame, at any rate, its
' Hiit. ii. 161. schen' (revile) is from 'fluchen' (curse).
1 The word np_3 in the narrative The latter is a more independent concep-
Lev. xxiv. 10-23 is distinguished from tion, and also a worse one .
|?pp ver. 11, 14-16, only as 'verwiin-

REVERENCE FOR JAHVEH. 221
chief god, by whom public and binding oaths were sworn, was,
it is true, established as a custom also among the heathen.1 But
the far greater truth and depth of Jahveism caused the sanctity
of the name of Jahveh to be regarded with much greater
seriousness, and expressed itself in far more decided conse
quences, than did similar phenomena among the heathen. It
is true that in ancient Israel we have no sign of the excessive
servile scrupulosity in regard to the use of the name of Jahveh,
which attained fuU development towards the end of its whole 254
history.2 But we have clear indications in the history that the
healthy tone prevalent during the fairest period of the nation's
life counselled an avoidance of the most sacred name in cer
tain forms of speech,3 and that the pious felt a delicate dread
of even using the name of God openly at aU in connection with
captious thoughts.4 Here, then, we see the first beginnings of
the latter scrupulousness in regard to the use of the ' name,'
the exaggerations of which, however, gave rise to new mani
festations which are altogether repugnant to the ancient usages.
Next after the majesty of Jahveh himself, comes that of the
sacraments already described.5 So high did they stand as the
symbols mediating between Jahveh and his community that
the conduct of those who maliciously injured them seemed as
intolerable to their co-religionists as that of warriors who
railed at or abandoned their colours would to an army. He who
injured these seemed in most cases truly to wish to injure and
drive away that which lay concealed behind them — the sway of
the true religion and its laws. Capital punishment in these cases
was undoubtedly always inflicted with the utmost promptness.
If, finaUy, even improper handling of the ark, or of any of
the other articles deemed most holy, was punished with death,
this is only to be explained historically from the whole position
occupied by the external Sanctuary among the people, a topic
which is dealt with further on.
— But again, of what avail is the sanctity of the true God
and his worship in the realm, however watchfuUy it is protected
by all its members, however sternly it is revenged when injured,
unless truth itself as the bond of the very existence of all
solidity and all real progress in this realm, is similarly pro
tected as something equally inviolable ? As with the individual
man, so with the kingdom : it can only exist and hold its own
1 To which the Book of Origins itself s This was already explained in my
refers in the narrative ver. 15 sq. This is pamphlet on Genesis, 1823.
how ver. 15 is to be understood. * Such as Job iii. 20.
2 Comp. Hist. ?. 198. s P. 108 sqq,

222 SANCTITY OF JAHVEH.
where truth, trustworthiness, and fidelity are everywhere re
quired, everywhere protected, and everywhere honoured, along
with all the means and institutions (such as the oath and adju
ration) 1 whereby this aim is advanced. But where, as in this
case, the rehgion of a nation desires to be reared on what is
the sole foundation of all truth, then nothing more is wanting
to vindicate the, authority of truth. Mere laws cannot achieve
much in this matter; Jahveism gives no one single law against
lying and to protect truth, although its whole spirit is far more
born of truth and dependent on its might than Zarathustra's
law of life. But in procuring admission to the stone tables
of the primitive Ten Commandments for the duty not to bear
false witness against a neighbour, thus placing it on a level
with the few fundamental commands, it gave sufficient proof
how it took truth under its protection, as the basis of the very
existence of the realm and of the common well-being of aU its
members.2 That the infringement of this law was punished
with death, requires no further proof; 3 and if Jahveh was invari
ably thought of as being close to his people, and if his holy
eyes grew angry at matters of far more trifling import, how
was it possible to think of him in any way but as moved to the
profoundest wrath in the presence of the false witness ? 4
Opposition to every form of Heathen Idolatry.
The rigid exclusion of all worship of images and of heathen
ism was from the first most intimately associated with the
requirements of Jahveism, i.e. of true religion, and we must
remember that in this case it is ultimately the public regard
for truth itself that is concerned. But the extraordinary diffi
culties which this religion began more and more to experi
ence in maintaining its position intact in the midst of an
255 utterly different world, naturally gave rise as time went on to
greater and greater strictness. The Book of Covenants already
commands the violent destruction of all the manifold tokens of
heathenism, while still earlier legislation was content with
uttering warnings against the imitation of heathen religious
practices, and even (as they were used to swear by) against
speaking the names of heathen gods.5 The Book of Origins,
1 P. 16 sq. 5 Ex. xxii. 19 [20] (where B»lPiSis to
2 See Hist. ii. 161 sqq. be inserted, as in the Sam. Pent.) ; xxiii.
3 The words in Deut. xix. 15-21 only 13, 24: comp. the Ten Commandments and
express more distinctly what may have Lev. xix. 4; xxvi. 1. Then, again, the
been said in Ex. xxiii. 1. Comp. for the tone is similar in the Book of Origins,
rest p. 176. Num. xxxiii. 51-53.
1 Deut. xxiii. 15. [14].

FORMS OF IDOLATRY. 223
written during the fairest period of Israel's nationality, con
tains special cautions against worshipping the spirits of the
desert (Demons) given in connection with its description of
Israel's sojourn in the desert,1 and this connection is the reason
why the ghost-like, mocking spirits of the desert are mentioned
in the place of all other false gods. The Deuteronomist is the
first to legislate more minutely in this field, and he is the first
to give distinct directions that all apostasy from Jahveism,
even if counselled by a prophet or anyone else, even if com
mitted by a nearest relative or friend, whether it appeared in
an individual or a whole community, should without pity be
punished with death.2 — An important difference, however, was
made here between a strange worship which endeavoured to
accommodate itself to Jahveism, and one which stood in hostile1
opposition. 1. Eorms of worship which were in force and honour in
Israel before the founding of Jahveism, sought for many cen
turies after that event to hold their position alongside of it and
accommodate themselves to it, and this they did all the more in
proportion to the difficulty which pure Jahveism, with all
its simple grandeur and freedom from images, had in becoming
a permanent possession of the community. Strictly speaking, 256
the law forbade even this accommodation, by which Jahveh was
revered through an image and man sank again into heathenism ;
but in reahty it was not tiU during the times of the kings that a
stop could be put to this popular mingling of old and new.
There are three different sides on which this tendency is
speciaUy manifested.
First and foremost it appears very strongly in connection
with the images of the primitive Teraphim, or family divinities/
of Israel. About these we know, comparatively speaking, a
good deal, and yet far too little for us to frame a perfectly
distinct representation of them. What, however, we can
gather from the scattered notices concerning them may be
represented as follows : 4 An image of this sort did not consist
of a single object, but of several distinct parts, at any rate
when the owner cared to have one of the more fully adorned
1 Lev. xvii. 7. If the same are * The clearest description of them is
meant by the word D**!^ Deut. xxxii. 17, found only in the nerrative, Jud. xvii.
thewordisnevertheless"employedinthis 4 SJ S .xviii-...14' "> 18; 20, 30; the
song in a far less restricted meaning, just ™rds.. ln *™; 18 *» to \° rest°^d
as tfTOfe Satyrs, 2 Chron. xi. 15. according to the LXX. When the
« iif, a ' __ words are carefully considered, it will be
2 Deut. xii. 29-xiii. 19 [18] ; xvii. 2-7. seen that all four names signify only one
3 The Svijakuladevatds in the Veda. image.

224 SANCTITY OF JAHVEH.
and perfect specimens. The essential kernel of it, made either
out of stone or else out of wood,1 always attempted to exhibit
the image of a god in human form, even life-size ; but already
in the earliest times this by itself was readily regarded as too
plain. It generally received therefore a coating of gold or
silver, either over the whole body or only particular portions ;
and hence the caustic speech of the stricter worshipper of
Jahveh, who detested all worship of images, and delighted in
mocking at the product of the chisel and the ladle which
formed the two constituent elements of such idols. It may,
moreover, be understood of itself, that where the noble metals
were plentiful enough the idols might be cast entire of them.2 —
257 Up to this point, then, a family god, without regard to its
special form, was prepared just like the image of any other
god ; it was something added to this which formed the specific
distinction of the primitive family god of the Israelites. In
order to understand what this was, it is of the utmost conse
quence that we should remember that these domestic deities
were employed from the earliest times to furnish oracles, so
that the word Teraphim is absolutely identical with oracular
divinity.3 Eor this purpose the first addition to the image
was an Ephod, i.e. a magnificent robe put over the shoulders,
having on its breast a casket containing the lots employed
in determining the oracle, just as will be described further on
in connection with the adornment of the high-priest. In the
second place a kind of mask was placed over the head of the
image, in which the priest who was seeking the oracle pro
bably had to perceive by sundry tokens whether the god was
wiUing or not to give an oracle at all at that particular time.
These masks alone made the image properly complete, and
from them the divinities received their name of Teraphim.4
1 ?D3. is originally only an image of translating the word ; in 1 Sam. xix.
stone according to Hist. ii. 160nt, but it 13> x?> however, they translate it by
gradually came to signify any idolatrous ^vora^a, a seemingly strange word, of
image, Ex. xx. 4 : comp. Jud. xviii. 30, which, however, so much is clear, that it
and assumed a meaning as general as that m^7 mean tne same as larva. On tho
of taavov. other hand, in Hos. iii. 4, it is rendered by
2 As in the cases mentioned, Ex. xxxii. s^ol> °n th? supposition, revived also by
2-4 • bk Is xl. 19 ¦ comp. Jer. x. 3-9 ¦ modern critics, that it was identical with
bk. Is. xl. 20 ; xli. 7 ; xliv. 12-17 ; xlvi. 6. D*~|;1K (see below under the dress of high-
3 Jud. xvii. sq. ; Hos. iii. 4 ; bk. Zach. priest). But the latter opinion rests only
x. 2 ; Ezek. xxi. 26. L21J. on tne fluent conjunction of the Ephod
1 D'S'IH may, after (  j »^ (  ;L with the Teraphim, which is to be under-
. V i3- stood in quite a different way. Aquila's
be equivalent to a nodding countenance translatioii /xo^^ara is accordingly still
or living mask, and may even be such » ^ clearest ^Tnen there ig ^fect
plural as D\?S, face, properly features. parallel in the lares as the dii larvarum ;
The LXX already usually abstain from and the extent to which nodding was

WORSHIP OF A BULL. 22.5
At the same time we can understand from this how the
Teraphim can be sometimes described as of a similar size to
that of a man,1 sometimes as smaller, and therefore capable of
easy concealment under the saddle of a camel,2 for the principal
element consisted of the two proper oracular constituents,
especially in the case of a household divinity which had been
preserved for a long period, and was regarded with great affec- 258
tion. — Somewhat hke this were the forms of the family gods,
dating, as we cannot doubt,3 from the most ancient days of
the nation ; and if we consider the extraordinary tenacity with
•which everything of a domestic character held its ground with
little alteration in spite of the opposition of the fundamental
principles of Jahveism, it will not surprise us to find many con
tinuing for centuries to seek for protection and counsel from
these family gods, only finding in them now an image of Jahveh
himself. From individual houses this materialisation of Jahve
ism may have extended itself over a somewhat wider circle, as
when at the extreme northern border of the land, in the terri
tory of Dan, a grandson of Moses undertook with his posterity
the priesthood of such a Jahveism.4 But that this abuse crept
into the heart of the kingdom is contrary to all probability;
and so soon as a vigorous revival of the genuine religion sprang
up under Samuel, such an abuse could no longer maintain
itself, at any rate publicly, as is distinctly stated in this nar
rative about Dan.5 In private houses, however, the Teraphim
were held in reverence till much later.6
Of a different kind was the reverence paid to the image of
a horned bull, for which a prejudice existed from the days of
the Hyksos among certain sections of the nation, and which
though suppressed by triumphant Jahveism, yet at certain
periods regained the ascendancy with unexpected obstinacy.
This image never denoted domestic protecting deities, but the
guardian divinity of the whole realm and people, and was
expected from such images is shown in 3 Particularly after what is said,
the passages in Chwolson's Ssabiem ii. Gen. xxxi. 19, 30.
s. 152 sqq. The rest of the conjectures 4 Jud. xviii.
of modern writers on the original signi- 5 The ancient words, Jud. xviii. 31,
ncance of the word (including Bonomi's clearly indicate that after the removal of
Nineveh and its Palaces, p. 179 sqq.) are the ark from Shiloh, i.e. after the fall of
wide of the mark. — Moreover, it will Eli and the rise of Samuel, a religious
easily be understood from what has been reformation took place extending even to
said, that the Ephod by itself may de- the extreme north of the Holy Land,
note the same idolatrous image elsewhere manifestly through the agency of Samuel
called Teraphim, Jud. viii. 27 : comp. himself; in ver. 30, perhaps |}"ik is to
Is. xxx. 22. ke rea(j for pN<
.' 1 Sam. xix. 13-16 • They occur for the last time,.
' 2 Gen. xxxi. 34. 2 Kings xxiii, 24...
Q

226 SANCTITY OF JAHVEH.
undoubtedly like aU other images borrowed from animals,
originally nothing but a symbol for weapons and standards.
In history, it appears in the earliest annals of Israel as
the token of the former supremacy of Joseph in Egypt, and
therefore also of his tribe,1 and would of itself have been
innocent had not the people imagined they had found in it
an image of Jahveh himself. Strictly suppressed, therefore,
by Moses, it nevertheless rose easily to the surface again,
in the first instance in the tribe of Joseph, at times when the
remembrance of the former alliance with the mighty and fair
Egypt was revived, and it finally became dominant in the king
dom of the Ten Tribes with aU the greater facility as the origin
of this kingdom caused it to incline more closely to Egypt.2
All remembrance of Egypt, if it contained nothing unfavour-
259 able, could call to mind only the great state institutions exist
ing there. Even the honouring of Jahveh under the image
of a buU was manifestly related to such great state institutions,
while the former earliest veneration of the Teraphim always
possessed a more purely domestic, or at most famUy, import
ance. In Canaan itself, finaUy, a peculiar worship had found a
home from the earliest times, which continued to exercise a
powerful influence on Jahveism long after this had been
founded. It is the above-mentioned3 worship of sacred stones
of peculiar origin, colour, or form, as monuments or even
as images of a God, — a worship generaUy connected with the
veneration of sacred trees. It early extended itself from
Canaan far into foreign lands, and undoubtedly assumed in the
course of time the most manifold variety of forms ; but its
essential character can everywhere be recognised, even in
the descriptions of the latest authors.4 That among the
ancestors of the people comprehended under the name Jacob
who settled in the primitive days for the first time in Canaan,
there were those who followed the custom of the country and
1 Also comp. Hist.' ii. 181 sq., 183 nach Abyssinien, i. s. 353. That the
note 1. smaller magic stones which were moved
2 See further, Hist. iv. 26 sqq.; about in the hand, and at last made to
comp. ii, 181 sqq. produce sounds by striking, only came into .
3 P. 118. fashion in consequence of a much later art,
* Nothing was more astonishing to will be easily understood from what has
Roman notions ; comp. the way in which been said on p. 119. In the same way the
the temple of the Paphian goddess and largest and heaviest sacred objects became,
other temples are spoken of in Tacitus, and still become, among the heathen,
Hist. ii. 3 ; Sil. Ital. Pun. iii. 30 sq. ; diminished to the smallest and most deli-
Herodian's Hist. v. 3 ; Curt. Hist. iv. 7 ; cate copies. — The last allusion to it is in
Arnob. Adv. Nat. i. 39 ; vi. 11: comp. the seventh century, see bk. Is. lvii. 6.
still similar features in Ruppel's Reise

WORSHIP OF STONES. 227
imitated this worship, is proved by the highly significant remi
niscences concerning the stone of Jacob at Bethel, as well as
by the ancient sanctity of this genuine Israelitish Sanctuary.
Again, the beautiful description by the Fourth Narrator of how
Jacob in the midst ofthe desert plain found for his night-quarters
a hard stone, which became for him and his whole house an 260
instrument and a monument of the highest blessings of his
God,1 still contains a clear recollection of. this kind of Divine
worship as it existed in Israel down from its earliest days. It
is not then surprising that these images of the Holy One once
more became influential in Israel, when after the founding of
Jahveism it conquered Canaan, found again its ancient sanc
tuary at Bethel, and came into friendly relations with Canaan
itish civilisation. At the time of the Judges many worshipped
Jahveh in a sanctuary built after this as a model, and gradually
the word bdmah established itself as the name for a sanctuary
built after the Canaanitish fashion.2
2. It was a totaUy different case when foreign sacred rites
were introduced with a purely hostile purpose into the midst
of the existing Jahveism in order to suppress it. In the earlier
days this took place but very rarely and without any results
whatever. It did not become frequent and dangerous till after
the days of Solomon. This is not the place to give a full
description of all such foreign religions as from time to time
endeavoured to penetrate into Israel. Besides, the details of
many of them can now hardly be discerned by us. This much,
however, is clear, that in every century the struggle in Israel
against all such religions was far more bitter and desperate
1 Gen. xxviii. 10-22 : comp. the pri- xxxiv. 4. They are therefore connected
mitive designation in the blessing of with fl'lDS, 2 Chron. xiv. 4 [5] ;
Jacob, ' the shepherd (protector God) of Lev. xxvi/sO; Ezek. vi. 4, 6, and with
the stone of Israel, Gen xlix 24._ the DntW Is. xvii. 8 ; xxvii. 9. This
2 See further, Hist. in. 305 ; iv. 238. u ¦'« "'
In Ezek. xviii. 6, 11, the names of moun- latter term is explained, Hist, in. 306 (seo
tains are interchanged with those of , ,. " ... . _ ,. ,. , .... . .,
bamoth, yet it is possible that only the ahoM' V>- m' 5' 7~10 *hldl stl11 Slves the
artificial mountains, viz. the conical right interpretation). The word itself is
stones, are to be understood thereby. So certainly compounded from |iD"iri, comp,
far the conical monuments and sacred ° ' °
trees of the Druids are also to be com- >.i- and ij^, as though they were
pared (comp. Renan's Essays de Morale et ^ '
de Critique, p. 404 sq.). Such sacred little Hermons.— This, too, shows the
groves _ existed also in ancient Ethi- word not to be pure Canaanitish ; and a
opia ; the demons had their abodes- in last trace of it is shown by the pn ?$Q
them, and fled when they were cut down, on Punic inscriptions, although in tho
as the Snskar relates in Dillmann's latest of them it is already abbreviated
Chrest. p. 38, 14. — It is only another into JKD bV2- Copies of such sacred
name for the same thing, indicating a symbols are continually found on Cyprian
somewhat different form of these artificial and Phoenician coins ; sea Revue numis-
cones, which we find in D^OD, 2 Chron. matique, 1860, p. 8 sqq.
Q2

228 SANCTITY OF JAHVEH.
than that agamst the mere mingling of old and new, of home
and foreign elements. Examples of this may be seen in the
most important cases.
The sanctuaries of Canaanitish origin which are compre
hended under the name hdmah, were also erected shortly after
the time of Solomon for the reception of the worship of Astarte,
and were therefore more thoroughly adapted to the Phoenician
261 mode,1 while at the same time the earlier types of these
sanctuaries continued to exist. But we still know that the
most strenuous declamations of the prophets were directed
against this new type of Canaanitish sanctuaries.2
The practice of sacrificing children to the God Moloch, as
well as the name of the God himself, are mentioned for the
first time in the Book of Origins.3 The rite may therefore
have been first introduced about the commencement of the
reign of Solomon, when the conquered surrounding races could
revenge themselves on their conquerors through the extension
of their pernicious sacred rites. That this sacrifice came across
a tendency which had already manifested itself here and there
in Israel at an earlier date, cannot be denied;4 but it is equally
certain that this God Moloch was a total stranger to the people
of Israel before the period just alluded to. We cannot at
present say clearly from what nation this sacrifice extended
itself to Israel ; it is not quite certain that it was from the
Ammonites.5 In any case we know that a sirmlar sacrifice
was widely extended at an early period throughout the region
1 See Hist. iv. 44, 49 sqq. The proper ferred to Hist. iii. 306, note 1, iv. 208:
symbol of Astarte was undoubtedly a star comp. Aristoph. Aves, 825, Equites, 568;
(as though one fallen from heaven), San- Virg. Cir. 21 sqq. ; Ovid, Metam. viii.
chuniathon, p. 36, 1 Or. ; the same, there- 727 sqq. ; Fletcher's Narrative of Nineveh,
fore, as Amos v. 26, speaks of: comp. ii. p. 276; Badger's Nestorians, i. p. 99;
Ugdulene Sulle Monete Punico-Sicule, p. Ausland, 1851, s. 280 ; Revue Archeol.
44 sq. — If, however, the Hellenists were 1853, p. 528 ; Lajard in the Mem. de
accustomed to say t) BactA (comp. Rom. I' Acad, des Inscr. xx. 2. p. 146 sq. 150;
xi. 4), we must remember that they pre- Journ. of the Royal Geographical Soc.
ferred this contemptuous feminine in the 1858, p. 240 ; Furrer's Wanderungen in
case of all idols with which they were Paldst. s. 229 ; John Mill's Nablus, p. 54.
not acquainted : comp. the LXX. 2 Kings 2 When the prophets speak against the
xvii. 30 sq. In the same way, at a later b&mah, it is for the most part these which
time, instead of Teraphim the word niBIR are meant, as may be seen from the parti-
was used with a general meaning of idols', culars of the descriptions. This word
, , bdrnah gradually acquired the wider sig-
M. }j), ii. 3.— A disgraceful practice of nification of an idolatrous temple, just as
their lascivious female worshippers is de- the name Baal stands for any idol, Jer.
scribed in the Epist. Jer. v. 43. The xxxii. 35.
custom, scanty remnants of which have 3 Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2-5.
lasted into our own time, of consecrating 4 P. 69, sq.
all sorts of ornaments to the gods in con- s According to Hist. iii. 297, note 3:
sequence of a vow, or, at any rate, of comp. 2 Kings xxiiii. 13, along with
hanging them up on sacred trees, is re- ver. 10.

WORSHIP OF BAAL. 229
of the Canaanitish or Phoenician civilization,1 while in the king
dom of Judah it made its first appearance in the higher walks 262
of hfe after the mournful days of King Ahaz, as the prophets
of this later date bitterly complain.2
TJie worship of Baal as the highest Phoenician god (the
Herakles of the Greeks), along with his numerous subordinate
deities, in large and briUiant temples, and celebrated with
mysterious rites, was first introduced by the kings of the house
of Omri. It extended during their dynasty as far as Jerusalem.
The violent convulsions, however, which it excited in both king
doms are weU known, and also how it scarcely maintained
itself in either realm for half a century.3
The worship of the consteUations, of the signs of the zodiac,
and of the planets, was according to all tokens first introduced
into Jerusalem in the eighth century.4
2. The Sanctity op the Nation.
1. This all-surpassing sanctity attaches to Jahveh in the
eyes of Israel, only so far as the latter recognises his entire
inviolable grandeur and truth, and out of the spontaneous im
pulse, of its heart, takes him eternally as its sole lord and king,
just as any king in whom his people have confidence may be
elected by them their lord. In this province, as everywhere,
the first impulse, according to the right feeling of the true
rehgion, proceeds straight from God. But Israel was once
mightily stimulated and moulded by the spirit of the true God,
and was too deeply imbued with all the infinite truth of the
real redeemer and helper for it to be able to depart from this at
any subsequent time. In this way there arose that inextin- 263
guishable eternaUy progressing and eternally fruitful reciprocal
action and reaction between the Truth which has already been
previously recognised and experienced, and that which in every
epoch is newly recognised and experienced, — a reciprocity which
1 When Diodorus Sic. Hist. xx. 14, adopted even into the temple of Solomon,
calls the corresponding Carthaginian god It is true that we are informed of this in
Kronos,' he does so only in the well- relation to the sacrifice to Moloch only by
known Greek fashion, and we may not Ezek. xxiii. 37-39, but it is clear how
immediately infer that Moloch and Sa- he might do so, from what is mentioned
turn are the same. — But that Tqyrrdoos Hist. iv. 169 sq.
not merely signify (a supposition lately 3 See Hist. iv. 40, 44, 78, 92, 94 sq.,
revived by G. Miiller's Amerik. Urrelig. 136.
s. 653) a dragging of children through * See Hist. iv. 169 sq., 217 sq. : comp.,
the fire, is certain from every indication, as belonging just here, Job xxxi. 26-28 ;
»nd is proved merely by the language. Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3. In regard to Tam-
Comp. Parthenon, 1862, no. 21 sq. muz and the Zarathustrian sacred rites
2 Hist. iv. 169 sq. 207 sq. Not till the comp. my remarks on Ezek, viii. and
monarchy itself had sanctioned a new re- xvi.,
ligion by its own example could it be

230 SANCTITY OF THE NATION,
is the ground and motive of the ' covenant ' between Jahveh
as king and Israel as his people. Accordingly, as the nation is
ruled and swayed by the commandments and revelations of the
true God, and an active relation exists between this God and
the people, the latter also no longer consists of itself alone, but
has a share in the glory and sanctity of this its God himself.
The lower national life and aims, such as any nation may possess,
are not, so far as they contain nothing false, thereby abolished,
but a door is opened for the free operation of all higher spiritual
truths in the midst of the nation. Wherever the genuine worth
and majesty, the unimpeachableness and inviolability, or even
the higher destiny and duty of Israel, are to be brought into
prominence in contrast either with its foes, or with human
potentates, or with perversities in itself, there the earliest times
already use the phrase — full of endless significance — the 'people
of Jahveh,' 1 or (what occurs more rarely) the ' people of God ; ' 2
and with the most profound significance the words ' my people'
are heard on similar occasions in the mouth of the prophets
as the immediate interpreters of the true God.3 The Deuter
onomist in a few passages where something of the greatest
moment is to be explained, speaks of the ' holy people of
Jahveh ; ' 4 and in lofty speech the short expression ' the Saints '
was gradually formed to designate Israel in suitable passages.5
264 But correct as was the truth denoted by these lofty ideas
and names, it was at any rate never made too much of by the
law, which was careful to guard against false deductions from
it. Penal transgression against the glory and sanctity of the.
community, such as blaspheming the people, is unknown to the
law. It places the sanctity of the nation in this respect on a
far lower level than that of Jahveh.
In the spiritual elevation attained by the nation through
this regeneration, and in the fact of its becoming the ' people
of God/ the foundation is laid for a permanent condition of
higher worth, or even of higher duties, with a standard of
measurement the same for all its members. The whole of
Israel with all its members, without exception, is legally become
'a kingdom of priests, a holy nation.'6 No one in this com-
1 In Deborah's songs, Jud. v. 11, comp. more general name 'God' appears here
Ex. xv. 13, 16; also Num. xvii. 6 [xvi. as a weaker form which gradually took
41] ; 1 Sam. ii. 24 ; 2 Sam. i. 12, vi. 21 ; the plan of the more definite term.
2 Kings ix. 6 ; Num. xi. 29. This is ex- » As Is. iii. 12, x. 2, 24, and often else-
changed, in suitable passages, for the where ; Mic. ii. 8 sq., iii. 3.
expression 'community of Jahveh,' Num. 4 Deut. vii. 6 and xiv. 2, 21, xxvi. 19.
xvi. 3, xx. 4, xxxi. 16 ; Josh. xxii. 16 sq. ; « Ps. xvi. 3, xxxiv. 10 [9] ; Deut.
Deut. xxiii. 2-4 [1-3], 9 [8] ; 1 Chron. xxxiii. 3 ; Dan. viii. 24, xii. 7.
*xviii. 8. « Seo Hist. ii. 135 sqq. ; comp. also
2 Jud. xx. 2; 2 Sara, sir, 13 Tho Hos. iv. 6.

SPIRITUAL EQUALITY. 231
munity stands so high and no one so low that all are not alike
before their God. Every member without exception has free
access to the same highest spiritual truth and spiritual freedom,
but is also bound along with all the rest by the same duties.
Earlier human distinctions which interfere with this equality
are abolished, and even slaves are free in this respect and on
an equal footing with their masters.1
The corresponding tokens and pledges of the sanctity of
which in this sense every member of the community ought to
partake, were the three great sacraments of Jahveh already
mentioned.2 He who was competent to partake of them, had
also his share of the whole worth and sanctity of this commu- :
nity, but was bound to manifest a corresponding holiness in
his actions. Jahveism, however, unmistakeably sought after
some token to be constantly borne by every one of its adherents,
which should represent this truth still more easily and uninter
ruptedly than could be done by circumcision. For the latter
being for the most part concealed beneath the dress served
rather as a private reminder to the individual of his obligations, 265
and moreover it was related to the peculiar civilisation of a far
earlier epoch.3 In heathen religions a man would wear the
symbol of the God whom he wished to worship scratched
(tattooed) on the skin of his forehead or hand. All such sym
bolical disfigurement of the body was forbidden by Jahveism.4
In its place every male Israelite is ordered by the Book of
Origins to wear, hanging from the tip of his robe, a tassel
- hanging by a dark blue cord 5 (of the colour of the sky) ; and
it is evident that the custom of wearing a simple token of
honour like this was prevalent for a long time in the early
community. No further sanctity attached to this symbol, so
that also from this we can see that a sacrament must be
much more than a mere symbol.
2. But notwithstanding this sanctity and worth of every
member of the community, it must still always have its human
governors and leaders. A hundred different cravings and
efforts of the people want the cleverest men in its ranks to
inspect, satisfy, and conduct them. Thus the most diverse
organizations always spontaneously arise or are retained in the
i p. 212. of which Justin speaks in his own man-
8 P. 108 sqq. ner, Contra Tryp. ch. 46. How ostenta-
8 P. 89 sqq. tiously, after the symbol had manifestly
" In the primitive law Lev. xix. 285 : been for a long time out of use, this
comp. the comment on Apocal. vii. i. sqq. simple law was re-introduced by many in
Seep. 165. ¦' the latest times is clear from Matth.
• Num. xv. 37-41 ; the k6kkwov pippa xxiii. 5.

232 SANCTITY OF THE NATION.
ordinary course of history, and in a hundred different ways
numerous weaker or less capable members of the nation range
themselves under a single member, or a few who are stronger
and more capable. ¦ If, accordingly, the nation is to become an
organized community, the indispensable human governors and
leaders must also have the privileges and powers without which
they cannot discharge their function. They must, although
themselves but men and members of the same community, be
entrusted with power to rule over men and the members of this
community.1 Jahveism was not unaware of this fact. But a human king,
266 such as the kings of the earth had hitherto been, was incom
patible with its original strictness, especially in regard to the
name, while human leaders and authorities generally it could
tolerate. It is true, that when the principle of the sanctity of
the community and of the equality of all before God was estab
lished in this nation for the first time upon earth, it was
extremely liable to be misunderstood. That this soon actually
occurred and gave rise to the most serious disturbances, and
even to positive rebellions of all kinds, is proved by the ancient
legends of the envy of Aaron and Miriam towards Moses, and
of the revolt of the sect of Korah against Moses and Aaron.2
But these very narratives also show clearly how sensibly and
how decisively Jahveism opposed from the first any caricature
of the ample freedom of which it had laid the foundations in
this world. The equality of all before Jahveh only lays on all
the same duties without which the community of Jahveh can
not exist, and guarantees them also an equal share in the
justice which ought to prevail everywhere in it, so that no
member of it may be illegally oppressed or straitened either
as regards body or soul. This equality, however, abolishes
neither the varied nature and grades of mental powers, so far
as these serve a higher purpose and thus operate under the
influence of the spirit of Jahveh, nor the infinite divisibility of
the employments and enterprises of human life, nor yet the
possibility or even the demand for human privUeges and powers
of rule which spring from the two previous real diversities.
The conception of human authority and rule receives ac
cordingly in this community no more than its true significance
and application. Where the spirit of Jahveh — that spirit of
genuine religion, wisdom, and power,3 which has formed the
1 P. 136, sqq. 8 According to the brief but exhaustive
8 Num. xii,, xvi, ; comp. Hist, ii, 176, designation, Is. xi. 2,
sqq.

TEMPORAL AUTHORITIES. 233
community and now continues to work in it, and ought to
penetrate and guide it more and more — becomes more power
fully active in an individual, a human authority and rule is 267
ripening, such as may be hoped for in this community, and
will in every way be salutary. In this way it is possible for
even the most insignificant and temporarily oppressed man to
achieve power and rule in small or great matters under the
protection of this community. Joseph was favoured with the
spirit of Jahveh while he was in prison, so that there as every
where, he became a wise governor and leader of others ; and
during the ripest development of the community of Israel it
became a proverbial saying that a wise slave becomes the
master of a bad son, and a joint heir with the brothers.1 In
addition, this capability ennobles every useful employment and
dignifies every vocation in the community. Even the sculptors
and artists of every kind were filled with the spirit of Jahveh,
and received high honour and distinction for the wofk 'which
they completed in this spirit just as much as any national
leader or prince.2 Einally, not only the more indispensable or
traditionary powers and authority are thus justified, but also
new kinds of capacities and powers were always tolerated in
the true community, so far as they satisfied a genuine need,
and were instigated in doing so purely by this genuine spirit of
Jahveh. Thus the so-called Judges, in the days after Joshua,
were originally invested with no power provided for them by
law, and yet they graduaUy became almost a settled power in
the realm. When, however, an extraordinary or a newly-
ripening power and capacity finds entrance and foothold entirely
through a stronger stirring of the spirit, then the established
and more indispensable authorities of the realm ought never to
forget their source and their destiny in this community ; but
rather the only principle by which they ought to rule should
be this, that each one in his own sphere follows the higher will
which is made truly known unto him, and suffers himself, in 268
leading his subjects, to be himself led by this. Every standing
power is in this respect alike responsible in an upward direction
to God and the laws of the community, and downwards to its
subjects ; and every human ruler sees the twofold nature of his
obligation, and attains happiness so far as, and no further
than, he satisfies this.-
Such supreme principles of government in the kingdom of
1 Prov. xvii. 2.
2 Ex. xxviii. 3, xxxi, 2-6, xxxv, 30-35 : comp, 1 Kings vii. 14,

2U SANCTITY OF THE NATION.
Jahveh follow, from the above narratives which depict the evil
result of a misunderstanding of liberty and equality, as well
as from the whole of the Old Testament.
3. But to what purpose is the principle of the sanctity even
of the nation, and. to what purpose arise out of its midst leaders,
who, if they are worthy of their vocation, must possess a double
portion of this same sanctity, unless the sanctity proves its
existence by people and princes always acting heartUy together
in accordance with that holiness of the true God and of his
will through which they first receive their own? The co-opera
tion of all is needful to protect the sanctity of the laws and
of the kingdom, and the morals of the household. Whatever
violates this must be immediately repelled and punished, and
the luminous glory of the Divine holiness which has streamed
down upon the community, must ever be kept bright and pure.
And, as a fact, this was the feeling and spirit which the nation
realised during its most glorious days. The success, however,
especially in regard to punishing every transgression and every
infidelity, with which this spirit can operate in the heart of the
community, and give rise to a power to which even the criminal
has involuntarily to submit, so that his necessary punishment
becomes a wholesome discipline for himself and for the whole
community — is depicted in the Book of Origins according to
its custom in a luminous example.1
The Vassals ov the Nation. The Laws op War.
1. If, however, the conception of the sanctity of the nation
in its true meaning refers only to an internal relation between
it and the true God, then this can give occasion to no contempt
for other races or pretended right to act unjustly towards
them. A profound aversion towards Egypt, Amalek, and
other nations did, it is true, characterise the commencement of
the community of Jahveh ; and before long fair Canaan be
came so homelike to them that every foreign country with its
food and its treasures appeared to them unholy and unclean.2
But this aversion and this horror ought not in aU strictness to
lead further than to a more intense love for their own higher
religion and its abode, and a more scrupulous avoidance of
everything heathenish. The proud consciousness of being dis
tinguished from all the other races of the earth, no doubt
penetrated the people of Israel sufficiently vividly during its
1 In the history of Achan, Josh. vii.
! Amos vii. 17; Hos. ix. «• TiV.v J- n- -- * •

COVENANT'S WITH THE HEATHEN. 235
best days ; but alas for that nation which does not feel similar
proud aspirations, and does not at any rate recognise and
claim as its own a lofty work in life which shall leave its mark
on the world's history ; and Israel in claiming as its own at
once the noblest and the hardest of these tasks, never fell
during the fair period of its earlier history, in consequence of 269
this pride, into danger of becoming insolent and unjust towards
other nations.1 It is the peculiar mark of every true religion
that she gives profundity within themselves to the individuals,
as weU as the whole nation, who give themselves up to her, and
protects them from a vain contempt or hostility towards what
is foreign. Jahveism never demanded, as Islam did, that the
sword should be used against everything foreign.
2. If now certain legal decrees required Israel to conclude
no covenant, i.e. no treaty or friendship with the Canaanites,
it is evident that these were not issued until it had already
been proved how dangerous any connection with them was to
the religion and morality of Israel. In the earliest legislation
we find no such decree. The law in the Book of Covenants,
which, although relatively very ancient, was still not written
tiU about a century after Moses, is the first to command Israel
not to dweU with them, but to drive them out and overturn
their altars.2 When, again, the Deuteronomist repeats and
emphasizes these commands at a later date, his very words are
enough to show clearly that he is only inspired by the fear of
being crushed by the heathenism which was everywhere power
ful, by no delight in destruction, no blind hostility. We must,
indeed, admit that even this earliest law had been preceded by
actual facts and experience. Erom the last years of Moses
and the time of Joshua, it had been proved that Jahveism could
not obtain a firm abode on the earth without the violent dis
possession of at any rate one ancient nation. But we also see
that from the first commencement of the formation of the
community, it was only maintained by the most stringent
treatment of all that lay outside it.4 We must, then, pay atten
tion to the above-mentioned historical origin of these laws. It 270
is only then that we understand how they have but a temporary
significance. Accordingly, the law itself admitted further exceptions.
What the Book of Origins relates of the crafty inhabitants of
Gibeon, to whom Joshua, though almost against his will, had
1 Even such expressions as Ex. xxxiii. . rator, Ex. xxxiv. 12-16. Another earlier
16, xxxiv. 10, are accordingly not too utterance occurs Num. xxxiii. 51-53.
lofty, 3 Deut. vii. 1-5, 16, 25 sq., xii. 2 s<j.
2 Ex. xxiii. 32 sq. ; comp. 29 sq. It is xx. 16-18.
jepeat""1 °"r< nmnlifiBd bv the Fourth Nar- ' See p. 75 sqq.

236 SANCTITY OF THE NATION.
to promise protection for life and property,1 is clearly, accord
ing to the custom of this work, nothing but a model for similar
cases. The relation of such persons to the kingdom became,
as a matter of law and custom, the same as that of vassals to a
single powerful family.2 They were even named in like manner
the guests or settlers of the realm, who had a right to live and
dwell there. But as they would not readily forget their former
full freedom, and conflicts would often arise, these dependent
communities for the most part sank gradually into greater and
greater servitude. They became ' public hewers of wood and
drawers of water,'3 i.e. they were bound to perform villein-
service for the community of Israel. They nevertheless always
retained certain rights which might not be violated.4 The
Deuteronomist desires, however, that milder proceedings should
be adopted only with the non-Canaanitish cities, and that the
Canaanites should fall under the ban of the second grade.''
Even individual heathens might be admitted as vassals into
the community of Israel. Here and there this took place from
the time of the conquest ; 6 but it was chiefly after the time of
Solomon that foreigners, through commercial intercourse, be
came numerous in the cities of Judah. They formed a class
of half-citizens, possessing many rights the same as the Israel
ites. They appeared at the gate, i.e. publicly on the market,
and before the tribunals of justice ; they could always count on
protection at least for their life and moveable property. Eeal
property, however, they were not permitted to acquire.7 In
return, they were obliged to observe the most universal laws of
271 Israel, e.g., not to eat blood.8 Distinguished from these were
the absolute foreigners,9 whose presence was tolerated, but who
possessed no rights. The Deuteronomist is most solicitous on
2 Josh. ix. 3 sqq. xxxv. 15 ; Ex. xii. 48 sq., all from the
= P. 216. Book of Origins. That the Philistines,
3 Josh. ix. 27. (The last four words e.g. regarded blood in a totally different
may be by the Deuteronomist.) Comp. light follows from bk. Zach. ix. 7. Such
the same idea in other words, Deut. xx. foreigners had to'give up their customs.
10 sq. ; 1 Chron. xxii. 2 ; 2 Chron. ii. s 1-J3J Foreigner, opposed to the "1^
16 [17] sq. _ guest 'within the gate of Israel,' Deut,
* See Hist. 111. p. 13o sq., and p. 136, xiv._ 21 . comp. ;. 16> x 18 sq_ T]lat jn
sq. above. later times some of them were very
« P. 77; Deut. xx. 10-18. _ wealthy follows from Deut. xxviii. 43.
« Josh. vi. 25 (Hist. 11. 247 sq.) en- Very plain language is also found in
dently only mentions an important ex- Ezek xlvii- 22 Bq- . comp. ^j;. 7| Mai.
ample of what often occurred. ii;_ 5 The most accurate name for a
'_ Comp. bolow under the Year of half-citizen is atfin] "li, guest and settler
" « Lev. xvi. 29, xvii. 8-11, xviii. 26, or more trie% 'l"rt without "j, Lev. xxv.
xxiv. 16, 22; Num. is. 14, xv. 14-16, 36,47; comp. 45.

LAWS. OF WAK. 237
behalf of both classes, but lets the distinction between them be
clearly recognised.
3. The way in which the ancient nation carried on war was
no doubt unusually stern, on account of its frequent exercise
of the ban in its two grades, particularly as this ban was not only
turned outwards, but also inwards, against members of the
general army who were lukewarm and dilatory.1 This makes it
the more noteworthy that Deuteronomy, even in dealing with
these stern old customs, without whose protection Jahveism
could not have maintained itself in the world many centuries
after its foundation, seeks to introduce the same spirit of gentle
ness and forbearance, which in other directions had long become
a part of the law. Towards the members of the general army,
in which, according to the ancient custom, every man capable
of bearing arms without exception was compelled to serve, it
enjoins forbearance and consideration, when urgent grounds
for such reaUy exist.2 Towards enemies it sanctions a pro
cedure of three gradations. Those who submit peacefully are
to be taken under protection. Of those who are forcibly con
quered only the men are to be put to death (ban of the first
grade). The ban of the severest kind was to be confined to the
Canaanites.3 In carrying on war the utmost consideration
was to be shown to a hostUe country, e.g. no fruit trees were
to be cut down.4

The Membership op the Community. 272
The complete membership of the community was, on the
other hand, under so strict an administration in its details,
that the title of a ' holy nation ' remained anything but a mere
conception. In regard to recognised members the ancient law
knew of no deprivation of civic rights or expulsion from the
country,5 but it was aU the stricter in its requirement of a
1 Pp. 75-80. nave done amiss ? The reverse of this
2 Deut. xx. 4-9. may now be seen in the numerous magni-
3 Deut. xx. 10-18. How readily the ficently executed frescoes of the cruel
usage had extended itself to other nations wars of the Assyrians, Layard's Nineveh,
may be gathered from Hist.iii. 149 sq., ii. p. 29 sq.
157, iv. 88 sq. s When, on the other hand, the com-
4 Deut. xx. 19 sq. : comp., however, munity of the new Jerusalem lost under
2 Kings iii. 25 for the sort of events the Persians the rigQt of infl;cting cap;tal
which certainly furnished the first grounds pllnishment, they consistently claimed the
for the law. The' reason given here iior right of exclusion from tlle community
it is as follows : ' Is the tree of the held alid exerc;sed this in ita stead. This ^
a man that it should be distressed on thy nQw ft - ^ extirpate Ezra Ti; 26 .
account?' This is uttered quite m ac- ^-«5 ^ • m ¦
cordance with what is said on p. 7 ;— > comp. x. 8 ; Neh. xiii. 28. The utmost
why should the tree suffer when only men that was connected with this was. the ban

238 SANCTITY OF THE NATION.
sacerdotal expiation of such offences as could be expiated, and
secondly, where this was not admissible, of capital punishment.
as will be further explained below. The reception of new
members, on the other hand, was not indeed limited by the
narrowness of privileged families in Israel itself, for such earlier
limitations had been wholly abolished by the spirit of Jahveism.
It was, however, in the first place, limited by the cautious spirit
of the old world and the stern discipline which we have already
described. Deuteronomy still retains two of the results, the
exclusion of eunuchs of every kind,1 and that of bastards with
273 all their posterity without exception. By a bastard,2 however,
it is certain that we must understand only a child of forni
cation between persons of two distinct nationalities between
which sexual connections were not allowed, particularly if an
Israelitish woman prostituted herself to a born alien. Nothing
seemed more disgraceful and intolerable than this.3
The fact last mentioned leads us to the second main limita
tion. The national descent from the blood of Israel still seemed
indispensable for full participation in all the rights of the com
munity. This shows how impossible it was for Jahveism in
the earliest times to maintain itself apart from the nationality
of Israel, and for the latter to do the same without being sharply
separated from other nations and rigidly secluded in itself. It
is true that this limitation is no original feature of Jahveism,
and therefore eternally essential. On the contrary, a far
greater freedom prevailed in this matter under Moses just
during the lofty period when the community was founded.4
But from the time that Israel had conquered and partitioned
the land of Canaan, which was continually becoming a less and
less secure possession on account of the foreign nations which
threatened Israel on every side, it separated itself as the ruling
people continuaUy more and more sharply from the rest. All
foreigners by birth who lived under its rule were only tolerated
of moveable property (a kind of proscrip- But the formation which is altogether
tion), Ezra x. 8. Of courso the hagio- similar and only somewhat weakened in
crapy during the last centuries again laid somld is tllB Ethiopic a^ TJ S Enoch
claim at favourable opportunities to the „ ,-,-,.,, % m, , .
right of inflicting capital punishment. *' 9 (DiUm.). That, however, it possesses
1 P 164 above defined narrower signification
21tDD,'Deut. xxiii. 3 [2], although Mlows Jrom Zach ix 6 : comp what is
¦•:-' l J ° said Hist. iv. 142; for here what is clearly
ItO in Arabic is jJ-«, and in Syriac m^ is a family in the Philistine Ashdod
. , -^ J which sprang from a connection of the
Jr-£>, may correspond to the Arabic *-JJ, women of this subjugated city with the
bastard, according to Lehrb. § 51 c-e; the con|uS,r°rs.
intermediary term being the Aramaic +- ,?' , narratlTe> at the same
V,.\i had (Knos, Chrcst. p. 05, 6). tlm? \?P™1 one< Gon' mT-
•*" m v L ' ' * Hist. ii. 118 sq.

ADMISSION OF STRANGERS. 239
as vassals. Yet a distinction was made here, as soon as the
nation permanently obtained a strong and peaceful supremacy.
If a complete foreign community or tribe was under the pro
tection of Israel, it always remained in this dependent con
dition, and those who happened to be its princes became
vassal princes.1 If, however, a single foreigner lived in one of
Israel's communities, then his descendants could after three
generations enter into full participation in all the common
rights, in case he did not spring from one of the races between
which and Israel the hostility was too great. When the latter
was the case, they could not even in the tenth generation (i.e.
never) become fuU citizens. The last distinction is given by
Deuteronomy plainly in accordance with ancient practice.
When, however, it reckons the Moabites and the Ammonites
among the strangers who were to be perpetually excluded, and
the Egyptians and the Idumseans, who are often elsewhere
closely united together,2 among those who were to be gradually
adopted, its classification is due entirely to the special circum- 274
stances of the time when it originated.3 Many foreigners had
also been adopted from time to time at an earlier date.4
3. The Sanctity op the Kingdom.
The kingdom is the unity and the active co-operation of
all its constituents and powers to the single end of its existence
and its well-being. If it derives its name from its lord, and
if what we are speaking of here is always named in the highest
sense the kingdom of Jahveh, this by no means implies, that
even this absolutely invisible lord administers or desires to
administer it without laws, for even between this eternal lord
Jahveh and his community there stands a covenant obligatory
on both sides. All the individual members of the community,
in spite of their external and temporal inequalities, whether
human subjects or human rulers, priests or laymen, prophets
or not prophets, ought always to hearken to the voice of Jahveh
alone, and therefore to the eternal truths, whether these were
given at an earlier time or newly revealed, in order that he who
alone can succour may impart the true help and the protection
1 P. 236. ytyft *5^D J see comment Ex. xii. 38 ; Num. xi. 4, had been merely
t on o'iT : " vassals, and even if this son of an Israel-
onJer. xxv. 20, 24. Msh womim and an Egyptian fatherj
3 Comp. Hist. in. 217, iv. 44 sq. LeT_ xxh._ ,„_ had beionged to tnem
3 Deut. xxiii. 4-9 [3-8] ; comp. Hist, (though this is nowhere indicated) still
iv. 221 sq. the fact would be abundantly proved by
* If the foreigners by birth mentioned the cases cited, Hist. iii. 144.

240 SANCTITY OF THE KINGDOM.
that never fails. A kingdom buUt on this foundation is essen
tially recessary, eternal, and holy. But he who touches this
foundation when it has once been laid, trespasses against the
sanctity of the kingdom, and thereby incurs the penalty — to be
more fully explained below — of violating what is absolutely holy:
But the unity, as the essence and strength, of the kingdom
always depends in reality on the mutual relations of the various
forces which either exist in it from the first or gradually
develope themselves there. All the more is this the case when
the highest bond which is to hold together all the human con
stituents is as purely spiritual as it was in the ancient strict
275 theocracy. We must accordingly examine more closely these
human forces which encountered one another in the kingdom
of Jahveh, in order to comprehend how far their unity was
developed there, and what form the kingdom consequently
assumed in history.
If, however, the kingdom is the living unity of all the indi
vidual members, and of all the special powers and aspirations of
the nation under its God, it must also form the true union and
the necessary connection between the two sides of the institu
tions, laws, and customs which we have described more fully
above.1 Here both these sides are united, here both must be
equaUy protected. The question now is how they may both be
brought together, and made to act on each other in a salutary
manner, how each may develope itself freely and advance as
far as is healthful, and also how each may limit, discipline, and
restore the other to the right path when and where it has lost
itself in error and corruption. This is the organization of the
kingdom, which needs a special description all to itself.
There also exist great and permanent institutions in the
kingdom which are specially destined to uphold this organiza
tion and its firm unity. These now call for particularly careful
delineation, 1 P. 4 sq.

THE ORGANISATION OF THE KINGDOM. 241

THIRD SECTION.
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES BY MEANS OF
THE OEGANISATION OF THE KINGDOM.
I. The Nation and its Leaders.
1. The National Assembly.
The essential constituents of everything which was of a.
purely national character already existed in Israel previous to
the foundation of the Theocracy. This is the case with the
national assembly, and therefore with one of the most important
and indispensable constituents of a healthy and vigorous nation
ality. 1. It has already been thoroughly explained1 how Israel
as a nation possessed from primitive times a permanent organi- 276
sation, which was extremely hard to subvert, and which em
braced the whole of the internal national life. Regarding it
all from below upwards, we see three well-marked stages,2 in
which the whole broad and firm edifice rises aloft. Eirst in
the great social union comes the individual household (the
family). This we have already seen3 maintained itself very
strongly in its original wide independence and power, and
therefore as a rule embraced numerous human beings, and
these of a very diverse character, aud still gave to its head (the
father) very extensive rights. — Several single households to
gether form, in the second place, a clan, or as the Romans
would have said, a gens* This firmly embraces all its house
holds together, like a single greater household. It may there
fore have a father at its head, whether he be regarded as its
historical founder, or as time went on as the prince of the clan,
and so far it may also be termed a father's house? — Several
1 Hist. i. 362 sqq. Ex. vi. 14 ; Num. iii. 24, 30, 35. We
2 The clearest descriptions of them cannot therefore understand the word
are found bk. Josh. vii. 14-18, 1 Sam. differently even when ;t ;s piaced ai0ng.
x. 19-21. The former passage is more gide of the other torm -m the Boq]. of
definite than the latter. Comp. also 1 Origins, in accordance with the prolixity
Sam. xxm. 23, Jud. vi. 15. characteristic of this work, Num. i. 2, 18
3 P. 187 sqq. -r-v-v s11- ' "¦ 3*» comP- l- 4- h tnen gener-
4 Or a 5i},uoj; this is how the LXX ally stands after the ordinary expression,
most correctly translate the nnS^P m bllt before it jn Num_ i;i 15_ ¦what| on
Num. i. 20 sqq. tne other hand, the father's house is
s That 'father's house' may be an- when a single man is being spoken about,
other term for ' clan ' clearly follows from needs no further explanation.
E,

2 12 THE NATION AND ITS LEADERS.
clans in the third place are united together into a tribe. This,
too, embraces all its members like a compact household ; has
accordingly its 'father,' and is in like manner termed a
' father's house.' ' But again, all the tribes together form the
277 people, which may be termed not only Israel, but more
solemnly 'the house of Israel.' Thus the conception and
organisation of the household (the family) penetrated every
thing in the actual life of the nation from ancient times. The
carefully executed genealogies2 were only the result, not the
cause, of these national relations.
The nation was therefore divided from primitive times into
greater and smaller exclusive communities. These were no
associations formed to carry on in common particular operations
or arts more successfully. Certain distinctions in this respect
did, it is true, display themselves very early, and might readily
develope themselves while the individual communities readily
separated from one another. Thus the tribes of Reuben and
Gad, perhaps also Simeon, always had a greater inclination
than the others for a peaceful life, with the breeding of cattle
for its main occupation.3 On the other hand, the tribe of
Benjamin was devoted to war, and was famous for its special
warlike arts and dexterity,4 so that we are justified in regard
ing this smaUer tribe as having been the vanguard in primitive
times of its larger brother-tribe Joseph. But in general the
only associations which were formed within the nation were
political and military. When it became customary to give the
name of a thousand5 (a Chiliad) to a larger association, tribe, or
clan, aspirations for military companionship and considerations
about capability for bearing arms were manifestly prevalent. It
might be that from such an association only 1,000 warriors in
all were required, or that it embraced 1,000 households, each
one of which had to furnish a warrior. We are therefore taken
back to the primitive times when domestic life first overstepped
278 its narrowest limitations, when one household, if only for the
sake of external security, endeavoured to bind itself as closely
as possible on to another, and thus formed clannish unions,
which were in part founded on blood-relationship, and in part,
1 In the Book of Origins ; Num. xvii. will be more to say immediately, can
17, 21 [2, 6]; Josh. xxii. 14. Even in originally only mean ' thousand,' and only
Num. ii. 2, the word is probably to be from -thenco a fraction of the people or
understood in this way, since it is enough tribe. This needs no proof, and there
for each tribe to have its own ensign. fore it is poetically interchanged with
2 Hist. i. 23 sq. Myriads, Num. x. 36 ; Deut. xxxiii. 17.
3 See Hist. ii. 296 sq. (Elsewhere the two words occur together,
1 Hist. ii. 281 sq., 373. Gen. xxiv. 60.)
5 The name PPN, about which thcro

FORMATION OF THE NATION. 243
and to a greater extent, on common aims and for the sake of
external security, and which formed a firm graduated unity,
endeavouring to bund a higher household, without its being
possible to break down the internal partition-walls between the
individual families. They therefore readily broke apart again
from one another at this stage of civilisation, and this we see
happened during the period of the Judges, when even the clans
in one tribe, that of Manasseh, split apart.1 Only the long afflic
tion in common in Egypt, then still more the lofty religion and
civilisation from the time of Moses, finaUy, as the consequence
of this, the great victory over the Egyptians and other nations
and the subsequent development of a firm kingdom, gradually
established a more intimate union of the long allied communi
ties, and made the ' house of Jacob ' into the ' people of God.'
StiU, however, the Book of Origins is acquainted with the
earlier stage, and describes its essence very accurately ; and the
primitive phrase, which will be further explained below, ' the
soul shall be rooted out of its nations,' 2 is a standing witness
to the ancient feeling that Israel had properly grown up out
of many nations, i.e. clans and tribes. 3
A nation growing up out of such materials may easily at
the time when it is in process of formation double itself by the
adoption of new materials, and in conformity therewith may
even change the name of its communities. We can stiU prove
from many indications that something of this kind actually
took place in ancient Israel. For we see in its ordinary
language two names for ' clan,' of identical signification, but of
which the one must earlier have denoted the ' tribe.' 4 Only a
new formation of the whole people at an early date, of which 279
other traces are apparent, can have brought it to pass that
what was previously a tribe, and therefore the highest division
ofthe nation, should be degraded to a mere clan; whether this
1 Hist. ii. 321 sq. in Israel itself, which even the Book of
2 Gen. xvii. 14, and elsewhere Origins repeats in some passages with great
3 Just as the Athenian S^or grew out emphasis, as though they were genuinely
of the individual Sijfioi. Mosaic, Num. i. 16, x. 4 ; Josh. xxii. 14,
4 The a'ptf we have just spoken of 21, 30 ; comp. the Mosaic pseau, Num. x.
, '¦•'.'•' , 36. — Even the usual word for tribe is be-
interchangf s in most books (not, however, ginuing to mean the third part of a great
in the Book of Origins) quite commonly tr;be> Nlm_ {y ,g_ We must understand
withnna^p. That it must, however, have in quite a diffel.ent way the conjunction
denoted a tribe at an earlier dato follows nt?D flnSB'C! ' the race, i.e. the relation
al the first place from the use of it in the ^ " Qf "^ y'^, Num_ xxxv; 6_ g_ c
Idnmean language, where it always signi- ye]._ 12 Moreover, in lofty speech,
fied the highest division of the people nnsK,D alTrays readilv occurs in a wii
(Gen. xxxvi. 40-43); and m the second '^ae.
place from some extremely ancient phrases r. 2

244 THE NATION AND ITS LEADERS.
took place in pre-Mosaic times,1 or what is more probable, not
till after the days of Joshua, when the whole community was
more fully developed.2
But even this lowest grade, the ' household,' by no means
remained so simple that every adult or married man would
form a valid ' household ' in the national assembly. We rather
see clearly from sundry tokens 3 that, at any rate from the time
of Moses and Joshua, every household which was counted in a
clan was divided into many individual 'men,' and therefore
into many simple families or households in the strictest sense
of the word. The organisation, therefore, was carried to such
an extent that it can only be fully described in the five grades,
man, household, clan, tribe, nation.4
280 But the organisation would have been very imperfect if
each of the middle three grades had not been further organised
upon fixed principles. We have already shown it to be
probable, for many reasons,5 that as the nation had always
been divided into twelve tribes, so each tribe was divided into
twelve clans. How many households a single clan embraced
we cannot determine from our present historical sources. That
their number, however, was limited, is certain from what we
have just explained, and we may conjecture from the other
proportions that every twelve households formed a clan, while
the number of the men who formed one household might be
extended at wiU. The fundamental lines of such an all-em
bracing organisation were plainly given from the earliest times,
and maintained their position very tenaciously, however various
were the forms adopted in the course of time in this connec
tion. When the tribes from the time of Joshua had taken
firm possession of the Holy Land, there were formed, out of the
landed properties of the clans of each tribe, an equal number
of districts with a town as ' mother,' 6 and we stUl know that
Bethlehem, with its territory, was too small a town to form a
district by itself, although after David's time it perhaps laid
1 Hist. i. 371. are these all heads of families in the
2 Hist. ii. 259 sqq. proper sense of the word, and for both
, According to bk. Josh. vii. 14-18 reasons can only have been few in number.
every ' household ' is again divided into 4 Comp. for the lower developments
' men,' and tho individual man and warrior and the essential necessity for them the
who occurs there, Achan, belongs to the example of the present Arabs of the
house of Zabdi, as whose grandson he desert, Layard's Discoveries, p. 239.
appears in the genealogical tables. This 5 Hist. i. 362 sqq.
of itself is clear enough, but the mention 6 Like Abel Bathma'akha, 2 Sam. xx.
ofthe 'patriarchs of the clan of Gilead,' 19. The smaller towns belonging to a
Num. xxxvi. 1, speaks with still greater larger one such as this, are often called in
clearness; for neither according to the ordinary language her 'daughters;' see
title nor the moaning of this narrative Hist. ii. 257, nt.

THE HEADS OF THE PEOPLE. 245
claim to such an honour, and then may have had a district-count
living in its midst.1
Each of these greater or smaller unions had from the first
a head around whom they assembled, and whose power was
more or less extensive. The Book of Origins calls the ruler of
ahousehold the head of the fathers or the patriarch, that of a
clan the patriarch of the households, or prince, and also more
generaUy the ' head ' or head of the fathers, that of a tribe the
prince of the princes, or simply the prince.2 In the first in- 281
stance, at any rate originaUy, the head of the first house
was always the head of the clan, that of the first clan also that
of the tribe. AU these three grades of the heads of the people,
who would thus reach the total of 1,728, might certainly be
also designated by one common name, and in all probability
this was furnished by the names ' head ' or ' father,' 3 also more
definitely the 'head of the fathers,' but most frequently by
the name we so often meet with of Flders. It would be, on
the one hand, a complete mistake to assume that every father
of an actual family would have been deemed an Elder. The
name clearly had a far weightier significance. But, on the other
hand, we know that the number of the Elders of Israel far
exceeded so low a number as seventy.4 And if this name had
so wide a significance, it will explain why the Book of Origins
for the most part avoids the use of it, preferring to express its
own meaning in particular cases with more precision. When
an entire community actually assembled under its head, e.g.
in war or when the nation assembled under arms, this head
stood forth in front like a firm corner-stone in a large house,
and this explains how in such cases the Elders could be termed
the corners (corner-stones) of the whole nation ; 5 for in other
respects no distinction is to be found between these two
names. Where, on the other hand, the giving of counsel and 282
1 Mic. v. 1 [2] ; comp. ex. Zach. ix. 7. 4 According to Ex. xxiv. 1 ; Num.
Also Amos v. 3 assists in the comprehen- xi. 16.
sion of this. ¦ Judg. xx. 2 : comp. the other names,
2 According to Num. xxxvi. 1 ; Num. xxi. 16; 1 Sam. xiv. 38 ; Zach. x. 4. Ac-
iii. 24, 30, 35 ; xiii. 3 ; xxv. 14 ; Ex. vi. cording to the first two passages such a
14 sqq. ; Josh. xxi. 1 ; xxii. 14 ; 1 Chron. corner man never appeared or moved with-
v. 6; Num. iii. 32 ; i. 4-16: comp. ii. 3 ont his troop of armed men.— The Book
sqq. ; vii. 11 sqq. ; xxxiv. 18 sqq. ; and the of Covenants, Ex. xxiv. 11, uses for this
entire series with Num. xiii. 2 sqq. ; Josh, a name of probably similar meaning,
xxii. 14. It was similar among kindred ^ly^ from ^>XN> ' the side, corner ; ' for
nations, Gen. xvii. 20 ; xxv. 16. ' *'
3 Hence may occur such epithets as <*"> Arabic J^\, noble, comes from
'father of Tekoa,' 1 Chron. ii. 24, 42, 45, quite a different and purely Arabic word,
50 sqq. ; iv. 5 ; or the name ' head,' Num. and means properly one of a tribe or clan,
xxv. 4. noble in this sense.

240 TIIT3 NATION AND ITS LEADERS.
incidents of general interest to the national life are spoken
about, they are always called the ' Elders.'
2. When the nation was gathered together, arranged some
how according to this organisation and with these- leaders at
their head, the assembly was present. These heads were of
course originally also always the leaders of the nation in war
and its protectors against every enemy. But one of their prin
cipal functions was also to meet in the coUected assembly in
order to give advice and pass decrees in respect to the common
interests of the people. Indeed, the precise organisation of
the nation manifestly had particularly in view a careful system
of voting at the national assembly.
The people of Israel, therefore, constituted from its earliest
days a well-organised assembly which took counsel and came
to decisions about their own affairs. This was arranged with
so much consistency and thoroughness that every smaller com
munity within it, every tribe and every clan in the Holy Land,
as well as every district and town, was organised, met for
counsel, and managed their affairs in like manner. Nothing could
become a law binding the community which had not previously
been discussed and approved of in the assembly. No important
measure could be framed in matters belonging to the whole
people without the previous sanction of the ' Elders.' Even a
recognised and popular Prophet could introduce no important
change in the national life without a discussion in and the agree
ment of the assembly. This fact is confirmed on a closer ex
amination of all that we know ofthe primitive and earlier history
of the nation down to the times of the kings ; indeed, without
it it is impossible to understand the details of the whole of that
portion of history. If even the Mosaic fundamental constitu
tion, and with it the foundation of all the better national life of
that long period, was adopted, according to the earliest view,
after a voluntary acceptance on the part of the assembly, and
by a covenant concluded betwixt it and its lord,1 then we are
283 able to see from this most important example how deeply the
idea of a free discussion and acceptance of all laws in the as
sembly, and of contracts which were to be concluded by it, had
taken root in the nation from primitive times.
Representative institutions were essential to every well-
organised nation, and no ancient upward-striving nation divested
itself of the right to deliberate and issue decrees by means of
them. Ancient Israel, during just the purest period of its
1 Hist, ii, 143 sqq.

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. 247
existence, never suffered itself to be deprived of this fundamental
right of a healthy national life. Nothing is more erroneous than
to suppose that representative institutions are peculiar either
to the Teutonic races or, in the ancient world, to those of
Europe. But their composition, organisation, and prerogatives,
were important questions, just as is the case at present, and to
understand these details accurately in the case of the ancient
nations of which no very abundant literature has been pre
served, is a task of great difficulty. What may be recognised
in the case of ancient Israel is as follows.
The heads above described had the right of meeting in
assembly when and where they chose. They therefore con
stituted the national assembly, which never allowed itself to be
deprived of its right of deliberating and deciding upon the
most important general affairs of the nation. When the
heads met together, each one, after the ancient military
custom, was always attended by his following of men capable
of bearing arms. More than 400,000 men completely equip
ped were at times counted at such gatherings.1 The actual
deliberation, however, undoubtedly took place in the midst
of only the ' Elders.' The share which the common people 284
had in the matter lay in the fact that each Elder had pre
viously to come to an understanding with his men. This
would rea,dily take place, since these heads were not arbitrarily
set over the nation, but undoubtedly originally proceeded from
the communities themselves. That they were elected is, as
far as we know, not probable.2
But it is not needful to show how difficult it would be for a
deliberation of any length, or even a co-operation in carrying
on the supreme direction of the people, to take place in the pre
sence of the whole of this great original assembly. It is not
surprising that very early a sort of committee of Elders was
formed, which was specially empowered to carry on together
the supreme direction of the people, and to represent the per
petual living unity of the deliberative and executive assembly.
These are the Seventy Elders'.3 If we assume that the number
1 Judg. xx. 2 : comp. xxi. 16. In the xi. 16, includes also the possibility of the
same way in 1 Chron. xii. 23-28, there election of a few out of many who stand
appear at Hebron to do homage 304,822 on an equal footing. And in general the
men out of all the tribes, in which number choice of national representatives and that
in the case of some of the tribes— it is of kings stand mutually related, so that
clearly said of Naphtali in ver. 34— only in proportion as the latter falls_ into
the leaders appear to be reckoned. — That disuse the former becomes more indis-
round numbers were often chosen is seen pensable. The many causes of this are
also in Num. xi. 21 : comp. i. easily understood.
2 Nevertheless, the description, Num. 3 The Book of Origins, strange to say.

248 THE NATION AND ITS LEADERS.
of these Elders was properly seventy-two, but that perhaps the
two presidents (in the Book of Origins Moses and Aaron) were
not counted, or that from some other cause the number seventy-
two was reduced to seventy, then we evidently have on an
285 average (i.e. apart from the special changes which might take
place historically) six heads for each of the twelve tribes as
representatives of the whole, the twelve clans of each tribe
only sending half the number of their heads to this smaller
assembly. This committee of Elders (or, as we may say,
Council of Old Men, Senate) had, according to aU tokens,
been long in existence in early times, and had contributed
in determining a large portion of the fate of the nation.
Erom the narrative, which will soon be spoken of more
fully, contained in Numbers xi., we might suppose that it
was not instituted by Moses till some period subsequent to
the Sinaitic legislation. But the fact of its earlier existence,
especially during the time of this very legislation, is conclu
sively shown in the far more ancient accounts of the Book of
Covenants.1 That this committee never ceased to exist during
the days of Moses is obvious. It lasted ' undisturbed under
Joshua,2 and thus aided in the establishment of the ex
traordinarily important national and territorial settlements
which were then made,3 and which brought to a conclusion
the whole labours of the new legislation and constitution.
Even after Joshua this seat of authority (as it may be termed)
continued to exist, and it seems only to have developed its
whole force then, in the absence of any great and universaUy
recognised national leader.4 It is. undoubtedly the same as
' the honourable men who managed aU things in Israel ' who
used to be appealed to centuries later.5 The last relics of the
does not afford any mention of this as well were ' summoned to the Council '
Seventy. This may be accidental, since (i.e. the smaller Council), is clear from
we only possess fragments of it. Or we Num. xvi. 2 ; xxvi. 9 : comp. i. 5-16;
may conjecture that the ' princes ' who are and thus it is undoubtedly probable that
always represented in this book as accom- theBookof Originswasthinkingof seventy
panying Moses and Aaron are only an- ' princes,' and that the number seventy is
other name for the Seventy, as in Num. only accidentally omitted.
xxvii. 2 ; xxxvi. 1 : in the first quotation ' Ex. xxiv. 1, 9, comp. 14. They are
the ' whole community ' are named at the also designated with the rare expression
same time; but not in the second, where, of ver. 11, the ' fore-men,' the nobles.
however, the same relations are to :be 2 According to the Book of Origins,
found. This title 'princes' is inter- Josh. xiv. 1; xix. 51 ; xxi. 1.
changed in a similar connection with that s Hist. ii. 259 sqq.
of ' heads of the tribes,' Num. xxx. 2 [1] ; 4 Josh. xxiv. 31 ; Judg. ii. 7. It is
comp. the more definite title, ' patriarchs needless to explain that the elders men-
of tho tribes,' xxxii. 28 ; very rarely the tioned here formed a united body ; comp.
name 'elder' occurs, Num. xvi. 25. But Hist. ii. 311 sqq.
that these ' princes ' wore not merely the 5 2 Sam. xx. 19. According to the
twelve princes of the tribes, but that others reading supplemented in Hist. iii. 195.

THE COUNCIL OF SEVENTY ELDERS. 249
respect for and of the operations of this Seventy, which cer
tainly possessed great power through long periods of time,
may very probably be found in some strangely brief narratives
concerning the seventy children of celebrated judges.1 It is
needless to explain that every judge after Moses and Joshua, if 286
his rule lasted any length of time, was desirous of having by his
side a similar assembly of seventy great men. If at the time the
original senate had already been destroyed from any cause, so
that it could no longer be composed of the heads of the ancient
races, then such a judge might be glad to form out of his own
sons and near relatives an assembly which should bear the
closest possible resemblance to it, and which after his death
inherited his dominion in common. On this account they
might together be briefly termed his ' sons,' even if they were
not all so in the proper sense of the word. Thus we are told
that the 70 legitimate sons of Gideon, whUe they were ruling-
after his death, were murdered by his bastard, since he desired
to become despotic ; that Abdon had 40 sons and 30 grandsons,
and that the whole 70 even during his lifetime have also been
national leaders ; that Ibzar had 30 sons and 30 sons-in-law,
but that Jair had only 30 such sons. We cannot weU fail to
recognise here brief recoUections of important state arrange
ments, and it would be ungrateful to remove these out of their
living historical connection, and to assume that the numbers
70, 40, 30, were chosen at hazard. Even in every large town
a similar institution appears to have been formed during the
period ofthe Judges, as the 77 Elders of Succoth show.2
But apart from these later phenomena, we have every reason, 287
on the grounds quoted above, for placing the origin of this
Council of Elders in the most ancient times long prior to Moses.
A fuller proof of this is contained in the primitive tradition
that Israel consisted of seventy souls when it journeyed into
Egypt.3 That this means, according to the original sense, the
1 Judg. viii. 30 sq. ; ix. 1 sq. ; x. iv. ; 2 Judg. viii. 14. This may mean the
xii. 9 sq., 14. What else is remarked, seventy along with seven others as
Hist. ii. 388 sq., on the point also retains 'princes,' i.e. magistrates, a permanent
its validity. Even the fact that the body of supreme officials according to ver.
numerous sons of Ahaz, 2 Kings x. 1, are 6, 14 ; comp. ver. 16.
briefly given at seventy, may have a dis- 3 Gen. xlvi. 8-27 ; Ex. i. 1-5. Thede-
tant connection with this, so far as this viations of the LXX in both passages,
number came to stand for a large body of according to which seventy-fire souls went
'princes.' See also Ezek. viii. 11 sq. into Egypt (which reappears also in Acts
In the same way the Iliad and the Shah- vii. 14), rest on an ancient gloss fol-
nameh (the latter,e.g. in the case of Guderz lowing Gen. xlvi. 20, whose contents recur
with his eighty sons) speak of many such 1 Chron. vii. 14-20, but which appears.
sons of princes, but in the Old Testament not to be original there. Even the LXX
we can even trace this particular number have no variation on the number seventy
to its real origin. in Deut. x. 22.

250 THE NATION AND ITS LEADERS.
seventy heads of seventy small Israelitish communities, , is
sufficiently manifest from the fact that among the seventy
souls only such names appear as are elsewhere quoted in
genealogical tables of the primitive times as fathers or mothers
of these very communities, so that at any rate the original pur
pose was not to give here the number of the individuals who
journeyed with 'Israel' to Egypt. Nevertheless, the latter
view is partially adopted by the last editor of the table, and
we can distinguish very clearly in it an earlier and a later
redaction. In the first instance it brings all the heads of Israel
under the four wives of the patriarch, and, therefore, under the
four main divisions of the nation in the following proportions :
33 (Leah), 16 (Zilpah), 14 (Rachel), 7 (Bilhah). This exactly
amounts to seventy, and we cannot doubt that at one period
the proportion of the main divisions and heads of the nations
was correctly represented thus. If, again, we observe that
these numerical relations only differ very slightly from the
perfect proportion, 32 : 16 : : 16 : 8, we are, in this way, led to
the above-mentioned fundamental number seventy-two. In the
second instance, however, the last editor endeavours to arrive
at the individual persons who might have been living in
288 Canaan at the time when Jacob moved into Egypt. Thus he
enumerates from the genealogical tables sixty-six sons, grand
sons, and great-grandsons of Jacob, and adds to these Jacob
himself as well as Joseph and his two sons who were already
living in Egypt. This again gives the number seventy,
though in a different way.1 So clear is it that the number
seventy or seventy-two rests in this connection on a primi
tive reminiscence which reaches far beyond all the present
narratives. 3. The rise of Jahveism produced very little alteration in
these ancient political arrangements. It may only have re
established the primitive institutions which had been dissolved
during the last period of the Egyptian oppression. But at the
same time it animated the ancient institutions with its own
peculiar spirit, and in that way it remodelled them more than
would have been possible by sudden and outward changes.
When the community came together for solemn counsel
and decision, it constituted the assembly ofthe people of God.2
It usually took place as near the great sanctuary of the nation
1 Viz. he allows the number 33 to reason for treating the number 33 as an
stand in Gen xlvi. 15, but only reckons incorrect reading.
up 32 names. Even the LXX have no 2 Judg. xx. 2.
variation here ; and we see at present no

INSPIRATION OF THE ELDERS. 251
as possible,1 and the lofty destiny, unto which in general the
nation was summoned in Jahveism,2 ought to be realised in so
solemn a moment as it would be realised at no other time. Nor
was this always an empty hope. Even when a war had already
broken out, the assembled community — especially if a man of
God like Moses or Samuel fired its genuine valour — felt itself
suddenly seized by a mighty stirring of its God, and rushed
upon its foe with resistless victory.3
Especially was this inspiration realised when the Elders
met in assembly. Those whose position and office brought 289
them, in the exercise of their functions, nearer than others to
the pure divine truths and forces, must approach the latter
more closely even in recognising and discharging their duties,
and thereby receive an insight and a power which had pre
viously been unknown to them, unless they were to be destroyed
sooiier and more hopelessly than others by these very truths
and forces just because they had approached them more closely.
Yet the former alternative is possible. Jahveism assumes, that
it is what is to be expected, and its history justifies this in
striking examples. Thus the very ancient Book of Covenants
relates how the seventy went up the holy mountain with Moses
and Aaron, when the legislation was being given, and how
they there gazed upon the purest, highest glory ; nay, how they
even celebrated the common meal of the covenant with the
highest One, on terms of the closest intimacy, and yet were
not destroyed by the most perilous nearness of the Unapproach
able. They saw and tasted what was without parallel in
mortal experience, and like new men they returned enlightened
and reinvigorated to the rest of the nation.4 Like unto them
might aU the Elders of the same community be ! — This truth
is apprehended with still greater profundity by the Third
Narrator of the primitive history.5 To him it appeared as
though the whole institution of the Seventy had been first
founded by Moses, and at a somewhat late period ; for he under
stood them purely in their higher vocation and worth as men
of that same spirit which rested most powerfuUy and uninter
ruptedly on Moses himself; and it is true that such perfection
and glory can have attached to this smaller assembly for
counsel only subsequently to Moses and his legislation. Thus he
1 According to Num. xxvii. 2 ; Jer. narrative about the covenant-sacrifice is
xxxiv. 15. to be compared with Gen. xxxi. 44-54.
2 P. 229 sqq. Comp. the Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. xii. s.
3 As 1 Sam. vii. 7-1 1 ; comp. Ps. xx. 198 sqq.
* Ex. xxiv. 1 sq., 9-11. The whole 5 Num. xi. 10-30.

252 THE NATION AND ITS LEADERS.
relates how in a moment when Moses had felt the burden of
his sole rule to be too grievous, and had on this account
cried to Jahveh for help, he was commanded by the latter to
choose out seventy Elders and place them round about the
290 Sanctuary. These who now stand nearer to the most holy place
than the rest of the nation hear the miraculous conversation
between the true Prophet and the true God. Their head and
mouth too are suddenly taken possession of by the same power ;
they too share the spirit of Moses and speak with the matchless
prophetic tongue,1 and accordingly become from that time
thoroughly competent to advise with Moses and to assist him.
Nevertheless, it seems as if in this delineation of what is so
hard to describe, there had been a feeling of how easUy it
might be misunderstood, and the mere propinquity of the
external sanctuary be supposed capable of producing the
inner stirring of thought and speech. Accordingly the
higher truth of Jahveism here contained is immediately re
presented afresh in a beautiful appendix. Two of the chosen
men, Eldad and Medad,2 happen to have remained at a dis
tance from the Sanctuary among the rest of the people in the
camp, but they too suddenly revealed themselves as Prophets,
and when Moses was called upon to quench their spirit, he
uttered rather a desire that all men without distinction of
rank might be immediately and powerfully stirred by the
spirit of Jahveh ! So let no one feel envy towards the higher
gifts of the spirit wherever they may be found, but let none
in whom they do arise fancy that he cannot fah to possess
them on account of his privileged position alone !
That even much later, under the monarchy, a kind of
popular representation always maintained its place, we can
tell from sufficiently sure and numerous traces.3 Its position
and activity varied, no doubt, much according to the fortune
and estimation of the kings and the changes of the times. It
1 This idea of the ut non plus ultra is during these times to a national repre-
contained in the verbal addition tp, ^l sentation in the expression in Prov. xi.
after a preceding verb. Precisely simi- 14. CT- 22 (xxiv. 6). For when the
lar is Deut. v. 19 [22]; comp. also king is warned not to lend an ear to pri-
«ri3,=rxi • vate prejudiced counsellors who would
\i ' desert him at the hour of need, but to
2 The descent of these two men is not hearken to as many as possible, this can
mentioned here, but we know that they only refer to such as regularly assembled
were elders ; and a tribal prince of Benja- about the king to give him their advice.
min, Num. xxxiv. 21, in the Book of That indeed under the mantle of the
Origins bears the name of Elidad, corre- public character of such discussions the
sponding to Eldad. meanest disposition may all the more cry
3 Comp. Hist. iii. 11. 310 sq., 312 aloud, is said later in the Proverb xxvi.
sqq., iv. 234. Allusion is briefly made 26.

THE OVERSEERS AND JUDGES. 2SS
became most powerful only in periods when the regal position
itself became degraded, or the complications and require
ments of the realm increased. But the kingdom never became
prominently degraded to the rule of mere force.
2. The Overseers and Judges of the Nation.
Superintending and judging the nation (for these two
functions were then rarely separated) would undoubtedly be
adequately provided for in the earliest times by the existence of
these Elders,1 and even later they always retained a certain 291
share in the judging.2 To uphold the rights of the weaker mem
bers against every form of injustice was of course the special duty
of every born ' prince ' within the limits of his clan or tribe. But
the whole national life soon became too intricate for this, so
that the weaker member sought for his protector (patron)
wherever he could find him,3 and the relation already described4
was continually extending.
After the earliest national constitution had been shattered
in Egypt, we find overseers or bailiffs set over the people, who
superintended their forced service, but at the same time no
doubt also acted as inferior judges. They were of Hebrew
descent, but were under Egyptian head-bailiffs — the so-called
Taskmasters.8 Their name Shoter, meaning much the same
as rulers,6 was retained even during the later centuries, with
a similar meaning, at any rate in certain authors (who seem
to belong chiefly to the kingdom of the Ten Tribes). This
explains how quite at the commencement of the departure
from Egypt, Moses, as prophet, was at the same time the sole
judge of the entire nation. The Shoter as Egyptian officials
were then without office, the Elders had long ceased to ex
ercise any regular judicial authority, and the new great prophet
possessed the full confidence of the people.
We still possess in a very ancient document the narrative
— characterised by so much ingenuousness — where it is related
how this duty had become an insupportable burden on Moses,
and how he by Jethro's advice appointed judges over tens,
1 Comp. how in tho Book of Origins, Hist. iii. 70.
Num. xxv. 4 sq. the name ' chieftain' in- 4 P. 216 sq.
terchanges with the name 'judge.' That 5 The description of the Third Narra-
judges caused this interchange of the two tor, Ex. v. 6-23, is very plain.
names is a matter of course. ° ")t3B> allied with Y1D is properly
2 Comp. 1 Kings xxi. 8 sqq.; Jer. xxvi. to set in a row, hence to ride, comp.
1 fi— l o i. ^ J
3 Comp. Jer. xxvi. 24; xl. 10; and ^kj-W Sftr' h- S7-

254 the Nation and its leaders.
fifties, hundreds, and thousands, who should settle disputes in
gradation, so that only the cases which were too difficult for
them should come to him for decision.1 Genuine as is the his-
292 torical ring about this, we shall easily faU to comprehend it
if we think of judges like our own. So many judges, and in
so many grades, appear scarcely needful. But judging, in the
wide sense of those times, included the overlooking of the
entire management ; and not rarely these Shoter, i.e. overseers,
are treated as almost identical with Shofet, i.e. judges, the
only difference perhaps being that the overseer is then the
same as the inferior judge.2 And in the second place we
must remember that the nation was at that time always in the
position of an army in the field, and therefore organised in
true military fashion ; even during the fairest .period of its
dominion it always retained this military organisation ; so that
those who were the overseers in ordinary times undoubtedly
in campaigns and battles became the leaders of their subordi
nates. Then the overseers would not be too numerous. The
Elders, on the other hand, if the preceding assumption is
correct,3 were far too few in number for the overseers to be
taken from their ranks alone.
It was specially in this application to the army that these
ancient authorities over tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands,
were retained under the monarchy, as we clearly recognise
from many sources.4 3» The Prince of the Nation.
Nevertheless this military organisation certainly did not at
293 the time of its origin overthrow the former primitive constitu
tion according to tribes and elders. It did not even intersect
this, but completed its arrangement within each particular
' Ex. xviii. 13-26. Is. iii. 3, 1 Sam. viii. 12, 2 Kings i. 9-14.
2 As Deut. xvi. 18-20; whilst from Captain of hundreds (centnriones) and
Deut. xx. 5-9 we can see that .a Shuter in thousands are frequently mentioned.
the first instance only exercised bis per- Comp. also Jud. xx. 10. — Similar divisions
sonal supervision over all the affairs of 'wcr.e not uncommon elsewhere; for the
his subjects. When the Shuter are ancient Persians see Xenoph. Cyrop. ii.
coupled with the Elders (as Num. xi. 16 2-.L 9 ; while in 1. 12 he speaks of twelve
and often in Deut.) they are manifestly of "ikes. In China all have been divided
inferior dignity to the latter. In the from primitive times into groups of 10,
higher sense of prince or judge, so far as 10°. and 1000 households. In Peru the
this conception coincides with that of organisation of the people into groups of
prince, tho name Shoter never occurs. 10, 50, 100, 1000, and 10,000, was strictly
a P. 245. carried out (Prescott's History of Peru,
' A decurio by himself does not happen ^l^T^ 'T^' Gern?aDS-a,nd
t • /r, i ¦ is • tlle nsage still exists among tho Anglo-
o occur again (Deut i 15 is mere repe- Sasons±were dMed intQ ^ aud g
tition); a captain (^) of fifty occurs dreds. SeeGbtt.Gel. Anz.l850,s.SS7 B^.

THE PRINCE OF THtf NATION. 25§
household, clan, and tribe. The tenacious mutual adherence
of the subjects of each household, clan, and tribe, the ready
separation of the great divisions of the people, and the antago
nism between the tribes or clans which had in any way increased
their power, remained after its establishment what they had
been before. When the assembly met in its full strength, no
doubt the august image of Israel, or even Isaac or Abraham,
might be present to their minds as their common ancestor, and
as an exhortation to unity and harmony. Tet the fact that these
three ancestors were usuaUy thought of together was enough
to prevent the idea of unity being sufficiently distinct. The
Seventy, too, even when they sat, could ensure no strict unity,
at any rate in the execution of their resolutions. And the
rigid external unity of the rule of a single despotic prince cr
king was an object of dread.
It is undeniable that this national constitution did much
to promote the new formation of the Theocracy during the all-
important days of Moses. Of course the Theocracy proceeded
from totaUy different and far more powerful causes ; but it is
equally clear that the establishment of the sole supremacy of
Jahveh would have been a far harder task if a single house or
clan, with hereditary claims to regal power", and an externally
strict national unity, had already been in existence.
The marvellous vitality of a true, previously unknown, re
ligion, brought the nation for the first time under the rule of
one great eternal truth. Once it felt all the lower aims and all
the wrangling of its former life here annihilated ; once it felt
itself here marvellously renewed, invigorated, and filled with
eternal hope. This is the ineradicable germ of a new life, and so
also of a new unity, of a new community, and of a new king- 294
dom, which, however varied might be its fate in more distant
times, can only cease with its own perfection. At the time of
Moses all the sections of the nation for the first time bowed be
neath one realm, i.e. beneath the strict unity of national life as
this is upheld by one higher will standing over all, against which
no private person and no individuality may assert a personal will
destructive of the unity. It received through its covenant
but one head, one king ; there was only one whom all were
wUling to hearken to. This one was the eternal invisible true
God, whose very incorporeality, however, made it hard for
men always to realise him, and easy for them again to forget
him. On this account, in the period characterised by inspired fresh
recognition of the true God, and by the charm of being subject

1>56 SPECIAL VOCATIONS IN THE NATION.
to him alone, the ancient national constitution remained es
sentially unchanged. The tribes recovered their complete
independence, and much may have been restored which had
been long suppressed in Egypt. Each tribe forms a sepa
rate unity in all its purely national relations, has its
special army and ensign,1 its prince springing from its midst
as its military leader2 and external representative. The whole
twelve tribal princes represent the entire nation when the
interests of all are involved, or on solemn occasions.3 If an
embassy is to be despatched on behalf of the realm to deal with
matters concerning all, then out of the wider circle of princes
we have spoken of, twelve, according to the tribes, are selected
for the purpose.4 Eor speciaUy urgent cases — e.g. for conduct
ing an unavoidable war — a national leader may be raised up
from the midst of the nobles, as Joshua was by Moses, with
the approval of the community, and as Jephthah, after making
certain conditions, was appointed their leader 5 by the Elders of
295 Gilead. However, the powers of such an officer properly come
to an end with the completion of his work, although there was
no special law on the point.
Jahveism, then, had no intrinsic objection to the rule of a
national leader, whether he were a private tribal prince or
a prince universally recognised. On the contrary, an ancient
law forbade the cursing of such a prince as much as of the
spiritual authorities." But what is of supreme importance is that,
in its ancient strictness, it gave him no regal power, i.e. none
that extended over all, unchecked and compulsory, and in gene
ral feared to intrust such powers to a human individual.

II. Special Powers and Professions in the Nation.
Productions and Trade.
In a nation whose life is regulated by ancient customs,
there always arise a variety of particular crafts and professions
demanding special knowledge and instruments, which form
smaller private circles, and so become distinct powers. Or
1 Num. ii. 2. WW} \ even the name 1»JJ would have
2 Num. i. 4-16, ii. 1 sqq. beenmere distinction. Theword Q^K.
" Num. l. 4, 44, vii. 2 sqq. <-" f "'
4 P 245 Num. xiii. 2 sqq. xxxiv. however, on account of the corresponding
1 6-29. Si milarly the national monument national princes, must signify the spiritual
consisted of twelve pillars. Hist. ii. 246. authority ; and just this is involved in
5 Jud. xi. 5-11. the peculiar language used in the Book
6 Ex. xxii. 27 [28]. Here, as in the of Covenants. Comp. more on the point
Book of Origins, a prince is always called below.

PRODUCTION AND TRADE. 257 •
new occasions may give rise to special powers and cause them
iio become great, as a progressive favourable development
•causes the important capacities and crafts in the nation to be
continually more and more exclusively and vigorously devoted to
the satisfaction of the special needs of both the lower and the
higher life. So long as a nation is absorbed in satisfying the
most immediate and universal of the wants of life, or thinks of
nothing but wars of conquest or defence, other crafts, profes
sions or sciences, are hardly able even in the most favourable
countries to make any head, and so ripen into special powers
in its midst. But as soon as a favourable opportunity is
granted to these, each one of them collects together its own 296
•community (they may be called guilds, societies, corporations,
&c.) within the great national association, draws its wider
or smaller circles through the whole nation, and operates from
its own centre with greater or less force upon the whole.
Many a corporation, indeed, exercises the most powerful in
fluence on the body of the nation at large, moulds it according
to its own life, upholds and protects it when danger threatens,
•or pours into it the destructive poison which may be gradually
formed within itself.
Production and trade among the Canaanites (Phoenicians)
must very early have become highly-developed individual
Dowers of this kind in the national life, and have stimulated the
formation of a great variety of close corporations.1 Even in
Israel many guilds and companies drew more closely together,
the better to carry on the various higher or lower professions
and crafts of life ; they grew accustomed to the hereditary
¦practice of living closely together in towns and villages, and,
¦especially during the regal times, often received powerful aid
. from the government. We possess on the point at any rate some
•scattered and only too brief items of intelligence.2 But Israel
was little adapted to develope such modes of life perfectly during
the times when its national force stirred it most powerfully and
' ' Comp. the treatise Ueber die Phbnik. 'whoso father,' i.e. master and type, 'is
. Jinsichten von der Weltschbpfung, s. 16; Joab,' 1 Chron. iv. 14; (3) 'the families
the remarks on Job, s. 317 of the 2nd of the byssus-makers of Bath-Ashbea ; '
edition ; and the treatise Ueber die grosse and (4) ' the potters dwelling at Netaim
Karthagische und andere Phbnik. Lnschrif- and Gedera, who dwelt at the royal works
ten, s. 49-58. (factory) on these domains,' 1 Chron. iv.
2 Specially noteworthy, but difficult 21-23; where in ver. 23 the -\ before
to understand on account of the abridg- ^pi is to be struck out, or rather' is to be
ment in the representations of Chronicles, •¦ ¦ .... ... ,
.are(l) 'the families of literati resident understood from its position in accordance
at Jabez,' 1 Chron. ii. 55 (comp. on ™th ^t is said m Die Dichter des A.
the point Hist. iv. 94 nt 4, 192) ; (2) ' the Bs., I b. s. 15 of the 3rd edition.
smiths' in the 'valley of the smiths,' S

258 SPECIAL PEOFESSIONS.
gave it its most permanent form — in the days of Moses,.
Joshua, and David — no more than the Eomans were when they
persevered in their ancient simplicity, and then raised them
selves to world-wide dominion. But in all times when peace
at all permitted it, we see the nation, from its earliest centuries,
devoting itself to every peaceful occupation in life, and con
testing the palm in such matters with all the most civilised
nations that adjoined it.1 The peculiar turn of its spirit, how-
297 ever, never permitted it, through all the fate-fraught changes
in its history down to the latest times, to surpass the Phoenicians;
in such arts, but was continually drawing it away from them
with inceasing force. So strongly was it stirred from the days:
of Moses with impulses and powers of a totally different kind.
Prophecy.
On the other hand, Israel, from the time that it appears in
the clear light of history, found such a lofty power in Prophecy,
which arose in the midst of the great national corporation, had
the strongest and most salutary influence on it, and indeed first
gave the nation that unique worth with which it appears in
the world's history. A prophet, especially if he had already
vindicated his position, had the right, according to the very
fundamental constitution of the nation, i.e. the Theocracy itself,
of speaking in the national assembly or elsewhere in pubhc.
This right was maintained uninterruptedly even to a late
period, however much the public authority of the prophets might
gradually decline after the ninth and eighth centuries B.C.2 The
ancient law assumes this as a matter of course. The Deute
ronomist is the first who finds it needful both to guard this
prophetic right, as well as to decree the punishment of death
for the crime, which had already appeared in his time, of
misusing this most invaluable but possibly most pernicious
prerogative.3 But the very fact that prophecy in Israel, from the all-
decisive commencement, worked through long eras with the
purest grandeur and perfection which Antiquity allowed pre
vious to the consummation of all religion, was a reason why it
hardly ever attempted to secure external propagation in the
nation as a mere profession, or to become hereditary, or yet to
1 See more of the details in Hist. ii. of the true prophet is shown very briefly ¦
292 sq. 342 sq. 354 ; iii. 226 sq. 260 sqq. ; in Amos iii. and Jer, xv. 16, comp. xxvi.
iv. 191 sqq. 12-15.
2 Comp. Amos v. 10 and similar pas- ' Hist. iv. 224.
sages. The ground of the inviolability

PROPHECY. 259
create out of itself a corporation or even to have a fixed external
place of operation. And if at times during the long course of
this history it inclined that way, so as to threaten to become a
kind of heathen prophetism, it was always soon enough led back
again to the true way as it had been pointed out to it, and only 298
developed in consequence the more purely its most peculiar and
true essence. Eor this would not tolerate any such external
propagation and inheritance.
A consequence of this is that there is not much to say
concerning the outward appearance or dress of the prophets.
Everything about them of an external nature remained very
simple. Samuel wore an outer garment something like that
which the priests wore ; l he was, however, himself a Levite by
birth. The large mantle which it became customary for the
later prophets to wear, along with other articles of the simplest
kind, appears to have first attained this honour through the
person of Elijah.2
In the same way the prophetism of Israel was prevented,
by its most deeply-seated instinct, from accepting the aid of
any external instrument, the adoption of which is the genuine
token of the heathen oracles. But it is true that the longing to
obtain signs of the future and higher assurances of success was
as great among all early nations as was the effort to draw forth
such divine premonitions and indications ; and the more mys
teriously spiritual was Israel's God, the harder it appeared to
win from him an oracle. Now if this longing of the whole of
remote Antiquity for oracles, and the extraordinary difficulty of
obtaining a true one, did produce even in Israel certain traces of
an appeal to external aids, such as the whole ancient world was
fiUed with, these could not permanently keep their position ; at
length even the last shadows of the ancient system of oracles in
Israel disappear, and nothing remains on this hearth of God but
the glow of the purest fire. Strictly speaking, the only thing
of the kind which the earliest Jahveism did not repudiate was
the casting of sacred lots in the oracle of the High-priest, to be
described below. Nevertheless, in representations of sacred
truths we find such clear indications of oracles being expected
in dreams while sleeping on a sacred spot,3 as well as of asking 299
1 1 Sam. xv. 27, xxviii. 14. and its history, dreams and their inter-
2 See Hist. iv. 68, and Zach. xiii. 4. pretation play an important part, as well
' The inoubatio, see Hist. i. 330, iii. 50 as the belief that it is possible to see and
sq., even Sir. xxxi. 1-7 says much about hear the gods in them (comp. Hist. i.
it ; but Strabo is in error in quoting it as 419, ii. 76) ; but allusions are often made
a general Judaic custom, Geogr. xvi. 2, to the subject also on Phoenician and Greek
35. In the ancient Egyptian kingdom thanksgiving inscriptions. Apart from*
s 2

260 SPECIAL PROFESSIONS.
the will of the Deity by means of rods deposited at the sacred
place,1 that we cannot fail to recognise a close connection, at
any rate in the earlier times, between these ways of seeking an
oracle and the prevalent religion. It appears that just these
three ways of obtaining oracles were the commonest in Israel
before Moses ; a reason why they, like the ancient household
divinities,2 were held in esteem long after his time. Even of
the ancient behef in the mysterious rustling among the tops of
certain trees being significant of the coming of the Deity, a
trace is still to be found in David's time,3 and as the belief in
sacred trees was itself extremely ancient in Israel,4 we cannot
wonder at this special belief which is thence derived. Conju
ration of the dead/ on the other hand, as weU as all other
materialistic arts of extracting answers from the Deity, were
strictly forbidden, and only forced their way into the community
at times from foreign religions.6
The Priesthood.
1. Its General Relation to the Nation.
It is, however, possible for a craft and profession in which
proficiency is hard to attain, and which in the first instance is
reached only by individual members of a people, to be of such
a kind as to seem indispensable for upholding the existence
of the nation and its kingdom. ' As it is only the universal
spiritual truths which constitute the light and the animating
spirit, and therefore also the firmest unity of a nation, it is
needless to explain that it is only crafts and professions related
to these which are spoken of here. In the ancient Egyptian
the Spartan temple of Pasiphae it was the night ; the individual thus designated
much in vogue at Athens even in the time was deemed to be favoured by God.
^of Hypereides, see Gott. Gel. Anz. 1853, 2 P. 223 sq.
s. 794, and Marcus Aurelius in his Medi- s 2 Sam. v. 23 sq. (1 Chron. xiv. 14
tationes, i. 17, does not scruple still to ex- sq.) ; this has already been explained,
press his high regard for it. Comp. also Hist. iii. 147.
Miiller's Orchomenus, s. 158-160; Xen. * P. 120.
Anab. vi. 1, 14 sq. ; Pomp. Mela, i. 8, 50 ; 5 Which even at the present day is
Tabari's Arab. Annalen, i. p. 169 sqq.; practised in a cave in Mount Moriah ; see
Muh. Shahrastani's Elmilal, p. 437, 4 sq. Bartlett's Walks about Jerusalem, p. 167
Revue Archeol. 1860, p. 116 sqq. sq. The same is the case on the soil of
1 A kind of ^oSSojuoyreia (comp. Nineveh; Layard's Nin. ii. p. 71. — The
Deinon's Schol. ad Nic. Ther. ver. 613, ed. explication of the kinds of heathen divi-
Otto Schneider). No proof of this is to nation mentioned here and there in the
be found in Hos. iv. 12, but there certainly Old Testament belongs to biblical the-
is in the entire representation, Num. xvii. ology. See my die lehre der bibel von
17 [2] sqq. For the purpose green rods Gott, oder theologie des alten und neum
of different sorts were put down before bundes. Band, i. s. 231 sqq. 1871.
the sacred spot, and the next day were ex- • Comp. above, p. 16, nt. 5.
amined to see which had bloomed best in

THE PRIESTHOOD. 2ol
kingdom the prophets and the priests were thus regarded as
the two branches of the order which was competent to maintain
the spiritual, and therefore the best, bond of the unity of the
nation. They took the position accordingly of great permanent
guilds, of which all the higher knowledge of the kingdom, both
theoretical and practical, became the hereditary possession.
In Israel prophecy, since it was deemed an impulse of the
freest spiritual activity, could never be regarded as it was in
Egypt. The priesthood, on the other hand, was rightly deemed
to be a profession devoted to the constant protection and main
tenance of the religion whose foundation had been already laid,
and which had been recognised by the nation as true and eternal.
1. And, as a fact, the priesthood, as it is mainly concerned
with sacrifice and prayer, with action therefore and administra
tion, is everywhere essentiaUy employed less in creating than in
upholding and administering what has been created. True, the
priesthood in that most remote period, when for the first time
in the history of mankind it learned to develope its own pecu
liar powers, must not only have been in its own way creative,
but must have been armed with the most extensive authority.
When for the first time the priest, by means of his sacrificial
art and the might of his petitions, learned to draw, as it were,
the gods down from heaven to earth, and to become for thou
sands the mediator between heaven and earth, then the en
chantment which proceeded from him was of the most powerful
kind, and many thousands would hang on the sacrifice and
prayer of one priest as on the lips of a great prophet. The
rank of the priest was then equal to that of the prince ; J no
thing could be happier than when a king, who was at the same
time a priest, possessed the confidence of all.2 It is a reflection
and a relic of this earliest exalted authority of the priest when
Aaron, and every one of his followers,3 is designated as the priest,
as though even the name high-priest were unnecessary. But a
different state of things arises as soon as the priesthood, as
was already the case under Moses, no longer exists in its pure
spontaneity and original vitality, but is already dependent on a
prophetic religion given outside its own borders.
So soon as the priesthood in this nation under Moses ac
quired the courage and made the determination to devote all
its activity and skUl to the protection of the true religion,
1 As in Job xii. 19, where the hue of Alten Bundes, lb. s. 40 sqq. of the 3
patriarchal times is so admirably repre- edition.
sented. 3 Still the case even on the Asmonsea
2 Gen. xiv. 18, comp. Die Dichter des coins.

262 SPECIAL PROFESSIONS.
which had come into existence and had been faithfully .adopted
there, a single priest of this earliest kind was no longer suffi
cient, however great the reverence felt for him. StiU less
could mere domestic priests of private households or clans be
tolerated. Eor it is easy to understand that when once a great
priest of the earliest kind had arisen and become an exalted
type of sacerdotal activity and benefits, every household or
every clan would be glad to possess a similar living sacred
treasure, and the head of the household, or he to whom the
latter intrusted his prerogative, would then be the genuine
priest ; and this in a good sense has no doubt its truth. But
although this convenient dismembering of the priesthood of the
true religion tried at times to creep back into Israel, even after
Moses, it always met with a sufficiently stubborn resistance
from the latter's deeper spirit. The function, and one of the
first duties of the priesthood, could now only be to uphold
the true religion for the whole nation, and also thereby to
protect the right feeling, the power, and the unity of the nation.
To discharge this new function the priesthood must now branch
into numerous ramifications in the midst of the people, and
be represented by numerous agents. Every power which thus
spreads itself from one individual to thousands readily loses
its strict unity more and more, and only in the earliest days
Aaron and his immediate foUowers had much in common with
the most ancient priests, untU quite other causes in the last
days of the nation restored something similar. But whUe the
priesthood of the true religion became more and more divided
in its personality, its individual members acquired increased
power permanently to fiU the whole nation with the spirit and
force of the religion to which alone they owed allegiance.
Thus the great truths and powers which prophecy had at
the commencement, and with greater vigour then than at any
other time, established in Israel, merely required the priest-
soo hood to be an instrument capable of maintaining them in their
integrity and perpetuaUy renewing them from one generation
to another. This instinct during the youth of the community
of Jahveh at any rate produced the priesthood of the tribe
of Levi. Thus a new corporation arose in the heart of the
nation; and because the holiest and the highest impulses
awakened in the nation were committed to its care, it ramified
continually deeper and deeper into the ancient national life
with the most wonderful force, and more than once appeared
completely to dominate the nation and absorb it in itself.
Nor did it, amidst all the changes and overthrows which time

.; THE EARLIEST FORM OF THE PRIESTHOOD- 263
brought about, ever entirely cease to exist, but rather, along
with the kernel of the nation, always renewed its youth and
persisted until the close of this history, as though it were
Israel in little, and as though the nation could no longer exist
;and live without it. In this way the attempt was made to
give stability to that which in its original essence is too fine
and spiritual, too much the spontaneous stirring of one great
iSpirit ; and if there was as yet no other way of securing its per
manence, it was well that for a time, even if this lasted for many
¦centuries, it was at any rate kept secure with greater vitality
.and purity in this stiff form and narrow sphere.
Of course a priesthood had been long familar to the people
•of Israel before it became the inheritance of the tribe Levi. Eor
it is implied in the existence of every, even imperfect, religion,
which requires sacrifice and the permanent sacred rites con
nected therewith. Duly to discharge these is what every one
does not feel himself at once competent to do, nor is every one
;at once worthy. We have already seen • at what an early date,
undoubtedly long before Moses, sacrifices became customary
among the people of Israel. This alone is enough to prove
that Israel had priests before the Levites. This proof is
confirmed by the fact that besides many other sacrifical
ierms, the word for priests themselves (Kohen) is extremely
ancient, and must have been in use long before Moses, since
it stands quite by itself in Hebrew, and its original signi
ficance can scarcely be explained.2 But as in those days
before Moses the exclusive life of each individual household 301
was at its greatest height, each liked to have its own priest,
and the father would choose for the purpose one of his
sons who seemed best adapted for it. Young innocent lads,
¦by preference (as will be explained below) the first-born
of every household, seem to have been deemed the most
' P. 23 sqq. of business, which the word, according to
2 We should be entirely without firm the Kamus, may have had among _ some
.'ground within Hebrew itself for deter- Arabian tribes. The word in Arabic cer-
mining the original meaning of |D3, if the tainly first derives the meaning of sooth-
verb had not survived in a single' poetical «W? « !"^fn . ^1^ rilrf
. . T i ¦ in ™n, 3. vvL.jr,;,™. ancient kind of priests, who in virtue ot
instance, bk. Is. Ixi. 10 with the meaning of victims were deemed also
-ot to equip, hence e.g. to put on an orna- sootnsa*er£. . fcr w6 know from other
ment ; comp. the Syrian ^OXO (cahm) so,arces tnat tne worci was 0nCe in use
.glorious, properly adorned, Is. Carm. ver. in a great variety of Arabian races (see
.32 in Knos. The priest according to this Tuch's Sinaitische Inschriften,^ s. _ 78).
would be named from the management That the word in Hebrew describes in its
(P5!!D of ^e sacrifice> as HCelv ls em" stricter meaning only the service of the
ployed of sacrificing, and this agrees with altar, also follows in particular from
ithe meaning of a manager, an administrator Num. xviii. 1-7.

264 SPECIAL PROFESSIONS.
suitable.1 This was still the condition of affairs during the-
first period of the activity of Moses ; 2 here and there it may
have existed for half a century after him.3 Many of the-
ancient sacred usages of this earliest priesthood were retained
even later, and in particular the sacerdotal administration
and action, aims and endeavours, passed over from this earliest
time to that of Moses. Yet in respect to its deeper spirit this.
ancient priesthood had now to give place to its superior.
In the first place the new, more elevated religion introduced
a whole circle of new extraordinarhy lofty truths, views, aims,
and commandments, which graduaUy found expression in a
variety of corresponding rites and customs. The very simpli
city of the fundamental principles of Jahveism gave them force
to seize hold of and transform the details of the national life-
Equally stubborn were their powers of resisting destruction.
Where they could not at once penetrate and shine forth from
the materials which they had mastered, they could grow
rigid, at any rate temporarily, and retire into a shell. Eor
it is everywhere the essential nature of simple truths, when,
once they come into existence, to be thus powerful in aggres
sion and thus firm in defence. We have seen above in
detail what profound truths, and what a multitude of new
institutions and customs corresponding to them, were founded
in the community, and we can now understand that to keep-
them faithfully and always apply them properly would
require a totally new priesthood. The same Ephraimite who-
at first, according to the old custom, had consecrated one
of his sons to be head-priest, preferred to take a Levite-
to be his ' father and priest ' so soon as he had the oppor
tunity.4 In the second place it is involved in the force and instinct-
of every true religion, that it endeavours to extend its do
minion with the utmost equality possible over aU the individuals,
clans, or even tribes and nations, which have embraced it ; so-
that its existence and operation bring about a higher spiritual
unity and concord where previously the most mutuaUy repug-
1 Comp. »1S)3 Ex. xxiv. 5 with "ijjj Asia, comp. Ausland 1847, s. 656 ; 1S49,
Jud. xvii. 7-13, xviii. 3. A similar custom, s. 47. It seems, however, from Acts v.
though tinted with a heathen hue, is de- 6, 10, as though there was an attempt to-
scribed in Pausanias Perieg. vii. 24. 2, restore this simplest state of things at the
comp. Porphyry De Abstin. iv. 5 p. 307 ; commencement of young Christianity.
Jamblich. Vita. Pyth. x. (li.). Even in the 2 According to the ancient passage-
heathenism of the present day, when it Ex. xxiv. 5, where the reference is only
descendsfromthoseprimitivetimes.similar casual, but perfectly definite.
customs are found, as among the Khonds s According to Jud. xvii. 5.
of India and in the most interior parts of 4 Jud. xvii. 7-13.

ORIGIN OF THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD. 265 •
nant errors and perverse endeavours had ruled triumphant.
Jahveism directed the efforts of Israel for the first time towards
a high aim, and united it by eternally saving and imperish
able truths. When, then, the whole people had undertaken to
find salvation in it — had once concluded the covenant with
Jahveh — Jahveism could not fail to feel the strongest im
pulse to bind to itself all the members of this nation in a
permanent manner, and never again to tolerate anything op
posed to itself ; but to annihilate everywhere the remnants or 30&.
the new encroachments of Heathenism, as has already been more
fully explained.1 But for Jahveism to be able permanently to
exercise this salutary rule it must be secure of very different
priests for its instruments from those ancient ones who varied
with every individual household, and were quite incapable of
leading a large nation everywhere alike towards higher truths.
In the third place, every elevated religion, if she desires
constantly to afford protection to her rule, her truths, and her
institutions, over a wide field, has to contend with an in
finite variety of errors, claims, and foes, of which scarce a
trace appears on the stage occupied by the lower religions. Even
in Israel, soon after the time of the first pure inspiration there
ripened germs enough of such unexpected conflicts over the
continuance and development of the true religion which had
been founded.2 This was another reason why it needed a
stronger, more consolidated, and more vigorous priesthood.
2. In this way a priesthood of entirely novel character in
regard to enlightenment, knowledge of how to govern, and
decision, arose in Israel after Moses.3 It undoubtedly excelled
its predecessor as much as Jahveism did the earlier religion,
and in spite of the many dangerous idle habits and errors into
which it fell in the course of centuries, it nevertheless leaves
far behind it every other form which Antiquity produced.
It is therefore no matter of surprise that this priesthood,
when it arose, should obtain in quite a new class of men a pliant
material out of which to form itself, and that the remnants
of the earlier sacerdotal system were soon totally lost in the
pubhc life of the nation during the decades immediately suc
ceeding Moses and Joshua, while the traces of it, which we have
aheady mentioned,4 remained somewhat longer in the private
life of particular households. New men were needed at the
time of Moses to become his immediate assistants in upholding 304
i p_ 222 sqq. preference of Levi as the sacerdotal tribe
2 Comp. Hist. ii. 177 sqq. occurs in Mai. ii.' 4-7.
3 The finest description of the original 4 P. 263 sq.

.266 SPECIAL PKOFESSIONS.
the better things, of which he had laid the foundations, and
which the entire nation had accepted. There could be no
¦doubt of this. But the fact that these new men came solely
from the tribe of Levi, and that the entire priesthood was
soon most intimately associated with it, is an ultimate conse
quence of the ancient tribal-life,1 according to which an indi
vidual tribe under the guidance of a leader of its own, with its
clans and households firmly clinging to one another, was in the
best position to direct all its compact forces so as to satisfy a
single but specially important national want.2 The fact of the
priesthood soon settling hereditarily in the tribe of Moses and
appearing inseparable from it, was also a result of the coinci
dence of the favourable settlement of aU national interests in
Israel under Joshua, with the mighty efforts made by this
tribe at that time and the high estimation in which it was held.
The occupations of life easily glide into a hereditary state
wherever the ancient life of tribe and clan is stUl dominant,
and the special sciences, arts, and crafts, are therefore still
confined to narrow circles. Antiquity began with it, and could
not dispense with it till the arts and sciences had worked their
way to such a height that the merits of the individual in them
passed for more than descent and guUd. It was not a little
that Jahveism at so early a period liberated Prophecy from aU
such limitations.3 The priesthood — which must exist in the
realm without a break, and has always the same work among
the people, nay, whose whole essential aim is to maintain the
established rehgion — could only be dealt with by making it
hereditary. Nevertheless, we must here remark that the priesthood was
by no means so exclusively confined to the tribe of Levi during
the early centuries that this could not be to some extent broken
:305 through in extreme cases. The sons of David were priests, as
we are told in an ancient historical work4 quite briefly, so that
this was intelligible enough for its time. This would only refer
to their rank, and at the solemn meeting of the assembly to
their dress.5 It was certainly not the case with Saul's sons,
and is accordingly mentioned as something new in regard to
1 Described on p. 241 sqq. priests ' the nearest (in rank) to David,'
2 See more on the subject Hist. ii. 141 he gives indeed no unsatisfactory expla-
sqq. Among the Greeks the priesthood nation, for the priests may have come next
was actually offered for sale, comp. C. I. to the king in honour, but he plainly
Gr. ii. p. 453 sq. and the inscription of avoids on purpose using the name of
Andania. priests of those who were not such by
3 P. 2-58 sq. birth.
4 2 Sam. viii. 18. When the Chroni- 5 Like David, 2 Sam. vi. 41.
cler, 1 Chron. xviii. 17, puts instead of

THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD. 267
those of David. This agrees with the fact that the kings
David and Solomon on the most solemn occasions officiated as
priests, and received the honours due to the office,1 while it was
the somewhat later kings of Judah — when the kingdom gene
rally was in a state of decadence, and, as a consequence, in
ternal petty jealousies, misunderstandings, and rivalries were
•constantly becoming more and more dangerous — who were the
first to see their right to exercise sacerdotal functions chal
lenged by the priesthood.2 Moreover, it is probable that in
earlier days the most skUful persons in the art were occasionally
taken even out of other tribes in preference to the more remote
branches of the Levites.3 Eor a long time the nation could not
entirely forget that the sacerdotal prerogative of this tribe was
not original, so that particular infringements of it, especially
during the earlier centuries, may have seemed not wholly with
out a warrant.
But, apart from such trifling fluctuations, the priesthood had
long been the hereditary unchallenged possession of the tribe
of Levi by the time of the Book of Origins. Thus this book 306
refers the special inheritance of the priesthood by the Levites
to a divine institution and confirmation, and explains in ac
cordance with this their whole legal position. It is the first
book, according to our present sources, which inculcated the
view of a divine prerogative held by this tribe, but at the same
time it sets forth this view with such decision as to show that
it must have been firmly established, at any rate as a histori
cal fact, for a considerable period. And, in truth, if every honest
human calling in the community has for itself a divine justifica
tion, so of all the individual professions the priesthood would
naturally be the one which would be most certain to be regarded
as consecrated by divine installation and appointment, since the
higher religion had to be maintained in the realm in its perfect
purity as well as in its full activity, and since this was not
possible without agents properly qualified and with full autho
rity. And though in the course of history the priesthood came
.' See Hist. iii. 127, 246 sq. David and Solomon. The kings of Judah
2 What is said 2 Chron. xxvi. 15-21 after Jehoshaphat appear to have lost all
(comp. Hist. iv. 145 sq.) about the attempt influence over the priests of Jahveh till
which King Uzziah made to offer sacrifice Uzziah attempted to restore it ; nor can
in the temple with his own hand, and it even be denied that from the later years
which was frustrated by the priests, may of Solomon's rule a jealousy grew up
contain a trace of historical tradition, in- among the priests of Jahveh towards a
asmuch as Uzziah was the last of the more monarchy which also favoured heathen
'powerful and vigorous kings of Judah, religion, and that this led finally to greater
just such an one as might propose to act and greater estrangement.
towards the temple after the manner of 3 See Hist. iii. 278 nt. 2.

268 ' SPECIAL PROFESSIONS.
to be confined to the tribe of Levi, and to be regarded as its
divine inheritance, yet there must have existed within the ancient
true religion and the limits of the kingdom of Jahveh so clear
a perception of the true nature of every priesthood correspond
ing to such a religion, that the very limitation of it to the
tribe of Levi appeared only as a matter of minor importance.
EiUed with this feeling, the Book of Origins describes with its
fine copiousness all the duties as well as the rights of the priest
hood ; and even the other writings of the Old Testament,
wherever they have to speak of it, suffer the light of its lofty
vocation to manifest itself.
3. Yet, indispensable as it was for the Levitical priesthood
to develope itself in those early days, and gloriously as it did
develope itself on many occasions in the community of the
ancient true religion, this religion could not have been what it
is if, in spite of its becoming continually more and more inter
twined with this form of the priesthood, it had not had the feeling
— here more clearly, there more obscurely — that the form had
only a temporal nature and value, and did not supply the
unchangeable deepest basis of the Theocracy. There may be
individual passages in the Old Testament where the Levitical
priesthood is with right treated as of divine instaUation. There
are others which sufficiently indicate that it assumed this definite
shape only in consequence of the needs and narrrowness of the
times.1 These temporal needs may change. And if on one
occasion, in the long course of those times, the perpetual exist
ence of the Levitical priesthood is demanded even by a great
prophet,2 in the times in which he thus spoke, it reaUy was
indispensable for a period whose termination none could see ; ,
and, moreover, Levitical priests came graduaUy in common
usage to mean the same as the true priests generally, of whom
the prophecy is in every sense correct. Accordingly, the best
representation and account from a historical point of view, is
that of the Book of Origins, according to which the Levites were
only placed in office with the consent and approbation of the
representatives of the whole community.3 If they were thus
put in office, they stand ultimately as so many men of Levi
under the community as the entire living household which
was the abode of the Divine spirit ; and the community may,
under other temporal conditions, intrust the sacerdotal authority
to others than these hereditary priests.
1 See Hist. ii. 142-sq. s Num. iii. 1 sqq. ; comp. more on the
2 Jer. xxxiii. 21. point below.

THE DUTIES OF THE PRIESTHOOD. 269

2. The Sphere and Nature of the Duties of the Priesthood.
1. The priesthood has accordingly one single permanent
-function, viz. to protect the true religion which had been
founded in the community, so that it may perpetually flourish
throughout the entire nation. Or, to say the same thing more
in the words of Antiquity : the true Holy Presence was dwelling
in Israel; the priesthood had to serve it without ceasing, as
the servants standing closest to a lord who, besides them, has
many other servants at a greater distance in his wide domain.
'The priesthood of Israel only became possible by means of and
within the community ; while the community of Israel rather 307
became possible in contradistinction to the expanse of Heathen
ism. The former, therefore, can have no duties which, originally
and in strictness of speech, were not also duties of the whole
community, and even of every individual member of it.
The true priest ought before all to be holy,1 pure, and blame
less; but this ought also to be the case with regard to the
whole community of Jahveh,2 which would not otherwise be
distinguishable from the heathen. He should stand in the
closest proximity to Jahveh,3 should personally approach his
most holy place with confidence and intrepidity, have a full
and accurate acquaintance with his laws, and care for his affairs
like a confidential body-servant. But the whole of Israel too
should be close to the true God, should belong to Jahveh more
than the other nations, should be his heir,4 his first-born son.5
The priest ought to be entirely devoted to Jahveh, dedicated
to him alone, and should possess no inheritance, i.e. external
property besides ; 6 on his account the priest should leave father
and mother, disown brother and sister ; 7 and to fight unto
death on his behalf should be unto him a joy : 8 but all this is
equally true of the whole of Israel. The priesthood is there
fore only an Israel in Israel, a higher grade in the same com
munity. As Israel was separated from the heathen, so again
within Israel was there a narrower circle which immediately
surrounded the Sacred Presence. In many ways like this all
healthy vigorous life faUs into gradations ; and it is a fact that
those who desire to vivify and protect for others what is sacred,
1 Lev. xxi. 6-15, comp. more below. s Num. xvi. 5 ; especially Deut. x.
2 P. 229 sqq. 6-9, xii. 12, xviii. 2. On these passages
3 Ex. xix. 22, Num. xvi. 9, xviii. 2. of the Deuteronomist see more below.
* Ps. lxv. 5 [4], Ex. xix. 6, Ps. xxviii. 7 Ex. xxxii. 27-29, Deut. xxxiii. 9.
• and elsewhere. 8 Ex. xxxii. 28.
s Ex. iv. 22.

270 SPECIAL PEOFESSIONS.
must themselves first possess it in its greatest purity and
exercise it in highest power.
These facts, however, render it necessary that such internal
308 prerogatives, capacities, and merits should already be in exist
ence before they receive their full recognition and divine justi
fication. All who are Jahveh's own are then also marked by him
with an external indication of the fact. He who is holy and loved
of God is then declared before the world to be worthy to approach
him. This universal truth is directly taught by the Book of
Origins in regard to the true priest.1 Not till Aaron and his
son and grandson, not tiU the whole tribe of Levi had most
gloriously proved their pure devotion and self-sacrifice under
the severest trials, did they receive from heaven full credentials
for their sacerdotal office.2 On the other hand the higher
grade and dignity, when once attained, brings with it greater
dangers and fearful penalties. Those who bear the dignity of
the priesthood and approach the Sanctuary must also be the first
to undergo the punishments which are brought about by official
error and the slightest violation of the holy place. An ex
tremely ancient divine oracle runs as follows :
On him who nearest to me stands shovj I my sanctity,
And before the whole nation is my glory manifest?
This was to explain how it was possible for the two eldest sons
of Aaron to be at once pitilessly annihilated by the altar-fire
when they drew near to it with strange fire.4 Only when the
priesthood works entirely as it ought to do, from its own good
309 foundation, can its actions be rich in blessings for the rest of
the community. In the same way it is taught later that Israel
can only turn successfully against the heathen when its internal
state is perfect.5
This is the general meaning of the priesthood of the tribe
of Levi. It was accordingly regarded as a privileged holy
tribe, occupying an intermediate position between the remain-
1 Num. xvi. 4 sqq. and only then do the same for the people.
2 Num. xvi. 20-xvii. ; xxv. 7-12, out * Lev. x. 1 sqq. What strange fire
of the Book of Origins ; Ex. xxxii. 29. may be at any rate in its original sense is
3 Lev. x. 3. Jahveh manifests his explained below under the Sacred Tent -
greatest glory (majesty) publicly before here, however, the expression manifestly
the whole nation in the fact that he ex- already occurs in a more general, i.e. in a
hibitshis sanctity most on those who stand higher sense. — That it may be dangerous
nearest to him, and therefore punishes to linger in the inner temple, and that the
their transgressions most severely and priest frequently issued thence disffgured
instantaneously; comp. Hist. ii. 138 sq. by God, is a belief which finds expression
— It is noteworthy in this connection that, even in the representation, Luke i. 12 sq.
according to the Chronicler, the priests 5 See Die Propheten des A. Bs. vol. ii,
and Levites alway purify themselves first, a. 404 sqq.

THE HIGHEST FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD. 271
ing tribes and Jahveh. Nor was this high regard confined to
the recognition of its prerogative and rule, or this praise given
only to the courage wherewith it frequently defended Sanctuary
and sacred rite with the utmost decision. A still higher estimate
was made ofthe bold sudden determination with which it opposed
with the confidence of faith the progress of the worst national
misfortunes, throwing itself in between the other tribes amid the
wildest raging of internal national discord and infatuation, and
like a divine mediator repressing the fury.1 Did strife burst
out concerning the pure truth, and was there a call to rescue
the highest conceptions of Jahveism? Then ' Moses and Aaron ''
may perhaps be found standing alone against the entire nation ;
the true priest, even if the whole people take the side of error
and he is left alone, must remain standing on the other side,
where he is upheld in spite of everything, and wins the final
victory. But if it might thence appear as if he alone deserved
the reward of fidelity, and if there were indications that God
himself meant to save him alone and destroy the whole un
faithful nation, then most of aU he feels that he is nothing
without the community, and in the midst of his victory makes
supplication for the deluded crowd.2
2. It is at this point that we first meet with the highest func
tion of the priesthood, according to the feeling of the earliest
times. In the sacred community of Jahveh the original purity,
which, strictly speaking, ought always to be maintained there,
is constantly receiving various stains, noticed or unnoticed,
expiated or unatoned for ; and the whole community, while it
felt the necessity for strictest purity, felt also that Jahveh's 310,
Sanctuary dwelt in the midst of the countless impurities of his
.people, and was never free from their defilement.3 Between
the sanctity of Jahveh and the perpetually sin-stained condi
tion of the community there is therefore a chasm which seems
infinite. All the offerings and gifts which the members of the
community bring are only like a partial expiation and payment of
a debt4 which is never entirely wiped out. To wipe out aU these
stains, to bear the guUt of the nation,5 and constantly to restore
the divine grace, is the final office of the priest. How hard a
one duly to fulfil ! A hundred precautions in every direction were
framed by Antiquity for the sacerdotal office in sacrifice and
1 Num. xvii. 11-13 [xvi. 46-48]. which at first sight are so obscure, Ex.
2 Num. xvi. 20 sqq., xvii. 9 sq. [xvi. xxviii. 38, Num. xxxi. 50.
44] comp. Ex. xxxii. 9 sqq. 5 This is the explanation of the strange
3 The principal passage is Lev. xvi. phrases, Num. xviii. 1, comp. 3, 22 sq/;
16 ; comp. Num. xv. 31, xix. 13, 20. Ex. xxviii. 38, Lev. x. 17, Num. viii. 19,
* According to the remarkable phrases

272, SPECIAL PROFESSIONS.
elsewhere. A prolix science was developed in order to ensure
without fail the real reconciliation of God by means of sacri
fices of every kind. Yet aU sacerdotal activity was frequently
of no avail, and if misfortune broke upon the people (a ' wrath
¦of Jahveh ') it was only too often imputed to some error of the
priests. It was the duty and it was the desire of the developed
Levitical priesthood to step into the breach and to take the full
responsibility of this on its own shoulders. It undertook always
to bear the entire guilt of the nation. This was the way in which
it was its duty and its desire during its best days to administer
and to protect the Sanctuary. This, however, was a reason —
and the anxious dread of what was too holy already mentioned '
cooperated in the same direction — why the demand early arose
that no stranger, i.e. no one save a priest, should approach
unauthorised the Ark of the Covenant, the interior of the
Sanctuary, and the other sacred appliances, that no one should
touch them and interfere with their office. The penalty which
the law in the Book of Origins attaches to the infringement of
this requirement is death,2 and reminiscences contained in
the historical books show that it was not unfrequently inflicted
5311 in the days of early zeal.3 Thus the Levitical priesthood
became a most important member in the body of the whole
realm, and one which must soon have appeared absolutely
indispensable to the people themselves. But of course all this
tended to widen the yawning gulf and sharp distinction betweeA
the Sanctuaxy with those attached to it, and everything else
which existed and lived in the land, between priesthood and
people. And though Jahveism would never suffer this separa
tion to take so one-sided and rugged a form as it did in
heathenism in corresponding cases,4 it still would never again
(as the history at last irrefragibly showed) entirely erase it
-of its own impulse, after this separation had been more and
more firmly established during the course of centuries.
3. If now this priesthood, along with all its manifold duties
1 P- 155- similar ideas which were handed down
"¦ Ex. xxix. 37, xxx. 29, Num. i. 51, in Israel from primitive times have al-
iii. 10, 38, xviii. 7. ready been explained on p. 155.
3 At any rate such narratives as those « As e.g. among the Eomans the Ves-
Tnentioned in the History, ii. 416 sqq., iii. tals were honoured, as well as punished,
126, can refer ultimately only to the ex- just like goddesses, in the most super-
"traordinary dread with which the sacred stitious manner. And even in regard to
ark and its custody was regarded. In the the ordinary Flamen what a profusion of
¦same way in Eome any one was at once to superstitious usages there were, according
die who got under the sedan-chair of the to Gellius' Nodes Attics, x. 15 !
Vestal virgins, Plutarch's Numa, x. Other

THE REGULAR PRIESTS. 273
and occupations, maintained its position as one tribe among
the rest, it wiU of course foUow that for its internal and ex
ternal relations, it essentially retained an organisation such as
all the tribes possessed.1 This organisation, however, must
have taken a different shape in accordance with the peculiar
vocation of Levi and the various occupations included in its
collective activity. Of these there are three in particular, diffe
rent alike in dignity and power, and hence the sacerdotal office
is itself divided into three grades : priest, inferior priest, high-
priest. No doubt the character and sphere of many of the
sacerdotal functions varied during the course of centuries to
so extraordinary a degree that in the later periods it is difficult
to recognise the institutions of the age of Moses and Joshua in
regard to the inferior priests, and frequently too in respect to
the high-priest. The whole nation gradually changed to an 312
incredible extent in culture and manner of life, and a similar
transformation must have largely affected just that tribe in
which the most spiritual powers of Israel were concentrated
soon after the founding of the community. Nevertheless the
tribe always continued to be divided into these three heredi
tary grades of rank. A. The Regular Priests.
1. The higher the outward position of the priests, the less
can their laudable aims and occupations be brought under fixed
rules, and legaUy prescribed for in mode and measure. Thus
the historical passages of the Old Testament represent Aaron
and his sons performing as priests many actions of the highest
importance and fraught with richest blessings, whenever the
needs of the moment instigated them to sacerdotal activity on
behalf of the community, without there being any special regula
tions to impel them thereto. If, however, we regard that which
the law defined as their official business, we see that the regular
priest had to protect, as well as to uphold in perpetual vitality
and purity, both the visible Sanctuary and also whatever was yet
truly sacred in Israel, though invisible. Everywhere, accord
ingly, their primary duties consist in effective public action ; and
among these occupations the offering of sacrifice, and the whole
care of the inner Sanctuary occupy so important a position that
in one main section these two duties alone are named.2 But this
constant active supervision of everything sacred embraces many
points which are here omitted for the sake of brevity, such as the
i p. 241 sqq. ~ Num. xviii. 1-7.

274 THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
supervision and treatment of lepers,1 and similar occupations,
which in modern times are left rather to the police. In particular,
certain priests must regulate the calendar on account of the
sacred festivals,2 and all weights and measures, on account of
313 the sacrifices and the manifold offerings to the Sanctuary.*
And as the guardians of what was holy in the community, they
had also the duty of making, from time to time, the estimate
(the census) of the people with the purifications connected there
with;4 hence too, of compihng the genealogical registers.5.
To such action, however, must be added, as equaUy important
and indispensable, the giving of instruction about aU the nume
rous objects of sacerdotal duty,6 as well in the assembled com
munity as to individuals, this being done both on solemn or official
occasions, and in reply to inquiries about doubtful cases. They
must have had, therefore, an accurate acquaintance with their
laws and customs as well as some intimate knowledge of natural
objects ; the latter being all the more needful the less these things
were specially investigated by others. That in particular they
had charge of the original documents of the laws was so
thoroughly understood, that the Deuteronomist, writing at a
time when loud complaints had long been made over the neglect
of the ancient laws, is the first who brings this into prominence
314 as one of their duties, especially in relation to the king, who
was to be bound to observe the law.7
1 See p. 157 sqq. s. 262 sq., andVasquez Q-ucipo's Essai sur
* Comp. Hist. i. 205 sqq. les systemcs mitriqv.es et monetaires des
3 These offerings will be spoken of anciens peuples, Gott. Gel. Anz. 1861,
below. Comp. for weights and measures s. 657 sqq.). As, however, ancient Israel
according to the standards of the later had nothing characteristic in this respect,
times 1 Chron. xxiii. 29. Even the hea- the subject hardly concerns us here. For
then were glad to deposit their standards the monetary system in the earliest times
in a temple, see Borkh. Metrische Unters. see Gott. Gel. Anz. 1855, s. 1390 sqq.,
s. 189 sqq. 227, 290 nt. ; Letronne's Re- 1856, s. 798 sq.
cherches sur Heron d'Alexandrie, pp. 9, t gee 'be]LOW
267 sq. At first theregulation of weights . The • of somewhat later ^rftangs,
and measures was probably entirely in •--
the hands of the priests; still in traffic Le. properly the counting, asit corresponds
among the people they must early have to the Ethiopic 'VfyQ (see Jahrbb. der
escaped any higher guidance, so that to mL Wiss y s_ m) and the latter sig.
observe correct weight and measure seemed w
merely a requirement of religion, both in nifies properly counting, comp. ^>_ and
ancient utterances such as Lev. xix. 35 U^^
sq. and in later ones, Amos viii. 5, Mic. ^2>-.
vi. 10 sq.-On this account there was a ^ . Lev; x. g_n Deut. xxx;ii. 9 sq.
distinction in Israel irom the time of Ezek. sliv- 23 An e le of tna
the monarchy between sacred and ^ royal mode of h inHthe commmii£y is giTen
weights, measures, and coins; the former . L •
as the moreancient being also the greater. ln tne Phrase Num. xv. 15 ; for ^nj3il 1S
In our own days the investigation into certainly to be understood here as an
the weights and measures of ancient na- address.
tions has been prosecuted with great zeal ' Deut. xvii. 18 sq., xxxi. 9, 25 sq.
(comp. the Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. xi. During the earlier days of the monarchy

DISTINCTIONS WITHIN THE PRIESTHOOD. 275
But this duty of giving instruction and replies to questions
easily leads men to regard the priest as also a prophet, and to
seek oracles from him. Moses had in reality been both, and
it seemed as if his example might be followed. Throughout
the whole ancient world, prophetism for the most part clung to
the priesthood as merely a special branch of the latter's func
tions. It is true that it appeared in Moses with <so wonderful
a force and effectiveness as to tower far above the priesthood,
and manifest itself in Jahveism as a thoroughly independent
power. But though at this pure elevation it could not be heredi
tary, yet the craving for oracles even in all ranks of ordinary life
was imperative down to the time of David, so that Jahveism was
obliged for a long time to suffer it to be, in actual life, an
appendage to the priesthood, and had to tolerate what it could
not yet prevent. Nevertheless the Book of Origins, the only
one which regulates the relation, confines the right of the
oracle solely to the high-priest ; and here, as will be explained
below, it could best be tolerated. In common life, however,
it was regarded down to David's time as a faculty which every
worthy, especiaUy every youthful innocent, priest, might easily
possess.1 The external means of which he would make use in
order to obtain an oracle wiU be spoken of below in connection
with the high-priest.
2. As the immediate vocation of these regular priests was
to guard and to explain what was sacred, they formed a nar
rower sacerdotal circle within the priesthood. A consequence of
this was an extension of the hereditary system, so that only the
house of Aaron, i.e. only the priests who were descended from 315
Aaron and his brothers,2 attained this higher dignity. Nay
even among these, a further distinction was at any rate legally
observed — that only the descendants of Aaron were to manage
the work connected with the altar ; while the other members
of his house, e.g. the descendants of Moses, were to take care
of the sacred vessels which belonged to the service of the altar,
and attend to other subsidiary matters.3 In the early days
when the laws were less stringently observed, any priest without
distinction may have been taken at will for a private house
hold as a full priest and utterer of oracles, as a ' father of the
it would appear from 2 Kings xi. 12 laws of the realm. Comp. the phrase
(2 Chron. xxiii. 11), that when a king Job xxxi. 36.
was anointed just the original Decalogue ' See Hist. ii. 347 sqq.
was laid on his head over the crown, as 2 P. 259.
an adornment and as a symbol that ho 3 Num. xviii. 1-7. Ezekiel calls these
Would have to submit to the fundamental priests ' the sons of Zadok,' after 1 Kingsii.
t 2

276 THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
household.' l But this the law never sanctioned. — When the
two Aaronitish households of Eleazer and Ithamar had greatly
increased in the course of centuries,, and the magnificent
temple required a far more extensive service, the qualified priests
of the altar were divided into twenty-four houses (or clans),
each of which had to attend to the service a week at a time.
This arrangement may have existed from the time of Solomon,
and it lasted until the close of this history.2 The descendants
of Eleazar, as the first-born of Aaron, had always the advantage
here. They supplied sixteen of these houses, the descendants
of Ithamar eight.3 — In so far as the sacred service in this
established order came with its labours, on the one hand, as
a duty, with its advantages, on the other hand, as a blessing,
both to every individual and to the entire tribe, one might
say that it fell to their share by an unalterable divine lot.
Such images were very common elsewhere.4 And this view of
the position and of the duties of the priesthood is so happy,
that it has been spontaneously introduced into the language
of the New Testament.5
Yet the mere hereditary succession, and the rights by birth
of priests, were subject to numerous exceptions in the case of
particular persons from the very nature of the priesthood ; so
manifest was its perpetual superiority to the chance external
existence of individual men. That no man known to be immoral
might become a priest was so completely taken for granted,
that the law wholly ignores the matter. But since also the
3i6 human body in its fuU purity and health was deemed a sacred
thing,0 the law requiried that even the body of one who ap
proached the altar should be completely pure and unmutUated.7
He might in no way disfigure the hair of his head or beard, or
his skin. This prohibition is laid on aU the members of the
community in the earliest and strictest legislation ; 8 but since
it gradually ceased to be observed in the growing community,
it is repeated by the Book of Origins at any rate for the priests.
In the next place, he might have no corporal blemish, either
congenital or incurred later through some injury. He might
1 Judges xvii. 7-13, xviii. 4-6, 14 sqq. * Hist. ii. 255.
2 1 Chron. xxiv. 1-19, xxviii. 13, 21 ; 5 It is indisputable that the phrase in
2 Chron. v. 11, viii. 14, xxiii. 8, xxxi. 2, Acts i. 17 has led to the spiritual office,
16 sq. Comp. Hist. i. 363 sq. and iii. and hence to the Christian ministry itself
247 sq., as well as v. 113, and thecomment as the possessor of this lot, being briefly
on the Apoc. iv. 4, in the Johanneischen termed the KArjpos, as is already done in
Schriften, ii. s. 158 sq.— The first of these tho Constit. Apost.
was Jojarib, 1 Mace. ii. 1, the eighth 6 P. 163 sqq.
Abia, Luke i. 5. * Lev. xxi. 1-9, 16-24.
3 1 Chron. xxiv. 4. s p. 164.

THE SACERDOTAL GARMENTS. 277
be neither blind nor lame, disfigured neither at the nose or
ears,1 neither in foot nor hand, neither hump-backed nor blear-
eyed, nor even with a white mark in the eye ; 2 he might not be
afflicted with the itch, or ring-worm, or even have but one
testicle. Contact with the dead he should avoid more scru
pulously than an ordinary man.3 Only on account of one of
the nearest blood-relations, of his parents, children, brothers, or
unmarried sisters, not on account of any one else, even though
he were a more distant relative, might he give way to the
more violent outbursts of bereavement.4 He might not even
marry any one denied by harlotry or public unchastity,5 nor 317
yet a wife who was separated from her husband.6
3. The attire of the priest on duty was simple, but in con
formity with his solemn dignity. We are very fully acquainted
with it, but not, in its entirety, from any sources prior to the
Book of Origins.7 As this book describes it, it had undoubtedly
been in use for centuries, but even here traces are not wanting
of a still greater simplicity which must have been in vogue
during the very earliest days of the community. It is to be
noticed in general that only linen material, nothing wooUen,
seemed suitable for priests.8
Clothing for the feet is not spoken of in the Book of Origins.
The priest must certainly have always gone barefoot within
1 As 0")n certainly refers to mutilation place; it is therefore connected with
ofthe nose (even in Saadia, Lev. xxi. 18, "" " an^ jn reSpect to meaning, directly
+S-\ is to be read for , m j£~X), the con- .'„,.. . ^ , . 
p u~r^"' with the Ethiopic OfjJJ", 'another.' There
text of itself favours the rendering of yn"E> is no other way of rendering the word
by «t<St/«jtos which the LXX give ; and intelligible.
in the other passage, Lev. xxii. 23, the 5
conjunction with (M^ (which is most s similar and in part more definite
correctly rendered 'mutilated at the tail') prescriptions are given in Ezek. xliv.
and the context ofthe entire passage, sup- 20-22, 25-27.
port the same meaning. This yr0 must ' Ex. xxviii. 4, 39-43, xxix. 8 sq.,
., „ , . .,, | „,, . xxxix. 27-29 ; and Lev. viii. 13.
therefore be compared with ,J_. That „ ,fhis Jg mQgt clearly explained in
so frequent a thing as mutilation of the Ezek. xliv. 17, 18, comp. ix. 2. "Wool was
ears should not be noticed hero is of itself undoubtedly the simplest and earliest
unlikely. material for clothing, but as something
2 Even in p^ and ~f?2F\ the LXX and taken from an animal it was deemed un-
the Peschito bring us close to the correct s«itable &r P1?68*3 arLd Princes amo?S
meaning; for the formation of the latter aU ancient nations, and even among the
see Lehr. § 157 a ; the w,, however, is cer- Arabs down to the time of Mohammed.
» ' ' ' - Comp. also Herod. 11. 81, Philo. Opp. 1.
tainly to be compared with v J., which p. 653, ch. 37, and p. 161 above; Plu-
signifies an ocular disease. U **% de > et...0s; iv" J**™*- ™a
ip jcj Pyth. xxi. xxviii. (c. cxlix.). Josephus,
, 1 ' t' ¦ . ,, -ii Antiq. iv. 8. 11, strangely thinks that a
4 (?J>3, Lev. xxi. 4, must be equivalent ^ of toq1 and Hnen was forbi(jden
to elsewhere (besides what is said in ver. 2 (p. 161) only because it was permitted for
sq.) properly, behind that, in the next priests.

278 THE FUNCTION OP THE PRIESTHOOD.
the Sanctuary itself, from an ancient dread of treating the
sacred spot like a common place.1 — Garments for the legs were
just as little worn by the priests in the earliest days as by other
people of those districts. This we see from the command not
to buUd a lofty altar which must be approached by steps, lest
the person might chance to be exposed thereby.2 But, accord
ing to the Book of Origins, such garments were always to be
worn simply for the sake of decency. They were, howe.ver, short,
and may have reached no further than half-way down the thigh.
The material employed was twisted byssus.
The principal garment, a robe hanging from the neck down
318 to about the knees,3 was made of thick chequered byssus, in
substance like what we term pique.4 It was not, however,
sewed together out of separate pieces, but woven in a single
piece by an art with which the ancients were early acquainted.5
This integrity and simplicity of the principal garment was evi
dently not unintentional. It was in conformity with the rest of
the system of the earliest Jahveism, which everywhere showed
a preference for what was pure and simple, as has already been
made plain in so many instances.6 Wool, however, in accord
ance with what we have just said, was inadmissible for this as
for all other sacerdotal garments. — This robe was secured be
neath the breast by a very broad girdle, with long ends which
hung down in front. This was made of twisted byssus ; but
whilst the colour of this material was white in all the remain
ing articles of the sacerdotal dress, so that a dazzling white
ness was its characteristic appearance,7 the girdle had the
three variegated colours which (as will be explained below)
were in other respects appropriated by the Sanctuary. Eor it
was usual to manufacture girdles of the most ornate descrip
tion, and in like manner this broad band was regarded as the
special symbol of the sacerdotal office.
Einally, there was a turban of the same white byssus. Its
1 Ex. iii. 5. 5 According to Ex. xxxix. 27, x'T^"
2 Ex. xx. 26, from the Book of Cove- &ppa<pos, John xix. 23. At the present
nants (vers. 23-26 form a set of five laws, day the Ihram or pilgrim-dress of the
as ver. 24 consists of two commands). Mohammedan should still be made out of
3 Ordinarily riJPI?, in Lev. vi. 3 [10], two plain unsewed, and if possible white,
also termed ID- pieces ; comp. Burckhardt's Travels in
Arabia, i. p. 161, Maltzan's "

4 What V3tJ>FI is, Ex. xxviii. 4, is clear j s jg2
from the description of the n'mB'P, ' Especially p. 121.
Ex. xxxix. 15-18. According to this 7 Hence the appearance of the angels
decisive passage, elevations with four or and all saints, to which allusion is repeat-
more corners were thus named, and we edly made in the Apocalypse ; comp. in
thus learn what sort of byssus we are to particular xix. 8.
understand.

CONSECRATION OF PRIESTS. 279
«hape is not accurately known to us ; probably it was of simple
form, but tolerably high. It was made secure beneath with
bands, and was never removed during duty.
Yet before the priests might perform their actual duties in
this attire, they must be solemnly consecrated in order that
they may receive full authority for their office; and it was in 319
this consecration that Jahveism showed most clearly what were
its special demands and expectations in regard to its permanent
.agents. The ceremony itself was no doubt performed later by
the high-priest; according to the Book of Origins,1 however,
Moses performed it for Aaron and his sons together, thus for
the first time rendering a high-priest possible. The novice
was first bathed in front of the Sanctuary, then attired in his
full dress, but, previous to his assuming the whole of his
•adornment, he was solemnly anointed by pouring the sacred oil,
to be presently described, over his head.2 In the next place
a young bullock was sacrificed for him as an expiatory- offering,
-a ram as a whole-offering, and lastly, a second ram as the
proper consecration-offering. The last sacrifice served as the
strongest consecration which was possible in Jahveism. With
the warmest sacrificial blood the novices were streaked on the
tip of the right ear, the right thumb, and the right great-toe —
a consecration which was also applied in other cases.3 After
"this the novices were sprinkled with the blood flowing at the
foot of the altar and with the sacred anointing oil,4 as though
these drops were to impart their sanctifying efficacy with the
utmost force to the man on whom they alighted, and trans
form him into another being. This was a usage which in the
-earliest days occurs elsewhere only in connection with treaty-
offerings.5 In the second place this consecration-offering was
•¦employed from that moment for initiating into the sacerdotal
functions the novices who had been purified with such mighty
efforts. The altar-pieces of the ram, with the accompanying 32q
portions of bread, were placed in their hands, as though they
¦ could now prepare a like offering for the altar themselves, and
1 Ex. xxix. 1-36 ; Lev. viii. sq. is clear not only from the more definite
" It is therefore incorrect to think construction of these words in Lev. xxi. 10,
• that according to the Book of Origins only but also from distinct explanations else-
-the high-priest was to be anointed. No where, Ex. xxviii. 41 (in accordance with
¦ doubt he was pre-eminently termed ' the which xxix. 8 sq. is to be supplemented),
ranointed,' Lev. iv. 3, 16, vi. 15 [22] ; but xl. 13-15 ; Num. iii. 3. On the other
these passagesare from an earlier author ; hand, it is manifest that all the priests of
. and that the expression according to the the house of ' Aaron were not anointed,
Book of Origins is only an abbreviation but merely the sacrificial priests, those
of the fuller title of the high-priest, from whose ranks the high-priest came.
and does not imply the existence of 3 P. 159. 4 P. 108,
other priests who were not anointed, 5 P. 68.

280 THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
then the person performing- the consecration placed these por
tions, with the usual ceremonies, on the altar. In the same
way the right ham was also placed in the hands of the novices,.
whilst the breast, as the better of these two parts which were
the priest's share of the thank-offering,.1 fell to the person per
forming the consecration, and was therefore not placed in the
hands of the novices, who then had an opportunity of getting-
fully acquainted with both of these ceremonies. The remainder-
of the sacrificial meal was not, however, consumed as a thank-
offering, since a consecration-offering originally coincides rather-
with an expiatory-offering.2 It was to be eaten by the newly-
consecrated priest in a purely sacerdotal manner as an expiatory-
offering, and with this was completed the full initiation of the
new priest into his office. Eor no less than seven successive-
days was this consecration-sacrifice to be repeated, always in
full view of the whole community. And the fresh feelings and
high spirits, as well as the happy results, with which a priest
thus consecrated could enter upon his arduous duties — nay,
how even the effulgent glory of Jahveh descends upon the com
munity in consequence of his operations — are beautifully described .
by the Book of Origins in the case of Aaron,3 and the most
inspiring type is thus given for aU priests in a similar position.
As to the rest, we know that the priests had another dress.
of a commoner sort, which they wore when discharging their-
ordinary duties ; and when we remember how many occu
pations they had which would prove destructive to clothes, we
shaU not be surprised that the law permitted them to wear gar
ments of a commoner and cheaper sort besides their magnifi
cent attire. We do not, indeed, know the particulars about
321 it, the passage in the Book of Origins which treats of this
being lost ; 4 but, from the name which it bore, we can tell that
it was sewn, and admitted patching — not, therefore, like the

1 See below. that the words here may have been greatly-
2 P. 67. altered. If it were not for the threefold
3 Lev. ix. repetition of ' to serve in the Holy place,'
1 Ex. xxxi. 10, xxxv. 19, xxxix. 1, 41, which was a regular phrase for 'to be
comp. xxviii. 2, Lev. vi. 3 [10] sq., Ezek. employed in the sacred occupations there,'
xliv. 19. Its description should have the passage Ex. xxxix. 1 would refer to
stood somewhere before Ex. xxviii. 1. what is said in Num. iv. 6-13 about
The name "j"lB>n nj3 probably signifies covering the sacred appliances on a
'dress of sewing,' i.e. sewed, from "n't? J0"1"?,6^ and 'would be ParaUel to the-
- 1 ' Chaldaic "np- In this case the division
\ ^ to pierce, sew ; T0 a stylus ; seo • . T : -, , , . , ,
"V"" r ' -.-iv> * ' into verses would have to be everywhere
the contrast above, p. 217 sq.- — According changed. The LXX and other ancient -
to Ex. xxxix. 1, these garments were of translators manifestly no longer understood
variegated colours, but the LXX show the word.

• THE LEVITES. 281
garments described above,1 woven in one piece. The plain
white linen garments, which the high-priest wore for penance-
on the annual Eeast of Atonement,2 were probably of the same
sort. Then we can also understand how the Book of Origins
can command the magnificent attire of the high-priest to-
be left as an inheritance by its first possessor.3 Its very
magnificence caused it to be little used after the consecration
was complete.
— Of other points which the officiating priest had to observe-
at the Sanctuary and elsewhere during the days when he was.
on duty, nothing is mentioned, except that he was not aUowed
to drink wine or anything else of an intoxicating nature before
his work.4 As for the first time great stress is laid upon this
command in the Book of Origins, it is probable that the cha
racter of the Nazirite's life, spoken of above,5 had its influence
in the matter. Not that the prohibition would not have
been in existence before that time, but so conspicuous an
example as that of the Nazirites could not fail to increase its
stringency. B. The Inferior Priests or Levites.
AU Levites who were not included in the house of Aaron
associated around it and the Sanctuary over which it presided,
as servants about their master, and as members of a tribe about
their chiefs.6 They were, in fact, bound to discharge the in
ferior duties of the Sanctuary ; the character, however, of these
duties changed extraordinarily in the course of time.
1 . Originally they were before all things bound to defend 322:
the Sanctuary externaUy, and associated like a powerful compact
troop about the sacred tent.7 They were then undoubtedly
armed and ready for battle, like any man of the ordinary
people, and certainly often displayed their military valour when
it was needful to defend this moveable Sanctuary, with its
1 P. 278. was made to refer only to the serviee of
* Lev. xvi. 4, 23. ^'p^g
3 Ex. xxx. 29. How important this I According to Num. xviii. 2-4, the
became in the Grseco-Eoman period is tribe ofLevi took its name from the fact, as
further described in the History, v. vi. though the meaning was sacred association
[trerman Edition]. or samd guiU . &r if. cannot De doubted
* Lev. x. 8-11. It is best to connect that the w'ord L wnich elsewhere does
the words of ver. 10 sq, so closely with . t:- _ .
- mv .j ¦£-.-„ „„-n, JL, „„r,i-;m,o= not occur in the Book of Origins, is em-
ver. 9 that the infinitive with -7 continues ° '
f ployed here only for the sake of the play
the D3Sh3 >n ver. 9 according to Lehrb. upon tne wor(j iev^ And the Book of
§ 351 c. ' This shows that the meaning of Origins nowhere gives any other etymo-
the prohibition was originally more strin- logies, though it makes allusions of this
fient than it was at the time when, ac- sort. See p. 241 sq., 257 sq.
cording to Josephus (see p. 85 nt. 4), it ' Num. i. 48-54, iii. 5 sqq., x. 21.

282 THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
perpetual fire, either against the attacks of foreign nations or
against internal insurrection ; for the heart and life of the com
munity seemed wedded to the Sanctuary.1 When the latter
had a fixed abode, they kept ceaseless watch about it, and no
¦doubt rendered other assistance of various kinds both at the
sacrifices and in purifying the sacred place and the like. On
a journey there must have been an adequate number of them
to carry on poles all the various sacred appliances (to be de
scribed hereafter) ; but so stringently were they, in this as in
aU other cases, kept at a distance from the immediate presence
•of the Sanctuary, that aU these sacred appliances were pre
viously covered over with cloths by the superior priests.2 To
facilitate all these occupations a regular organisation was in
troduced among them in connection with their three main
clans, and with a part of these arrangements we are very fuUy
acquainted from the Book of Origins. The heavier duties feU
upon them from the twenty-fifth or thirtieth year3 to the
fiftieth of their age, and to discharge these they were to be
divided into three military companies. After this period of life
they had only to await the casual orders of the superior priests
and execute easy commissions. When we remember that aU
ordinary men had to serve in the army from their twentieth year,4
we shaU understand that the Levites were exempted tiU they
were from twenty-five to thirty years old, only because they
were expected to show more dignity and caution in their occu
rs pations. Nor can we doubt that the average age at which
priests entered upon their office was no earlier.
To discharge these duties the tribe of Levi was reorganised.
Previously its three main branches or clans had foUowed one
another in the order Gershon, Kohath, Merari.5 But when the
house of Aaron from the clan of Kohath was raised to the
higher sacerdotal dignity, this clan secured the first place. In
camp the house of Aaron occupied the place of honour to the
east ; on the south, close to it, came the camp of the Kohath-
ites ; towards the west the Gershonites ; towards the north the
Merarites.6 Similarly on the march, the Kohathites had the
care of the vessels of the inner Sanctuary; the Gershonites,
and in gradation the Merarites, of the more and more external
1 P. 114 sqq. xxiii. 24, 2 Chron. xxxi. 17, we find the
2 Num. iii. 14-39, iv. 4-16, x. 17, 21. 20th, in 1 Chron. xxiii. 3 the 30th,
3 The 30th year is always stated in * Num. i. 3.
Num. iv. 2-49, the 25th in the supplement 5 See more on the point Hist. i. 364
viii. 23-26. Both assertions are from the sq. and p. 241 sqq., above.
Book of Origins, but the second is mani- 6 Num. iii. 14-39.
festly the more accurate. In 1 Chron.

POSITION OF THE LEVITES. 283
(Constituents of the Sanctuary.1 The whole organisation turned
upon the pre-eminence of the house of Aaron, but it was
founded upon an earher basis, which can still be clearly recog
nised. Those who are ordinarUy called Levites, or the inferior
priests, are the ones who gradually usurped the place of the
earlier house-priests. When Jahveism made its appearance,
it had from the first its own priests, and these stood as much
above the earlier house-priests as the new religion did above
the old. But this new priesthood was at first confined to the
prophet Moses himself and Aaron, or at most to these two
along with their nearest relatives. The inferior duties were
still discharged by the earlier house-priests ; and in private
houses these long continued to hold office, as has been already
' described.2 The efforts of Jahveism, therefore, were every
where directed in the first instance to transfer the prerogatives
of the earlier priests to the Levites, since the less perfect religion 324
would always have found support from the former. And as a
fact these efforts must have succeeded tolerably soon. As
the whole tribe of Levi learned to gather itself compactly
about Jahveism, and the whole of the rest of the nation
learned to assemble more and more closely around this new
Sanctity, the earlier priests, in public and gradually too in
private houses, continually lost ground till they entirely ceased
'to exist. At the date of the Book of Origins this transformation had
been long completed, nevertheless a manifest reminiscence of
it had been clearly enough retained. And in as much as its
author conceives and sets forth the whole relation transfigured
by the light of the higher religion, he gives us the following
account respecting the call of the Levites. Properly all first
born male children were holy unto Jahveh and to be presented to
him as a gift, but he had revealed to Moses his willingness to
accept the Levites in their stead, and had surrendered these
substitutes to the service of the sons of Aaron. Hence they
were also briefly termed surrendered servants,i.e. bondsmen.3 This
account distinctly presupposes that during an earlier period
the first-born males really had been given to Jahveh for some
sort of service, and were so far sacred. Without a recollection
1 Num. iv., x. 17, 21, comp. below. 2 P. 263 sq. Comp. Ex. xxiv. 5 with
Since the Kohathites as the bearers of the ver. 1. __
most sacred vessels were most in danger * Qsm Num- m" J-13' 40"51' TO1-
of the ban (p. 272), the chief prayers for 14-19, comp. Ex. xiii. 11-16, and tha
indulgence are offered on their behalf, simpler representation, Num. xviii. 6.
Num. iv. 17-20.

284 THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
of this having been the fact the narrative would never have
originated. Eor it is impossible to assume that the first-born
human males are here mentioned merely on account of an
external resemblance, and lest the first-born of domestic
animals and the first-fruits of crops should have lost their
sacred character. This would be to misunderstand and re
pudiate the entire historical consciousness of the Book of
Origins. The book relates at the same time that the first-born
males of every tribe, reckoned from those of one month old
upwards, amounted to 22,373, while the number of the Levites
was only 22,000 ; and that the redemption of the balance of
325 373 first-born was effected at five fuU shekels of silver a head.1
We shall see hereafter that we have every reason for believing
these numbers not to be imaginary, and it therefore follows
that the first-born must once have been accurately counted.
If they ever were reaUy considered to belong to the Sanctuary,
it would in the next place be impossible to assume that they
were originally destined for human sacrifice, for apart from the
wholly incredible number, we have already seen that such a
purpose could never have been ascribed to Jahveh.2 Nothing
remains, therefore, but the supposition that the first-born had
been previously regarded as house-priests, and, according to the
Book of Origins, might and ought to have been regarded as
perpetuaUy bound to the service of Jahveh, unless the substi
tution of the Levites — an advantageous change for both parties
— had been preferred. If the ancient house-priests were not in
variably the first-born,3 the majority of them were undoubtedly
so, and this is sufficient for the above representation. The
same conclusion follows from some brief remarks contained in
the ancient Book of Covenants.4 Hence at the consecration of
the Levites 5 — it was quite otherwise at the consecration of the
priests — the representatives of the community take an active
part, in order to transfer to them those prerogatives which they
themselves possessed and therefore could transfer to the servants
of the Sanctuary. The priests and the national representatives
perform the consecration, the former taking the lead all through.
Each candidate for consecration was first sprinkled with the effi-
1 What was the average price of an * Ex. xxii. 28J [29i], comp. xxiv. 5.
able-bodied slave may be gathered from The latter passage explains the former,
p. 201 nt. 1, comp. G-en. xxxvii. 28, Ex. and it is impossible in the former, in spite
xxi. 32, bk. Zach. xi. 12. Children were of its brevity, to think of anything so
of much less value, and so an average entirely out of all likelihood as human
estimate for all without distinction of age sacrifice.
might be tolerably low. 5 Described in the Book of Origins,
2 P. 69 sq. Num. viii. 5-22.
" P. 263.

PRESENCE OF WOMEN AT THE SANCTUARY. 285
cacious water of atonement, which should, as it were, remove
from him aU the impurities of his former life ; l while a priest, 326
as we have already seen,2 was sprinkled still more strongly
with the sacrificial blood itself. When further his whole body
had been shaved 3 and cleaned after the prescribed fashion, the
national representatives, standing in front of tho Sanctuary,
laid their hands on him as though they desired to present him
as a sacred gift, which presentation the high-priest then com
pleted by means of the dedication already described.4 He next
offered on his own behalf, one bullock as a whole-offering and
another, as an expiatory-offering ; he was then brought before
the priests, and was once more sanctified by the above dedica
tion, after which he entered upon his office. No doubt a large
number were thus consecrated at the same time.
2. It is very remarkable that, according to sundry historical
traces, even women must have had certain duties at the Sanc-
iuary similar to those of the Levites. These traces are, it is
true, as rare here as in many other cases, yet here, as often
•elsewhere, they may guide us to a sufficiently secure position.
We know that women had to appear and do duty on the east
side of the Sanctuary, organised just like the Levites, and there
fore at fixed periods ; 5 also that metallic mirrors were attached
for them to the great washing-basin.6 Proper sacerdotal func
tions, whether higher or lower, cannot be ascribed to them. 327
It was characteristic of the whole of Jahveism to confine these to
men. But we know from other sources that dances' accompanied
by singing were performed at the Sanctuary by women,7 and these
mirrors would indicate something of this sort. If numerous
women from each ofthe tribes always took part ill these dances
on festivals, there must still have been some constantly at the
1 The water of atonement (ver. 7) fully about the women who are only
would certainly be the same as that which casually mentioned here. Nothing else
we have already seen twice applied under will explain the abruptness and excessive
a slightly different name, p. 151 sqq. brevity of this notice. Conjectures like
2 P. 279. those in Heidenheim's E. D. V. S. i. s. 120
3 Of course this shaving was only sq. are to no purpose. — The LXX it is
temporary, and had only this one end in true understand N3¥ of fasts, and Philo
view, and therefore had nothing in common ..„__ _.„. „;i;a,;„!,tj„„„„i„ „„ »i,„ , ,
.,,',,. . ,. j. i ¦ 1 1 utters some edifying remarks on the pas-
¦ with what is spoken of as forbidden on „,.,.*, ,r. -,* •¦• , ,
_ j*. sage after his own style, Vita Mos. 111. 15.
4 P 73 so *")n 'Qe otl'er liail(i tQe Protev. Jac. vii. x.
5 Ex. xxxviii. 8, 1 Sam. ii. 22. xv- .P^haps still contains some better
• See below. The word mtnD3. reminiscences; Maria, as a servant pre-
Ex. xxxviii. 8, cannot be understood sented to the Sanc.tuary, dances there and
¦otherwise than as 'with the mirrors.' prepares the decorations for the temple.
'These were accordingly of metal like the Comp also 2 Bar. x. m. Ceriam s Monum.
washing basin, and the latter too may *• P- ' 5-
have been polished so that it could serve ' Ex. xv. 20, Judges xxi. 21. Dis-
-as a mirror. But the Book of Origins in tinct from this was the male dance at the
*ome now lost passage undoubtedly spoke Sanctuary, Ps. xxx. 12 [11], lxxxvii. 7.

286 THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
Sanctuary who should know how to lead the dances, and they
may have been the same as those who daily performed the
sacred music there. That women who sang and played lived
there, we know as a certainty,1 as well as that the culture of
the Muses was chiefly left to the women down to the days of
David.2 The singing and playing Miriam,3 therefore, clearly
furnishes us with the original type of these women about the-
Sanctuary. If in the morning a great festival was celebrated
with sacrifices, it always passed towards evening, unless it
was an occasion of mourning or penitence, into playing and
dancing ; 4 and the deep earnestness of Jahveism took care-
that these performances should remain artistic and grave.
Probably with these women there were also many of the-
inferior Levites,5 just as from the time of Solomon the latter seem
to have had all the care of the sacred music. In the earliest
period the inferior Levites were, it is true, only too much occu
pied with military service and labours. Nevertheless it is obvious
that the duties which the Book of Origins assigns them, as
stated above, were regarded as only the most indispensable of
their obligations, so that they might be of service to the holy
328 place in many other ways. Without an active sympathy with
the great truths of Jahveism, and without an endeavour to-
serve these by means of all available arts, they never could
have become and remained even good inferior priests. We
know too that occasionally, in the earlier days, one of their
number raised himself to the highest power and offered sacrifice
with his own hand, as was the case with Samuel.
3. As soon as conquest and the firm possession of the country
secured the external power of the nation, the Levites too ac
quired increased opportunities for giving themselves up undis
turbed to voluntary spiritual occupations. When the forty-
eight cities of the conquered land were handed over to the tribe,6'
and in each of them a colony of Levites was settled, probably
under the leadership of a priest of the clan of Aaron, they
received along with each city a common, where they could.
pasture their own cattle, and in certain cases sell them to those
who were about to offer sacrifice.7 They had further a share
in the prisoners of war,8 and these they could employ as slaves
1 From the fragment of a Davidic case, Ex. xxxii. 6.
poem, Ps. lxviii. 26 [25]. Women beat- " This maybe inferred especially from-
ing drums occur also elsewhere in 1 Sam. ii. 22.
those regions, Barhebraeus' Chron. Syr. e Hist. ii. 308 sqq.
P- 21(L ' Comp. below under the Finances.
2 See Hist. ii. 354 sqq. 8 According to the Book of Origins,
s Hist. ii. 225. Num. xxxi. 25-47.
4 Comp. the description of a similar

BONDSMEN OF THE. LEVITES. 287
in the more menial occupations which in the absence of
such assistants they would have had to perform themselves.
Even whole cities may have been given them on the conquest
of the country whose inhabitants had their lives spared upon
condition of their becoming ' hewers of wood and drawers of
water,' i.e. the bondsmen of the Levites. The Book of Origins
illustrates this at length in the case of the Gibeonites, the
dwellers in a town not far from Jerusalem, whose descendants
experienced so peculiar a fate under the first two kings that at
the date of the composition of the Book of Origins they seem
to have been a good deal spoken about.1 Under such kings
as David and Solomon, gifts to the Levites like these were
renewed and multiplied. In particular they received at
Jerusalem itself a number of hereditary bondsmen who had to 329»
perform the lowest duties at the Sanctuary ; so that the name
Nelunim or Netinim, i.e. Bondsmen, by which the Levites had
been previously known, was now appropriated to these, who
were not Levites. The particular tasks which were transferred
to the latter are no longer known to us. The duties which
they had to render were evidently very definitely determined,
for we know that one particular establishment of this kind,.
originating with Solomon and undoubtedly charged with a
special form of service, always retained the name of ' the slaves-
of Solomon.' 2
Hence from the time of David and Solomon, it was aU the
more easy for the inferior priests to receive not only a new
organisation, but also a higher vocation. The progress of the
entire people in power and civilisation elevated them too, and,,
from the warlike troop of defenders of the Sanctuary, they
became peaceful guardians of the great temple at Jerusalem
and its treasures— musicians, and artists in its service, instruc
tors and judges scattered throughout the entire country.3 The
progress of their development naturaUy produced constant.
efforts on their part to place themselves more on a level
1 bk. Josh. ix. 23, 27, xxi. 17, comp. richten, 1864, s. 137 sqq. ; comp. in the-
above pp. 236, 238. Quellinschriften, ». 16. — In like manner at.
2 Ezra ii. 43-54, 55-58, Neh. xi. 3, the present time there are eunuchs who-
comp. 1 Chron. ix. 2, Ezra ii. 70, vii. 7, have been given by rich men to the
viii. 20 Neh. iii. 26, 31, x. 29 [28], xi. 21. Ka'aba at Mecca and to the holy tomb at
The ' slaves of Solomon ' were not so nu- Medina in order to perform the inferior-
merous • David is expressly mentioned in duties there, and who may never again
Ezra viii 20, but the passage Ps. be employed elsewhere. See Burekhardt's,
lxviii 19 [181 'refers to the same thing ; Travels in Arabia, i. p. 288 sqq., ii. p. 166
comp. Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. iv. s. 54.— sq., 174, 181, Maltzan's Walljahrt nach.
We have now a great number of Delphic Mekka, n. s. 240 sq.
inscriptions about the sale of slaves to s See Hist. m._ 248 sq., iv. 54, Die-.
the temple see Curtius in the Gott. Nach- Diehter des A. Bs. io. s. 274 sq.

¦2S8 THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
with the superior priests, if not in regard to occupation at
least in respect to dignity ; so that the Deuteronomist no longer
gives prominence to the rigid separation between hereditary
superior and inferior priests. Indeed, in the later days of the
kingdom of Judah, an attempt seems to have been made to
place the mere ' Levites ' on a level even with the sacrificial
priests. Otherwise Ezekiel would not have insisted so peremp
torily on the maintenance of the ancient distinction between
the two divisions of the sacerdotal tribe.1
•330 But if the Levites from David's time formed out of their
midst a close company of the most practised musicians, the
regular priests nevertheless always retain the prerogative of
blowing the trumpets, the ancient instrument with which they,
at the head of the army, had formerly during the days of
Moses and Joshua, aroused the nation to battle and led them
to victory.2 With it in later times they still invariably sum
moned the community to the Sanctuary,3 and commenced the
worship, so that the Book of Origins deems it worth while to
¦explain it at length, and to describe its proper character.4
The Chronicler, again, is everywhere emphatic in declaring that
the trumpets appertain to them alone ; and the belief in the
miraculous efficacy of their blasts in front of an engaging
army was revived entirely anew even during the wars of the
Maccabees.5 C. The High-priest.
1. In the high-priest, or as he alone was originally called
' the priest,' 6 the entire sacerdotal tribe was firmly bound up
as a whole ; and precisely this rigid unity which the whole
upper and lower priesthood attained in him, became ultimately
a main characteristic of the priesthood generally in Israel. The
existence of this single personal and hereditary unity at its
head was of course due in the first instance to the primitive
tribal constitution of the nation. Aaron, or after his death,
331 his eldest son Eleazar, stood at first at the head of his tribe,
only in virtue of the ancient custom which gave every other
1 Ezek. xliv. 6-16. Tolerably early 3 P. 130.
they liked to be called 'priests,' as Ezra * Num. x. 1-10.
viii. 24 comp. 18 sq. ; and again, in the 5 As may be inferred from the vivid
last days of the second temple, the Leviti- delineations of the first Book of the Mac-
cal singers contended for the privilege of cabees. How highly the later priests es-
wearing the sacerdotal robe. Hist. vi. a. teemed these trumpets maybe seen fromthe
556 [German edition]. picture of them un the triumphal arch of
2 Of which the narrative Josh. vi. 4 Titus; comp. Josephus, Antiq. iii. 12. 6.
sqq. only desires to give the most illus- " P. 261.
trious instance.

THE NEED FOE A HIGH-PRIEST. 289
tribe its prince.1 But in so far as he was the head of the
sacerdotal tribe, he comprehended in himself in the highest
degree all its rights and its duties, and became in the second
place emphatically the personal and perpetual representative to
the other tribes of the requirements of Jahveism, so far as it
had ever legally become the national religion. And as a fact
it was principally the need of more pronounced representation,
before the whole people, of Jahveism and the priesthood in its
service which caused the permanent necessity for the priesthood
to have at its head an hereditary prince. The same need which
had called forth for Jahveism generally a sacerdotal tribe,2 led
further to strongly concentrating all sacerdotal authority in a
single person. In the same way Christianity, so long as it pene -
trated many nations hke a foreign force, without having yet
taken complete possession of a single nation, was compelled to
crystallise and stiffen in a Eomish priesthood and ultimately in
the omnipotence of a Pope. And it- is an astonishing fact that
the succession of the high priesthood of Israel remained through
all the centuries in the same house, and that even in a token
such as this we may see the tough thread of a most uniform
development which was nowhere possible in Antiquity save in
this religion.3
It is true that the hereditary power of the high-priest within
his own house down to the time of Solomon was not much more
assured or widely extended than that of any other head of a tribe.
Erom Aaron there were immediately descended two families,
Eleazar and Ithamar. This Ithamar appears in the Book of
Origins as legally exercising power and superintendence next
after Eleazar, or as the superintendent of the inferior two-
thirds of the entire tribe 4 and their occupations,5 and the
history shows that the descendants of Ithamar, for about a
whole century after, possessed the same eminent dignity.6
Under David and Solomon we find, along with these two
families, two high-priests simultaneously recognised,7 of whom 332
the one may have taken a somewhat higher rank than the
other, and had charge of different business. But the dignity
was always retained within these two branches of the house of
Aaron, and after the later days of Solomon it reverted solely
1 P. 244. " P- 282.
2 P. 262. 5 Num. iv. 28, 33, comp. ver. 16.
" It is a second question, which did ° See Hist. ii. 409 sqq.
not previously arise, whether among other 7 2 Sam. viii. 17, xx. 25, 1 Kings iv. 4 ;
nations the entire priesthood developed in for the third priest mentioned 2 Sam. xx.
a similar manner, e.g. in Peru. See G. 26, see Hist. iii. 268 sq.
Miiller's Amerik. Urrelig. s. 386 sq. V

290 THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
to the elder branch of Eleazar. The changes which took place
during the last century before the destruction of the second
temple hardly concern us here.
2. But just because the essence of the entire priesthood of
the community of Jahveh was concentrated in the one high-
priest, whatever lofty qualities were expected or required of
the priesthood in general, would be most strongly and peremp
torily expected and required in him.
His whole being and life, yet more than that of the remain
ing priests, ought accordingly to maintain inviolate the highest
purity. Not even on account of the death of his parents might
he pass into a different condition, and manifest tokens of
disturbance and grief, or leave the sanctuary. The virgin
whom he took in matrimony must be a relative belonging to
his own tribe.1
Yet while he, at any rate, alone of the whole nation, retained
as much as possible a life of uniform unruffled purity, he had
perpetually to attempt to expel all disturbances of the original
purity and sanctity of the whole community, and banish every
cloud in the clear heaven of the grace of Jahveh, who dwelt,
mysterious and invisible, within the community. This he must
do whenever there was serious occasion for it ; especially, how
ever, at the annual feast ofthe atonement, which will be de
scribed hereafter. Perpetually pure and joyous himself, he had
perpetually to represent, within the consecrated circle of the
community, the divine purity and joy. Nor is it difficult to
imagine that, so long as the usages which grew up about him
had not yet lost their first vigorous life, but were rather being
developed for the first time, an unusual degree of spiritual
power would be required to discharge such functions.
333 In the next place, oracles were expected from him. If the
law tolerated this in his case,2 if the Book of Origins even
represents them as given him by Jahveh himself, it must be
remembered, in addition to what has been said above,3 that
after the death of Moses this prerogative of the high-priest
formed an indispensable constituent in the earliest constitu
tion of Jahveism. Eor this constitution provided the realm
with no unbroken line of authority from which a final decision
could be sought in difficulties otherwise insoluble, except that
of the high-priest. The possibhity of obtaining a final de
cision at some permanent locality is an indispensable require
ment of every kingdom. Antiquity everywhere endeavoured to
1 Lev. xxi. 10-15. 2 P. 275. » P. 258.

THE ORACLE OF THE HIGH-PRIEST. 291
obtain this by means of oracles, and in regard to only too many
things. The high-priest, before the human monarchy arose,
was the sole durable authority competent to give such a de
cision ; and his high position would suffice to secure him from
any suspicion of misuse of the oracular power intrusted to him.
The questions put to him could not relate to the fundamental
principles of religion, since the community was already in exis
tence, and had been as fully developed by Moses as was at that
time possible, but only to matters of national need and uncer
tainty or to momentous controversies in the community. And
we still see clearly, from certain narratives, how much this
oracle of the ' sacred lot ' was actually employed in the earliest
times, what implicit confidence was felt in it alike by the indivi
dual national leaders and the entire community, what good effect
it often had in allaying disputes between powerful nobles,1 and
how momentous its influence often was in determining the fate
of the nation.2 Such a feeling springing up from below could
not fail to exercise for a long time an elevating influence 334
on the sacerdotal princes themselves. They knew that they
bore the whole nation, as it were, on their shoulders and on
their breast, and a purer sacred feeling might readily seize and
enlighten them in solemn moments. Still, however, the occar
sions when this kind of oracle was sought after prevented
the answer from coming from the spontaneous instinct of the
spirit, whence the pure prophetic oracle of a Moses and of his
genuine followers issued. If this was impossible, it was needful
at once to seek the aid of an external medium. No doubt, the
greater part of the nation, from the time of Moses to that of
David and Solomon, and to some extent still later,3 was always
ready to look upon a great priest as an inexhaustible source of
oracles ; and even down to the time of Christ a word of the high-
priest was readily deemed prophetic.4 But since this oracle, at
the time when it became legalised, was compelled to attach itself
to an external medium, and could accordingly only maintain
itself in the character of a final remnant of heathenism, it fell
into disuse in the times succeeding Solomon in proportion as
the power of pure prophecy was developed.
1 Prov. xviii. 18 ; comp. xvi. 33. mention of the lot is made in many passages
2 Such narratives as 1 Sam. x. 19-22, in Homer; and if anyone .is of opinion that
xiv. 41 sq., bk. Josh. vii. 14-18, do no the Greeks occupied a higher level in this
more than show how frequent was the use respect, let him compare what Plato says
of this oracle in the earliest times; even in his Polit. v. 8 ad fin. and 9 ad fin.
freerrepresentations, like those in the Book s Hos. iii. 4 at any rate belongs here.
of. Origins, Josh, vii., only become possible • John xi. 50.
in consequence of this. In the same way v 2

292 THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
3. The high-priest's hereditary possession of the oracle, his
official duties, and the princely authority which was inherent
in him, were also the causes which determined his external
adornment, as it is accurately described in the Book of Origins.1
His under-garments were the same as those of his ' brothers,'
the ordinary priests.2 Over them, when on duty, he wore the
following magnificent attire :
Eirst there was an upper garment of dark-blue byssus,
woven like the under-garment in a single piece, but without
sleeves ; it had at the opening for the neck a collar woven
thicker than the rest, so that it might not be torn in being put
335 on.3 On the lower skirt it had little tassels like pomegranates,
of the three brilliant colours of the Sanctuary,4 each tassel
alternating with a little bell of gold. The sound which the
• high-priest, therefore, made in walking would serve, when he
entered the place to which his duty called him, and him alone,
viz. the innermost Sanctuary, to inform the God who reigned
there inviolate of the approach of a man who ventured to tread
that ground, but might not enter unannounced. Some such
meaning of this, in itself strange decoration, is indicated by the
Book of Origins itself; and this is explained by what will be de
scribed below in connection with the estimation in which the
Holy of Holies was held.5 It also follows, from the position where
these little bells must have been attached, that this upper
garment, at any rate behind, hung down far below the simple
priestly dress. It is the proper state or princely robe with
flowing train, such as princes wore during peace on solemn
occasions,6 only furnished with these bells in accordance with
the special functions of the high-priest. In front the robe
might have been somewhat shorter than the under-garment, so
as to display the girdle of the latter.
Over this long robe a short covering for the shoulders was
1 In the Testamentum Levi viii., its is less obvious, According to the Protev.
amount is reduced to exactly seven articles. Jnc. viii. there were just twelve bells. The
2 P. 277. bells ofthe Brahmins are similar.
3 The expression XinFI 'S3, Ex. e "Where ^»i)tj occurs in historical
xxviii. 31-35, xxxix. 22-26, is always ' " . ,,. , .
translated subsequently to the Targum of f«ves it never denotes anything but
Onkelos, 'like the upper opening of a the JF«cdy robe in time of peace, worn
coat of mail.' The word may then be al~ in judging, fc. v, 1. In itself it
softened from "nnn and correspond to m«st have had originally a more general
„ / , ' meaning, like *]}2, and therefore the de-
4 See below. rivative verb ">j;o like "J33 means 'to
5 A somewhat different notion in re- play under the covering,' to cheat, act un-
gard to this tinkling of the bells occurs fairly. But wherever it now occurs it
Sir. xiv. 9, viz. that the Lord was always signifies a robe of the kind we have
thereby reminded of the people. But this described.

THE ATTIRE OF THE HIGH-PRIEST. 293
worn, and this was the first thing which was distinctively
sacerdotal. It was a sort of short mantle, termed an Ephod,
a name which originally signified the same as mantle or cover
ing cloth,1 but which now occurs only in a sacerdotal sense. It 336
simply consisted of two shoulder-flaps, i.e. of cloth without
sleeves, which covered little more than the two shoulders, and
did not hang down much below them either before or behind.
It simply surmounted, like an ornament, the long robe, from
which it seemed almost inseparable.2 The two pieces of which
it consisted, however, were not separated somewhere under the
shoulders,3 but on the breast and back. At the top, the ends
were only slightly connected together. Below, however, they
were held together by a girdle, which was certainly very
broad and a main feature of the attire, and without which
the state covering would not be assumed.4 It was different
in kind from the girdle of the plain costume,5 and bore quite
another name ; it certainly had not the hanging ends and
resembled rather a mere broad band. — A covering for the
shoulders such as this might aiso be worn by other priests ; not
indeed, according to the Book of Origins, which, with its con
stant preference for regularity in all arrangements of a national 337
character, assigns such a distinguishing mark to the high-
priest alone ; but we know from other sources that any priest, >
or even any man invested with sacerdotal dignity, might wear
on his shoulders such a garment made of plain linen.6 For
1 "I13X seems now to stand in Hebrew the latter was fixed not in, but on, the
without any root, but it is indisputable ephod; nor was it indispensable that an
that it is only an extremely ancient dia- ephod should have such a bag at all.
lectic form of .JU^, in which even the That tl}e covering for the shoulders rather
. , hung down below it appears also trom
verbal formation is parallel, and thus j;x xxviii. 27 xxxix. 20.
corresponds to pallium; and in so far as . . ... ,. . ,
it should be thought of as a short tight . Jhis ,s plain from the clear descrip-
mantle, the LXX translate it very suit- tlonof *" girdle, Ex. xxviu. 8, xxix 0,
ably by inapds in the Pentateuch, and ™'f- 5, LeT- ™>- 7 ; it was only this
i/»W°"lSam.ii.l8. The Arabic word wh'ch> as lt; were, made the ephod an
is wanting in Dozy's Dictionnaire des Noms ephod, hence the new verb "1DX- It is
de Vetements. plajn aiso from 1 gam. ii. is, 2TSam. vi.
2 Hence the standing phrase ^ye u> that the g^ing waa a main feature
"IQKn 'the mantel-robe,' Ex. xxviii. 31, with the ephod. The name of this girdle,
comp. ver. 6 sq., xxxix. 22, comp. ver. 2-4; atjifl should be compared with aUs-,
*™^t opinion expressed by ^wd ^n is equivalent to ^ to
Joh. Braun in the huge learned work De bind.
Vestitu SacerdotumHelrceorum, p. 466 sqq. 5 P. 278.
He thinks that the covering for theshoul- 6 1 Sam. xxii. 18, 2 Sam. vi. 14. The
ders consisted merely of small lappets levitical Nazirite Samuel when a boy wore
on the front of the dress, the space between o. little sacerdotal robe merely as a pre-
which was occupied by the oracle-bag. sent, but received the ephod as a matter
But according to Ex. xxviii. 28, xxxix. 21, of course, 1 Sam. ii. 18 sq.

294 THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
this very reason the one worn by the high-priest was distin
guished in a twofold manner. In the first place it, as well as
the girdle, was artificially worked with gold thread and with
twisted threads of the three colours as well as white. In the
second place, on each shoulder an onyx was fixed in a golden
setting, on each of which six of the twelve names of the tribes
of Israel were cut. These were to be memorial stones of the
twelve tribes whom the high-priest represented, whose well-
being he bore on his shoulders as it were in affectionate care,
and in whose united interest he acted at the Sanctuary.
Somewhere about the middle, on the front side of this cover
ing for the shoulders, was attached the bag which in later times
has become the least comprehensible article of the high-priest's
adornment. We must before all things remark that the article
was essentially a bag, as on the one hand its name Choshen
declares,1 and on the other its description proves. For it was
a span in length and in breadth, had four corners, and, as we
distinctly know, was double. If, however, this last expression
still seems ambiguous, it is fully explained by an inner side,
i.e. the side of the article turned towards the breast, being
spoken of.2 What distance apart from one another the two
338 sides of the bag were, we do not know ; but it was plainly no
more than was necessary to grasp with the hand and to draw
out what was preserved within. For we know further that
there was something placed inside the article.3 It was the
receptacle of the Urim and Thummim. Now these objects,
which a.s something placed inside must have been quite capable
of being grasped in the hand, are not described either elsewhere
in the Old Testament, or yet in the Book of Origins at this very
passage — an omission which is very surprising, since in the
case of all the other separate articles which belonged to the
attire of the high -priests, the Book of Origins describes them at
length. It is also manifest from many clear tokens that the
words Urim and Thummim of themselves denote nothing save
the oracle, and declare nothing about its kind or the instruments
by which it was to be obtained. Alike the formation of the words
1 JKJn (in Josephus pronounced the original meaning. The word 'bosom,'
'Eo-o-ewj,' is really only a dialectic form Proy- xvi- 33> gives tlle best explanation.
r . ,. ¦ iii. i , ¦ The translation \6yiov, oracle, in the LXX
for ten, i-e. pocket, bag, a receptacle in and Josephus> AJ^ i;i. 7. 6_ is a mere
which something may be preserved. No paraphrase.
doubt the early translators no longer 2 Ex. xxviii. 26, comp. 16 ; xxxix. 19,
conceive of it so simply, and are mani- comp. 9.
festly embarrassed how to translate the 3 For the meaning of -^ |nJ Ex.
word correctly; but we must go back to xxviii. 30, Lev. viii. 8, see Lehrb. § 217 c.

THE URlM AND THUMMlM. 295
and their meaning carry us back to an earlier epoch,1 and they
were undoubtedly employed long anterior to Moses in denoting
a kind of oracle. Of themselves they mean only ' clearness (i.e.
revelation) and correctness,' denoting therefore a clear correct
utterance, a correct and trustworthy revelation. The same
thing, accordingly, is also more briefly explained by Urim,2 less
frequently by Thummim.3 But we know, from the early days
when the oracle of the high-priest was in great repute, not
only that the lot was used to finally decide disputes, but that it 339
was regarded as something dependent on heavenly influence.4
This all agrees with the 'judgment ' of the high-priest too well
for us to doubt by what means the decision was obtained. That
the oracle of the high-priest could not from its very nature be
entirely unfettered — that it needed an external medium — has
already been remarked ; 5 and of all external mediums by which
a disclosure may be drawn forth, the one nearest at hand and
least objectionable is the lot.6 If, moreover, we compare the cases
where the history speaks of the use of the sacerdotal oracle, it
appears in the first place that it gave answers only to questions
which were put in a definite shape, or else gave no answer at all ;
and in the second place that its answers were generally very brief,
either affirming or denying, sometimes mentioning names, more
rarely giving fuller indications.7 This is most readily explained
if two pebbles of different colours were shaken as lots in the
' bosom ' or bag, and one of them drawn out ; while any un-
1 The words Urim and Thummim ap- 8 Thus it also plays an important part
pear in the existing language only as in the religion of Confucius, which in
proper names ; Qf| occurs nowhere else other respects is so rational. Comp. too
in connection with oracles ; even the use for the i\iri<poi fmvTMai at Delphi, Eudo-
of the plural refers us back to an earlier kia's Violarium, p. 349 ; Sur. v. 4 ; and
linguistic period. Hence the Book of Journ. As. 1838, i. p. 226 sqq. On the
Origins explains these ancient names by other hand, the gleaming image of truth
a word from ordinary speech, QBCD, which the Egyptian superior judge wore
'judgment,' Ex. xxviii. 15, 30, comp. as an ornament to the neck (Diodorus Sic.
Prov. xvi. 33. Nevertheless the Arabic i. 48, 75) is almost too remote to be com-
x pared. We should have to suppose that
£^ •-, plural ^[^~, Imrialquais M. ver. tne soothsayer sought for oracles in certain
I appearances in the jewels fixed above, as
16, with meaning of amulet, as well as tne svrian priests did in the perspiration
^U", with the meaning of fortune, Journ. on their idols (Lucian De dea Syra, x.
I xxxvi. sq.). The Chron. Samarit. xviii.
As. 1856, ii. p. 454, are possibly a relic of XXXTijj. c6rtainly thinks of a sudden
the use of these words for sacred things. growing brighter or dimmer of the in-
2 Num. xxvii. 21, 1 Sam. xxviii. 6. dividual jewels ; but these jewels had a
From the- latter passage it appears also far more direct significance, and the seat
that in contradistinction to this ' clear of tne oracie iay elsewhere.
oracle ' there was the dream-oracle, p. 259,
which itself needed an interpretation. 7 The particular cases besides those
3 In the passage 1 Sam. xiv. 41 ; already mentioned are the following :—
comp. Hist. iii. 35 sq. Judges i. 1, xx. 18, 27 sq. ; 1 Sam. x.
4 Prov. xvi. 33, xviii. 18. 19-22, xiv. 36 sqq., xxviii. 6, xxx. 7 sq. ;
¦ P. 291. 2 Sam. ii. 1, v. 17-25.

296 THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
favourable premonitory symptom or disposition ofthe priest may
have altogether prevented the trying of the lot and seeking an
340 answer.1 On such an occasion there may have been sundry pre
parations and arrangements of which we can no longer frame
an idea. Personal acuteness and watchfulness on the side of the
priest must undoubtedly have played as important a part as faith
on the side of the questioners, and of the person to whom they
applied for the decision. The main portion of the charm un
doubtedly rested on the knowledge that this was the way in
which, during the lofty period ofthe founding ofthe community,
the most momentous decisions had been given through Aaron or
Eleazar. If, however, the contents of the bag consisted, as we
have supposed, of two small pebbles, in themselves of insigni
ficant value, and possessing their worth only through the power
of the oracle, a closer acquaintance with which was preserved
only in narrow sacerdotal circles, then we can understand why
they were not further described in the Book of Origins.
Such a medium for giving oracles — a pouch containing lots
fastened in front of the covering for the shoulders — was indeed
possessed by every priest who deemed himself competent to
utter oracles ; and, as at the moment when he was about to
utter one, he must necessa.rily assume the covering for the
shoulders, it became customary to speak of this garment in place
of the sacerdotal oracle.2 But that of the high-priest, who,
according to the Book of Origins, alone should wear it, was de
corated with extraordinary splendour to befit his dignity. The
bag itself was to be made of the same material as the covering
for the shoulders, but on its front side there gleamed from a
golden setting twelve different jewels, arranged after the series
341 of the twelve tribes in four rows, each being engraved with
the name of a tribe. The twelve jewels are here named sepa
rately,3 and although some of the names are now obscure to us,
it certainly appears from the entire enumeration that such
stones as the topaz, sm.aragd (emerald), sapphire, and jasper
were widely distributed during the earliest times under the same
Semitic names. — The bag was secured to the front of the cover
ing for the shoulders both above and below. Above, at the

1 Or if there were three pebbles they describes the way of using it very con-
may have been distinguished by different fusedly, Antiq. iii. 8. 9, it had disappeared'
ways cf writing the sacred name nin', as 200 years before his time, but rather was '
was done by the Gnostics, Bellermann's it wanting all through the period of the
Abraxusgemmen, i. s. 35. Many possi- second temple, Hist. v. 171 sq.
bilities may be imagined here. — But the 2 1 Sam. xxiii. 9, xxx. 7 so.
later writers were in the dark about the " Ex. xxviii. 17-21, xxxix. 10-14;
whole thing; according to Josephus, who comp. Gott. Gel. Anz. 1862, s. 1816 sq.

THE ATTIRE OF THE HIGH-PRIEST. 297
extremities of the bag, there were two golden rings, from which
two chains elaborately woven out of gold were carried up to
two golden buckles attached with hooks on either shoulder
to the covering. Below, were two other golden rings on the
inner corners of the bag, from which a dark-blue string passed
through two gold rings, which were attached at the place
where the two sides of the covering for the shoulder met upon
the broad band.1 The ornamentation of the entire fastenings of
the bag was accordingly greater above than below.
This decoration ofthe oracle the high-priest was always to
wear when in office, not merely when he was applied to for a
decision. He had therefore to bear the twelve tribes alike on
his shoulders and on his breast (his heart), to comprehend them
equally in his love and his care. Finally, his head was adorned
with a turban, which seems to have been distinguished from
that of the ordinary priest by more artistic winding of the
byssus ; 2 and also by a gold plate bearing the inscription
'holy unto Jahveh,' and fastened to the front of the forehead
with a dark-blue band. This was the most distinctive token of
princely rank, so far as it appertained to a priest of Jahveh. 342
It is itself termed the sacred consecration,3 and indeed, this is
the consecration, without which no true dominion of any sort
can be conceived, and which must exist in all the more abund
ance, the higher and the more spiritual the rule of an indivi
dual man ought to be. The high-priest, however, ought per
petually to be the holy man of Jahveh, in a way in which no
other man in the community was. It has already been no
ticed that an anointing of the head was connected therewith,4
but in the case of the high-priest this was only the foundation
already given by his dignity as a sacrificial priest.
As the prince of a tribe the high-priest had the same right
1 Here again the representation of latter is essentially a circlet like an en-
Joh. Braun is too far removed from the circling wall, hence is an image of a town,
meaning of the words Ex. xxviii. 26-28, and so becomes the symbol also of the
xxxix. 19-21. lord of the town, of the king. It was ac-
2 nSJSD in opposition to niDJD, cordingly most suitable for a king like the
j- ti_ vli' : ' '-i. 3 i. t „„„!,„„ j„t;^ \\\ ruler of Ammon whose kingdom extended
further described by Josephus, Antiq. m. ^^ ^ & ^^ g g^ ^ ^ nQt
, - . -n, ¦ c . „„„,_ for a king of Israel; and if Saul, according
3 VJW !?¦< EX- SX1X- 6' C°mp- to the narrative 2 Sam. i. 10, already wore
xxviii. 36-38, xxxix. 30 sq. ; the correct some ornament on his head, it was only
explanation of it is found Lev. viii.' 9, the ancient 1JJ of the high-priest, which
xxi. 12. How the later writers regarded ly "'connected with anointing,
this rt«X.» may be seen from toW PJ ^ d tQ ^ ^^
and the Protev. Jac. v.— Totally distinct . i ¦> b
from ijj, which signifies merely conse- high-priests. This supplements what is
cration'and may have been nothing but a said Hist. iii. 272.
gold plate fixed in front of the forehead, 4 P. 279.
is the n~\OV., i-e- tne Pr0Per crown, The

298 TnE SACERDOTAL REVENUES.
to bear a sceptre as any other tribal prince ; and that this
originally was done, and that the old sceptre of Aaron was
preserved for a long time afterwards, at any rate in the Sanc
tuary, must be inferred as certain from a variety of indications.1
But the Book of Origins no longer regards this sceptre as a
proper constituent of the high-priest's adornment. In fact,
it only denotes the power of compulsion, and is therefore
more appropriate to a prince with whom spiritual power is not
the one closest at hand and most employed. On the other hand,
the decorative symbol of holy consecration on the head became
so characteristic a mark of the high-priest that he was thereby
sufficiently distinguished from the other tribal princes, and for
a long period no one else in the nation seemed worthy of a de
coration even distantly resembling this.
The full dignity which invested him as representative of the
community at the Sanctuary required finally that he should
daily offer with his own hand a sacrifice on his own behalf, just
as elsewhere daily sacrifice is offered for the king. We have
already seen that this particular sacrifice maintained itself for a
long period without its primitive simplicity being altered.2
It will further be easily understood that for occasions
when the high-priest although living did not discharge his
functions, he had a representative, who comes into greater
prominence later on as the second (high) priest.3 It was also
the custom to call the heads of the twenty-four sacerdotal
houses,4 even if they were no longer on active duty, particularly
if they were of peculiar dignity, ' arch-priests,' or sacerdotal
princes.5 3. Maintenance op the Priests and of the Sanctuary.
The first-fruits and the tithes.
It is not unimportant to consider, in the last instance, what
were the means of subsistence possessed by this sacerdotal tribe.
That the nation would have to provide for its maintenance in
some way or other is, it is true, presupposed as a matter of
course, but is also expressed clearly enough in the declaration
' Levi shall have no inheritance,' i.e. no such earthly property ' as
the remaining tribes,' a declaration with which is most closely
1 See Hist. ii. 19, 180. * For the first case see Ezra viii. 24,
P. 117. x. 5, Neh. xii. 7, «pxlePe'si Josephus, An-
3 n&m |n'3, 2 Kines *xv- !8 (Jer. tig_ xx. 8. 8_ and often in the New Testa-
Iii. 24). ment ; for the second case see die drei
' P. 276. ereten Evang. ». 289.

THE EXPENSES DEFRAYED BY' THE PRIESTS. 299
connected the second, ' Jahveh shall be his inheritance.' ' The
priests therefore were not to have assigned to them, like the
rest of the nation, the cultivation of the soil, nor in general
to devote themselves to external acquisition. It was theirs to
protect the true God alone in having perpetually to maintain
and perpetually to advance his truths in this community. This
is the invisible estate which is allotted to them for cultivation,
not for their own immediate advantage, but for that of the com
munity. But on this very account the community is bound to
support them in such a way that they can live free for their voca
tion, without being anxious to acquire external goods. At any 344
rate, so soon as the thing needed is not to lay the first foundation
of a new constitution and religion, but to maintain what has been
laid, an arrangement wUl be made to meet this particular case.
The priests would also have to receive and dispose of a great
deal which did not directly serve to satisfy their own needs.
The daily sacrificial service already described,2 which was cele
brated for the whole nation, required no slight expenditure.
The maintenance, and even the first establishment, of the
Sanctuary and of all the appliances which belonged to it, which
the priests had to guard, required levies which it was the duty
of the people alone to contribute.3 If a correct estimation is to
be made of the revenues of the priesthood of Israel, the needful
expenditure on behalf of the Sanctuary itself must be taken into
account ; for, apart from extraordinary contributions from the
nation, such as were made, e.g. at the first erection of the holy
place, they had to defray this from their own income.4 We
shall then find that proper but not extravagant provision for
the priesthood was made by the law. — We will now pass in
review the particular sources of this revenue, having regard to
their historical origin.
1. We must consider the first and earliest contributions to
be those which were originally due to the spontaneous affection
and thankfulness of the nation, but which gradually became
fixed by custom and law and assumed the nature of taxes. This
we can at once see to have been the case in regard to one of the
most important of this contribution, viz. the tithes. To conse-
1 The two declarations are closely empty hands ' on festivals, Ex. xxiii. 15 b,
connected, nevertheless the Deuteronomist xxxiv. 20 ; Deut. xvi. 16 sq.
is the first to bring forward the latter 2 P. 114 sqq.
everywhere into prominence ; Num. xviii. 3 Just as must be the case with re-
20, 21-24, xxvi. 62 ;— Deut. x. 9, xii. 12, ligions of a more or less heathen character,
xiv. 27, 29. xviii. 1 sq. ; Josh. xiii. 14, 33, Ex. xxxii. 2 sq. ... ,
xviii 7 • comp. Ezek. xliv. 28. Even * Hence disputes might arise on the
according to the earliest legislation Israel point.comp. 2 Kings xn. 5 [4] sqq., aud
' was not to appear before Jahveh with Hist. iv. 139 sqq.

300 THE SACERDOTAL REVENUES.
crate to the Sanctuary in pure thankfulness towards God the
tenth of all annual profit, was a primitive tradition among the
345 Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians.1 The custom, ac
cordingly, very early passed over to Israel ; and when it is now
related of Abraham and Jacob that they promised and paid
tithes,2 this is no doubt to present a model for their descendants
and therefore for the people of the community of Jahveh ; but it
can as little be denied that tithes as a Canaanitish custom made
their appearance in the primitive times, and might readily
therefore be ascribed to all the tribal patriarchs. The Mosaic
constitution introduced nothing new in this respect beyond the
decree that they should be for the benefit of the Levites ; never
theless, so far as we know, it was the Book of Origins which
made the first attempt to establish them on a legal basis. It
declared that the tenth part of all the annual useful products
of the soil, as corn, wine, fruit, as well as one-tenth of all new
born domestic animals, and therefore for the first time reckoned
under the herdsman's staff, were due to the Sanctuary. The
owner might redeem, i.e. replace by money to his own advantage,
the vegetable tithes, if he were willing to pay an additional
fifth of their value ; but those of the cattle (since the priests
could not well do without them on account ofthe public sacrifices)
were regarded as irredeemable, and also (to obviate deceit) as
unexchangeable, so that if any case of deceit were discovered,
the owner forfeited at the same time the animal which he sought
to give in exchange.3 It was the duty of the inferior Levites,
who were scattered throughout the whole country, to collect the
tithes, and they had to apply them in the first instance for their
own benefit, giving, however, the tenth part of these tithes to
the superior priests, and bringing this to the place where the
latter lived. It was this alone which fully consecrated the
346 sacred employment of all property collected by the Levites and
applied in the first instance for their use.4- — Nevertheless,
this institution, though established in the earliest days, seems
1 Also among the Lydians (comp. Hist. s Num. xviii. 21-24; Lev. xxvii.
i. 278 sq.) according to Nikolaus of Da- 29-33 : the one passage must be supple-
mascus in C. Miiller's Fragmm. Hist. Gr., mented from the other. Deuteronomy,
iii. p. 371; and among the Arabs before quite in the spirit of the earlier legislation,
Mohammed, according to the Scholia to adds the tithes of oil in the passages
Harit's M. ver. 69 ; among the Greeks it quoted below, comp. Num. xviii. 12. —
depended more on free-will, according to Allusion is made to idolatrous dedication
Xen. Anab. v. 3. 5, 10, 12. of tithes and first-fruits in Hos. ix. 1.
2 In the primitive narrative Gen. xiv. 4 Num. xviii. 23-32 ; this explains
20, where, however, the whole remark the passage 1 Sam. i. 21, in accordance
refers only to the tenth part of the military with the more perfect reading ofthe LXX;
plunder then taken ; also in the Fourth comp. Hist. ii. 421 nt 2.
Narrator, Gen. xxviii. 22.

THE TITHES AND FIRST-FRUITS. 301
to have fallen again into disuse in the times succeeding Solo
mon. The Deuteronomist, at least, regards the tithes as a gift
which man ought to make rather from spontaneous thankfulness
towards God than from compulsion. The people were, if pos
sible, to bring them like any other thank-offering, direct to the
(great) sacred place, either in kind or in the shape of a pecuniary
equivalent ; and should a man fail to bring them for two years
in succession, then he was at any rate not to delay bringing the
whole sum in the third year.1 The new imposts of the regal
dominion bad probably caused these more ancient taxes to be
neglected, so that they reverted to their original condition of
being free gifts. Nor is there any mention in Deuteronomy of
animal tithes, and it is needful for Malachi to exhort his con
temporaries against practising deception in bringing even the
vegetable tithes. But in general, during the period of the
second temple, when under the dominion of foreigners, it must
have been more needful to seek to accomplish all aims by the
spontaneous good-will of the laity.2
Still more natural than the paying of tithes seemed the
bringing of the first-fruits. That man can safely and happily
enjoy all the bounties which the soh produces only when he has 347
gratefully consecrated its first shoots and fruits to the Deity as
though they were too holy for himself,3 was a view which pre
vailed in other parts of the ancient world besides Canaan.
In like manner the products of the spring were deemed
among many early races to be peculiarly holy ; and how
powerful such feelings of awe must have been in Israel during
its primitive days will be explained below under the Easter
festival. Yet a ver sacrum, as it was superstitiously vowed and
offered by heathen kingdoms, though only in. particular years,4
could never be sanctioned by Jahveism ; just as in general it
established from the first a vital distinction between itself and
heathenism in permitting individuals to make and fulfil onerous
1 Deut. xiv. 22-29, comp. xii. 6, 11, comp. Hist. v. 166 sq. 196 sq. If, how-
17 (also ver. 26), xxvi. 12-15 ; the last ever, the tithes flowed in so plentifully
passage is most clearly expressed ; it during the final period, there is less reason-
however permits, according to ver. 12, the for wondering at an avaricious strife
' tithes also to be paid at will at the local having broken out over them among the
towns, priests themselves, a quarrel which Jose-
2 Mai iii. 8-10, comp. Neh. x. 36-40 phus indicates only too indistinctly, Antiq.
[35-39], xii. 44-47! xiii. 12. The Phari- xx. 8. 8 ; 9. 2.
saical extension of the tithes to all pos- 3 Comp.thebeaut1ful1mageJer.11. 3;
sible vegetables, as well as their doubling they existed also among the Arabs, Sur.
or even trebling, originated in an inter- vi. 142.
pretation of the legal passages not war- 4 Livy Hist. xxii. 9 sq., xxxiv. 44;
ranted by history; although this penetrated comp. Herod, vn. 197.
even iuto the Chron. Samarit. xxxviii. ;

302 THE SACERDOTAL REVENUES.
vows, but never allowing the kingdom, i.e. the priests in the name
of the whole people, to enter into such engagements. All the
more reason had it for making arrangements for a regular deli
very ofthe first-fruits. These were to be brought to the Sanctuary
from all the products ofthe soil, including oil and must. This
is already commanded in the Book of Covenants; ' but even the
Book of Origins determines no fixed measure for them,2 so that
it was in the main left to the free-will of individuals. A portion of
the corn just threshed on the barn-floor, and a cake from its first
dough, must be presented as an offering by every household : 3
a practice which manifestly survived from the original Passover
(see below), and like everything ofthe kind can only have re
ferred to the barley-harvest, as the earliest in the year. The
first-born males of sacrificial domestic animals are demanded on
the eighth day after birth by the same Book of Covenants ; 4
the Book of Origins adds the pecuniary value of the unclean
ass, with the provision that if its owners were unwilling to re-
348 deem it, it must be at once strangled as something forfeited to
the Sanctuary.5 If the Book of Covenants demands for the
Sanctuary in corresponding manner the human male first-born,6
this will be sufficiently well understood from the explanations
already given;7 still the Book of Origins expressly represents the
inferior Levites as having taken their place as servants of the
Sanctuary, so that five pieces of silver were all that was legally
required for their redemption.8 In the next place all first-fruits
were so far deemed more holy than the tithes that they came di
rectly to the sacrificial priests, not to the ordinary Levites ; 9 and
in the houses of the former, they might be eaten only by persons
1 Ex. xxii. 28 [29], where in the first [29] b. But to avoid understanding this
part JVCNI is to be inserted with the short phrase as though the first-born
LXX and further on HN^D is to be un- human males of Israel were required for
, , . . . T ' ; . j, ¦ the sacrificial fire, comp. what is said on
derstood of ripening corn and jn^tf wine. p 2g3 sqq_ Nq doubt £hen the first pr0.
The expression Ex. xxiii. 19 a is shown ductions of all other things were required
by the context to refer rather to the for sacrifice it was only a short step to the
Whitsuntide festival. — A fine reminiscence bloody sacrifice of first-born sons, and the
of how they used to be brought in procession offering to Moloch was an evil piece of
with bulls, flutes, and pigeons, occurs M. consistency, to which Ezek. xx. 25 refers.
D'")-133> iii- 1-7. Bi-t this logical step was just one which
' Num. xviii. 12-14 ; nevertheless the Jahveism would not take.
amount is to be determined from the pas- ' P. 263.
sage explained on p. 166 as well as from s Ex. xiii. 2, 15; Num. iii. 11-13,
Deut. xxvi. 2. 40-51, viii. 16 sq. For the rest comp.
3 Num. xv. 17-21. The LXX trans- Deiow under the Passover.
late riD^l! by <pvpap.a ; and Paul is fond „ This foUowg frnm the complexion 0f
of allusions to it, 1 Cor. v. 7, Rom. xi. 16. the speech Num. xviii. 6-20, and the op-
* Ex. xxii. 28 [29] sq. posite case in ver. 21 ; and the same fact
• Num. xviii. 15-19 ; Ex. xiii. 11-16. is still seen in the latest times, Josephus,
* In the brief expression Ex. xxii. 28 Bell. Jud. v. 1. 4, comp. 2

OTHER SACERDOTAL PERQUISITES. 303
who were clean.1 — By the time of the Deuteronomist, however,
the offering of the first-fruits (with the exception of the Easter-
offering to be explained below) had experienced a similar fate
to that of the tithes, so that he speaks of them in quite the
same fashion.2 The only peculiarity is that he adds the fleece
of the first-shorn sheep.3
Other perquisites accrued to the priests from various conse
crated gifts as well as from the ban-gifts ; * and also from mili
tary plunder. All such plunder was to be equally shared between
the active warriors and the rest of the nation in accordance with
that spirit of equity which penetrated the entire community.
This is required by the Book of Origins,5 and according to the
main source for the life of David it was on occasion of an event in 349
his earlier history that something similar first became a custom.6
The law made two claims on the booty for sacerdotal purposes,
viz. one part in five hundred of the warriors' share for ' Jahveh,'
i.e. for the purposes of the Sanctuary, to be handed over to the
superior priests ; and one part in fifty of the share of the rest of
the nation for the ordinary Levites. This division only applied
to every kind of living booty ; all the noble and ignoble metal:
came entirely to Jahveh alone for the purposes of the Sanctuary,''
so easily contented was this nation in its earlier and better days !
Nor can there be any doubt that these metals were invariably
applied to the endowment of the Sanctuary, never for the sup
port of the priests. And the former share of the priests in the
spoil was sufficiently modest to prevent its inciting them to stir
up wars. How entirely different in this respect was the funda
mental constitution of Islam !
When extraordinary needs occurred all these contributions
became inadequate. The Book of Origins therefore makes the
first erection of the Sanctuary with all its appliances an
occasion for describing what should be done in such exceptional
cases.8 On the one hand, appeal was made to the pure spon
taneity of all ranks and both sexes, who were summoned to
' P. 149 sqq. Num. xviii. 11, 13. in the two passages is more apparent than
* Deut. xii. 6, xiv. 23, xv. 19-23, real.
xviii. 4, xxvi. 1-11. 7 Num. xxxi.; comp. above p. 79 sq.
3 Deut. xv. 19, xviii. 4. and 77.
4 According to p. 75 sqq. ; comp. also 8 Ex. xxv. 1 sqq., xxxv. 4 sqq., 20 sqq.,
Ezek. xliv. 29-31. xxxviii. 21-31. But tefore Ex. xxxviii.
s Num. xxxi. 25 sqq. ; comp. 1 Chron. 21 (comp. xxx. 11-16) the second way in
xxvi. 27 sq. which the means were to be furnished,
8 1 Sam. xxx. 23-25 ; comp. Hist. iii. viz. the taxation of all the adherents to
105. This conjunction is of course very Jahveh's Sanctuary, must have been ex-
remarkable from an historical point of plained, or at any rate their number given;
view- nor is it to be denied that the and if Num. i. did not once stand here, the
difference between the precepts depicted same thing must evidently have been here

304 THE SACERDOTAL REVENUES.
350 contribute according to their wiU and their means, in short to
dedicate to Jahveh an exceptional thank-offering.1 On the
other hand, a poll-tax was demanded from every man ; and this,
according to all tokens, is a solitary instance of a demand being
made for such pecuniary subsidies during the times before the
kings, unless a victorious foe extorted a tribute to be levied on
aU the inhabitants. The financial register evidently followed
the mUitary roll. Every man, from the twentieth year upwards,
had to pay ; nor ean there be any doubt that during the time
of Moses and Joshua the people of the ' community of Jahveh '
were accurately counted and enrolled in military and financial
registers,2 although we no longer know how often such a sacer
dotal enumeration and review of the nation was instituted.
During the disorders of the period of the Judges such a uni
versal census would no doubt share in the general disorganisa
tion, so that it may have appeared a dangerous innovation when
it was first revived on a totally different side under the regal
supremacy.3 The earliest registration, although serving mili
tary purposes as well, was essentially sacerdotal in its kind.
Those who were registered were termed the enrolled of the
Sanctuary of Jahveh,4 and were accordingly regarded as its
vassals or clients, as citizens whose names were recorded in its
sacred books.5 Since, however, a census and registration of the
entire people in remote Antiquity was always dreaded as a pos
sible occasion of all manner of national misfortunes — on which
account the heathen accompanied it with expiations — it was
possible to demand from every man who was to be enrolled
351 some small uniform contribution to the Sanctuary as expiation
and protection money, such as the vassal pays his liege lord.
In this way the Book of Origins explains the origin and mean
ing of this sacred contribution ; 6 every one, whether poor or
rich, had to pay half a shekel of silver. What, however, took
briefly mentioned ; comp. Ex. xxxviii. 25 rolls, is also shown by 2 Chron. xxvi.
sq. Moreover we should expect that the levy 1 2 sq.
and application of the silver, which ac- 3 Hiit. iii. 161 sqq.
cording to Ex. xxv. 3, xxxv. 5, 24, was 4 Ex. xxxviii. 21. Prominence is
to be freely contributed, would have been given in 1 Chron. xxiv. 6 to the fact that
mentioned previous to Ex. xxxviii. 31. priests undertook the registration.
Gaps like these in the extant remains of 5 According to the image Ps. lxxxvii.
the old Book of Origins ara not to be mis- 4-7, and in corresponding passages.
taken! s Ex. xxx. 11-16, xxxviii. 25-28;
1 P 72 so comp. Num. i. 45 sq. The sacred shekel
^' which is required here had, as the ancient
2 See Hist. ii. 195 sq., 274 sq. With- coin, far more value than the royal shekel;
out such registers the division of the land and we can see also from this term that
which is spoken of on p. 176 sqq. would the Book of Origins cannot have been
have been wholly impossible. — That these written before the period assigned in
registers were in the first instance military Hist. i.

THE SACERDOTAL SHARE OF THE OFFERINGS. 305
place at that time, might, according to the spirit of this typical
narrative, recur again under similar circumstances ; nor does
it contradict the spirit of the narrative when at a later time
an annual contribution to the temple was founded on this, the
amount of which might be determined from time to time.1 —
This tax then produced 100 talents and 1,775 shekels; and,
reckoning the talent at 3,000 shekels, this comes exactly to
«303,550 half-shekels, which was the number of the men at that
period.2 2. Another source of income was derived from certain shares
in the sacrifices that were offered; unquestionably a usage
existing long prior to Moses, which only took more rigid shape
subsequently. The origin of all such perquisites caused them
to be assigned to the superior priests alone, not to the ordinary
Levites, nor could the law make any alteration here. But for
reasons already given the share would vary greatly according
to the different kinds of sacrifice. — From every animal burnt-
offering the sacrificing priest received nothing but the skin ; 3
this probably came to him from all other animal-offerings.4 —
From all animal guilt-offerings, as well as from all expiatory-
offerings which did not belong to either of the highest two
grades, the priests in common received the whole of the flesh
over and above the small altar-pieces. Nevertheless this might
be consumed only by the male priests, and by them only in the
fore-court of the holy-place.5 The same limitation applied to
the corn-portions of the burnt-offering,6 as well as to the twelve
weekly loaves described above ; 7 although a priest during
David's time was rational enough to give some of it to men in
distress who, though not priests, were free from corporal im
purity.8 All the rich corn and flesh portions, on the other
hand, which fell to the priests from the thank-offerings, might
be taken, like the first-fruits, to their own homes, whose
members or slaves it might serve to support ; but neither
strangers nor even lodgers, nor yet the priests themselves if
1 Comp. Neh. x. 33 [34] sq. ; and the rich and poor had been growing wider all
explanation of Die drei ersten Evv. s. 277 through the centuries up to that date.
¦sq. 3 Lev. vii. 8.
5 From the later period of King Me- * Irrespective of the regulations ofthe
nahem we know, 2 Kings xv. 19 sq., that Mischna Zebachim, xii. 3 sq., in contra-
an Assyrian tribute of 1,000 silver talents diction to M. Sh'q&lim, vi. 6.
was so levied on all the more wealthy and 5 See above p. 65 : comp. p. 62 sq. ;
independent men in the Ten Tribes that 2 Kings xii. 17 [16].
each had to pay 50 (royal, i.e. smaller) 6 Lev. vi. 9 [16] sq. : comp. ii. 3, 10;
shekels. These men, therefore, only comp. 2 Kings xxiii. 9.
amounted to 60,000. But at that time » P. 115 sq.
only the richer classes were called upon " Lev. xxiv. 9 : comp. 1 Sam. xxi.
to pay this tax ; and the gulf between 4-7 [3-6].

306 THE SACERDOTAL REVENUES.
their bodies were unclean, might partake of it.1 According to-
the Book of Origins the breast and the right hind-leg were the-
two pieces which belonged to the priests from every thank-
offering ; 2 thus the matter, at the time when the Book was-
written, was arranged in accordance with ancient traditions.
But we see from another tolerably ancient work,3 that during
the time of the later judges, there was often great arbitrariness
353 displayed by covetous priests ; and later on the Deuteronomist4
assigns somewhat differently the (right) shoulder, the cheeks,
and the stomach as the priests' portion.
3. A uniform and inalienable means of support was to have
been afforded to the sacerdotal tribe after the conquest of
Canaan, by the possession of the forty-eight small towns with
their open spaces or common lands, of which we have already
spoken.5 Here too all the inferior Levites had their dwellings ;
and although they were not allowed to practise agriculture,
they may easily have kept on the commons more cattle than
were needed for their own use. We must at any rate infer
from certain indications that they sold their cattle to others for
the sacrifice, and that such cattle were held in high estimation.6
Besides this, the Levites would let lodgings in such a town to
strangers and take rent from them.7 But it must be confessed
that this possession was soon disturbed, and must have been
completely broken up when the whole body of the Levites were
crowded together in the little kingdom of Judah.8 Here also,
estates seem to have been assigned them, or those which they
354 had long possessed to have been secured for them.9 But their
1 Lev. xxii. 2-1 6. could estimate a sacrificial animal which
2 See above p. 52; Lev. vii. 28-34; hadto be offered, Lev. v. 15, 18, 25 [vi. 6] ;
Ex. xxix. 22-28 ; Lev. viii. 25-29, ix. 21, comp. xxvii. 2 sqq. — The common extend-
x. 14 sq. ; Num. vi. 20 ; comp. above, ed a distance of 2,000 ells round the town,
p. 279. according to the correct reading of the
3 1 Sam. ii. 13-16. — Another danger LXX, Num. xxxv. 4 sq. We might in-
for the priests lay in the requirement of deed conjecture that the 100 ells of ver. 4
expiatory-offerings ; bad priests may have according to the Masoretic text denote
promoted transgression in order to receive the free ground allotted for small huts
the more expiatory-offerings, Hos. iv. 8. close to the wall, which according to
4 Deut. xviii. 3. Burekhardt's Travels in Arabia, vol. i.
5 P. 286 sq. Even at the present day p. 16 sq. (octavo edition), are to be found
there are villages in those regions in- in almost every Arabian town. Then the-
habited solely by saints or their descend- description of the tract for grazing would
ants, see Lepsius' Briefe, s. 193, 221 ; commence with ver. 5. But the context.
Richardson in Ausland, 1854, s. 113. of the whole passage verr. 2-5 does not
6 When, namely, Num. iii. 41, 43, the favour such an assumption.
cattle of the Levites are to take the place * According to Lev. xxii. 10.
of all the first-born cattle of Israel, this 8 Hist iv. 27 sq., 224 sq.
evidently means more than that the latter 9 According to Jer. xxxii. 6 sqq.,.
are redeemable according to p. 79 sqq. xxxvii. 12; comp. 1 Kings ii. 26; here,.
'The same fact explains how the priest however, the fields are being spoken of,

THE GOVERNMENT. 307
number was so excessive for this kingdom that they sunk into
continually increasing poverty, and the Deuteronomist bespeaks
for them almost public commiseration. Eor these later times,
when many especially of the poorer Levites had no regular
abode, the Deuteronomist made among others the following
regulation : that a Levite who came from a provincial town to
the metropolis, and was there employed in the temple-service,
should share in the rich temple-offerings, and not merely be
the guest of one of the twenty-four sacerdotal households in its
turn.1 HI. THE KINGDOM; ITS UNITY AND ITS AGENCIES.
In the way and with the freedom we have described the various
powers and arts in the nation were developed. Hence it is a
question of all the more importance how the unity of the king
dom was to be preserved amid such internal freedom and variety
in the most diverse aims and occupations of life, and in par
ticular what permanent institutions were established to protect
it. There are, in addition to the government itself, pre-emi
nently two institutions whose business it is to uphold and
confirm their unity as far as in them lies : the courts and
administration of justice, which though distinct from the
government promote the strength and unity of the kingdom,
and the eternal constant activity of the true religion assuming
a material shape for the whole realm in the single great Sanc
tuary. We shaU have to keep in view, however, only that
form of the kingdom which was founded by Moses and those
of his time in the shape of the first strict Theocracy.

1. The Government.
When the priesthood, as we have described above, during
the creative early centuries of the existence of Jahveism de
veloped so great and distinct a power, and the tribe of Levi
1 P. 276. This is the most probable Bibl. Wiss. vi. s. 97. — It is hardly worth
meaning of the words in Deut. xviii. 6-8 ; while here to notice further the manifold
but then l*"OJ3Q is to be punctuated from erroneous views concerning the priesthood
—..... . /V-' i' n -tr,-,,™ „; co. of the Old Testament which are alwavs
TOD, entertainment, 2 Kings vi. 23 , ^.^ forth ^ frQm fte s;de rf ^
besides, the use of 12? without |p (comp over-free (comp. e.g. the Jahrbb. der Bibl.
Deut. iii. 5) would be very surprising, Wiss. x. s. 259), and from the side of the
: especially in this author. The phrase un-free. Of the latter kind is the super-
'according to the fathers,' is an abbrevi- ficial book of the Prussian Consistorial-
ation for ' according to the father-houses, rath Lie. Kuper Das PHesterthum des
le. the families.' Comp. the Jahrbb. der Alten Bundes, (Berlin, 1865).
x 2

308 THE GOVERNMENT.
almost became an Israel in miniature, it might well appear as
though a true unity of human government was from the begin
ning more hindered thereby, than created and firmly estab
hshed. Nevertheless, the real state of the case is somewhat
different. The ancient popular power now had the sacerdotal power
for a companion. The two must mutually tolerate and en-
dea.vour to supplement each other. But it is a fundamental
condition of all good government that the state should include
two powers, each sufficiently strong and well-ordered to be able
to examine into the other and preserve it as far as possible from
errors. Of these one should consist as far as possible of emi
nent permanent individuals and should act as a guide, whUe
the other should embrace the entire nation and should act as
an examiner. Now both of these were here given, and at the
same time the true God was regarded as standing above them
both and really uniting them. But while Israel had long
possessed a consultative assembly,1 the sacerdotal power was at
355 that time not only the younger power, something pressing to
the front with new force, it had also, in virtue of being founded
on the compact exclusiveness of a single tribe with a High-
priest as its hereditary head, an internal solidity and unity
which was wanting in the other tribes. It seemed therefore
as though it must now far outstrip the popular power and
become the paramount authority. And as a fact the High-
priest after the death of Moses was not merely the pos
sessor of the perpetual oracle and leader of all sacerdotal func
tions ; he was also the president of the national assembly when
it met,2 and the permanent representative of the entire nation
whenever it acted as a whole. If a military leader such as
Joshua was required, the two were to cooperate in the best way
they could ; and that such a cooperation might lead to happy
issues is shown in the example of Eleazar and Joshua.3 ' The
High-priest and the Elders (or princes) ' or ' the High-priest,
the General, and the Elders,' are phrases which denote the ulti
mate authority. If a solemn embassy was to be despatched,
it was composed in corresponding fashion of one of the most
eminent priests and twelve (or ten) of the heads of tribes.4
Tet if this would lead us to think that the sacerdotal power
as the predominant one would tend in due course to become
s P. 246 sq. ' Josh. xiv. 1, xvii. 4, xix. 51, xxi. 1.
2 As is depicted vividly enough in 4 Josh. xxii. 13 sq. speaks of ten,
Judges xix.-xxi. ; comp. xx. 28. Simi- elsewhere the number is twelve; comp.
larly Josh. xxii. 30-34. above, p. 256.

DEMOCRACY. 809
despotic and would suppress the popular freedom, what the
history shows is the exact opposite. There may have at times
been degeneracy in the house of the High-priest after the days
of Eleazar and Phinehas, and the sons of Eli may not have been
the only ones who covered the name of Priest with shame ; but
in the main the spirit of Jahveism, especially during the first
centuries, was too strongly opposed to all arbitrary rule, and the
limits of the sacerdotal activity in particular had been too clearly
defined by Moses, for the popular liberties to have suffered much 356
and long at the hands of the priests. It is plain that what
really happened was that the power of the High-priest, as repre
senting the unity and strength of the government, declined
only too soon. The nation had not been long settled in Canaan
before a popular government (democracy) was formed which
was often only too free. This grew as far as was possible for
it, especially within Jahveism, and during all the centuries
down to the establishment of the monarchy it remained the
normal condition.1 We find the law declaring :
Thou shalt not follow the crowd — to an evil thing,
Nor enter into strife — in order to flatter the crowd;
To wrest the right of the nolle, thou may'st not endeavour,
Nor to exalt on high the lowly in his strife.2
When this was written democracy was unquestionably as
flourishing in Israel as it was, many centuries later, in certain
Grecian free states. The moral strictness of the community
which has been already noticed, since its exercise and its main
tenance inviolate was entrusted to, and imposed upon, the
whole nation, was by no means antagonistic to the development
of a wide popular freedom ; while the latter was so extensive,
that so soon as discipline and power began to decay internally,
it was itself dissolved and compelled to give place to arbitrary
dominion (despotism). This whole subject is, however, more
fuUy discussed in the third section of the second volume of the
Sistory. 1 The dangers of a democracy cannot the words in ver. 2 are probably too many,
be more briefly nor more correctly sketched those in yer_ g t00 few . j^-,1, in ver. 2
than in the laws of the very ancient pas- - =
sages Lev. xix. 15 and Ex. xxiii. 2 sq. seems to belong to ver. 3 as the corn-
Such commands as ' not to speak to please mencement of a now imperfect member.
the crowd or even the lowly in the court 2 Ex. xxxii. 2 sq. A similar state of
of justice,' occur nowhere else in the Old things is described (where we should not
Testament. Besides, the text of Ex. have expected to find it) in the Book of
xxiii. 2 sq. is both corrupt and imperfect ; Job, xxxi. 33 sq. ; comp. xxix. 7,

310 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

2. The Administeation op Justice.
The way in which justice is administered is everywhere
dependent on the mode of government and the fundamental
principles which guide the latter. Its sphere of operations was,
357 however, aU the wider in those times, in proportion as the
separation between the judicial and the administrative pro
vinces was less distinct. In general the administration of
justice was undoubtedly provided for in the first instance by
the institutions which existed prior to Moses,1 and which, re
vived by him, entered on a new lease of life. But on all points
which were more closely connected with sacred things, which
concerned what was pure and what was impure as explained
above, the Sabbath, sacrifice, and the like, it was only the
priests who were competent to decide ; and as their power
generally was then in its first bloom, their judgments were
for a long period willingly sought after. The High-priest
besides could give a final legal decision on aU matters which
were brought before him.2 A court of justice can nowhere
have a beneficent influence unless the people are first con
vinced of its freedom from prejudice (its impartiality) ; but
we may imagine what the respect must have been for the
highest sacerdotal court in Israel so long as the earliest
Jahveism remained firmly implanted in the faith of the nation,
and with its genuine, trustworthy oracle seemed also to furnish
the best perpetual court of justice. In those first, and fairest
days of the pure Theocracy, it was possible to term this highest
court and its administrator ' God ' himself. That it became
customary to do so, at any rate in the common speech of the
time, may be clearly seen from the laws of the Book of Cove-
358 nants, and certain other phrases which have survived from that
period.3 Moses, then Aaron and Hur,4 after them Eleazar and
others, were regarded in their days as the living depository both
of the oracle, and of the best administration of justice. And
even later, when the pure Theocracy was graduaUy melting
1 P. 253 sqq. comp. Hist. ii. 412.
" P. 290 sq. 4 Ex. xxiv. 14 ; for Hur comp. Hist.
, ¦,.,,¦ „ - , ., „ ,.¦,-, ii. 25, 29, mi 1. He seems to have been a
We may reter to the five-fold rerje- t * J ? t \. ¦ ..(.„
. . . L sort °* forerunner of Joshua, i.e. not to
tition of orDRn, or more briefly have been one of the tribe of Levi, and so
DTPS, as equivalent to ' sacred autho- to have represented the lay element.—
rity,' Ex. xxi. 6 (where, moreover, cyijn What the Book of Origins may have
must relate to it), xxii. 7 [8] sq., and taught concerning the courts and method
xxii. 27 [28] (for the last passage see of justice we no longer know, with the ex-
p. 256, nt 6). Besides these there are the ception of what it says about the oracle
phrases in Judges v. 8 ; 1 Sam. ii. 25; of the high-priest, seep. 290 sq.

CONSTITUTION' OF THE TRIBUNALS. 311
away, the Levites always retained a considerable share in the
administration of justice. According to the Deuteronomist,
the priests were responsible for the discharge of all judicial
duties, and along with the king they formed the highest court
¦of justice.1 The union of the two standing powers also in
this respect was a logical consequence which the course of
time was sure to bring about. Even the inferior Levites, as
they gradually acquired increased culture, became more and
more qualified for judging the nation wherever it was dwell
ing.2 The nation, however, certainly never permitted the
right of sitting in judgment as assessors to be taken out of its
own hands.3
Nevertheless the good administration of justice was always
deservedly regarded in the community of Jahveh as something
so hard to obtain, yet so desirable, in cases which were difficult
to decide, or when judgments were difficult to execute, that
during the earlier centuries new tribunals of justice readily
sprang up ; especiaUy when the court of the High-priest gradu
aUy lost the power of executing the sentence. In this way the
tribunals of most of the so-called Judges arose, a subject which
is discussed elsewhere.4 But even during the later highly
¦civUised times, the number of judges in the narrow sense of
the word, especially of men who were 'earnest, God-fearing,
trustworthy, and not greedy of gain,' as the earliest law already
requires,5 was so far from being superabundant, that the Deu
teronomist gave an express exhortation for their establish
ment.6 The damages which a defendant had committed were
assessed by arbitrators.7
In other respects we have very little definite information
regarding the number, position, and legal training of the com
ponent elements of the ordinary tribunals. If the Levites,
some of whom were undoubtedly always present even at the
smallest courts when a question of any importance was at
stake, were, so to speak, the members learned in the law, and
if they, from their position, needed no special pay for their
judicial services, then the rest of the assessors, chosen from the
leading citizens, would stiU less be paid. The taking of 'gifts'
however, from the seekers for justice, was on this very account
all the more liable to be practised ; and already the earliest law
1 Deut. xvii. 8-13, xix. 17, with which * Hist. ii. 357 sqq.
xxi. 5 is to be compared; comp. also 5 Ex. xviii. 21.
Ezra x. 14. " Deut. xvi., 18-20, comp. l. 16 sq.
2 Comp. 1 Chron. xxvi. 29. ' Ex. xxi. 22.
1 Comp. 1 Kings xxi. 8-10.

159

312 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
is urgent in its warnings against the danger to which judges
were thereby exposed.1
The most important point nevertheless, is that the admi
nistration of justice was always public, and this all the more
so the more important was the dispute to be settled. Pub
licity in legal procedure is rendered indispensable by the
very nature of the case, and the constitution and the reli
gion under which the ancient nation had to live promoted
the impulse to this with the utmost effect. The community
itself was thus regarded as having the final judicial decision.2
Before its assembly were brought all the more important con
troversies, and without, at any rate, its acquiescence nothing
of moment could be determined. And though this ancient
sanctified custom of conducting judicial proceedings in public
might be exposed to the influence of many both favourable and
unfavourable events and endeavours, though the oracle might
be regarded in dubious cases as a court of final appeal,3 though
the Judges, and then more definitely and constantly the Kings,
might pronounce judgment for all who sought their decisions,
still the public administration of justice before the assembled
community was always reverted to as the permanent deep foun
dation of all judicial procedure;4 and even the Judges and
Kings sat to judge in public.5
Moreover, the judicial procedure always remained very
simple. The plaintiff, of course, had to bring all the grounds
of his accusation before the court in a weU-considered and
properly arranged form.0 It was not compulsory on either
plaintiff or defendant to be represented by advocates. All the
more do the Prophets exhort those who have it in their power
to undertake voluntarily the defence of the right, especiaUy of
those who would otherwise be defenceless and impotent, e.g.
widows and orphans ; and all the greater merit could a highly
respected member of a community earn by indefatigable exer
tion on behalf of those who needed help.7 The defendant,
' Ex. xxiii. 6-8, repeated Deut. xvi. ° This is t2SK>|p vyy instmere cawsamr
19, xxvii. 25. The same note is often T , ... ,„ V. 1 , .,
heard in the Prophets.-According to Jo- J?b xm" ,18', x*m- 4" ,ln Soneral the Poet
se^s, Antiq. iv. 8. 14, 38, every town gives us m Jobs speeches some very clear
was to have seven judges (and rulers) gl»?pses into the whole administration
along with two levitical assistants ; comp. of -!llstlce as lt; ™s developed among tlie-
what is said above on p. 249, nt. 2. Accord- ?ncie^ ,natl°n- EJen ^7 of the most
ing to Josephus this was then founded on beautiful and most sublime of the pas-
Deut xvi 18 sages in the Prophets will not be under-
2 Num. xxxv 12 24 sqq stood unloss we remember that the imagery
, P 290 so ' ' ls entirely borrowed from the judicial
' Prov. xxvi. 26 ; Deut. xxi. 18-21. system of the nation-
6 As did even the last king, Jer. * The fair type of whom is depicted.
xxxviii. 7 ; comp. Hist. iii. 175 sq. Job xxix.

JUDICIAL PROCEDURE. 313
generally attired in mourning squalid garments, appeared, or
rather was brought in by the plaintiff, and had to stand on the
left of the latter.1 If anyone was called upon by the tribunal
to confess the truth, the judge first referred him to God with
the words already spoken of, ' Give God honour and praise, and
confess.' 2 If there was no documental proof, not less than two
witnesses were required, at any rate in the more important
cases.3 The witnesses, as we have already remarked,4 must place
their hands on a criminal condemned to death, and must cast the
first stones at him. The judgment was passed as soon as
possible, and immediately executed ; if it could not be at once 360>
passed, the accused was taken into custody and closely confined
in fetters,5 generally in a very simple fashion, his feet being
secured in the stocks.6 — Moreover, the judgment, at any rate
from the time of David, was always set down in writing.7 The
court, unless it were that of the highest authorities, was held
pubhcly in the market-place (at the gate), in the presence of
the assembled community.8 The penalty of death, however,
was always inflicted outside of the town. Sabbaths, and
festivals of equal importance, of course involved a suspension
of all judicial business.9
That penal transgressions generally were prosecuted in this
community with the utmost zeal, follows from the whole spirit
which prevailed in it.10 Hence also the means taken to detect
a criminal were in the earliest days extraordinarily severe.
If, e.g. a thief, or even a receiver of stolen goods were hard to
discover, aid was sought from the public adjuration;11 and
even anyone privy to the theft who paid no regard to this was
punished with death for contemning it if subsequently dis
covered and captured.12
1 Zach. iii. 1 sqq., Ps. cix. 6 sq. ; comp. second edition.
Math. xxv. 33. 7 Is. x. 1 sq.
2 P. 20, 220 sqq.— So in the earlier " Comp. Num. xxxv. 12, 24 sqq.
days Josh. vii. ) 9, and later John ix. 24. ° That festivals in particular, e.g. the
s Num. xxxv. 30, according to the first day of unleavened bread, caused a
Book of Origins ; Deut. xvii. 4-6 ; the suspension of tho justiiium, may indeed
case in Ex. xxii. 12, where one witness be understood of itself, but it is also ex-
is enough, has been shown on p. 187 to pressly taught in tho Mischna, Jom tob,
have been of trifling importance. v. 2.
4 P. 42 sq. '» P. 135 sqq.
5 According to the image 2 Sam. iii. " P. 19 sq.
34, comp. Die Dichter des A. Bs. I a, s. '- This follows from the word in Prov,-
141. xxix. 24; but comp. what is said above,
d See my comment on Job, s. 153 ofthe p. 62.

314 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

The Legal Modes of Punishment.
The amount of punishment inflicted for transgressions
proved before a judge, and the mode of executing it, are, as
a matter of history, subject to great variation according to the
period and the nation. We can correctly estimate the condition
of morality and discipline in any community and age by the
kinds of penalties and modes of inflicting them which are there
156 permitted or prescribed by law. In many respects we may
find such penalties for the ancient community of Jahveh in the
manifold onerous expiatory- and guilt-offerings, the remark
able stringency of which we have already observed.1 Alongside
of them, however, and on an independent basis, were parti
cular punishments needful on civil grounds. We have already
shown2 that no expiatory-offering could ever remove or di
minish the penalty for intentional wrong-doing, and that even
for unintentional injury compensation must stiU be made. The
purpose of the expiatory-offering was therefore, to put it briefly,
to restore the disturbed peace of conscience. Nor was it pos
sible to escape the civil penalties of a distinctly compulsory
character where such had been decreed : and thus in this case
even the ancient Theocracy must confess that there are two
disconnected provinces of everything human, the civil and the
religious. — We must now consider the various kinds of punish
ment more closely.
The law does not inflict imprisonment as a punishment.
Only in the regal times do we find a command not to leave the
precincts of a town as something intermediate between prompt
punishment and complete acquittal.3 Closer confinement, par
ticularly in a foul and galling prison, was first introduced under
the later monarchy.4 In Egypt imprisonment was very early
employed as a punishment, and is therefore frequently men
tioned in the history of Joseph.
In like manner the ancient law did not inflict as a
penalty banishment, i.e. the casting out from, and forbidding
.any return to, one's mother country. In the feeling of the
ancient world, when the mother country was far more limited
in extent homelike and known, it would have been regarded as
•equivalent to a capital sentence ; therefore the early stringent
legislation of the Theocracy at once preferred the latter in the
1 P. 55 sqq. * Jer. xxxvii .-xxxix. ; comp. 1 Kings
2 P. 56 sqq. xxii. 27, bk. Is. xiii. 7,
3 1 Kings ii. 36 sq., comp. ver. 26 sq.

VARIOUS KINDS OF PUNISHMENT. 315
case of sufficiently heinous offences. Only in the regal times
does it occur as a slight mitigation of capital punishment, but
even then chiefly as the mere result of royal displeasure.1
Pecuniary penalties were inflicted by the law ; but little 157
use was made of them. In the regal times, on the other
hand, there are many traces that they became far more frequent,
so that complaints arose on that score.2 And when the ancient
law does require or permit pecuniary fines, they still appear
more as mere payment for damage's, so that the idea seems to
be mainly that of compensation. Such payments, however,
were always strictly insisted on, and one of the main purposes
of all punishment was to ensure their being made.
Corporal chastisement by beating with sticks, the favourite
punishment of the earliest Egyptians (as can be seen from their
paintings), was, remarkable to say, totally unrecognised by the
ancient law of Israel.3 It was evidently deemed too degrading
or too Egyptian, and was consequently limited to the domestic
relation between masters and slaves or parents and children.
The Deuteronomist does indeed permit it, manifestly because
by his time it had long become customary in consequence of
the monarchical rule ; but he adds that more than forty strokes
shall never be inflicted, ' so that the wounds may not become
too severe, and a brother (a fellow citizen) become too con
temptible in the eyes of the rest.' 4
Hence capital punishment was the more frequent; and
nothing affords so clear a proof of the strictness of the discipline
in the original Theocracy. It is true that when we take a
general survey we see it was confined to two principal classes of
offences: 1) Intentional desecration of the majesty and of the
sanctities of Jahveh, without which the community felt itself
unable even to exist, and as a fact really could not have existed
among the existing nations of the earth; 2) Equally intentional
desecration of what is sacred in individual human beings, i.e.
the blood, the life,5 or of what has ultimately the same signi
ficance.6 But these two principal classes embrace, when taken 158
strictly, a very large number of actual cases ; and Jahveism
accepted them all with the most logical and unbending
11 According to the phrase 1 Sam. not concern us here has been explained
xxvi? 19; comp. Hist. iii. 97. Hence a on p. 214.
revival of it under Herod the Great was l Deut. xxv. 1-3. From further scru-
unfavourably regarded by the teachers of pulosity the Rabbis forbade more than
the law, Hist. v. 437. Comp. above for the thirty-nine to be given, 2 Cor. xi. 24,
membership of the community, p. 237 sq. Josephus Antiq. iv. 8. 21, 23.
2 Amos ii. 8, Prov. xvii. 26. 5 P. 37.
3 That the passage Lev. xix. 20 does 6 Such as are spoken of on p. 190.

316 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
stringency, especiaUy the particular cases in which that which
was most holy in the community and seemed like its hfe and
soul, was desecrated.
This capital punishment is always designated in the Book
of Origins by the manifestly ancient legal phrase, ' that soul
shaU be rooted out from its nations.' ¦ The meaning of this
phrase cannot be doubtful ; 2 but we only fully comprehend it
Avhen we remember two things. In the first place, the expression
' his nations ' may be equivalent in the earliest language to ' his
fellow-countrymen,' or even 'his fellow- tribesmen and relatives.'3
In the second place we must remember that according to
the earliest domestic custom,4 every household and every tribe
would make the utmost efforts to protect its own members and
rescue them from their accusers. The phrase accordingly held
its ground in the sense given by this primitive tenacious domestic
custom : the guilty shall be put to death in spite of the efforts
of his tribesmen and relatives to save his hfe. Hence it also
appears that this phrase defines nothing concerning the parti
cular mode of capital punishment.
In fact, the mode of capital punishment varied according to
the particular cases, as has been noticed wherever we have
already had occasion to speak of it. When the offence readily
roused the wrath of the whole community, simple stoning in
159 their midst was still very common.5 An aggravation of this
was found in burning;6 in other cases where they wished to
avert the wrath of Jahveh when it was threatening the whole
nation, they hanged the criminal, though not till he was dead,
publicly in the sun on a post, as an offering ' cursed by God.' 7
This spectacle the Deuteronomist seeks at a later date to miti
gate by ordering the corpse to be taken down and buried before
1 Thus in Gen. xvii. 14, and very often explanation. The Deuteronomist, how-.
subsequently. ever (xiii. 6 [5] and elsewhere), has in its.
2 It is convertible in the Book of stead the expression ' thou shalt root out
Origins with ' shall be slain,' Ex. xxxi. the evil from thy midst,' so that its growth
14 sq., which elsewhere in the Book of may not adhere any longer to the com-
Covenants is the usaal expression. munity.
3 T'SV interchanges with T])jy V)2 in « p. igs s„.
the very early passage Lev. xix. 16, 18. 5 Num. xv. 35 sq., Josh. vii. 25. —
Fellow-tribesmen and relatives are de- Deut. xiii. 10 [9] sq., xvii. 6 sq., xxii. 24.
noted by the expression even in Lev. xxi. " Lev. xx. 14, xxi. 9 ; Gen. xxxviii.
1, 4, 14 sq. As an explanation of it we 24. According to Josh. vii. 15, 25, it
find in the Book of Origins itself, Num. would not be a burning alive, nor is this
xix. 20, the expression ' out of the com- meant in 1 Kings xiii. 2, 2 Kings xxiii.
munity,' nay, even the phrase ' out of the 20.
midst of its nation,' which sometimes in- » According to the phrase, Deut. xxi.
terchanges with the former (Lev. xvii. 4 23 ; comp. Gal. iii. 13 ; therefore as a
and elsewhere) is certainly meant as an Q-in according to p. 75 sqq.

THE SACRED TENT. 317
the evening of the same day.1 — Throwing stones on to the grave
of a universally execrated offender must early have become a
national custom.2
If the case lay entirely between two persons, the one against
the other (a so-called private revenge), then in the earlier times
the person condemned by the tribunal was simply handed over
to his pursuer and accuser for the latter to execute the penal
sentence, unless the matter was settled by pecuniary compen
sation.3 So simple, but yet so strict, were the kinds of punishment
and modes of inflicting them in the ancient community. More
artificial, and therefore for the most part more cruel processes
of capital punishment do not occur until comparatively late
periods ; and clear tokens show them to have been introduced
from abroad, especially from the Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian,
and other great military powers. Many of them have already
been enumerated.4

3. The Sacred Tent.
An outward image of all these highest means of perpetually
uniting and strengthening nation and kingdom was obtained
by the establishment of the high Sanctuary, which most natu
rally occupied the centre of the entire visible territory of this
kingdom. But the influence of the peculiar history, and then
the special form of life of the Theocracy as we have described
it,5 determined the peculiar construction of the external Sanc
tuary, which from the very first was to be the sacred centre
and fairest place of assembly for the whole nation. And
since it originated during the first creative epoch of the com
munity, it did as a fact always retain in this respect an import
ance almost without a parallel ; and during the calm quiet of
the ordinary course of time it was even reverenced as the
subhme and most worthy model for a sacred home of Jahveh,
and its type was one from which the nation could never pro
perly get free down to the final close of its history.
This Sanctuary had not at first, it is true, quite the same
1 Num xxv 4 sq. (where the expla- cheol. i. p. 81 ; Maltzan's Wallfahrt nach
nation is 'tolerably complete); 2 Sam. Mecca ii. s. 286, 345 sqq.
xxi. 6 sqq.— Deut. xxi. 22 sq. ; Josh. vm. 3 This will explaih figures of speech
29 • x 26 suc^ as occur m Isaian i- 24, as I have
'= Josh vii 26 ; viii. 29 ; 2 Sam. there explained.
xviii. 17'; comp. Ltiner. of Marcus < ; P. 165 sq.
Antoninus, xxxi. ; Guerin's Voyage Ar- P. 127 sq.

318 xtw SAUKED TEXT.
purpose to which it was subsequently put during the long
series of centuries, and which it never again relinquished.
Everything goes to show that at first, whilst the nation was
dwelling in the desert under the leadership of Moses, it was
the easily-moved tent-like abode of the great leader himself,
which so far was always the principal centre of the wandering
nation, and at the same time the place where Moses uttered
361 oracles, since the person of national leader was then absolutely
identical with that of the great Prophet. Whether at that
time an altar was already connected with the tent, we do not
know ; the ark of the covenant undoubtedly from the very first
occupied the most interior chamber of this tent. Not before
the nation had for the first time become untrue to the higher
religion to which they had pledged themselves, and a rent had
been made in the first innocence of the community, did Moses
set up this tent at some distance from the general camp — like
a castle near a town — manifestly to protect it better in future
from the first rage of a popular rising. Prom, this time it
began to be termed the ' tent of revelation,' because it had
now become something different from the mere dwelling-place
of the national leader, and was visited by Moses himself only
when he was called upon to speak and to act as Prophet and
supreme Judge. Nevertheless Joshua also entered the tent
itself at that time in his capacity of constant companion and
military officer of Moses. This enables us to see back clearly
into the period before the tribe of Levi became the sacer
dotal tribe,1 and the house of Aaron acquired the exclusive
right of entering the sacred tent. All this we know from the
third author of the Primitive History ; 2 and although he, as
an inhabitant of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes, found in the
very position of the kingdom special occasion for emphasising
this earlier state of affairs before the development of Levi to a
sacerdotal caste, yet the account is completely in harmonv with
whatever else we know respecting the time of Moses.
If, accordingly, this tent even during the life of Moses was
separated from the other tents, including his own, and became
the sacred seat of the oracle, it is a matter of course that the-
reverence for it should have continually risen higher and
higher, when various distinguished powerful men of the house of
Aaron, an Eleazar, a Phinehas, and others, trod in Moses' steps,.
1 P. 260 sqq. according to the Book of Origins, are
2 Ex. xxxiii. 7-H. It is inconceiv- described later, Ex. xxxvi. Comp„
able that this tent should not be the Num. xi. 26 sqq.
same as the one whose arrangements,

THE DIVINE MODEL OF THE TABERNACLE. 319
and the prerogatives of the tribe of Levi were fully developed. se2-
All divine worship as it was to be held in the midst of the
nation, concentrated itself in strictly arranged procedure at this
tent alone. After it had in this way become possessed during
many centuries of the greatest possible sanctity which Jahve
ism could permit it to acquire, it is more closely described in
the Book of Origins down almost to the minutest detail. Por
by the date of this book it had acquired in the course of cen
turies so extraordinary a sanctity, that, though it had been
constructed by human artificers such as Bezaleel from Judah
and Aholiab from Dan (whose names were stUl preserved),1
yet it seemed at the same time to have been copied from a
divine model exhibited on Sinai to Moses by Jahveh himself.2
The most beautiful and perfect earthly Sanctuary conceivable
seemed therefore at that time to have been here realised. Yet
Jahveism always retained sufficient sense never to compare
anything earthly and made by human hands immediately with
the Divine, so that the whole Sanctuary only seemed to have
been constructed after a heavenly model ; just as man must as
a fact always aim at and honour in every visible and earthly
sacred object something which is yet higher and better. The
two tables of the law were the only things which at that time
seemed to have been derived still more immediately from God.3
The Sanctuary is ultimately a single sacred thing which readily
seems to comprehend in itself all the infinite Holiness and
Truth imparted to man at a given period, nor can man place
anything above it but God himself. And yet men existed in
the Old Testament who regarded neither a magnificent sacred
house nor yet even an ark of the covenant as absolutely indis
pensable.4 This contradiction is not unintelligible ; in the 363
deepest spirit of the religion of the Old Testament itself it is
only apparent, not real. — We must now, however, consider
more closely the sacred tabernacle which acquired such impor
tance in the course of history.5
1. The tabernacle itself had always its entrance towards the
east, of old the sacred quarter of the heavens.6 It was divided
1 Ex. xxxi. 1-11; xxxv. 30-35; the model was shown to Moses before
xxxvi. 1 ; xxxvii. 1 ; xxxviii. 22 sq. the end of xxxi. ; it must have fallen out
2 According to Ex. xxv. 9, 40, this from the following passage.
model is to be shown to Moses at that 3 P. 122 sqq.
spot, and although verr. xxvi. PO, 4 gee ab(m) m and Jer_ ;;;_ lg>
xxvii. 8 (where niOn is to be read for . ^ rf ^ ^^ _
"iri), substitute the perfect for the parti- tion haye been airea(iT expounded ia
ciple, nevertheless the discourse from xxv. 1858 in the Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. ix.
to xxxi. is too coherent to allow room for s. 152-154 ; comp. also viii. s. 155.
the insertion of a narrative stating that 6 [See the plan at the end ofthe volume.]

"220 THE SACRED TENT.
into a principal chamber, and a smaller back-chamber, the
former being briefly termed the Holy Place, the latter the Holy
of Holies. In the first place 1 its four sides were built of strong
planks of the acacia wood which grows in the desert, sometimes
to a great height. These planks were each ten eUs high and
one and a half broad. At the bottom they were morticed into
one another beneath the ground by two accurately-fitting
tenons, each of which had previously passed through a hollow
socket. These sockets were made entirely of silver, and
projected above ground at any rate high enough to be
easily seen. On the north and south sides twenty of these
planks were erected in line, close to one another, forming a
wall which internally was thirty ells in length. The western
end was formed by six similar planks, supplemented by two
corner-planks where the end joined the two sides. These corner-
planks had their broad side in line with the western end of the
tabernacle, and were divided (as though each had been made up
of two planks) from the ground upwards, but only to the highest
of the five rings, which will be described presently. Above this
point they were undivided like the other planks.2 As this
partial division of the two corner-planks, which in other respects
were just hke the rest, is without reason as far as their im
mediate function is concerned, it must be explained from the
fact of its enabling them to be at once recognised also from
the outside. Now as the six planks at the middle of the
:364 western side would occupy a space of nine ells, and as an
interior breadth of ten ells would be most suitable for a length
of thirty ells, and as also the great temple of Solomon was
constructed according to this very numerical proportion,3 it
follows that each of the two corner-planks lengthened the
inner wall by only half an ell ; from which it further follows that
the planks were one ell in thickness. We know that the back-
chamber, i.e. the Holy of Holies, occupied exactly one-third of
the length of the tabernacle,4 and was therefore ten ells long ;
it was also ten ells high ; and if, as we have assumed, it was
also ten ells broad, it would have the form of a perfect cube.
Dimensions like this, equal in all directions, may have been
1 If Ex. xxvi. 15-29, stood before 2 Thus Ex. xxvi. 24, is to be under-
ver. 1, the whole description in this stood; comp. ver. 29, -Vn*1 is 'so that
chapter of the tabernacle would evidently +1-,.., „, i, » v * ti i » n,n
i r , , , . ,, J they may be, according to Lehrb. % 3473 ;
be much clearer, but the same arrange- „„„„ I, .. -r. • Z „
_ t -n. ¦ , . mi . ¦ comp. even the narrative Ex. xxxvi. 29.
ment occurs Ex. xxxvi. 14 sqq. That in '
early times important transpositions of ' ^ee H^t- m. 235 sqq.
the text may have taken place herei s still 4 It is true that we know this only
shown by the LXX, in Ex. xxxvi.- from the indication in Ex. xxvi. 33;
xxxix. ^ comp. verr. 2-6.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE TABERNACLE. 321
purposely chosen for this particular space which was to receive
what was most sacred, and should furnish an image of the
dwelling ofthe Most Perfect. Even the curtain-ceiling, as will
be immediately explained, indicated in a sufficiently marked
manner where the space which was sacred above all else com
menced. In this respect, too, the temple of Solomon faithfully
followed the pattern of the tabernacle. But as only the priests
were allowed to enter any part ofthe interior of the dwelling,
and yet the people were to see as much of the architectural
proportions as was permitted by the overhanging curtains, and
as these hung down so low (as we shall explain) that only the
above sUver sockets were visible from the outside, the number
of the latter was brought up, evidently on purpose, to exactly
one hundred, as though this large round number were to give a
conception of the Perfection whose image this dwelling was to
be. — Finally, in order to secure the whole wooden framework
more firmly, on the inner side ' five rods of sound acacia- wood
were passed through rings which were fastened at regular
intervals in each plank ; these are the ' bars.' The middle one
of these rods went all round the three sides without break, and
was morticed at the corners so that the separate pieces of
wood fitted accurately into one another. These rings, five times
forty-eight in number (though only one of the rings on each
corner-plank was of any real service), were all made of gold ;
moreover, the planks (though, as will easily be understood,
only on the inner side) were all covered over with gold-leaf.
This splendid wooden framework was now covered over
with curtains of corresponding magnificence. These were
made of byssus, displaying the four colours which, when
placed side by side, furnish an image of the rainbow, and
were therefore most appropriate for the Sanctuary of the God
of Israel, and re-appear wherever gay colouring seemed re- 365
quisite in it, even in the attire of the High-priest.2 These
colours were dark blue, dark red (purple), bright red (scarlet),
and light grey. There were also images of cherubs woven
in the cloth. Each of these costly curtains, symbolical
of heaven and of God descending thence, was four ells in
width and twenty- eight in length, and was placed over the
wooden framework so as to hang down on the outside of the
latter, without reaching, however, to the ground. It was the
1 This is self-evident, because other- mentioned in connection with the ap-
wise the entire decoration would have pearance of the cherubs in Ezek-. i. 21. —
been concealed on the outside by the When a single colour was enough, the
curtains. dark blue (sky-blue) was always pre-
1 P. 292. Just as the rainbow is ferred.
T

322 THE SACRED TABERNACLE,
less needful for them to do this, since these heaven-curtains
were properly only to be the covering ofthe framework of planks,
and hence of the two chambers. These curtains were loosely
stitched together so as to form two breadths,each containing five
curtains, the total width being forty ells ; and the whole was so
placed over the woodwork that the last ten ells hung down over
the western end, and the junction of the two breadths came
exactly over the division between the Holy Place and the Holy
of Holies. This dividing line was marked on the covering by an
elaborate union, which was visible from beneath. The edges of
the two breadths terminated in fifty loops of dark-blue (sky-
coloured) byssus, placed exactly opposite to one another, and each
corresponding pair of loops was connected by a golden clasp.
This completed the tent-dwelling proper,1 i.e. all that was
seen of the tabernacle from the inside, and was erected and
adorned for a dwelling. Now begins the further external clothing
of this dwelling so as to make it a complete tent. For this
purpose the first thing employed was a plain covering of goats'
366 hair, such as was always a favourite for ordinary tents in those
regions.2 This was to cover the whole edifice externally, and
therefore consisted of curtains each four ells in breadth like
the former curtains which were visible only as a ceiling from
the inside, but thirty ells in length, so that on either side it
hung down one ell lower than the curtains of byssus. The
front breadth of it, moreover, consisted of six curtains instead of
five, so that it had a total breadth of forty-four ells. The
foremost of these six curtains was to be laid on double, two
ells of it being turned back, manifestly in order to give the whole
a firmer hold at the front. The remaining two ells were to
hang down at the hinder end beyond the curtains of byssus,
so that at the end it hung down further than at the two
sides. Where the two breadths met they were held together in
like manner by fifty simple loops and fifty brass clasps, the
latter, as will be readily understood, being fastened on the
outer side. A second covering was thrown over this made of
ram skins dyed a flesh colour, and a third of dolphin skins.
We must- suppose that each of the coverings would be shorter
than the one below it, and also of course that they would be
fastened, as in the case of other tents, with pegs (here of brass)
and ropes.3 Thus the tabernacle was better protected above
than any other tent would be likely to be.
1 JlsB'Bn which is everywhere care- whole.
fully distinguished from the tabernacle, 2 See my comment on Canticles i . 5.
as a special and most precious part of the 3 These are casually mentioned,

THE COURT OF THE TABERNACLE. 323
Inside, the Holy of Holies was separated off only by a drop-
curtain. This was naturally made of the same byssus as the
one we have described, and was fastened by golden hooks to
four piUars of acacia-wood, which like the planks were covered
with gold-leaf and carefully secured in the ground with silver
sockets. The drop-curtain itself was undoubtedly fixed behind
them, so that the pillars would stand outside the ten ells, while 367
a trifle further to the front hung the ornamental junction of
the curtains of byssus. — In front of the whole tabernacle an
outer drop-curtain of greater strength, probably twofold,1
was hung on to five pillars of acacia-wood which were set up
across the entire breadth of the- tabernacle. It displayed the
same colours as the internal curtain, but no embroidered
cherubs ; the pillars were in other respects adorned like the
four internal ones, but had only brazen sockets.
In the next place, this tent-dwelling was surrounded by a
large court open to the sky, and enclosed with less substantial
materials.2 The court had a length on the north and south
sides of one hundred ells, and a breadth at either end of fifty
ells. In what part of it the tabernacle itself stood is not stated
exactly, but it would certainly have been well back towards
the west. On each long side there were twenty pillars five
ells high, i.e. round wooden posts3 fastened into the ground
with brass sockets. Each pillar had a capital overlaid with
silver, beneath which was a thick silver ring; at the top on the
inner side there was a silver hook, to which, as well as to a
brass tent-peg fixed in the ground, a linen cloth, which went all
round, was constantly kept stretched like a sail. This cloth was
made of fine white byssus. On the west side there were ten 368
similar pillars. How the corners were constructed is not
Ex. xxvii. IS; xxxv. 18; xxxviii. 20, Num. iii. 31, like Stdippayna, Protev.
31. "We see, howevpr, from Num. iii. 26, Jac. xxiii. : comp. xxiv.
37 ; iv. 26, 32, that the pegs and lowest 2 Ex. xxvii. 9-19 ; xxxviii. 9-20 ; the
ropes of the tent were secured to the latter description is in some particulars
woodwork of it, while the remaining more perfect than the former. How the
ropes belonged merely to the various tent actually was erected may be briefly
curtains of the tent and of the court. seen from Ex. xl. 18 sq.
' flDD ; on the other hand, the drop- 3 That theu pillars were round (as is
¦l . t ' . everywhere the most natural) follows
ciirtainoftheHolyofHoliesiscalledrQIS from their rjip.^n ; for these can be
^DSn, properly the curtain partition notn;ng but the thick rings which formed
(the dividing curtain), Ex. xxxv. 1?-; thecinctureofthecapital, justas the word
xxxix. 34 • xl. 21 ; Num. iv. 5, but slightly altered denotes the nave of a
more frequently merely rDIBn, else- wheel, 1 Kings vii. 33 (according to the
where also ' the sacred partition,' Lev. iv. correct rendering of this passage).—
6, or ' the partition of the Revelation ' Moreover, according to Ex. xxxvi. 38, the
(p. 125, note 1), xxiv. 3. It is surprising, five pillars before the Holy Place were.
and due to a manifest ei-ror, to find "]DDn adorned in the same way, only with gold
alone put for the inner drop-curtain, instead of silver.
v 2

324 THE SACRED TABERNACLE.
explained here. They were therefore, no doubt simply formed
in such a way that on the south side (to begin with that) there
would be a row of twenty pillars, then a row at right angles
on the west side of ten, then on the north side another row
of twenty parallel to the first/and then again a row of ten
at right angles to it at the east end. All the pillars were
five ells apart. In front, i.e. at the east end, there were first
three pillars ' on either side, adjacent to those forming the two
sides and supporting the same linen cloth as the latter ; but on
the five pillars in the middle twenty ells of the more costly linen
cloth in four colours were hung as a drop-curtain, so that at
the third pillar from the northern extremity, as well as at the
third from the southern extremity, the two kinds of linen cloth
were contiguous.2
2. From this description, which the Book of Origins gives
with its admirable minuteness of detail and with thorough
clearness in aU the main points, we may easily infer how
perfectly all the individual constituents of this triple edifice
combined to express the thought that all these parts constituted
only a single sacred whole, the sanctity of which, however,
increased from the outside to the centre in three stages, so
that it attained its maximum in the innermost Sanctuary.
The great Sanctuary in the community accordingly seemed
to be itself divided in this manner. It is not only one Sanc
tuary, but three, and even if all are united in their higher
aspects, they are stringently separated in their lower. And as
a fact it could not well be otherwise. For when once an exter
nal appliance or vessel was recognised, not indeed as an image
of God himself, but yet as the outward realisation of the fact
of his dwelling and working in the community, which we have
already seen to have been the case in regard to the ark of the
covenant,3 it was but a logical consequence that a most holy place
and, as it were, a private dwelling, should be assigned within the
Sanctuary itself to this pre-eminently sacred object. If, in the
next place,4 the Levitical priests alone were deemed fully qualified
369 administrators, as weU as guardians and defenders, of aU sacred
things, it would follow that the place of the visible Sanctuary,
along with its appliances, should belong peculiarly to them.
If, again, the priesthood was divided into three grades sharply
separated from one another, the Sacred Objects which might
be touched, and the Sacred Places which might be trodden,
1 These are the ' doors and posts ' to be thus understood.
which are spoken of in Ex. xxi. 6. a P. 122 sqq.
* The last fact appears now some- * P. 263 sq.
what out of place, Ex. xxvi. 36 sq., and is

REMNANTS OF HEATHENISM IN THE TABERNACLE. 325
must be divided into three corresponding sections separated by
similar sharp lines.1 The crowd of ordinary Levites could come
no further than the forecourt ; but as the sacerdotal standing
and consecration of these Levites formed the point of transition
to the laity,2 the latter were also allowed to enter this court
when about to offer sacrifice. It was not till the time of the
Temple of Solomon that the nation was altogether excluded
from this space and relegated to an outer forecourt.3 The
Holy Place might be entered by priests of the house of Aaron
alone, and even by them only when they had certain solemn
duties to perform. The Holy of Holies might be entered by
the High-priest alone, and by him only to discharge his most
solemn function.
In one point the tabernacle was wholly unlike a heathen
sanctuary, viz., in the law forbidding that it should contain
any image of a god. But in other respects its construction
was quite similar. A heathen sanctuary properly aimed at
being nothing but a habitation for a god or gods, and was
therefore itself of moderate size, and generally contained an
interior space divided off for the reception of an image of the
god. In the same way, the tabernacle was not intended for the
community, and part of the moderate space which it embraced
was divided off as a most sacred place for its most profoundly
sacred object. A heathen sanctuary loved dark mysterious
chambers ; in the same way the two rooms of the tabernacle
would naturally be very dark. Thus "the very architectural
construction of this greatest Sanctuary of the ancient Theo
cracy proved that although the intrinsic life of the latter was
widely separated from that of heathenism, yet in its outward
historical manifestation it still for a time fell back thither in
many ways.4
1 P. 273 sqq. have the merit of expressing their views
5 P. 284 sq. With great fulness of detail, and equally
' Comp. Hist. iii. 232 sq., 240 sq. great seriousness. The former finds in
* This is not the place to speak of the the tabernacle an image of the world ; the
typical and symbolical meanings ofthe latter an image of the human body. Both
tabernacle, or the sacrifices, and the rest are equally right, and equally wrong. No
of the Old Testament. It rather belongs one will ever succeed in proving that even
to the last days of the Old and the origin Moses himself ever thought of either the
of the New Testament, and I reserve what one idea or the other ; how much es the
I have to say on this point till I come to nation !-So far as the mode in which the
that period The latest attempts to sacred appliances and ^^"7™ de"
discover such significance in the taber- trammed was felt by Annuity to be
nacle, with all its appliances, which have ^gmficant it has been ^'°f *»?. "
been made in Germany by Bahr (Sym- we went along.-The most recent treat, es
bolikdes Mosaischen Cultus, bd. i. 1837) Uber die Mosaische Stiftshutte, by Willi.
and Ferd. Friederich (Symbolik der Neumann (Gotha, 1861) and Riggenbacn
Mosaischen Stiftshutte. Eine Vertheidi- (Basel, 1862) are unfortunately tho-
gung D. Luthers gegen D. Bdhr. 1841) roughly retrogade alike in their purely

326 THE SACRED TABERNACLE.
370 3. The places where the sacerdotal functions were respec
tively performed, and the arrangements of the sacred appliances
in regard to them, may now be easily recognised.
The forecourt had essentially a threefold purpose. First
and foremost all sacrifices of the coarser kind were offered here
— all animal- and corn-offerings. These were the offerings in
which the sacrificing laity might take a more immediate share,
and which for the most part they themselves presented. In it,
therefore, as its most important appliance, stood a great altar,1
usually termed the brazen altar, or from the most important
sacrifice, the altar of the burnt- offering. This was probably
placed right in front of the tabernacle, midway between it
and the entrance to the forecourt. In every altar the chief
thing is the hearth, but this one was far more elaborate than
those which satisfied the community in its primitive days,2
constructed merely of earth or stone, and readily erected even
in later times beyond the precincts of the great sacred house.
The one in the forecourt of the tabernacle, like all the other
appliances, was made to be carried, and had, therefore, a
framework of acacia-wood, which was only covered over with
brass ; in this a hearth of earth or stone could be easily laid
wherever it might happen to be. Its length and breadth were
371 each five ells, its height was three ells, its shape rectangular;
but at the four corners were horns, i.e. crooked points, which
projected far above the rest,3 and might also serve to retain
the larger sacrificial portions which were laid upon the altar.
They were, however, to be made all in one piece with the altar,
just as in general importance was attached to the sacred
appliances consisting of a single piece ; the nature of a
sacred thing requiring it to be perfect and entire in itself.4
Beneath these horns round the upper edge there ran a toler
ably broad and thick belt,5 which served to hold the whole
framework better together. Beneath this, extending to the
middle of the altar, was secured its sole adornment, a sort
of network cast in brass, the particular form of which we
no longer know. — Belonging to it were many fire-pans, shovels
historical and in their symbolical inter- too 'Innumeris structam de cornibus
pretation, though the latter is rather aram,' Ovid Her. xxi. 99.
more sensible than the former. 4 mu„ „„„ „ ¦ ,. ,, -
, p . . „ lhe same was required in the case of
* p" 121 ^ the golden altar and the sacred lamp-stand;
, .' ,'. . ... , , , comp. also the instances on pp. 278, 292.
'According to Amos 1,1 14, and It is still so 1 Mace. iv. 47-
other passages, these 'horns can by
no means have been so small as they are . 6 This is certainly the meaning of
usually represented. Joseph. Antiq. iii. 3313, according to the delineation,
6. 8, calls them trrfiparoi, crowns ; comp. Ex. xxvii. 1-8.

PURPOSE OF THE FORECOURT. 327
and prongs, and ash-pans, as well as bowls for sprinkling
blood,1 all of which were made of brass. Our description,
however, gives us no information respecting the raised plat
form on which the altar stood. That it did stand on some
such elevation is proved beyond doubt both by other indications
in the Book of Origins,2 as well as by the example of Solomon's
Temple, which in more important matters always followed the
model of the sacred objects described in the Book of Origins.
In the temple the hearth, and therefore the altar proper,, was
only four ells high, but its length and breadth were each twelve
ells, or, including the brazen belt which surrounded it, fourteen
ells. Beneath this belt was a second, which extended down
wards a distance of four ells, and projected outwards so as to 372
form a second terrace of the width of one ell, and lastly a third
terrace extending downwards two ells to the ground, and again
projecting one ell.3 The latter two terraces must have been
approached by steps, and however much the size of Solomon's
altar exceeded that of the earlier one, the latter must have
had similar steps, and in this respect, too, have furnished a
model for Solomon's. At Solomon's altar these steps would
undoubtedly be erected on the eastern side; also towards the
east, probably the south-east, was the place where the ashes
and other refuse were provisionally discharged.4
In the second place the forecourt served the regular priests
as a place of preparation for their solemn duties in the Sanc
tuary itself. If one of them desired to enter the Holy Place,
or if he had only to attend to the sacrifice on the great altar
just described, he must first wash his hands and his feet. For
this purpose a brazen washing-basin was placed on a brazen
pedestal between this altar and the tabernacle, not far there
fore from the entrance to the latter.5 The pedestal is always
carefully distinguished from the basin, and there was no doubt
1 See p. 44 sq. twenty ells, the horizontal dimensions
2 See above, p. 74. The Book of being no less, because the_ lowest, as well
Covenants, Ex. xx. 26 ; comp. Ezek. xliii. as the third terrace, projected one ell.
17, does, it is true, prohibit the use of I have explained Ezekiel's obscure
such steps, but only for the reason we description more fully here than I did in
have noticed on p. 278, which disappeared 1840 in my Prophets.
when the more brilliant and better 4 According to Lev. 1. 16; comp. vi.
arranged sacerdotal service described in 3 [10] sq.— If, moreover, all great altars
the Book of Origins had become firmly among the heathen as well generally had
established. steps (comp. Corp. Inscriptt. Gr. 111.
3 "We may supplement the brief words pp. 25,27), they nevertheless varied
in 2 Chron. iv. 1, from the description in much according to each particular rcli-
Ezek. xliii. 13-17, as he had no occasion gion ; comp. Hist. iv. 171, as well as Is.
here for departing from Solomon's example, xvii. 8, and elsewhere.
The altar was accordingly ten ells high, 5 Ex. xxx. 17-21 ; xxxvm. 8 ; xl. 7,
with an entire length and breadth of 11, 30.

328 THE SACRED TABERNACLE.
something special in its construction, but we know no more
about either than has already been said.1
In the third place, the numerous custodians of the taber-
373 nacle, for the most part Levites, had to keep watch within the
forecourt. We have already explained that certain duties
would be discharged here even by women.2
The Holy Place was used for the more delicate sacrifices
which the priests alone offered, and the rest of the people,
including the Levites, never saw with their own eyes. Here
stood, in the first place, the sacred table, which was certainly
one of the very earliest appliances of the Sanctuary,3 with the
twelve loaves which were changed every Sabbath. It was made
of acacia- wood covered over with thin gold-leaf, two ells long,
one broad, and one and a half high. How far its four feet
projected we cannot tell; it was, however, surrounded by a
golden hoop, from which it would appear that the wood which
composed it was of considerable thickness. The top was enclosed
by a sort of fence, four inches high, which was itself surrounded'
by a golden hoop.4 — Near this sacred table were preserved
the smaller implements which belonged to the offering of the
bloodless sacrifice ; the large plates to bring and take away
the twelve loaves, the small bowls out of which the incense was
scattered, the larger and smaller cups for libations of wine.5
All these were made of gold.
But the Holy Place was a dark chamber, and if therefore
the numerous duties which the priests had to discharge in it
were enough to make it necessary to employ artificial light,
this was another reason, in addition to those already mentioned,6
why a light should be kept perpetually burning there. A lamp-
stand was accordingly so constructed, as to fulfil this higher
function. It had to carry seven lamps, of which one was to
stand higher than the others, — a manifest reference to the
week and the Sabbath, and thus become a most genuine
symbol of Jahveism, and a materialisation of what was most
sacred in it (the highest Sacrament). It was, moreover, to be
wrought as artistically as possible, as one of the most sacred
374 appliances. In the centre was one strong shaft (or rod) which
terminated in a broad foot, and in which there were three knots
or expansions. From each of the latter there sprang two arms,
P. 285. 13 sq. ffE'p was the smaller cup holding
" P. 285 sq. :
3 P. 27 sq. as much wine as could be poured out at
¦ Ex. xxv. 23-29; xxxvii. 10-16. onee- We maT notice everywhere how
0 This is the most probable purpose manT words there are which are used
for tho small vessels spoken of Ex. xxv. only of sllQ^- sacred appliances.
29; xxxvii. 16; comp. Num. iv. 7; vii. 6 P. 114 sq.

PURPOSE OF THE HOLY PLACE. 329
one to the left and one to the right, the whole six winding
aloft in a serpentine fashion. Each of these arms expanded
in three places in the form of the calyx of an almond-blossom.1
Each of the three double arms sprang from such another calyx
on the central shaft ; and above these six branches with their
three knots the main trunk was continued with four similar
calyxes, so that the main trunk with its seven calyxes projected
a considerable distance above the six arms, and thereby gave
a clear image of the exaltation of the Sabbath over the other
six days.2 In the last place, the seven lamps were secured in
their respective places. The entire sevenfold lamp-stand was
made of refined gold, of chased workmanship, but all carefully
cast in a single piece.3 Everything which belonged to it, the
lamp-tongs, fire-cups, and oil-cans,4 were hkewise made of
refined gold.
While the sacred table was unmistakeably derived from a
primitive era long prior to Moses, and the sacred lamp origi
nated in the Mosaic period proper, a third appliance probably
did not originate till the time when the whole Sanctuary
assumed its perfect form as described in the Book of Origins,
viz. immediately after the conquest of Canaan. This is the
golden altar, also termed the altar of incense.5 It was made
of acacia-wood, but covered over with gold-leaf, and was one ell 375
in length and breadth, and two in height. It was encircled by
a golden hoop, and in other respects, including the horns,
resembled the great brazen altar. It became an altar for the
priests alone, at which nothing but the most delicate substance
might be offered, viz. incense ; this, however, was to be offered
without ceasing.6 Even the pouring of libations of wine upon
it is expressly forbidden by the Book of Origins,7 although, as
we have just said, the vessels for the purpose were kept in the
Holy Place. Even as this altar properly represented the sacri
fices of the priests in contradistinction to the ordinary ones, so
1 If in the description, Ex. xxv. 31-40, pattern described in the Pentateuch. The
xxxvii. 17-24, the word 1T33 is always meaning of the words in the Book of
followed by the explanation ' knot (belly) Origins is, however, clear.
and blossom,' this is entirely due to the 3 P. 326.
fact that, besides its first meaning of * According to Ex. xxv. 38 ; xxxvii.
'calyx,' the word had already acquired 21; comp. Num. iv. 9, 16. The tongs
a second and commoner meaning of were used to remove the lamp from the
¦ CUp > lamp-stand in order to trim it afresh ;
2 In the sacred lamp-stand, which with the fire-cup a light was then brought
figures on the triumphal arch of Titus at from the altar.
Rome, the central shaft does not, it is * Ex. xxx. 1-10 ; xxxvii. 25-29 ; xl.
true, appear to be higher than the rest, 5, 26 sq.
but then the image is not quite complete 6 P. 115.
just at the top, and in other respects this ' Ex. xxx. 9; but^ the first member
lamp-stand does not quite agree with the of this verse must terminate with mi-

330 THE SACRED TABEKNACLE.
it manifestly originated in connection with the fully developed
sacerdotal powers of the house of Aaron, and was so far the
most modern of this whole series of appliances. It was prob
ably placed exactly in the middle of the Holy Place, while the
sacred table would stand in the north-west, the sacred candle
stick in the south-west corner.1
Either from the perpetually burning lamps or, as is more
probable, from the fire which, though only a smaU one, was
always kept up on this inner altar, the sacrificial priest was
always to bring the fire for the great outer altar when
ever it was required, especially therefore for the very first
sacrifice which was offered upon it, and on other mornings and
evenings if the fire which had been previously kindled there
had died out.2 All other fire with which a sacrificial priest
approached the external altar was deemed strange, inappro
priate, and unblessed, desecrating the whole Sanctuary, and
fatal to the sacrificial priest himself, as though the despised
gentle flame of the inner Sanctuary suddenly and spontaneously
376 poured itself forth in a violent flood, annihilating the false fire
and priest.3 In like manner all perfumery was deemed strange
and unholy in this sense, unless it had been prepared in a par
ticular fashion, and in definite proportion from pure frankin
cense, mixed with three other sweet-smelling .materials.4 The
balsam, too, with which both the tabernacle, with all its ap
pliances, and also the High-priest, were to be consecrated, was
to be prepared in a similar technical fashion.5 Both the balsam
and the incense were to be kept in the inner Sanctuary, and
any imitation of them or application to other purposes would
have been already regarded by the time of the Book of Origins
as impious. We have clear tokens that during the earliest centuries
certain other sacred objects were deposited in this Holy Place
which were never received into Solomon's Temple. A small
vessel filled with manna was preserved here, and at first may have
been annually renewed.6 Here, too, was kept Aaron's sceptre,
1 P. 44. Ex. xxx. 6 ; xl. 4 sq., 22- the Book of Origins. We can, however,
26. It will also follow from the name draw correct conclusions about tho whole
' table of the countenance,' that the sacred matter from the indication in Lev. ix. 24 ;
table stood as near as possible to the x. 1; Num. iii. 4; xxvi. 61, as well as
Holy of Holies.— The erection of a from the similarity of the foreign incense
smaller along with a, greater alta,r oc- of which we are just about to speak.
curred also in heathen temples, Herod, i. * According to Ex. xxx. 34-38 ;
183 ; Tac. Hist. ii. 3. comp. ver. 8.
- P. H6- 5 Ex. xxx. 22-33.
3 The law about what was foreisn 6 Hist. ii. 222 note 2.
and what native fire is now wanting from

PURPOSE OF THE HOLY OF HOLIES. 331
of whose former real existence it is impossible to doubt.'
Where the consecrated presents2 were kept we cannot tell.
Whether the two sacerdotal silver trumpets,3 which, according
to the representation on the triumphal arch of Titus, were
contained in the Holy Place of Herod's Temple, were then
deposited in the ancient Mosaic tabernacle, cannot be deter- 377
mined from the Book of Origins.4 It is improbable, in so far as
only objects of greater sanctity were preserved in the Holy
Place ; they seem to have been admitted later into Herod's
Temple merely because mention was made of them in the
Pentateuch. The Holy of Holies contained nothing but the ark of the
covenant, that one object of absolute sanctity with which
nothing else seemed comparable. Here it ever stood in awful
darkness, scarcely illumined on those rarest occasions when the
High-priest entered with a censer.
Round about the whole Sanctuary there was still another
environment to ensure its solemn quiet and security, and guard
against the inroad of any disturbing element.5 We have even
traces of a partiality for planting high trees in its neighbour
hood, and the primitive custom we have already mentioned of
distinguishing a sacred spot by such trees was retained in this
way,6 though nothing of the sort was required by the law.
— This is the tabernacle with aU its essential constituents
as described in the Book of Origins. That it originated with
almost all its appliances during the time of Moses, and that
even its latest developments were not subsequent to the period
1 P. 298. The expression 'before the Jud. § 10, adinit., endeavoured to pro-
ark of the covenant,' Ex. xvi. 34 ; tect their Holy Place ! What Josephus
Num. xvii. 25 sq., may refer to the Holy means there may be inferred from v. 5, 6.
Place, since the ark of the covenant was The whole of Jerusalem as a sacred city
only separated by the drop-curtain; and was to be forbidden ground: (1) To those
that this is the actual meaning follows who were suffering from gonorrhoea, p. 157;
more distinctly from Ex. xxx. 6; xl. 5. (2) To lepers, p. 157; the Sanctuary, in
When the author of the Epistle to the the widest sense, was to be forbidden :
Hebrews (ix. 4) places the golden altar (3) To unclean women, p. 156; (4) To
in the Holy of Holies, the manna, and the all women, with the exception of the
sceptre, as well as the tables of the law, women's forecourt, Hist. vi. s. 717 [Ger.
inside the ark of the covenant, his view ed.] ; (5) The great forecourt to unclean
arises from a literal interpretation of the men ; (6) The priest's forecourt to un-
words in Ex. xl. 4; xvi. 34 ; Num.xvii. 25. clean priests;(7) The Holy of Holies to
2 p. 71 g„q. all priests save the High-priest. Similar
3 P 288 regulations occur in the Talmud.
4 Num. x. 1-10 ; xxxi. 6. " P. 120. The fact appears from
s This is to be inferred from Ex. xix. Josh. xxiv. 26 ; and that such trees were
12 sq 21-23 ¦ xxxiv. 3. — How simple not wanting in even the .later temple
were all these ancient limitations in follows from the delineation in Zach. i. 8 ;
comparison with the artificial seven purifi- Ps. Iii. 10 ; xcii. 13 sq. But it is denied
cations, eirri ayvtlai, with which those of by Hecateus in Joseph. Contr. Ap. i. 22,
a later date, according to Joseph. Bell. p. 457.

332 THE SACRED TABERNACLE.
immediately following him, is unmistakeably indicated by
every token. AU its constituent parts and appliances, wherever
this was required by a roving life, were provided with rings
through which poles for carrying, which were always kept in
readiness, might easily be passed. This the Book of Origins
everywhere describes as something essential. When it had to
be removed, the High-priest first caused the drop-curtain of
the Holy of Holies to be taken down by his most immediate
associates, and laid as the most worthy covering over the ark
of the covenant ; over this was thrown a covering of dolphin-
378 skins, and lastly one entirely made of dark blue byssus. The same
hands laid a similar covering over the sacred table, then wrapped
it, and all its vessels, and the sacred bread, in bright red byssus,
and threw dolphin-skins over this. The sacred candlestick and
the golden altar, with all that belonged to it, were covered in
the same way with dark blue byssus and dolphin-skins. The
brazen altar and the washing-basin were wrapped up in dark
red byssus, and covered, with all that belonged to them, with
dolphin-skins. Not till all this was done did the first division
of the Levites commence carrying these things away ; on the .
High-priest himself devolved the special care of the sacred oil,
incense, and daily sacrifice. The second division of the Levites
removed the various curtains and coverings of the tabernacle
and the- forecourt, with their appurtenances and other appli
ances of less importance. The third division took charge of the
wood- work, with its appurtenances ; the two latter divisions
acting under the direction of the second High-priest,1 and em
ploying an adequate number of waggons.2 It will be plain, from
what we have said, how ingenious and appropriate were all
these allotments and arrangements.
When the army (or the entire nation) was on the march,
the tabernacle, surrounded by the Levites3, was appropriately
carried in the centre ; in camp it was set up in the centre.
This the Book of Origins describes as what was customary
during the time of Moses ; 4 and even if at a later time the tent
1 According to Num. iii. 25 sq., 31, tabernacle of the time of Moses,- but of a
36 sq. ; iv. 4-37, with some genuine more expensive and heavier one, such as
additions in the version of the LXX. Israel's dignity required after the con-
2 According to Num. vii. 1-10. The quest of the land. The difference would
question may be asked whether two not alter anything essential; what may
waggons for the Gershonites, and four be said on behalf of this view has already
for the Mararites, would suffice to remove been noticed above.
so many heavy articles. It is possible 3 P. 281.
that the proportions of the tabernacle 4 Num. ii.-iv. ; x. 11-28 (comp.
given by the author of the Book of Hist. ii. 275) ; alsoEzekiel's imagery, xiv.,
Origins, manifestly from personal inspec- xlviii. The meaning of the words in
tion, may not have been those ofthe light Num. x. 17, 21, is this — the inferior class

POSITION OF THE SANCTUARY. 333
was carried by the side of the army, the Sanctuary always seems
to have had a central position in the camp. Nevertheless, the
different description of the Third Narrator of the Primitive
history l shows that the tabernacle was also sometimes set up
outside the camp. It invariably faced the east, an ancient
custom, which maintained itself with great tenacity among
the heathen.2
of the Levites, after they are ready to take its place at the head ; comp. p. 282.
depart, are to wait till the superior Ko- ' P. 281 sqq.
hath comes up from the south side, and 2 See Plutarch's Numa xiv.

334 THE GREAT SABBATH- CYCLE.

HOW BOTH SIDES WEKE SUPPLEMENTED IN THE
COUKSE OF TIME.
THE GREAT SABBATH-CYCLE.
379 When the sacred tabernacle we have been describing had
been happily erected in the community which assembled round
about Jahveh, and within it : the eternal sacrificial fire was
joyously blazing, it seemed as though the existence of the
established community of Jahveh in this state of development
should be as eternal as that of the sacrificial fire. The words,
' They my people, I their God,' 2 along with the true religion,
would seemed to have been realised in fact and secured in un
disturbed existence. Jahveh had now, as it were, acquired a
permanent peaceful dwelling among this single nation of the
earth ; and the rising column of fire and smoke, which hung
without intermission over the visible Sanctuary, even if it were
really only the result of the daily sacrificial fire, was deemed by
the people, just because without it they would still have believed
in the guardian presence of Jahveh, to be the visible image and
realisation of this dwelling of the glory of the Most High in its
midst.3 But no one can have understood better than the great
founder of the community that in all this there was involved a
joyous belief in the realisation of the true religion and com
munity, as well as a sure confidence in the same, rather than
the actual realisation itself. How little the divine demands for
sanctity and righteousness of life, as they have been described
380 above, were fully satisfied by the community, and how little all
the national institutions which were built thereon would remain
1 P. 1 15 sqq. nical term rti'^t? for this dwellinq of God
'l P 4 ¦ T '
,.„;', ... . t, -, .„ ,„ iii the midst ol his people, orthe visible
' ihe description m Ex. xl. 43-46; ,„0„;4!..to(.;„_ „p .if- . i ,
T . „„ r . , , ..,' manifestation ot this eternal elory, is
Lev. ix. 23 sq., must be compared with (.v_ fmr~ -p„ ¦ Az i or
. , ., • t? , c ¦ 3 taken trom lix. xxix. 45 sq , xl. 35. —
the other m Num. ix. 15 sqq., in order to Th™;.. , „;.„;i „> • -t Vj-o-
, ,, ..r. t> i ? V, • .-n Inereis a similarity in spite of differences
understand how the Book of Origins still ¦ f, \,.y,.f ..,,„,. - A- , T°
, , . , . , B , in tne beliet that guardian angels conduct
reproduces an histoncal, very clear- cooHng ^nds over the Ka'aba and the
sighted view of these matters dating from Mona* medans assembled round it> Burck.
tlieprimitivedaysof thGeommumty ; comp. v,.,„jf>„ t„„, ;„ ¦ . >¦ ¦ „_„
rr- 5 •¦ ,,,» rm. i .. t> 1.1 ¦ hardt s Iravels m Arabia, 1. p. 256 sq.,
Hist. n. p. 217 sqq. The later Rabbi- 292 =o

GROWTH OF INSIDIOUS EVILS. 335
undisturbed, would have been made sufficiently plain to Moses
by the incidents of his own long leadership, even if he would
not have expected it for other reasons. No doubt there had
been a time when by the establishment of the community of
Jahveh all previous impurity had been, as it were, washed
away, and the foundation was laid in the life of the nation for
an entirely new, pure, holy commencement. So, too, there had
been a time when these demands were not only plainly promul
gated, but were also acknowledged by the nation as binding
on itself. This was the commencement of an inner perfection
and glory, corresponding to the above outward manifestation.
Nevertheless, troubles began to arise again soon enough ; and
it became sufficiently obvious that even all the expiatory- and
guilt-offerings, nay, that all temporal punishments, could not
suffice to root them out. Indeed, it became evident that the
gradual progress of time imperceptibly brought with it a variety
of new evils, which in the end were mighty and perceptible
enough, and which threatened to destroy the most intrinsic life
of the entire realm.
Insidious evUs like these, which are little amenable to law,
and gradually work their way in with more and more disastrous
consequences, are enemies from which, it is true, even our
modern Christian kingdoms suffer; and many such have sprung
into being, owing to the contingencies of recent centuries. Nor
will it ever be possible, in the course of human history, to provide
against all possibilities of evil which the future may bring forth.
Make the best and purest start possible, and yet before long
new evils will find entrance, partly from remnants of the former
state of things, partly from the fresh impulses of the new con
dition, so long as humanity continues to develope, and stirrings
of evil exist to remind man how far he still is from the goal of
his history. Tet, in our case, the insidious evils need not inev
itably become very dangerous. We have only to give fair play
to the working, on the one hand, of the now perfected, extant,
revelation of true religion ; and, on the other hand, of the rich ssi
experience, capabilities, and knowledge, that have already been
acquired. In the ancient world, on the contrary, especially in
remote antiquity, even among the people of Israel, the inner
work of true religion was not nearly so far completed that every
man everywhere could easily tell what he ought to do, and what
to leave undone ; and there was far from being any superfluity,
either of historical experience or of higher capabilities and
knowledge, such as would suffice to establish, e.g. the civil law
of debt upon unassailable principles.1 Moreover, the insidious
1 P. 181 sqq.

336 THE GREAT SABBATH-CYCLE.
evils grow all the more dangerous in every realm, in proportion
to the closeness with which it seeks to shut itself up in itself.
And the kingdom of Jahveh rested on a very narrow self-con
tained nationality, and on a conscious sharp opposition towards
aU the other kingdoms of the existing world.
We can thus imagine how earnest would be the endeavours
made by Moses and the other great souls of his time to
encounter the inevitable deficiencies in the right way, and
everywhere to restore the original purity and health of the
body corprrate when it had been imperceptibly undermined.
Nevertheless, the means which they adopted for achieving
this end, and which then seemed the most effective and best,
could not well have been obtained anywhere, save from
the whole life and tissue of the ancient rehgion; so that what
was already in force reappears once again here, only in a new
and stronger form. It was essentially necessary to appoint
certain longer or shorter periods, when all that had been over
thrown or become exhausted might be restored to its original
pure and healthy life ; just as our modern representative as
semblies meet at regular intervals to effect a grand purification
of the whole condition of the nation. But what was specially
characteristic of these ancient periods was, that, in order to
satisfy more effectively the divine demands for holiness and up
rightness, and supplement all that was defective, the human
382 efforts and strivings towards God, as Antiquity understood them,1
were at such times stimulated to the highest pitch. The en-
deavoiir to supplement all human action or endurance, wherever
men felt this to be requisite in order to satisfy the divine de
mands for holiness and uprightness, took accordingly the form
of sacrifice, as Antiquity understood it; and here we meet with
the highest application of sacrifice which could possibly proceed
from the ancient ideas in regard to it.
Similar institutions are to be found in the laws of many
ancient realms, and stUl exist in Islam, that belated shoot
from the mighty stem of true religion, aiming at surpassing
its two fellow-shoots which had already sprouted and grown
great, but in reality remaining behind both. For a similar
irrepressible feeling of an inner want, and hence a similar
craving to supplement ordinary laws by more drastic measures,
which are held in reserve, must have pervaded every religion
and legislation which, although striving after the highest, yet
fell short of its aim in something essential. But nowhere do
' Pp. 12-133.

EXTENSION OF THE IDEA OF THE SABBATH. 337
we see this supplemental process carried through all possible
details with so firm a hand, and bearing so palpably the mark
of being due to one great thought, as we do in Jahveism. On
a close investigation, it appears as certain as anything can be
that these final offshoots of the ancient legislation sprang alto
gether, as the expression of a single idea, from the mind of the
the arch-legislator.
So if the Sabbath was at once the highest and the most
characteristic sacrifice of Jahveism,1 the one in which the
latter's whole meaning was most perfectly expressed, and
which on that account strove with its whole power to penetrate
all things, it became a matter of course that the great attempt
to supplement all earlier laws should be connected with the
Sabbath, and make this the sole point of departure. And, as
a fact, no other foundation was so admirably adapted for the
erection of a new high-towering stronghold, which should be a
fortress capable of upholding and protecting all else. In regard 383
to the determination of the above-mentioned longer or shorter
intervals for a purification and restoration of the great Whole,
the sabbatical number, Seven, was easily capable of a varied and
extended application. And in regard to the general signifi
cance of such intervals, this too could be included in the higher
significance of the Sabbath. For, as on ordinary sabbaths there
was to be rest from the care and occupations of ordinary life, so
on these greater sabbaths there was to be a universal cessation of
ordinary national life ; only their rest should embrace a wider
sphere, and have in view remoter purposes. Yet, as the weekly
sabbath rest, regularly recurring at the shortest intervals, only
aimed at a fresh gathering up and strengthening of the spirit,
and hence at a new vigorous commencement of work, so
the greater and greatest sabbaths, recurring at longer and
longer intervals, should bring greater and greatest rest with
the sole view of restoring all the earthly constituents of the
kingdom of Jahveh once again to their original and necessary
purity, health, and uprightness. Only with this meaning and
for this purpose was there a multiplication and wider extension
of the simple sabbath as the firm foundation and centre of the
organism of Jahveism. The fundamental thought is the same,
only working in wider spheres in order to subdue unto itself
a continually greater and farther-stretching province. From
this follows the further important consequence, that what holds
good in the smaller circle will repeat itself in the larger, only
> P. 97 sq.
Z

338 THE GREAT SABBATH-CYCLE.
on a more extended scale, so that nothing can be wanting from
the larger which has been given in the smaller, until in the
largest circle all that the fundamental thought is capable of
producing is realised in fact.
The individual, as well as each particular community, ought
to withdraw on every weekly sabbath from the toil and moil of
common life, and seek strength in God for fresh activity.
Starting from this fact, we observe three provinces, each one
384 more important than its predecessor, which, in the progress of
time, lose their original virtue and strength far more imper
ceptibly and gradually than the individual, but nevertheless to
an extent which is at least evident and prejudicial enough, so
that they, too, each require their several sabbaths at the proper
periods. These three provinces are the following : the national
character, as something still of vital importance to religion;
the soil possessed by the nation, as the great instrument for its
physical maintenance ; and, finaUy, the whole kingdom itself,
so far as it is a permanent institution of a human, and there
fore perishable, nature. In this triple series of great provinces
is contained everything outside the individual man and par
ticular sections of the realm, which was liable to a gradual
decay and destruction, merely under the influence of time,
and which was all the more exposed thereto the longer the
elements of decay remained concealed. But while the national
religion and morals needed to be again refreshed and strength
ened after a period reckoned in months, hence when possible
once a year, the nourishing soil of mother-earth only required
the same in the course of years ; and the kingdom, although
human and perishable, ought nevertheless to rest fairly upon
such good laws and institutions, that only after the lapse of
decades and centuries should it need a purification and revival
extending to its fundamental basis.
In this way the simple weekly sabbath was supplemented by
a sabbath-month, which was the seventh in the year, and as
such determined the date of all the other annual festivals, i.e., of
the greater sabbaths — just as the days of the week are governed
by the higher and more sacred day, — and embraced all the simple
weekly sabbaths in itself, as it was itself embraced within the
circle of the year. This sabbath-month was again supplemented
by the sabbath-year, which recurred every seventh year from the
one which was chosen as the commencement, and furnished a
starting point from which the whole series could be reckoned.
This, in the last place, was supplemented by a sabbath-sabbath-
year, which was the seventh sabbath -year (reckoned rather as

DIVISIONS OF TIME. 839
the fiftieth year), and closed the entire circle in its wide em
brace, so that each half-century was succeeded by another like 385
itself. This is a brief sketch of the magnificent way in which
all the other laws of Jahveism were supplemented and brought
to perfection. We have now to examine the details more closely.1
This grand, constant progression of the sacred number Seven
displays the progression of the three stages which are here
reared upon the firm basis of the simple sabbath, or of the three
circles which surround the latter as the vital heart of the whole.
On every convenient occasion, however, in numerous ways within
the various circles, the arrangements are regulated by this all-
dominant number seven, or rather governed by the powerful
conception of the Sabbath ; so vigorous are the efforts of the
latter to penetrate the entire sphere. And this fact at once
appears in the first circle, because the nature of this circle
cannot be absolutely simple, but involves many complications.
The Division of Time in the Ancient Nation.
Before we consider more closely the earliest form of the
series of periods sanctified by Israel's religion, we must see
what was the division of time in general which prevailed in the
ordinary life of the ancient nation, since every subsequent calcu
lation and division rests finally on this broad basis. We must,
at any rate, acquaint ourselves more accurately with those facts
which are somewhat difficult to understand, or peculiar. An
established method of dividing the time through which men have
to live is rendered indispensable by so numerous and inevitable
requirements of common life, that most complicated divisions
come into existence long before a higher religion tries to guide
the life of a whole nation, and these maintain their place along
side and independent of the religion.
1. To commence with the sections of the day, it cannot be
proved that a division into twelve, or, with the night, twenty-
four hours, was introduced among the people of Israel in its
1 The whole subject I had already prizes at the Gottingen Jubilee in 1837.
treated in 1835 in an essay which was The theme of these essays was proposed
subsequently printed in the Commenta- by the late D. J. Pott, in conjunction with
tiones Soc. Reg. scientt. Gbtting. rec. myself (although at that time I was a
t. viii., as well as in the Morgenldndischen member of the philosophical faculty), and
Zeitschrift, vol. iii. s. 410 sqq. With this this gave me further occasion to write
the further remarks in the Gott. G. Anz. upon the subject in the Morgenldndischen
1835, s. 2025 sqq., and 1836, s. 678 sqq., Zeitschrift, i. s 410 sqq.- In regard to
may be compared. Much that was said the most perverse treatises, written after
thpre is not repeated here.— A more re- 1852, by H. Hupfeld; comp. the Jahrbb.
mote consequence ofthe former essay may d. Bibl. Wiss. iv. s. 131 sqq.; ix. ss. 257-
be found in the treatises of Kranold and 260 ; also viii. 223.
Wolde De anno jubilceo, which obtainel z 2

840 THE GREAT SABBATH-CYCLE.
earliest epoch. On the contrary, such an assumption is contro
verted by all the tokens which we can now discover. According
to these tokens, only the three main dividing points in the day
which are given of themselves were used to designate, in quite
general terms, the sections which preceded and followed them ;
so that the day was divided into three parts, or, if a distinction
is made between the two halves of each of the sections thus
given, into six parts. The upright, i.e. central, point of the day
(from which it declines on either side towards night) i.e. noon,1
when the sun stands, as it were, motionless right over men, was
enclosed by the double-noon, or the time immediately preceding
and subsequent. The evening, in the strictest sense, i.e. the
moment of sunset,2 was enclosed by the double- evening ; the
morning, i.e. sunrise, by the double-morning.3 Any further ac
curate and permanent distinction between these three periods
of the day cannot be shown to have existed. It is true that the
limit of these three periods might be drawn nearer to their
centres, and a narrower definition given, by the expressions
about the heat of the day,'1 and towards the wind of the day, i.e.,
towards morning or evening.5 It was also possible to distin
guish the beginning and the end of each of the three main
divisions of the day.6 Besides these, the whole nation graduaUy
learned to distinguish the exact moment when daily sacrifice was
offered morning or evening.7 In this way was made a begin
ning of dividing the day into a number of still shorter periods ;
but the three main divisions of the day were so far from being
superseded, that the entire night was divided into three corre
sponding night-watches* Bach of the latter may, however, have
been somewhat shorter than the former divisions, supposing the
night to have been reckoned from the commencement of total
darkness to the first, or rather the second, gleam of dawn.
An arrangement, and corresponding reckoning, of. four night-
' Di'ri fl33, Prov. iv. 18. « According to Gen. xviii. 1.
2 For 3TJJ itself denotes the sunset. 5 Tte plirase itself, it is true, usually
, „, '-.''¦' , . • ,, «,, refers to the evening alone, Gen. iii. 8;
3 There is now extant in the Old „„_„ ,-, , •¦ .- .s „ ' ., . '
m . . 3 i c «-.. i,„t <-h„f  comp. Uant. u. 17 ; iv. 6 ; but the. ancient
Testament no dual of ^3, but that one word ^ wh;enofitself likewise denotes
is possible, and that at any rate the simi- a blow;ng ind;
lar form onrfl? occurs, is shown ,n my ag the ^^ ^^ . and |;stinctly
Lehrb. § 180a. The latter term must means the former in Job iii. 9- vii. 4;
denote the time of the rosy dawn (the Lam. xxx. 17.
primum et alteram diluculum), the same • As in respect to the night watches,
as is still expressed in Syriac by the Lam. ii. 19 ; Jud. vii. 19.
word loTLjk-LQ, a dual corresponding to . * P- 116. Still the same, M. nN2
the Siacpavpa. Prolev. Jac. xxiii., accord- s According to Jud. vii. 19 and
ing to the Syriac translation edited by Ex. xiv. 24; 1 Sam. xi 11
W. Wright.

THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE DAY. 341
watches,1 only became possible in Palestine through the
Romans, or more definitely through the introduction of Roman
military dominion. It cannot, at any rate, be shown to have
been in existence there earlier.
This division of the day into six sections may, by a gradual
bisecting of each sixth, and by a strict limitation of the day
to one-half of an entire day-and-night,2 have developed into
an accurate division with twelve hours in the day and twelve
hours in the night. This at least is the easiest explanation of
the choice of the number twelve for the hours. But this would
only become possible by means of more artificial instruments
for measuring time^ such as sun-dials, sand-clocks, and the like.
The invention of this division of time was ascribed by the
ancients to the Babylonians,3 although we now know from the
hieroglyphics that the early Egyptian dynasties were acquainted
with it. It came at last into use among the people of Israel;4
and, as we know that King Ahaz was the first who introduced
a sundial,5 it may have suppressed the ancient division of the day
more and more from his date in the eighth century onwards.
The influence of religion on either of these modes of dividing
the day can only have been very trifling. The strict precision
which was necessary in the sacerdotal arrangements of the
entire daily divine service, as well as of the needful night-
watches,6 and other reasons which caused importance to be
attached to this precision, did indeed prevent religion from re
maining wholly without influence on other national customs
and occupations in this respect. But there was one case
in which this influence was very important. To connect
the annual festivals with the full-moon, and to commence
them in the evening, as though greeting her with a glad
shout, was certainly a primitive custom, both among other races,
and in the circle of nations from which in the earliest times
Israel sprang. When Moses instituted the Sabbath, which, as
described above,7 is ultimately based on the lunar period, this
custom was transferred to it as though it were to stand on an
equal footing with the great festivals, in regard to time-honoured
sanctity. Since, however, the Sabbath, as indicated above,
1 Mark vi. 48 ; Matt. xiv. 43 ; it travelled into Arabia and Ethiopia as
Luke xii. 38.  All four are mentioned well as into late Hebrew from the Aramaic.
together, Mark xiii. 35. 4 Distinct mention of it occurs first in
2 The wxB-iiiJ.epov. the Aramaic speeches in the Book of
' According to Herod, ii. 109. As a Daniel.
fact the Semitic word for hour is origi- a Sist. iv. 169.
nally the pure Aramaic ]A\» and is c Pp.114, 287; comp. Ps. exxxiv. 1,2.
quite unknown in ancient Hebrew, though * P. 97 sqq.

342 THE GREAT SABBATH-CYCLE.
became the permanently preeminent day, to which every series
of days was to return after a brief interval, it cannot surprise
us that the remaining days should follow its precedent in so far
that for sacerdotal matters each day commenced with sunset,
at which moment the watches appointed for the day commenced
their duty ; and thus one day passed into the next, not during
the hours of sleep, but while the occupations of life were in full
activity.1 But it must be allowed that this commencement of
the ordinary day with the evening cannot possibly be adapted
to all sides and needs of human life ; and we even have a proof
of how natural it is, in spite of all this, to reckon from morning
to morning, in the sublime narrative of the creation, Gen. i. 1-
ii. 4. Even the twelve hours, after they had been introduced,
were reckoned from morning to evening.2
2. In this matter we only find further consequences of the
strong influence exerted by the regard for the moon, an influence
which must have maintained itself in this nation down from
remote Antiquity, and which will be found predominant in other
matters. The reckoning by months, in its primitive significance,
and hence by lunar years, continued to prevail, and was closely
connected with the celebration of the above annual festivals.
But the mode of reckoning by the solar year had likewise
been long familiar to the highly civilised nations with which
Israel early came into such close contact, the Egyptians, and
the Arameans or Babylonians. Even the mode of adjusting
the solar and lunar years in the course of time had already been
calculated by their learned men with great accuracy ; indeed,
in essentials they had made the solar year the basis of all
reckoning of time, and had introduced it into the actual life
of the nation. The fact is, it is indispensable, on the most
numerous and unavoidable grounds, for every more highly
civilised nation to reckon time according to the solar year.
The people of Israel made no discoveries in all these matters.
They had long been firmly established among nations of far
greater antiquity and early civilisation when Israel came into
their midst, and could become a sharer of their knowledge and
institutions. Not only, however, was Israel acquainted with the
solar year generally, but also with the peculiar arrangement
of it which had become customary among these nations, as we
learn plainly enough from the way in which the history of the
Flood was adopted and recast by the Book of Origins, a phe-
1 To which allusion is already made 2 This does not touch the question
in Ps. xc. 4, according to the correct how the hours were reckoned by John in
rendering. his Gospel.

LUNAR AND SOLAR CALENDARS. 343
nomenon which in this connection is extraordinarily instructive
in many respects.1 If the influence of a purely lunar reckoning
finally got the upper hand in this nation, there must have been
a very special cause for this ; and on a closer inspection we
cannot doubt that what turned the scale here was nothing but
the mighty age of Moses and its spirit, transforming all the
religious customs of those nations which, up to that point, had
been exerting such influence. As Jahveism under Moses re
verted in so many other respects to the greater simplicity and
the sacred reminiscences of the ancient people, so now, in direct
opposition to the custom of the Egyptians and other similar
nations, the observation of the lunar period and lunar year,
which must have been customary of old among the ancestors of
Israel, again became predominant, and was made the basis on
which the whole series of the sacred times of the nation should
be established. So far as this new mode of reckoning proceeded
from the impulse and power of the new religion, it must, before
long, as we have already noticed,2 have been intrusted for the
most part to the care, the insight, and the learning, of the
priests. And, as a fact, it intertwined itself the more insepar
ably with Jahveism, the more securely it established, and the
longer it developed, itself. The traces, however, of the other
mode of reckoning, by the solar year, never totally disappeared;
rather was a constant endeavour made to reconcile the two
modes one with the other.
Still another point of importance has to be considered. For
the agriculturist, the solar year has its main and best marked
division, and hence its new commencement, after the great har
vest, and in a country such as Palestine after the vine-harvest,
since this was there of great importance. Consequently to com
mence the year in autumn became the primitive custom in
the countries about the Euphrates and the Tigris.3 The same
custom probably prevailed from the earliest times among the
nations of Palestine before the people of Israel acquired a
fixed settlement there ; and even in Israel itself it was the tra
ditional practice, as will be further explained below. If, never-
1 See on this subject the Jahrbb. d. Chronologie der Aegypter, i. s. 133 sqq.—
Bibl Wiss vii. s 8 sqq. The principal But even in Israel the custom was retained
points here are the 365 days, and of limiting a period of time to thirty days,
the months of 30 days each. That e.g. in regard to mourning, p. 153 ; it was
this was the primitive custom in Asia out- the same among the ancient Germans,
side Persian boundaries, I already noticed Berl. Akad. Monatsbcr. 1862, s. 537-542.
in reference to Israel in the essay in the 2 P. 273 sq. „,,,„.,.
Zeitsch.fur die Kunde des Morgentandes, s Comp. also Chowlsons Ssabier, n.
iii. s. 417 sqq. ; but the Egyptian mode of s. 175 sqq.
reckoning was the same, comp. Lepsius,

344 THE GREAT SABBATH-CYCLE.
theless, the commencement of the year in Israel (at any rate in
regard to the annual series of great festivals which attached
themselves to Jahveism), fell in the spring, as wiU be shown
below to be the case, this phenomenon, too, leads us to the
certainty that under Moses and in his whole legislation a new
mode of reckoning time was adopted, which was alone deemed
valid at least in regard to Sacred matters. No doubt, however,
it would be long: before the entire nation became accustomed to
this innovation. It is true Moses could not have borrowed this
way of commencing the year from the Egyptians, although they,
too, originally began their year in the spring. The whole arrange
ment of times and festivals instituted by Moses is completely
different from that of the Egyptians, and, where the ancient
customs of Israel were not in accord with those of the Egyptians,
Moses never abandoned the former, if he could avoid doing
so. It is more hkely that it was the spring-time when Israel
took its departure from Egypt, so that the month of departure
became the commencement of its whole national freedom, and
Moses was fully justified in placing in the spring the festival of
the deliverance of Israel, and the commencement of a new era.
We shall, however, see below how long it was before the people
could forget the earlier beginning of the year, which was so
well adapted to their agricultural pursuits. The priests, from
the time of Moses, might always commence the year in the
spring to suit the series of festivals ; but in ordinary narra
tive the Book of Origins is the first to reckon the months
of each year in the same way.1 And, when the nation was at
last violently transferred, by the Assyrians and Chaldaaaris to
those countries about the Euphrates and Tigris where the
custom still remained of beginning the year in autumn, this
custom was all the more readUy again exclusively adopted in
regard to civil life. Under the Persians an attempt was made
to restore the genuine Mosaic custom also in reference to civil
matters;2 but from the dominion of the Seleucidse the nation
became so accustomed to the Syrian mode of reckoning alone,
that this henceforth seemed to have acquired in it an ineradic
able and permanent position ; and, as a fact, the opposition to
the Roman Calendar becoming an additional motive, it main
tained itself there down to the Middle Ages.
But even the nomenclature and enumeration of the months
leads us to a simUar conclusion. If we inquire how the
names of the months first originated, what is their simplest
1 See more on. the subject below.
2 See more detailed information, Hist. v. 183 sq.

EASTERN CALENDARS. 845
explanation among every ancient people, we are led at once to
the seasons ofthe year. It may almost be understood of itself
that the distinction and naming of these seasons would form
the earliest foundation of every mode of dividing the year.
Now everything goes to show that in these countries of
Asia and Africa the year was divided, in the first instance, into
three equal periods. These existed in the primitive Egyptian
calendar ; and in the Hieroglyphic documents four months are
reckoned to each of these periods in a very simple fashion.1 A
further step was to divide each third of the year into halves, and
count six divisions ; this became the legal practice among the
ancient Hindoos,2 and it must once have prevailed also in
Syria and Arabia. The proof of this lies in the fact that in the
calendars of the Syrians and Arabians two consecutive months
are often distinguished merely as the first and second of a given
period, and this period from which they are named is evidently
a division of the year.3 To distinguish a first and second
month in such divisions would be unmeaning, unless the
months were reckoned, at any rate in theory, according to the
solar year ; but this mode, as has already been remarked, was
introduced sufficiently early. Finally, various causes would
lead to giving the individual months separate simple names,
founded either on the phenomena of the year, or upon the special
sanctity and vocation of the month, or lastly (the most remote
and latest ground) upon human celebrities.4 But this would
take place in different ways, according to the history of the par
ticular nations ; and thus in the Syrian, and again differently
in the ancient Arabian calendar, numerous simple names of
months sprang up along side of the double names referred to
above. To distinguish the individual months by individual
names was also the custom in Israel — judging from all our
present knowledge — and these names were the same which the
Phoenicians also employed, and which from the earliest days
were peculiar to the land of Canaan.5 The last step in this
1 See Lepsius, Chronologie der Aegyp- ' The names which occur are as fol-
ter, i. s. 134. lows :— (1) The Abib, i.e. the Ear-month,
2 Comp. K&lidasa's Ritusanhdra. when the ears of corn show signs of ripen-
3 Among the Arabs the first and the ing, comes first according to the spring
, ¦ ¦ n„ s„„t „„a the reckoning, Ex. xiii. 4, xxiii. 15 • Deut.
second j.^, i.e. spring ; the first and the ^ 1 ^ ^ .g & ^ ^^ ^J-
second oW, ". winter. Among the tion according to Lehrb.J 149 «, and is
O1-^*^:' wholly distinct from the Egyptian Emipt,
Syrians the year began at once with two which, moreover, belongs to a different
pairs of months, the first and the second season); (2) Ziv, the flower-month, comes
Teshrin, the first and the second Kunun. second, 1 Kings vi. 1, 37 ; (3) The Aeta-
4 As is shown by the Roman calendar, nim, probably meaning the month of the
and still more by the newly-discovered, streams of water, when only those rivers
paltry, cringing, Cyprio-Roman Calendar, which never dried up were in existence

346

THE GREAT SABBATH-CYCLE.

whole development is evidently to denote the twelve months by
mere numbers — a practice which can be explained most easily
by assuming that the ancient mode of dividing the year was
entirely and suddenly changed by an abrupt transformation,
and that one particular month had to be placed in a position of
great preeminence, wholly unlike the former arrangement. If,
accordingly, we find the Book of Origins beginning to designate
the months in this way, merely by numbers starting with the
spring,1 this is a sacerdotal innovation which is in perfect
accord with all the above tokens of some such transformation
of the earliest Hebrew year. When at length the mode of
dividing the year observed by the Seleucidee came to prevail,2
it brought with it the custom of using the Syrian names of the
months,3 and the earliest genuine Hebrew names were thus
still more completely lost to memory. In just the same way
the Hellenists in Egypt at that time employed the Egyptian
names of the months.4
All these indications are finally in harmony with the fact,
that the earlier and more general name for month, which was
employed by the Hebrews as well as by the majority of Semitic

(a fact which must have been specially
remarked on the festivals of this month),
was the seventh month, 1 Kings viii. 2 ;
(4) The Bui, probably meaning the rain-
month (comp. |\j and \j.), when the
rain first begins (in November) was the
eighth, 1 Kings vi. 38. If we now re
member that the passage Deut. xvi. 1
merely repe.its an antiquated phrase, it
will appear that all the passages where
these names of months occur are in the
earliest works, viz. the Book of Cove
nants and the Book of Origins, the latter
of which prefers elsewhere to reckon the
months according to the sacerdotal me
thod, but makes exceptions at suitable
places in favour of using the ancient
manner. Even these names of months
are evidently Canaanitish, because they
are neither Aramaic nor Arabic ; but the
meaning of them in general is far from
being clearly recognisable from the ordi
nary language of Israel, so that of them
selves they refer us to Phoenician. But
the name Bui has now been actually dis
covered in this last language (comp. the
Erkldrung des grossen Phbnikischen ln-
schrift von Sidon, B. 20), as well as on
a newly-discoverpd Cyprian inscription
(comp. the essay on it in the Gott. Nach-
richten, 1862, s. 460). There has also
been found in the same language (5) the
NI^D m's contained in the 6econd Mal

tese, the eleventh Carthaginian (Ges.
Monum. p. 451), and several Kittaic in
scriptions (comp. the Gott. Nachrichten,
1862, s. 546 sq.); and (6) the ^sp m\
in a lately-discovered Sidonian inscription
(s. the treatise Ueber die grosse Kartha-
gische und andere neuentdeckte Inschriften,
s. 46); and (7) **3JB, on a Phoenician
inscription given in the Journ. As. 1867,
p. 88. We are, accordingly, at present
acquainted with four primitive and very
different series of Semitic names for
months, (1) the Canaanitish; (2) the Ara
maic ; (3) the Arabic; (4) the Ethiopic;
quite distinct from the latter and very un
intelligible. The question further arises
how a fifth series, that of the Ssabians
(Chowlson, ii. o. 34, 36), was related to
them. The Mosaic series must be con
sidered a sixth series, content to reckon
the months by numbers.
1 This brings us close to the question
whether the custom of only numbering
days of the week has the same origin.
See, however, what is said on p. 101.
2 P. 344.
3 How closely this introduction of the
Aramaic names of the months ean be
traced has been indicated, Hist. v. 183 nt.
* The Ylaxiiv and the 'Em<f>( just men
tioned occur 3 Mace. vi. 38, and. are cor
rectly reckoned after the Egyptian fashion
at thirty days.

RECTIFICATION OF THE LUNAR YEAR. 347
nations,1 began about the same date to be replaced by another
term, which of itself only signifies the new-moon.2 We have
already seen that the ancient sanctity of the new-moon, and of
the lunar year experienced a revival under Moses ; it cannot,
then, surprise us that many of the technical expressions in this
department should have been changed under the priests.
So powerful, on all sides, was the transformation which
Jahveism effected from the time of Moses in restoring the
ancient sanctity of the lunar changes, and endeavouring to
connect therewith the whole reckoning of time. But one step
further, and Moses would have done what Mohammed at last did,
viz., established the sanctity ofthe simple month alone, and given
up the solar year altogether ; but the superior common sense of
Moses preserved him from this step, by taking which Mohammed
sufficiently proved himself to be the unwisest and most perverse
of legislators. The solar year was not, and could not be, given
up, if only because Moses retained so many and such important
traces of ancient festivals which depended on it. But if it was
to stand by the side of the lunar year, there was no other
course but to continually make the two correspond as closely as
possible ; and the way to do this lay close at hand. For if the
year was to commence with the great spring-festival, when the
vegetable first-fruits appropriate to it were to be brought for
sacrifice (as wiU be described below), it would not do to com
mence too early with the lunar year ; but so often as by keeping
to it they were so much behind-hand with the crops, that their
was a danger of not being able to bring these first-fruits, they
were compelled to insert an extra month before the regular
twelve, in order to get right with the solar year. They were,
therefore, always cognizant and observant of the solar year
as well, and as a matter of course they were quite well
acquainted with the intercalary days of the Egyptians and
Syrians, though they could not employ them in the same
way, when the lunar year was to remain the basis of the
whole calendar, and all that was wanted was to ensure corre
spondence between it and the solar year. And we have in the
above-mentioned history of the Flood 3 a clear proof of how
1 rr-njg name n -| is Hebrew and Ca- rather a poetical expression, although even
„ . . "'¦'. . . T.-.ti,-„„:. the poets iust as frequently use the other
naanitish (Phoenician), Aramaic, Ethiopic, ^ J i '
and Himjaric, and that it was once also ¦ . .
¦> ' , . .„¦ 2 £Hn. The interchange of these two
Arabic is proved by its derivation isUib. •-•
r J C_'^ names keeps pace almost evenly with that
It is therefore, undoubtedly the earliest, explained above of the designation of the
and 'hence the most widely extended particular months.
Semitic word ; but in Hebrew it is very 3 P. 342.
rarely used in plain narration, and is

348 THE SABBATH-MONTH.
perfectly the mutual relations of the two calendars were under
stood, at any rate, in thought, and could be represented in
narration. This insertion of an extra month 1 whenever it seemed
needful to revert to the solar year is an extremely simple pro
cess ; and, in contradistinction to the far more complicated
Egyptian calendar, its very simplicity might recommend it to a
•mind like that of Moses. But how the insertion of a new month
was arranged and proclaimed throughout the whole population,
whether it commenced when the first light of the new-moon
was again visible in the heavens,2 or whether a more artificial
process was adopted — these are questions which happen not to
be alluded to in the Old Testament.
3. Early civilised nations like the Egyptians and Baby
lonians, calculated, in addition to the simple year, longer series
of years in various ways, the latter differently from the former.3
But it will be shown below that those which Moses established
were of a distinct kind ; and the only point of importance here
is that if those other nations had their longer periods, he could
the more easily establish similar ones in his own way.

I. The Sabbath-Month and the Seven Annual
Festivals.
1. The Traces of Pee-Mosaic Festivals.
It may be assumed from the general considerations already
adduced that Israel celebrated certain festivals long prior to
those instituted by Moses; and according to all tokens, the
constituent elements of the latter were essentially based upon
such earlier festivals. But it is equally certain that these pre-
Mosaic festivals were pure nature-festivals. In the changes of
the seasons, and of the phenomena of heaven, nature always
386 displays a gracious adaptation to the needs of man, giving him
1 Which in the language of the later Jer. xxxi. 6. The seventh day of the
Aramaic times was only a new Adar, i.e. month spoken of in Ezek. xiv. 20 is not
last month. the sabbath ; but it follows from Dan. x.
2 As was the case according to the 2-4 that the festival at the commencement
description in the M. nOB>n t?N"l, ii- 1 sqq. of the first month might extend over two
during the final period before the second days, which is important on account of
destruction of Jerusalem, and certainly what is said below, p. 356.
this would have been the simplest for all s For the Babylonian cycles of years
the sacerdotal occupations. Comp. the see Berossos in G. Synkellos Chronogr. i. p.
Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. xi. s. 253 sqq., and 38 Goar ; for the Egyptian, see Lepsius
also what is said in the second edition Chronologie, i. s. 160 sqq.
of the Prophets of the Old Testament on

CELEBRATION OF THE NEW- AND FULL-MOONS. 349
special opportunities and intervals, when he may rest for a
considerable while from his ordinary toil and devote himself
unreservedly to higher thoughts. Hence, among the most
ancient nations, these festivals of the earliest type bore a great
resemblance to one another ; and the people of Israel had, in
this respect, no preeminence over other nations, especially
those nearly related to itself.
1. We may be sure that the celebration of the new-moon
and of the full-moon was as customary in primitive times
among the people of Israel as it is to this day among certain
heathen races, especially the Hindoos, and in religions derived
from Hindoostan.1 Of the primitive celebration of the new-
moon very important traces were preserved in the Mosaic
arrangements, as will be explained below. That the full-moon,
too, was originally celebrated in Israel, is proved by Jahveism
placing the great spring- and autumn-festivals on the day of
the full-moon, the 14th or 15th of their respective months.2
The celebration of these two great annual festivals was so
inseparably connected, down to the latest times, with the middle
of the month, that all members of the community, who, either
on account of bodily impurity,3 or of being at a distance, had
been unable to celebrate the Passover at the great gathering of
the nation, were to keep it on the corresponding day a month
later.4 Again, the first king of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes, 387
when he wished, the great autumn-festival to be connected with
a new order of affairs for his subjects, had still to place it on
the corresponding day of the following month.5
Where two externally distinct festivals are contained within
a perpetually recurring circle, they readily seek to be dis
tinguished from one another by internal marks also, as will
be shown to have been the case in regard to the spring- and
autumn-festivals. Whether a similar internal difference was
traditionally observed between the celebration of the new-moon
and of the full-moon, may at first sight appear doubtful. For
1 Comp. Manu, vi. 9 sq. Max Miiller's and the new-moons are still spoken of
History of Sanskrit Lit. p. 490 ; Wilson's in general terms as sacred, although the
Vishnu-Pur&na, pp. 145, 275 nt, 538 nt; thought of the full- and new-moons ofthe
De la Loubere's Description du royaume seventh month may predominate in the
de Siam, i. pp. 347, 351. Among the mind of the poet.
Buddhists in Arrachan and elsewhere even 3 P. 1 49 sqq.
all the four quarters of the moon (the * According to the Book of Origins,
origin of the week of seven days, p. 98) Num. ix. 9-13. Even the whole corn-
are still solemnised, see American Oriental munity when it was prevented from cele-
Journal i V 238 sq. ; Spence-Hardy's brating the passover in its proper month,
Eastern Monachism, p. 236 sqq. For the postponed it to the corresponding date in
Chinese customs see above, p. 98 the next month, 2 Chron. xxx 2 sq.
2 In the later Ps. Ixxxi. 4 [3] the full- ' 1 Kings xn. 32, comp. Hut. iv. 27.

350 THE SABBATH-MONTH
it is impossible to apply the distinction lying close to hand,
which would make the celebration of the new-moon preemi
nently a penance with expiatory-offerings as its predominant
feature, while the celebration of the full-moon would be mainly
expressive of joy; since all our present knowledge goes to
show that the new-moon, as the appearance of new light, was
celebrated as a purely joyous festival.1 Another distinction
between them was, however, possible, and everything goes to
show that this was permanently kept up. The full-moon was
most suitable for great national festivals in those countries
where the whole nation from far and near collected around its
principal Sanctuary ; in countries, therefore, where they might
make their pilgrimage thither during the preceding nights,
and commence the festival itself under the cool moon-shine.2
The festival of the new-moon, on the other hand, bore more
appropriately in every respect a domestic character ; and all
recognisable traces indicate that even in Israel this always
continued to be its prevailing character.
No doubt lunar celebrations would as good as lose all
meaning if a nation substituted artificial for natural months.
But the ancient people of Israel, as we have shown above,3 in
! addition to reckoning by the solar year, always continued to
reckon also by the lunar year, and to bring the two into
harmony by inserting an extra month every third year. It is
true, we do not possess any direct testimony to this, but every
thing indicates it to have been the case. In particular, the
two annual principal festivals were so largely dependent upon
the arrangements of husbandry, and hence of the solar year,
that this of itself would ensure a sufficiently speedy return to
the solar calendar.
We have also already seen 4 that the week of seven days, as
the approximate quarter of a month, had been long established
in pre-Mosaic days, both in Israel, and among many other
nations.5 But the very rigidity with which Moses connected
this weekly period with the number seven, caused it to pursue
1 Comp. the passages quoted below in sessed a certain sanctity; comp. Mahabh.
respect to the new-moon. Savitri, cl. 25; Wilson's Vishnu- Purdna,
2 Just as in those regions such festi- p 275 nt; Journal of the Royal Asiatic
vals even now commence with dances at Society, ix. p. 84-86. The same, how-
night, see Layard's Nineveh, i. p. 120. ever, was also the case with the days from
3 P. 343 sq. the tenth to the twelfth, p. 87 sq. which
4 P. 98 sqq. is explained by what is said on p. 98.
s Among the Hindoos the seventh or In the lunar month of certain Negro
the eighth and the fourteenth day of every races it is still the Tuesday, not the Satur-
month (termed parvan, i.e. knots, divi- day, which is deemed holy, see Audand,
sions) have from the earliest times pos- 1839, s. 1390.

THE GREAT AUTUMN-FESTIVAL. 351
an independent course by the side of the lunar period, without
accommodating itself to the latter.
2. Ot Annual festivals there were at any rate two recognised
in Israel prior to Moses, one in spring, and one in autumn.
These are the two — almost given of themselves in the great
order of the phenomena of the heavens and the soil — which
appear again among all the races consanguineous with Israel,
as weU as other primitive nations, as the most original of aU
annual festivals, and which, in particular, were to be found
among the ancient Arabs.1 Now the intimate way in which they
were associated with the arrangements of agriculture and the
entire life of nature, from the earliest times, gave rise to a con
trast between them, through which the spring-festival received
an entirely different significance and external character from
the autumn-festival.
¦ In autumn, after the gathering of all the crops of the year,
including the latest, such as fruit and grapes, is complete, it is
to this day in those warm regions a very prevalent and extremely
ancient custom among the settled population, to spend certain
special days of leisure and rejoicing out in the open air, living in
arbours or tents, and there celebrating a great festival of thanks- 389
giving and gladness. To keep, about this time, such a festival of
arbours (as it was briefly termed), was always customary also in
Israel; 2 and if the people gradually learned later to abandon the
habit of marching in great crowds out into the open fields, and
there building arbours for the autumn, such erections were at any
rate set up on a small scale at the traditional period for the fes
tival, on the roofs of the houses, in courts, or in market-places.3
Hence this festival always retained in Israel a strong relish ofthe
country. While the arbours were still built in the open fields,
it was usual to form solemn processions, in which the people
bore ripe lemons, and other such fruits, as well as tufts of palms
and branches of cypresses and willows.4 In later times the
1 It has not been sufficiently noticed of splendour ' and ' tree rich in foliage '
how closely, in the ancient Arabian calen- are plainly half poetical; the former is
dar, the Muharram (the first month rec- probably the citron, the latter the cypress.
kon'ing from the autumn) and the Regeb It need hardly be said that '3"15;1 is still
(the seventh) correspond with one another dependent upon Spy. The Samaritans
mTTrm ^Tnd^whai t faid «* *»*¦ *« more closely to the
"'"• -*¦• "¦ " H' letter of this passage, disallowing all
"elow- ... further decorations; comp. F. P. Bayer
2 The Book of Origins, Lev. xxm. 42 ; De numis Hebr. Sam. pp. 128-138.—
comp. Hos. xii. 1 0 [9], where tents are once Am()ng the Babylonians the great SakeaQ
mentioned. festival was a corresponding celebration.
3 Neh. viii. 16. But even among the Nestorians, Jakobites,
4 This is the meaning of the words and others, as well as among the Moham-
in Lev. xxiii. 40 ; the expressions ' tree medans of those regions, a sheep-offering

352 THE SABBATH-MONTH.
more elaborate arbours within the city would be constructed of
olive-branches, palm-tufts, myrtle, and cypress-boughs.1 Even
the magnificent libations of wine and water, which are men
tioned from the time of the second temple,2 may have had some
ancient prototype, although it is not alluded to in the ancient
law. With usages like these, as well as with costly sacrifices,
the celebration of the autumn-festival would be kept up for a
much longer time than the spring-festival. The great relaxa
tion of the year was then sought and celebrated.
Totally different from this was the nature of the spring-
festival. It was not so simple as the other, but, in the people
of Israel, as well as other ancient nations, always possessed
390 something of a double character. On the one hand, there was
the presentation of the first-fruits of the new-year, accompanied
by pious vows and prayers on behalf of the hoped-for blessings
of the entire coming year. In Canaan, however, corn ripens so
early in the year that the first-fruits of barley might be brought
very soon after the spring equinox, at any rate from certain
very favourably situated districts, e.g. the fields about the
southern end of the Jordan, and the harvest of every kind of
corn was over a good while before the expiration of our spring.3
Now just as the earliest forms of every kind of sacrifice always
include a human participation, so was it particularly to be
with this primitive sacrifice. The first ears of barley just
acquired were on the same day in part rapidly ground to flour
and baked to unleavened bread, in part merely roasted at the
fire or pounded in a mortar. The roasted, or pounded portion,
was especially used for offering up on the altar, the unleavened
bread as sacrificial bread for the human beings.4 A natural
addition to this was devoting an entire sheaf of the fresh ears
to the altar. In these rites it was a stringent law that, until
such a sacrifice was completely accomplished, none might dare
to eat of the new bread. ft
But, at the same time, the spring, coinciding with the com
mencement of the new year, is always a period of serious reflec-
in autumn has held its ground. See still found ripe barley in the neighbour-
Badger's Nestorians, i, p. 229 sqq. hood of Jerusalem, De Locis Sanctis, p. 69
1 Neh. viii. 15 sq. (Tobler).
2 See Mishnah Sukka, iv. 9 sq. Allu- * According to the very ancient pas
sion to it is made in John vii. 37 sq. — sage from the Book of Covenants, Josh.
It is intelligible that many superficial v. 11 sq., comp. Lev. ii. 14-16, and the
heathens regarded this as a festival cele- representation of the Book of Origins,
brated in honour of Bacchus, see Hist. v. Num. xv. 17-21. That it was the first-
470 nt 1, and Plutarch's Qucest. Convi.v. iv. fruits of barley follows both from the
6. 1, 2. Comp. also the passage in Cur- nature of the case and from 2 Kings iv.
tius' Quellinschriften, s. 16. 42.
3 Eight days after Easter Theodoricus s Lev. xxiii. 14.

THE PASSOVER. 853
tion and anxious care for the future, of obscure transition over
to a mysterious unknown, and of upward-gazing anxiety about
the blessing or the bane which may be expected from heaven.
At this period, therefore, man felt himself most strongly im
pelled every year to offer, wherever practicable, sacrifices of
purification and reconciliation, not alone on account of par
ticular transgressions of which he knew himself to be guilty,
but also to secure the divine exemption and grace generaUy on 391
the occasion of this uncertain transition, so that, as it were, if
during the new year, his G-od were to visit him and call him
to account, He might not slay him, as he perhaps deserved,
but might graciously pass him over. Thus in the people
of Israel, from the earliest times, an atonement-offering was
an indispensable constituent of every spring-festival. It is
called by a name of unmistakeable antiquity, not occurring in
any other connection, Pascha, i.e. passover, exemption,1 and
even its usages as they were preserved in Jahveism betray a
pre-Mosaic period. Even in the later times it ever continued
to be a proper domestic sacrifice, which every household offered
for its own exemption. Hence it was always to consist of a
male animal, either of the sheep or goat kind, since such a one
might generally be consumed at one meal by the members of a
single household. If, however, there was a household of too
few members, as many neighbours were to be brought in as
would ensure its being whoUyconsumed.2 This offering, itself 392
1 This is the explanation of the name^ 1849, s. 466, 518.
intentionally given Ex. xii. 13, 23, 27, 2 Ex. xii. 4, 43-46. We have a
comp. Is. xxxi. 5 (see also the Jahbb. der paraiiel usage in Islam in the sheep and
Bibl. Wiss. vii. s. 165 sq.). Closely cor- goats wnien annually on the tenth day of
responding is, therefore, the name ™ tne Muharram are to be slain in the valley
faa&arh.pia in Philo, Vita Mos. iii. 29, Mina (Muna) on the slope of the moun-
comp. Aristotle in Euseb. Eccies. Hist. vii. tajn Arafat, not far from Mecca. This
32. This also gives the explanation of Usage is described by Burckhardt, Travels
the custom of keeping the doors of the jw Arabia, ii. p. 56 sqq. ; it has survived
temple open during the night of the pass- from primitive times, and is one in which
over, which may have survived from a it is most easy to recognise the traces of
very early date, Josephus, Antiq. xviii. primitive pre-Mosaic religion among the
2. 2. The Arabians term1 this sacrifice nations connected with Israel. Still more
~— . . , 7 ,. parallel, however, was the sacrificial lamb
very correctly ^JL i.e. the redemption, ^ pr6vious to tnetime ofMohammedin
and they are therefore in the habit of the spring month Regeb (for the Muharram
adding the cognomen Abulfida to the wasoriginally in the autumn), Harits AfoaK.
name Ismail.— We have elsewhere alluded ver. 69 Schol. For similar instances

Christ) public executions used to be con- appear trom vem. xvi. 1 sq., as. cnougn
nected with this as the great purificatory it were also allowed to sacrifice cattle ;
festival ¦ comp Mishnah Sanhedrin, xi. 4 but according to 2 Chron. xxxv. 7-9, these
(where 'it is asserted of all festivals) ; a ought to be regarded as a subsidiary
similar instance occurs in Porphyry, De offering, or rather as a thank-offering fo
Abstin. ii. 54, and still in Africa, Ausland, t he first day of the principal festival.
A A

354 THE MOSAIC FESTIVALS.
simply termed pascha, was unmistakeably an expiatory-offering,
but the way of sacrificing it, even in the later times, was very
different from the procedure with the regular expiatory-offerings.
The head of the family, down to the latest times, himself slew
the animal,1 and streaked with its blood the lintel and door
posts of the house, as though to make atonement for the whole
house and all who were contained therein celebrating the
festival.2 The bloodless animal, next to be made ready for the
table, was not cut up into joints, but slowly roasted before the
sacrificial fire with its limbs intact, to give, as it were, the
clearest indication that a creature, which had but just ceased
to live, had fallen, intact as it was, for men.3 The only accom
paniment permitted to the dish were certain bitter herbs.4
The accomplishment of a closer union between these two
solemnities of the spring offered no great difficulties. The
entire twofold celebration could not become such a joyous
festival as that of autumn ; in contrast to the latter, it became
one of a very stern character. It was commenced with the expia
tory-offering which was to be made in every house ; not till man
was thus purified could he venture to offer the first-fruits in
public, and eat thereof himself. But even the unleavened
bread, which was then eaten as a sacrifice, — composed of a pure
unmixed substance, and made with the greatest simplicity and
absence of all seasoning — might represent both the sternness
and anxious care of that day, so that it might also be termed
' bread of tribulation.' 5

2. The Festal Institutions established bt Moses.
393 In some such way as this, sacred times were observed in
Israel before Moses ; and if, in addition to those we have
mentioned, there were others, which was very probably the case,
they were assuredly of less importance, and their celebration
not so universal.
The superior mind of Moses was preeminently successful in
bringing, out of the idea of the Sabbath, into this whole
1 According to Ex. xii. 6; at a later time this went out of usage.
date the Levites were also employed in 3 Ex. xii. 7, sq., 46; Num ix. 12;
this, Ezra vi. 20, comp. 2 Chron. xxix. 24 comp. Justin contr. Tryph. xl. The
sqq. custom does not occur in connection with
2 Ex. xii. 7, 22 sq., comp. Ezek. ix. any other sacrifices in the Old Testament.
4 ; Apocal. vii. 1-8, and similar cases 4 Ex. xii. 8, Num. ix. 11 — For the
above, p. 159 and 279; for a parallel passover among the modern Samaritans
Roman custom see Bdttiger's Kl. archaol. see also Petermann in the D. Zeitschr.f.
Schriften, i. s. 153; see too G. Miiller's chr. Wissensch., 1853, s. 201 sq.
Amerik. Urrcl., s, 391 sq. At a later a Deut xvi. 3.

APPLICATION OF THE IDEA OF THE SABBATH. 355
series of possible sacred times, a single thought, and hence
one firm connecting medium, and equally clear and beautiful
bond of union. Just this fact may be most completely
recognised from the still extant remains of the Book of
Origins.1 The new constitution would of course remodel many
detaUs entirely afresh, and many others it would establish more
permanently ; but, in the main, all that was done was to breathe
upon things a spirit which transformed into harmony with
Jahveism the meaning and purpose of all festive celebrations
generally, and of individual festivals in particular. Thus very
many of the earlier practices were stiU retained, and may be
easily recognised under a transparent veil. It was character
istic of the whole of Jahveism 2 that the worship of Jahveh by
the priests should run parallel with that by the community ; and
especially at the celebration of these festivals must this duality
everywhere find expression. Parallel with all that .the people
were directed to do on the festivals, indeed independent of all
this, arrangements were made for a sacerdotal celebration of
every festival, with appropriate sacrifices and other rites. In
particular, on festivals the sacerdotal sacrifices were increased.
They accompanied the daily offering spoken of above,3 but
themselves assumed different forms in accordance with the
various significance of the special festal days ; and here we can
observe an arrangement no less elaborate, though probably not
equaUy ancient. The particulars are the following :
1. The commencement of the year, or at any rate of the
first year, was fixed for the first month whose full-moon follows
the spring equinox. This month the Book of Origins always
terms simply the first, and counts the others in succession from 394
it. In the Book of Covenants, on the other hand, it is called
the Ear-month, as in it the ears of corn ripened.4 Starting with
this point, the annual autumn-festival was fixed for the seventh
month. For the autumn-festival, occurring at a time when all
1 Lev xxiii. • comp. Num. xxviii. sq., wholly different commencement for the
and Ex xii sq year, similar to that which was customarv
2 P 113 sqq. 'n Syria, and which from the time of the
* p' 116 Seleucidae prevailed even among the Jews
• Ex xxiii 1 5 • whence the expres- in their civic life. Asa fact, commencing
sion in the passages- Ex. xiii. 4, Deut. the year in autumn, or still' better after
x i 1 mav be derived; comp. on the thegreat autumn festival, was best adapted
other hand Ex. xii. 2, Lev. xxiii 5, Num. to agricultural economy ; and it is possible
... .„  with this is unmistakeably that in ancient Israel it was for the most
connected another deviation of the Book part only the priests who always observed
of Covenants • the autumn-month, the the spring commencement required by the
' «w«nth according to the Book of Origins, Book of Origins, and certainly also by
seventn aiA.um'"6  ... . i\yr„„„„ e.a ~ mt

IS

here the last in the year, Ex. -xxiii. 16, Moses. See p. 342.
comp. xxxiv. 22. This presupposes a A A 2

356 THE MOSAIC FESTIVALS.
business can easily be suspended, was traditionally the greater
of the two annual festivals, and was celebrated, not only with
the greatest joy, but with the most universal participation ofthe
people, and was readily extended to the longest period. It was
from the first a true national holiday ; it was often termed simply
' the festival,' 1 and even within Jahveism it could never lose
this, its natural feature. This was already reason enough why
the autumn-month should tend to become, more than aU the
rest, the proper sabbath-month ; and as the seventh in the
series to form the exalted summit of the year, for which aU the
preceding festivals prepared the way, and after which everything
quietly came down to the ordinary course of life, until the com
mencement of a new festal circle.
Hence this month was to be distinguished from aU the rest,
and receive a sacred consecration, by its new-moon being saluted
more solemnly than that of any other, and even being exalted
to the dignity of a special annual festival. With the remaining
new-moons the law concerned itself but little. It was the ancient
traditional custom for all the members of a famhy to celebrate
them at home ; 2 in ordinary life they were on a par with the
weekly sabbaths; 3 on the part ofthe priests they were, it is true,
honoured as proper festivals, with rich sacrifices, viz. seven
lambs, two head of cattle, a ram, and an expiatory-he-goat.4
But the law never insisted on their celebration by the whole
people, or placed them on a level with the sabbaths. On the
seventh new-moon, however, there was to be a public celebration
of a great festival by all the people, during which work was
suspended, and the importance of the occasion was to be loudly
proclaimed by the priests from the Sanctuary.5 It is therefore
manifest that, at least according to the original intention of the
legislator, this one new-moon, in the series of sacred days, was
alone to be of real moment to the whole nation ; and the law
would hardly have remonstrated if aU the rest had graduaUy
ceased to be observed by the people.
2. While the great autumn-festival remained fixed for the
full-moon of the seventh month, the corresponding spring-
festival was appointed for the same day of the first month, so
1 Hos. xii. 10 [9], Is. xxx. 29, comp. (rui$$aTaloc.cit. Comp. also the lately re-
bb:. Zach. xiv. 18 sq. Deut. xxxi, 10 sq. 1 covered passage in Clemens Rom. Horn.
Kings xii. 32, Ps. cxviii. xix. 22, where the new-moon is still placed
2 1 Sam. xx. 5, 24, 27. From ver. 27 by the side of the Sabbath, and bears too
we see that the new-moon was celebrated the worst significance.
by a feast on the day after its first ap- » Amos viii. 5, Judith viii. 6.
peamnce, and not till then; hence the * Num. xxviii. 11-15.
¦npavovp.-nvii. and vovunvia, Judith viii. 6, » Lev. xxiii. 23-25, Num. xxix, 1-6,
corresponding to the irpoaiPfiara and comp. a. 10.

THE SPRING- AND AUTUMN-FESTIVALS. 357
that their dates marked the commencement of two nearly equal
halves of the year. Each of them had essentially the same
dignity, and hence properly entirely similar arrangements.
Nevertheless, their different place in the year produced a dis
tinction between them. In the first place, the whole character
of the spring-festival was far more serious than that of the
autumn-festival; and, secondly, the whole series of celebrations
during the first half of the year was related to those of the
second half, as the weaker to the stronger, as a mighty upheaval
to its necessarily still more weighty subsidence.
Just as every great sacrifice may be initiated by an expia- 396
tory-offering,1 and just as a suitable preparation and purifica
tion should form the commencement of every sacred action,2
so each of these two great annual festivals was preceded by
a special festival of expiation, which was celebrated with
great solemnity, in accordance with the serious nature of Jah
veism. The principal festival itself, both in the autumn and in
the spring, commenced immediately after the full-moon, and
therefore on the fifteenth day of the month, and lasted an entire
week ; even here the number seven succeeded in keeping its
ground. Nevertheless, this sanctification of a whole week was
not meant to prevent the people from doing any work whatever
for the entire space of seven days. It was only on the first, or
also on the last as well, that ordinary occupations were to be sus
pended as on the sabbath,3 and great congregational meetings
held. In other respects all these days were only distinguished
sacerdotally by richer sacrifices. On the other hand, the pre
paratory expiatory -festival was limited to a single day for both
festivals, and originally at any rate it was fixed for the tenth
of the month, both in spring and autumn, this being a day not
too distant from the fifteenth, and, moreover, possessing, on its
own account, a certain primitive sanctity.4
And as each principal festival had its preparatory expiation, 397
1 Pp. 67 sq. 131. Islam still retains some traces ofthe same
2 pp ±2 sq 106. sacred numbers manifestly derived from
, T . ,. 'r,. e„t j„_ „f ,,„ pre-Mosaic times. The tenth of Mu harram
In this sense the first day ot un- r „„,,,. , . t,„n, j„„0 „j? „„„0.
leavened bread is expressly called . and oiDulh iggeh are both days of g icat
•Sabbath,' viz. in brief phrases where the importance m the arrangement of the
. , -fi.„v„„ Tow -r-ri'ii festivals, see above p. 606 nt 2,, snanras-
meaning cannot be "iistaken Lev xxm > V ^ Burokhardt.,a
11 15 ; the meaning of th. is^ always ^V . H ..
made clear bj Rescript ons such as ver. ^^ ^ -„ m ^^
7, 8, 21, 25, 28, 35, 1 6 , Ex. xii. lb ine case ^ the
more definite name for a day thus resem- P month ^
bhng the sabbath was, however, pnat?, among the Jez£dB| S6e Ainswortn'8 rrawZs,
derived from 036?. ii. p. 186.
* P. 98. It is really remarkable that

358 THE MOSAIC FESTIVALS. '
so too each was not brought to a conclusion without a joyous
holiday, which equally with the former, lasted but one day.
Each of these annual festal seasons accordingly was divided
into three particular celebrations : the preparatory, the princi
pal, and the concluding, festivals.
The preparatory festival of the spring celebration was the
Pascha, to whose fame so many causes had contributed,1 and
which even in Jahveism never lost its character of a purely
domestic expiatory-offering. That the law originally intended
it to be observed on the tenth day of the month is unmis-
takeable. The corresponding expiatory-festival in the autumn
is fixed for that date ; and even the Book of Origins orders the
paschal sacrificial animal to be selected and held in readiness
on the tenth.2 But just as it was this sacrifice generally at
which the domestic and national customs held their ground
most tenaciously, so here too the custom was retained of con
necting it as closely as possible with the Feast of Unleavened
Bread. Not till the fourteenth, during the last three hours
before, and the first three after, sunset,3 was the sacrificial
animal slain and eaten. Thus, in contradistinction to the
ordinary sacrifices, it remained a real night-offering, with
which man entered upon a new period. But in this sense it
was always appointed for the fourteenth, and in the earhest
times at least, the view was strictly upheld that the Feast of
Unleavened Bread did not begin till the following morning.4
On the side of the priests this fourteenth day was not further
celebrated.5 But for the primitive religion this festival of
purification with the succeeding principal celebration was
always deemed an absolutely indispensable sacred rite for
398 every single household, and indeed for every adult male — a rite
which might not be omitted in any year whatever, and was on
a par with circumcision, or rather was something even stUl
more sacred.6 Just because this remained the sole purificatory
1 P. 353 sq. (p. 161 sqq. of the Ethiopic text), de-
2 Ex. xii, 3-6, comp. too what is termines that the passover shall be ob-
remarked in Hist. ii. p. 245 sq. served from the last third of the day to
, ™. . . . the third third of the night, but that the
This is at any rate the most pro- „, ; shaU take lace in this last third
bable meaning of the phrase D'anyn |13 ofthe day.
Ex. xii. 6, Lev. xxiii. 5. Lehrb. § 180 a, 4 Josh. v. 11, comp. Lev. xxiii. 5 sq,,
about the meaning of which there has Num. xxviii. 16 sq.
beenmuchcontroversyamonglaterwriters. 5 This follows plainly from Num.
The Pharisees and the Rabbis wanted to xxviii. 16 sq.
limit this period to the earlier hours before 6 According to p. 110, with the con-
sunset, the Samaritans and Karaites to sequences already treated more fully on
those after sunset. It is worthy of p. 349 sq.
notice how the Lib. Jubilorum, xlix.

THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD. 359
sacrifice which the individual had personally to offer, it was
regarded, in the light of the extreme reverence in which the
bloody sacrifice was held, as an annual debt which he was
bound to pay unless he would make himself unworthy of
membership in the communion. Hence comes its significance
as a Sacrament. Only men were to partake of it, as circum
cision applied only to them ; and no portion of the sacrificial
flesh might remain over even to the following morning.1 But
when in later days,2 they became the more scrupulously anxious
about purification, the closer the contact into which they were
perpetually coming with the heathen, a law was even passed
that no one might eat the passover who had on the same day
entered a heathen house.3
The principal festival, lasting a whole week, but only
observed as a solemn day of rest on the first and last day, was
properly the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which was to be eaten
during the entire week. That this unleavened bread was
originally made of the very first ears of the barley-harvest
(barley being the corn which ripens earliest)', is quite indis
putable.4 But the Book of Origins already ceases to require
definitely that it shall be made from the first harvest of the
year, and as an historical fact circumstances soon arose which
made this at times impossible. For if this festival in the
second and third lunar year kept falling earlier and earlier, the
commencement of the harvest would take place too late for it
to be possible for the whole nation to eat unleavened bread
made from it; the usage in this respect must become less
stringent. Nevertheless, the original meaning of this festival 399
was restored in another way, viz., by the rise of the custom for
the priests, at any rate, to offer on the second day of the feast a
fresh sheaf of barley in the name of the whole people. This
might be deemed symbolic ofthe commencement of the whole
corn-harvest, and it was expressly ordained that, previous to
1 Ex. xii. 10, comp. ver. 46 ; even in enjoins for the time of the temple in
the very ancient utterance Ex. xxiii. 18, Jerusalem that the blood must be sprinkled
the words 'offering' and 'festival-offer- upon the base of the altar and the fat
ing ' denote especially the passover, as is cast into the fire.
expressly explained in the repetition of 2 P. 155 nt. 5.
the Fourth Narrator, Ex. xxxiv. 25. At s According to John xviii. 28. The
the passover, therefore, as a sacrifice regulation of the schools then in force
largely left to individuals but stringently was by no means deduced merely from
observed, everything holds good which the words Deut. xvi. 4 ; it followed from
was said' about thank-offerings on p. 52 ; the entire system of the later days, and is
and in the case of the strictest thank- only accidentally wanting from the pre-
offerings the same stringency prevailed, sent Talmud.
Lev. xxii. 29 sq. — The Liber Jubilorum, * P. 352.
xlix. (p. 163 of the Ethiopic) distinctly

860 THE MOSAIC FESTIVALS.
its presentation none might eat of the new corn in any form
whatever. The day was to be marked, at any rate by the
priests, like a simple sabbath of the second rank, i.e., with one
sacrificial lamb in addition to the daily allowance of two.1 In
proportion, however, as the unleavened bread lost its natural
significance, the more available did it become for receiving a
higher, more spiritual, meaning which would not be unappro-
priate to the rank of this festival. The very close connection of
the passover as a strict expiatory-festival with this principal cele
bration (for the two were only separated by a night),2 caused
the idea of a serious cleansing and purification to be continually
passing over from the former to the latter. Thus unleavened
bread soon came to be regarded not only as suitable for a
serious time, but also as a symbol of that purity of the whole
house, which was to be sought after afresh in the new-year ;
and the custom grew up of scrupulously removing, previous to
this feast, every remnant of leavened bread.3
The joyous concluding holiday in the spring was postponed
till somewhat later, in order that an interval might elapse
during which the whole corn-harvest could be brought to a
ico close, even if the principal festival was celebrated quite early
in the year. This interval was to extend from the first day
after the fifteenth, — from that day, therefore, which was deemed
the day of consecration for the corn-harvest,4 — for exactly seven
weeks, as though this period, defined by the sacred number,
were the consecrated spring-time during which the sickle was
busy throughout the whole land until the blessing had been
fuUy reaped in the harvest of every kind of corn. The day
immediately following — the fiftieth day (Whitsuntide) — became
accordingly the day of jubilee for the completed corn-harvest.
It was named ' the festival of the corn-harvest,' 6 or more
definitely ' the day of the first-fruits,' 6 and also ' the festival of

1 P. 116. Lev. xxiii. 9-14. even reckoned from the fourteenth day,
2 The Book of Origins, in passages Ezek. xiv. 21-24, comp. ver. 25. The
like Lev. xxiii. 5 sq., Num. xxviii. 16 sq., same variation extends to the New Testa-
xxxiii. 3, distinguishes both festivals ment, Mark xiv. 12 (Matt. xxvi. 17) Luke
accurately enough, but in other passages xxii. 7.
when it describes everything at greater s Ex. xii. 15-20, xiii. 7. This throw-
length (Ex. xii. 14-20, xiii. 3-10) it ing away of all leaven corresponds with
clearly shows how much the two ran into the custom of throwing away all old
one another by its time. The earlier clothes and food during the Hindoopenance
Book of Covenants distinguishes the Feast in the autumn-month, Manu, vi. 15.
of Unleavened Bread most sharply, Ex. 4 P. 359.
xxiii. 15: at a later date the distinction s In the Book of Covenants, Ex.
altogether ceased, and the name Passover xxiii. 16
became the prevalent one, Deut. xvi. * Book of Origins, Num. xxviii. 26.
1-6, so that the festjval of seven days is

THE DAY OF ATONEMENT. 361
the (seven) weeks.' l For then, in addition to the other
appointed sacrifices, two loaves of wheat, made, moreover, of
leavened bread as at a joyous festival and in contrast to that
of Easter, were offered as the sacred first-fruits of the new wheat
now gathered into the threshing-floors.2 Throughout the entire
nation too it was deemed one of the higher duties that every
household should itself bring such a gift of first-fruits to the
holy place, consisting of grains either roasted or pounded in the
raw state.3 Thus the presentation of the first-fruits which
assumed such importance in Jahveism 4 was principally con
nected with this joyous annual holiday. —
The preparatory celebration in the autumn which took
place on the tenth day of the seventh month was essentiaUy
distinguished from that of the spring in not being a terror-
stricken celebration at the commencement of the year, which
sought to avert the perils of the dim future and, as it were, the
wrath of a new coming G-od, but in being rather a pure feast of
penance which endeavoured to expiate all the human and 401
national transgressions and impurities which had occurred
during the year. For although the searching stringency of
Jahveism, already described, required that every, even the
smallest, impurity and defilement which had been contracted
should be immediately expiated, yet the higher religion was
well aware how little all the secret and slowly advancing dese
crations were actually removed from the entire community.
Hence this universal festival of penance and expiation was
established in order that even all these might be expiated as
far as human labour could avail, and that the community, as
free as possible from all guilt, might celebrate with joyous
feelings the great happy festival of the year which immediately
followed. Both this origin and purpose and also its name,
feast of expiation,6 show its genuine Mosaic character. Here,
more than in any other, the entire purpose and the absolute
stringency of the higher religion found expression, and it was
certainly this religion which first founded the festival. Only
in one of its rites which, strictly speaking, is hardly essential,
do we find a remnant of pre-Mosaic belief and life. The festi-
1 Deut xvi 9-11, after Lev. xxiii. both passages may be quoted here and
15 sq ¦ coinp also Num. xxviii. 26.J have the above meaning is indubitable.
2 Lev xxiii. 17, 20. The Book of Covenants speaks very
•According' to an earlier author, briefly on the point, Ex. xxiii. 1 9. Comp.
Lev ii 14-16 and in different language above p. 352, nt 4.
according to the Book of Origins, Num. * P. 301 sqq._
xv. 17-21 ; in the latter passage only a 5 Dn.BSn DV.
cake of pounded corn is spoken of. That

362 THE MOSAIC FESTIVALS.
val, then, was by no means to be principally of a domestic
character like the Passover, rather in contradistinction to the
latter was it to become a thoroughly public festival. Accord
ingly, the people were not to offer any of the regular sacrifices,
but a new one, which should go deeper and reach a more sen
sitive point in taming man's sensuous nature than the regular
offerings. This was to be a rigid fast from the evening of the
ninth to that of the tenth ; 1 the solitary fast which Jahveism
annually required.2 The whole structure of Jahveism did
indeed require that a sacrifice of the ordinary kind should be
offered on this day, as its peculiar importance demanded ; but
this continued to be purely sacerdotal. It was a great expia
tory-offering, to be made by the high-priest or his representa-
402 tive 3 on behalf of the entire community, and to be sacrificed
with an amount of solemnity which was rarely observed on
other occasions.4 Not only the human members of the com
munity, including the priests, were now deemed impure and in
need of expiation, but even the visible Sanctuary as well, as
though, like a wall between the nation and its God, it received
all the stains of impiety which were incurred in the realm.6
Hence the high-priest employed expiatory-offerings of two
kinds : one, purely sacerdotal and serving especially for the
atonement of the sanctuary ; and another, which had special
reference to the share of the community and must there
fore also proceed from it. The latter bore quite a national
stamp, and evidently forms that portion of the usages which was
derived from a pre-Mosaic time and stUl retained subsequently.
This particular custom was to present two he-goats before
the sanctuary as a sacrifice, of which the one was selected
by the high-priest for Jahveh, the other for Azazel, the lot being
used to determine the selection. The latter name, in other
respects unknown to us, is shown by its opposition to Jahveh
to designate an evil spirit ; and as the goat devoted to him
was finally to be sent away laden with the whole guilt of the
community into the desert where man dwelt not, he was evi-
1 Ley. xxiii. 26, 32, xvi. 29-31, comp. conclusion from Lev. xvi. After the
Num xxix. 11, Acts xxvii. 9. opening words in verr. 1 sq., and since
2 P. 83 sq. the description does not distinctly refer to
3 Prominence is intentionally given to this festival till ver. 29, we should expect
this fact in the words Lev. xvi. 32 ; comp. something different. And since the grie-
what is further said on p. 279, nt 2. vous defilement of the Sanctuary through
_ 4 That a great expiatory-offering like the guilt and death of two priests in it,
this was offered only on occasion of this Lev. x. to which xvi. 1 alludes, had not
festival, and that in consequence the yet been expiated, it is probable that
Holy of Holies was never entered at any provision for such a case was made after
other time, although it is so assumed in Lev. xvi. 34.
Philo ii. p. 591, is not quite a correct 5 P. 271 sq.

AZAZEL. 363
dently the evil spirit of the desert whom man drove from himself
in horror, and to whom he was glad to send all the evil which
he could not tolerate about himself.1 — When in this way all 403
things had been made ready for the sacred rite, then the high-
priest, cleansed by a bath, assumed the simple white garments
appropriate to him as chief penitent.2 He next sacrificed as a
sacerdotal offering a bullock for an atonement for himself and
his house, and having filled the whole censer with glowing coals
off the inner altar and with a profusion of incense, he then
entered that so rarely trodden innermost sanctuary — where ac
cording to the ancient belief the sacred footstool 3 must imme
diately conceal itself in sacred smoke if the person entering were
to remain alive and safe,4 — and sprinkled the sacrificial blood
seven times on and before the sacred footstool. Next, he sacri
ficed the he-goat which had been selected by the lot for Jahveh,
sprinkled the sacred footstool with its blood in the same manner,
pronounced the atonement for the external sanctuary and all
human beings, and in conclusion similarly sprinkled the inner
altar with the blood of both animals. All this he did in mys
terious solitude, attended by no human creature. When the
inherent guilt had been thus, as it were, liquified, he took
outside the consecrated he-goat which had been devoted to
Azazel, placed his hands upon its head in order to impart to it 404
with audible confession all this liquified guilt of the nation, and
sent it by the hand of a man appointed in readiness ' to Azazel
in the desert.' Finally, after washing himself within the sanc
tuary from the impurity which had come to adhere even to him,
he once more donned his magnificent attire, and sacrificed two
rams, one on his own behalf and the other on behalf of the
community, as a whole-offering, and presented along with it
i ^tStU.Lev. xvi. 8,10, comp.ver.21 sq. brought into connection. A similar repre-
.... . . ,„ i . „„„„„,•, :„„t sentation of a prophetic character occurs
,. >by its origin (from >T* '^^^ later in Zadi.V 6-18 ; comp. too the
the same as a^o^a.os (the translation of ^^ in the Eistot BfmaK ^
the LXX.) averruncus, a fiend, a demon, s c f
whom man banished to a distance. The , p- v
symbolical dispatching of the evil at the , ¦ ' * ; whicn evideDtly
sacrifice is undoubtedly a genuine Mosaic in ^ ^ y^ ^
rite, explained by p. 158, just as is the ^^ m £ there_
imagery generally, so peculiar to the V ¦? >
ancient legislation and corresponding to fore, compare the bells on p. 292. It
the purpose of the law when it began to was an ancient belief that anyone who
be put in practice ; comp. the custom entered the Most Holy Place without due
described in Hardeland's Daj. Gr. s. preparation and proper equipment might
372 But the fact that a demon is defi- be struck down. Hence preparations of
nite'lv placed in contrast to Jahveh, is all kinds were made, and in particular
opposed at any rate to the stricter Jahve- for the purpose of evoking the sacred
ism and is manifestly a relic of pre- cloud in which Jahveh might become
Mosaic religion. Still it is an error to invisibly-visible, and appear innocuously.
identify Azazel with the later Satan; Comp. Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. iv. s.
historically at any rate they cannot be 136 sq.

364 THE MOSAIC FESTIVALS.
the portions for the altar of the two expiatory-offerings. This
concluded the high celebration at the Sanctuary. In the
mean time throughout the whole land the people were rigidly
fasting and praying.1
The principal festival, termed the Feast of Arbours, then
continued from the fifteenth of the month for a whole week,
being celebrated with great rejoicing and the most universal
participation of the whole people. — If, however, only the first
day of it had to be celebrated in full national assembly, not the
last as well, as was the case with the principal spring-festival,
this may be accounted for by the fact that there was here no
reason, as there was in the spring, for postponing the conclud
ing festival to a later date. On the contrary, it was at once
concluded on the eighth day, when the people mustering all
the more strongly from the country and the arbours, once again
marched in full procession up to the Sanctuary ; and many would
only join in this concluding festival. The general participation
in the celebration of this annual festival is referred to even in
its names.2 And the whole autumnal festival is probably the
40-5 one to whose evening celebration the* people went up out of
the whole land in pilgrimage to the temple, amid the sound of
flutes and singing.3
— The connection of the four festivals of the seventh
month, their mutual rank, and their common distinction from
all the remaining annual festivals, are, however, most distinctly
denoted by the number of the sacerdotal sacrifices. We have
1 How much the later writers have and the Deuteronomist, who in xvi. 13-
to say about this sacred rite in particular 15 (like Ezek. xiv. 25) omits this con-
and what various hues its usages as- eluding festival, gives this name to the
sumed under their hands, may be ex- seventh day of the Easter festival, in
cellently seen from Heb. ix. 13 ; Barnabas xvi. 8. Since, however, it became usual to
Epistol. vii. sq., repeated in Tert. Contr. give this name to any particularly sacred
Marc, iii. 7, Contr. Jud., xiv. It is day, it was also given at a later time to
instructive that the epistle of Barnabas Whitsuntide, Joseph. Antiq. iii. 10, 6.
appeals here to the younger Thorah, which Mishnah Rosh hashana, i. 2; Maqrizi in
at that time must have been much used de Sacy's Chrest. i. p. 93, 98 ; while the
and in high repute. — In a similar way Samaritans equally arbitrarily named the
2 Chron. xxxv. 1-18 describes the parti- latter K"lpD, Chron. Samarit. xxviii. At
cular form in which the passover was „_„ _„f„T :_1 ' „„„_„t „„ii „ „ n,„.
. . , ,. c - ^ ,, anv rate we cannot well suppose that
observed m later times, for just these two ., rl meang conclu^ ^5,0,
festivals had from the first in Israel so LX£ lev xxiii. 36, and hence the con-
much that was peculiar and mysterious cludi d of festival.-Another
that their usages survived with very great namp .„ {he grmt da> of thefes(iv< Tohn
^ i 7' 3 u- u 1 vii- 37, Prot. ev. Jacob., i. ii. ; any other
2 mp„ a word which properly means festivai was 0nly called this when it fell
assembly, imvriyvpis, as the LXX trans- on the same day as a sabbath. John
late it in Amos v. 21 ; it has this mean- xix. 31.
ing also in Lev. xxiii. 26, Num. xxix. 8 Is. xxx. 29, comp. too, Mishnah
35, Neh. viii. 18. Nevertheless the word Sukka, v. 1.
also occurs with a wider significance,

THE SEVEN ANNUAL SABBATHS. 365
already seen ' thatthese sacerdotalfestival-offerings characterised
all festivals without distinction, being an addition, not only to the
daUy sacrifice, but also to the special ones, which were peculiar
to the particular festivals ; the regulations about their number
and kind have been already given.2 Instead, however, of the two
buUocks, which were the usual thing here, thirteen must be offered
at the principal festal day of the seventh month, viz. on theseventh
day there must be the sacred number of seven, while on each pre
vious day, in gradation, one more must be sacrificed, And, in
order to distinguish more clearly the three other festivals of the
seventh month from the principal festival, and concentrate atten
tion on the latter, only a single bullock was to be slain on them.3
3. The law accordingly made provision, in a way fraught
with the deepest significance, for exactly seven annual festivals,
three in the spring, and four in the autumn ; even in this
respect retaining the sacred number. It is true that the pass-
over was early almost completely merged in the first day of 406
Easter ; but, as the people grew accustomed to observe also the
last day of Easter week as a festival, the number seven preserved
this most important significance for them, that, irrespective of
those celebrated merely with sacerdotal offerings, there were
seven days kept as holidays and festivals, or, in other words,
there were seven annual sabbaths. Taken in this way, the
number of the annual festivals was not excessive for a labouring
population.4 The series of ordinary sabbaths, it is hardly needful to re
mark, was maintained independently of this entire succession
of festivals, so that e.g. a festival might be immediately followed
by a sabbath.5 Any of the seven annual festivals which did not
fall on a sabbath was observed, like the latter, with a total
cessation of work, but it was permitted to prepare food on
1 P. 355. may nave been first established during
2 P. 356 sq. tne time of the new Jerusalem, and which
" Num. xxix. comp. xxviii., and Lev. may be indicated in Judith viii. 6 by the
xxiii. 18," sq. ; in the last passage the name xif^oaivai, see Hist. v. 166, (comp.
reading is to be altered to harmonise. — M. j-pjjjn iv. 5) 230 sqq., 312, 358.
The above remark was not made in the It is noteworthy that the first two always
treatise of 1835, but it entirely confirms fall on the fourteenth of a month, plainly
the first result arrived at then.— Since after the model of the passover. In the
the first edition of this work I have also case of the last, on the other hand, the
discovered that even the present Samari- arrangements in regard to the day were
tans still reckon seven annual festivals, very peculiar. But it is undeniable that
seeJuynboll on the Chron, Sam. p. 110, these later festivals clashed with the
Petermann's Reisen i. s. 287, sqq., and Mosaic series, and they were never cele-
now the ancient Samaritan songs them- brated sacerdotally,
selves in Heidenheim's DEVS. s. 422 sq., 6 As at Whitsuntide in the year
oomp. s. 125 sq. . described by Joseph. Antiq. xm. 8. 4.
* For the three annual festivals which

366 THE THREE PILGRIMAGES.
it,1 a thing forbidden on a regular sabbath.2 This relaxation of
stringency might appear needful, if only on account of the possi
bility of a festival and a regular sabbath following one another.
3. The Three Pilgrimages.
A festival, however, which is observed by the priests alone,
is of less account than one which is also a holiday for the whole
nation. The law, therefore, wished to distinguish three out of
the seven festivals, and assign to them a greater importance, by
407 making them days of pilgrimage, on which the men of the entire
nation were to assemble around their great Sanctuary, as a body
around its soul.3 These three were the principal festival, and
the fifty-day festival (Whitsuntide) in the spring, and the
principal festival in the autumn; and it seems as though the
choice between attending the first or the eighth day of the
autumn-festival were purposely left to each individual man. It
was this which not only first gave a national importance to
these festivals, but also met their peculiar purpose of supple
menting, as mentioned above, the institutions of Jahveism.
The national character would be deeply affected by all the
men assembling together on certain great days in the year.
They would thus not only strengthen one another in their common
religion, but could also easily take counsel together on many
other subjects. But it must be observed here that Jahveism
imposed its yearly pilgrimages to a distant Sanctuary upon all
men as a duty, and that it is the earliest law which displays the
greatest stringency in this requirement.4 This religion, there
fore, could not dispense with so external a thing as a pUgrimage,
and an appearance at a definite sacred spot at a particular time.
When first she began to unfold her powers, they were not
developed and strong enough to dispense with the support of
nationality and locality. Even the smaller sacred spots, where
each community assembled on sabbaths and festivals of a similar
os rank, would not suffice. She still felt an imperative need for
strengthening herself anew from time to time from that support
without whose aid she could have secured no foothold, viz. the
nationality and the locality inseparable therefrom. Three times
1 An inference from Ex. xii. 16. work is suspended on such an occasion it is
2 P. 105. ri3«>, p- 357 nt 3.
3 A pilgrimage festival is Jn one of ' '
., i j • .. _-_ \L- * Bock of Covenants, Ex. xxiii. 14-
the seven annual days is BHjp SOpD ac- 16i and especially ver 1? . a ]ater redac.
cording to p. 356, a festival which recurs tion xxxiv. 18 24, and a repetition Deut.
at an appointed period is "IJJ1D and when xvi. 16.

EFFECT OF THE PILGRIMAGES. 307
a year ought all the men of Israel to renew their strength for
the service of Jahveh, by gazing directly upon the highest ex
ternal Sanctuary, and witnessing together its splendid sacrificial
cultus ; and being once more brought together, they ought to
feel themselves one great united nation, so that they may again
become all the more the ' people of Jahveh.' So, too, did Islam,
from the time of the last years of its founder, believe itself un
able to exist unless its confessors by annual pilgrimages bound
themselves to the spot where it had first sprung into being ;
and, so long as a nation is nothing but a great camp, the
arrangement has everything in its favour.
Ofthe details respecting these pilgrimages we have no par
ticulars. In the early days after the conquest of Canaan, while
the compact feeling of nationality prevailed, this law was cer
tainly observed very strictly, although many might gradually
reduce the three annual pilgrimages to a single visit.1 Whether
the Book of Origins required such pilgrimages at all, we do not
know ; at least we do not find, in its extant portions, the
smallest definite allusion thereto. Nevertheless, the pilgrimage
at the autumn-festival at any rate continued to be tolerably
universal. No doubt, in proportion as the nation gradually
spread itself out, and dwelt at greater distances apart, the com
plete execution of the law became more difficult. Moreover, in
troubled times, experience taught that the national enemies
availed themselves for purposes of invasion of the stripping of
the more exposed districts of their fighting men.2 And in any
case, even under the Hagiocracy, no one incurred any penalty 4J9
by the neglect of a single visit.3
But there was no way in which these festivals of Jahveh
could acquire a more national character than by their connection
with pilgrimages ; and we can clearly see from the Book of
Origins how close this connection between the Mosaic festivals
and the entire national feeling, and hence the historical con
sciousness, of Israel, had already grown in the first centuries.
Moreover, the natural religion could not fail to be continuaUy
more and more penetrated by a higher spiritual experience and
therefore to become more historical and (at any rate temporarily)
more national. It was involved in the regular order of deve
lopment that within Jahveism the festivals should be continu-
1 1 Sam i 3 comp. verr. 7, 20, ii. 19 ; Fourth Narrator, Ex. xxxiv. 25 ; just
comp. with this also 1 Kings xii. 32, and as Mohammed in his last Sura, ix 28,

356 above, as well as Hist. iv. 239 takes a similar objection into considera-

.1.

tion.

2' A point taken into consideration in ' As even the evangelical histories
the repetition of the ancient law by the show, particularly that according to John.

368 THE THREE PILGRIMAGES.
ally losing more and more of their merely natural significance,
and assuming a spirit peculiarly Israelitish and in harmony
with the higher religion. Permanent festivals commemorating
historical events cannot originate in a nation till it has won
for itself permanent fame upon earth by actual great deeds and
experiences. In Israel these festivals could only arise subse
quently to the days of Moses and Joshua ; but it is the mark of
a judicious mind that no attempt was made to insert them as
special festivals, which would only have disturbed the fair
edifice already existing, but that they were united with the
former kind. It is ultimately the same true God who is
revealed to man both in history and in nature, and in some of
the original Nature-festivals at any rate such a union was not
far to seek. When the Book of Origins was written the Pas
sover along with the closely succeding Feast of Unleavened
Bread was already become a festival in historical commemora
tion of the great epoch when the community was founded, and
even its ancient usages were already being more and more appre
hended in this historical sense. As in every spring, man
410 entered upon a new-year with fear and trembling, and should
prepare himself for this step with serious reflection, so had
Israel once stepped out of the fearful Egyptian oppression into
its new life of freedom ; and as it had been then rescued in an
astonishing and glorious manner from most terrible danger, so
should it with every new-year hope to be again redeemed by its
true God from every actual or threatened disaster. The ancient
trembling and quaking at the celebration of the Passover be
came, accordingly, a commemoration of the trembling haste in
which the nation had once left Egypt ; the use of unleavened
bread seemed due to the fact that in the former hasty departure
from Egypt there had been no time to leaven the dough ; the
custom of offering the first-fruits seemed to have originated at
a time when the Egyptians were chastised by every punish
ment, even by the loss of the first-born and first-fruits, while
those of Israel were preserved by Divine providence ; and even
the whole departure from Egypt seemed to have taken place m
the same mysteriously consecrated night between the fourteenth
and the fifteenth of the spring-month — the night when at a later
date the two- fold festival always commenced. So thoroughly by
the time of the Book of Origins was the original natural signifi
cance of the festival of the renewal and redemption of the new-
year amalgamated with the historical remembrance of the great
national redemption which had once taken place.1 It is far
1 Ex. xi. 4-8, xii. 1— xiii. 16; comp. also above pp. 352-354.

THE SABBATH-YEAR. 3P9
from improbable that Israel really did depart out of Egypt in
this month,1 (if not on that particular night), and that it was
Moses himself who consecrated this ancient festival to the com
memoration of the great historical national event, and that
in accordance with this the whole conception was gradually
framed which characterises the Book of Origins. — Far looser
is the connection which the Book of Origins would establish
between the Festival of Arbours and the time when Israel dwelt 411
in the desert.2
It will also now be readily understood how it was possible
that the annual festivals, when spoken of briefly, might be
given as three in number. There is no contradiction here to
the original number of seven as explained above ; but the word
' festival ' must be understood in its narrowest sense, according
to which it comprehended only those occasions when the pil
grimage was made and which of course had the greatest external
prominence. It is in this sense that three festivals are spoken
of in the Book of Covenants,3 whose example is followed by the
Deuteronomist.4 II. The Sabbath-tear.
When in this way the year had repeated for six times its
numerous ordinary and its seven superior sabbaths, its two
kinds of sabbatical weeks and its sabbatical month, then the
seventh year as the sabbatical year would be further elevated
to a new, loftier stage of celebration.** The blessing of rest
was then to be given to the soil of the entire country, the
year was so far to be a fallow-year. The conception of the
Sabbath, as it prevailed generally in Jahveism, recurs here only
in a new application. For that the soil (especially if, as wa3 the
case then, it is not manured) should for its own sake lie fallow
from time to time, that man had certain duties even towards it
and might not perpetually exact, as it were, work from it,6 was a
feehng which was undoubtedly firmly established long before 412
1 Another reason for supposing this, is tries to find, an historical origin and type,
the prominence already given it in the pp. 103-10i>.
Book of Covenants, Ex. xxiii. 15 (xxxiv. • Ex. xxm. 14-17 (xxxiv. 18-24)
18). Even the ancient paschal song ¦- Deut. xvi. Ev™ Ezek. xiv. 18-25
Ex. xv. alludes solely to this historical sig- adopts this enumeration, adding however,
nificance, so, too, its later imitation, Ps. in its scheme some new regulations quite
cxiii so foreign to Antiquity. . .
2Lev xxiii 43. It was not before the 5 Important solemnities lustrations,
time of the Rabbis that au historical signi- and the like, which did not recur every
See wL given to Whitsuntide, viz., year, existed among many ancient nations,
" X Ta commemoration of the legisla- e.g, the Greeks had a cycle of four or five
" SLS&- -*• l)***"* y-T'^ thlS bears a certain resemblance
i • ..v. \n~J -month  But even for to the present case.
&*;- 2SL3X BoA of Origins • A. crops of the soilor the tree were
B B

370 THE SABBATH-TEAR.
any conceptions about the Sabbath. But when the idea of the
Sabbath was added, not only was a permanent period defined
when the soil should rest, but this period was itself sanctified
and its observance placed among the higher duties of man. Here,
accordingly, the whole natural view in regard to the soil which
prevailed in Antiquity found expression in the style peculiar to
Jahveism. Even the soil has its divine right to the necessary,
and therefore divine, amount of rest and consideration ; even
towards it man is not to be ceaselessly directing his lust for
work and gain ; even to it is he to allow a proper time for rest,
in order that he may in turn reap the greater blessing. The
soil annually produces its fruits as a debt which it owes to man,
and on which man may reckon as the reward ofthe toil which
he expends upon it ; but just as there are times when the debt
may not be demanded even from the human debtor, so is man at
the proper time to let the soil alone without exacting payment
from it.1 And as the ancient law everywhere manifests a
splendid consistency,2 it desires that the harvest of every kind,
even of orchards and vineyards, shall be renounced, nay that no
purpose shaU be entertained of gathering even the spontaneous
crops of the year in field and garden.3
413 It is undeniable that the observance of such a sabbatical
year would not be wholly impracticable. If it was known before
hand that in the seventh year no fields were to be cultivated
and no harvest to be reaped, sufficient preparation could still be
made for this time in the course of the six ordinary years ; • at
any rate there would be no insuperable difficulty in doing so in
a country where in most years the fertility of the soU exceeded
the requirements ofthe population. Such inhabitants however
as were really in need during the seventh year, or who may have
been unable to lay by anything for the occasion, were at liberty
to gather the fruits of every kind which would grow freely and
abundantly on the fallows. This is especially permitted even by
the law.4 No doubt the influence of a higher faith would be re-
regarded in early days as the work which direction in the account of the Book of
the soil or tree exerted itself to ripen of Origins. Lev. xxv. 1-7. The strange use
its own efforts. arising apparently from a popular joke',
1 Hence the name nt212&r\ flJE' the of tne word Nazirite to denote the vines
year of remission, when payment" of' the a,°d 'j66/ wcose foliage (hair) is not
debt due in other years would not be de- cVPPed> Le.y- **v. 5, 11, is explained by
manded, Deut. xv. 9, xxxi. 10; it is 7 f" ls sa,d on P- 84 siq- ! it also proves
borrowed from the ancient legal passage • 'r^J?7 -the tlme of the Book of 0ri"
about the sabbatical year in the Book of gln^ the Nazlrites already formed a very
Covenants, Ex. xxiii. 10 sq., comp. Deut. anclent institution, and that the free
xv. 2. Comp. the cognate ideas explained Srowth of the vine was not unfrequent so
above, p. 182 nt 1. ™lat tne sabbatical year must actually
2 p _ have been observed.
, c, B<\' ¦ ¦ . ,. ' Ex- "i-i- H ; Lev. xxv. 6 sq.
* Special prominence is given to this *

DEUTERONOMIC PECULIARITIES. 871
quired for an entire nation to make up its mind to provide for such
a fallow-year ; but that such a faith was not wanting is proved
by the Book of Origins hoping that Jahveh would cause such
abundant crops to grow in the sixth year as would, perhaps,
suffice for the next three years.1
Anything different from or more than this was not involved in
the original sabbath-year. The Deuteronomist, it is true, does
not even mention this purpose in regard to the year, as though
by his time it had become more and more difficult to put in
practice ; and no doubt it could not fail to be attended with
increasing difficulties in proportion as the nation devoted its
energies to production and trade, so that while one half was
keeping holiday on account of the suspension of agricultural
pursuits, the other half would have to work as usual. The
remission of debts, however, which the Deuteronomist desires
should characterise this year instead of the agricultural remis
sion,2 was evidently no original part of its observance, for in
the oldest sources, as well as in the nature of the thing itself, *i*
the former remission belongs to quite another category and
properly appertained to the Tear of Jubilee ; as will be further
shown below. The emancipation of a Hebrew 3 slave in the
seventh year of his service is prescribed by the Deuteronomist
in the same series of laws on account of the similarity of the
ideas,4 but he has no intention of abridging or lengthening the
seven years in accordance with the fixed series of the years of
remission or sabbath-years. This would be altogether impos
sible, because the six years of toil of such a slave was to represent
the price of his redemption, and could not therefore be casually
diminished or increased. These two regulations were brought
under the ruling thought solely for the sake of preserving a
certain similarity, and so far as this went of putting them in the
place of the decaying sabbatical year.
But in a nation chiefly agricultural, such as Israel was
during the first centuries, the cessation of agriculture involved a
general cessation of all ordinary labours throughout the entire
1 Lev. xxv. 18-22. The mention of tive in the Book of Origins about the
three years is explained, if in the country ordinary sabbath as it existed in the
the year was reckoned from autumn to typical days of Moses, Ex. xvi. 16-27. —
autumn (p. 355, nt. 4), while in sacerdotal For the rest the entire passage Lev. xxv.
language such as we have here the year 18-22 is evidently misplaced, and should
was commenced at the previous Easter, properly stand after ver. 7.
The year of rest would then extend to the 2 Deut. xv. 1-11. Nevertheless tho
second half of the eighth year, the defi- name sabbath-year is wanting here, though
ciency signified here to the second half of one can see^ especially from ver. 9, that"
the ninth year. Comp. below under the such a year is intended.
Year of Jubilee. — In complete correspond- 3 P. 213 sqq.
ence with this childlike hope is the narra- ' Deut. xv. 12-18.
B B 2

THjs liiAK UD' JUJiiiilin;.

year, so that as a necessary consequence the sabbatical year
required rest not only for the soil but also for men through
out the entire nation, and the contents of the shorter sabbatical
terms essentially recurred again in this greater cycle. But what
did the legislator intend the people to do during this year ?
Were they to remain ceaselessly idle? No one can ascribe
such nonsense to the great legislator. On the contrary, aU
other occupations besides ploughing, sowing, and reaping the
fields were undoubtedly permitted ; and as the ordinary Sabbath
only caused toil to cease in order the more to set free and elevate
the mind, so too in this year the giving instruction in schools
and elsewhere, which at other times had far too little continuity
and system, might then be taken up with aU the more regu
larity and zeal both for children and adults. According to the
415 Deuteronomist, at the Feast of Arbours in this year the law in its
entire comprehensive range was to be expounded to the assem
bled people,1 particularly to the younger members of it ; here a
relic of the ancient practice may have been retained.

III. The Tear of Jubilee.2
1. When the cycle of seven such sabbatical years was
expired, the immediately following fiftieth year was to be a
sabbatical Sabbath-year, the so-called Tear of JubUee. This is
the final and extreme kind of suspension which is possible in
material things and in the midst of an established realm —
a supension of the realm itself so far as this contains human
elements which therefore stand in need of purification and rec
tification. The entire arrangement and the progress of the
previous development of human toils and efforts in the kingdom
were to be suspended so that everything which had gone wrong
during the course of the just concluded half-century, and in
which the evil though imperceptible at first was at length mani
fest enough, might revert to its pure condition, and the kingdom
might arise with renewed and purified powers.
In a kingdom whose foundation is the true religion, the
only things which can go wrong iu the course of time and be^
set right again by human agency at particular periods, are the
mutual relations in regard to the possession of the external
goods of life. For the fundamental truths on which the whole
1 Deut. xxxi. 10-13. Sundry indica- utilised in the same way; see the passage in
tions imply that the Mohammedan month Noldeke's Geschichte des Quran's, s. 41.
of fasting, Ramadhdn, was originally 2 According to Luther, Halljahr.

RESTORATION OF HEREDITARY ESTATES. 373
existence of a nation and a kingdom rests, — its spiritual posses
sions — are given it in an inalienable and irrevertible form ; or
should any one of them grow obscure or completely fade from
view, it cannot possibly be restored or revived at a predeter
mined date or by a mere edict of the government. But the
relations and conditions of a nation's external possessions may
go wrong to such an extent that gradually a few citizens
become excessively rich while the majority become excessively
poor, so that inequalities arise which lead to the weakness,
or even the overthrow of the realm as a human institution.
Human authority in ordinary times is tolerably competent to 416
meet such threatening dangers, when the proper means for the
purpose have a legal existence ; and a legislator cannot easily
have a more worthy task than to devise the proper means by
which such inequalities, which imperceptibly arise in the king
dom and which are such strong incitements to seeking redress
by violence and revolution, may be legally counteracted, and an
outbreak of brutal rebellion be avoided.
Ancient kingdoms like that of Jahveh's, which had their
human basis in an original conquest and division ( of a fertile
country, could moreover look back upon an original equality of
possessions and privileges ; and this equality would always
hover before their eyes as a model, something to which they
might hope perfectly to return, at any rate at particular periods.
Experience, no doubt, soon enough taught that the division of
landed property did not long remain unaltered as it was at first,
and that many a Hebrew by birth, in spite of the prohibition
against taking interest, soon lost, either through misfortune or
idleness, his hereditary estate, or even his liberty. But all the
relations of the state were in part so new and plastic, in part so
simple, that it seemed possible to accomplish a return to the
original purity and equality in the possession of what was indis
pensable by the appointment of a periodical year, if only the
arrangement had the full authority of the law to start with and
was faithfully submitted to by the whole nation.2
The immediate purpose of the Year of Jubilee was, accord
ingly, nothing more than to restore the hereditary estates de
scribed above 3 to the family of their original possessors, so that
every one who was a full citizen by birth but who had lost his
ancestral heritage, and hence also his place in his clan and
tribe, might once again be offered the chance of a laborious but
1 p ^7 Sqq gns, similar legal provisions are to be
2 Hence also in other ancient legis- found.
lative systems, especially that of Lycur- * P. 177 sqq.

874 THE YEAR OF JUBILEE.
417 independent and honourable life. Then would the discipline
and honour of the families and tribes be upheld, and the proper
constitution of the whole body be reestablished. No other
property of any kind was touched here; but in the earliest times
these hereditary estates constituted by far the most important
property and penetrated deepest into all the relations of civil
life. We must remember that the final claim on an hereditary
estate was not extinguished with the death of its immediate
owner, but passed to his descendants and relatives in accordance
with the laws of inheritance valid in other cases. When ac
cordingly the date for the restoration of the original possessions
drew near, there would be sure to be many a decayed head of
a family, or his children, eagerly awaiting the moment when the
law proclaimed universal suspension of business. On behalf of
the realm as such, moreover, the priests proclaimed on their
trumpets with blasts of the loudest joy the arrival of the
universal liberation. Thus the year, which rarely or never on
other occasions was inaugurated by the priests and responded
to by the people with such universal loud rejoicing throughout
the entire land, received from its noisy commencement the
name of the Year of Jubilee.1
418 If, in this way, the sole proper function of the Tear of Jubi
lee was to restore the hereditary estates, it is hardly necessary
to explain that this commencement must have dated from
the preparatory day of the autumn- festival.2 Not till the year's
harvest of every kind was complete, would it be easy to accom
plish a change in the ownership of the soh, and the autumn-
1 The word ">2V in the Book of Ori- ing to Lehrb. § 156 e ; comp. Gen. iv. 24),
gins, Lev. xxv. 10-12, has evidently al- and that the name music-horn is ODly
ready become a proper name for the Year antiquated redundancy ; the word would
of Jubilee, and there, as elsewhere, the then finally °e limited to the loud joyous
. . i . . shouts of the year of freedom, just as the
abbreviation ^2Vn is employed of the Latin ovatio is ordinarily employed with
Year of Jubilee in the meaning already a narrower denotation. The plural J"li")2t5>
given The LXX, therefore, could not ^^ is then to be expiained by Lehrb.
see what to do except to translate it by ' :
&</)eV€ws a-wum'c, 'proclamation of there- 8 27° c- The derivation would no doubt
mission,' or even by S^eo-is alone. But be simpler if it could be shown that by
we see from the ancient passage in the meant a ram, so that the compound would
Book of Covenants, Ex. xix. 13, as well correspond to the Latin buccina, comp. the
as from the description in Josh. vi. 4-13, treatise on Die neuentdeckte Phbnikische
thatbyitselforwhencloselyconnectedwith Inscrift zu Marseille (Gottingen 1849),
j-|D (horn) or "lDiCJ* (trumpet), it origin- 6. 16.' But one must be on one's guard
ally denoted an ancient kind of tram- against supposing that the b^, Ex. xix.
pet Now as the root by, cognate 13, was originally identical with the 1QW
with the Ethiopic and the Aramaic 331, . . * '
may indisputably mean a sounding and Ter- 16,' 19= lt: ™ derived, on the contrary,
, .. , , .. ,, . t ¦ . from the primitive narrative.
snouting aloud, it appears that pn< is a , -r, oe. T „
. . . " '« ' -rp. 361 sqq. Lev. xxv. 8 sq. comp.
primitive word for music (formed accord- p. 371, nt. 1.

COMMENCEMENT AND END IN AUTUMN. 375
festival, in itself of so joyous a nature, would in this year
become a celebration of even far greater joy. But the estab
lishment of the rights of ownership, the production of the
necessary witnesses, and the decision of complicated claims,
were processes not to be brought to a speedy conclusion, even
though they were entered into with all zeal immediately after
the autumn-festival ; and iii the mean time, when all rights of
possession of the soil were insecure, and might be called in
question, no one would be willing to cultivate the fields. This
of itself would be enough to cause a universal suspension of
industrial occupations generally, and particularly those of agri
culture, so that this year, like the sabbatical year already
described, became a fallow-year, and so far this greater cycle
would include in itself the whole contents of the previous series.
Hence the Tear of Jubilee, in virtue of this all-embracing
character, also became the most sacred year possible.1
Since, however, the Tear of Jubilee, on account of its con
nection with agriculture, commenced in the autumn, we are
justified in assuming, on the same grounds, that it would also
expire in the autumn of the following year. Its terminal points
would then include, not that year which would be the fiftieth
according to the strict sacerdotal commencement of the calen
der in the spring,2 but the last half of the forty- ninth and the 419
first half of the fiftieth ; although in ordinary speech it was
always customary to call it the fiftieth year.3
1 Lev. xxv. 10-12 ; in v. 12£Hp"^>21' batical years and jubilees, since the sabba-
are to be connected, ' sacred jubilee,' ac- tical year was considered to begin with
cording to Lehrb. § 287 h, in spite of the the autumn, comp. above, p. 355, nt. 3 —
intervening NT1- With the later Jews themselves it was
2 P. 355. matter of controversy whether the jubilee
' That the Year of Jubilee cannot be was the fiftieth or the forty-ninth year.
simply the forty-ninth is certain from the Tbe most learned, as Philo, De Decalog.
descriptions of the Book of Origins. We xxx ; Qucest. in Gen. xvi. 1 (Auch. ii. p.
might assume that it should have been 209); and Josephus, Antiq. iii. 12. 3
the year after the seventh sabbatical year, (comp. also the Constit. Apost. vii. 36),
in which case we should have to assume were always in favour of the fiftieth ; if
further that the latter began in the autumn many, notwithstanding, preferred the
of the forty-eighth year, since the sabba- forty-ninth, this was certainly due cri
tical year ought certainly to commence in mariiy to the fact that in the later times
the autumn. Two sabbatical years in the sabbatical year was still observed and
succession would not be inconceivable, used in reckoning, while this was not the
as the prophetic image in Is. xxxvii. 30 case with the Year of Jubilee. Thls ™
shows Still they would be unnecessary further proved in Hist. V. 1 lie first at-
here, as the conception of the Sabbath tempt on a grand scale to carry through
would rather require that the seventh the view that the forty-ninth and not the
sabbath-year should be greater than its fiftieth was the Year of Jubilee is made in
six predecessors, and thus be the Year of the Liber Jubil. (on which see >Hist. I. 201,
Jubilee Hence it is best to assume that and comp. the Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. iv. s.
of the fiftv vears the first half of the first 79) ; but this is done by a purely arbitrary
and the last half of the fiftieth would not division of the primitive history. But
be counted in reckoning the series of sab- comp. what is said below on the point.

370 THE YEAR OF JUBILEE.
2. The actual execution of the laws of the Tear of Jubilee
would modify in a peculiar manner many of the relations of
ordinary life. The principal result would be that the price of
an hereditary estate would not be equal to its freehold value, but
would be estimated by the number of years during which the
estate might be utilised before the next jubilee, and the
buyer paid not for the land itself but only for its usufruct for a
term of years, so that its value would diminish as the Tear of
Jubilee approached.1 And since hereditary estates could not be
bought or sold for all perpetuity,2 i.e. not as freehold property,
it was only consistent to allow the owner or his heir and repre-
420 sentative,3 to redeem the pledged estate at any period previ
ous to the expiration ofthe full term, as soon in fact as he had
money enough to pay for the usufruct during the time which
was still to elapse.4 Since all this tended very strongly to
reduce the value of land, especially in troublous times or when
wages for hired labourers were high, and a man who was com
pelled to try and raise money on his estate would often have a
difficulty in finding a purchaser, the law exhorts all parties to
mutual equity and kindness.5 Houses in the open country and
in villages were regarded as belonging to the hereditary estate ;
those which were protected within the walls of a town, and had
accordingly a value in excess of the ground on which they stood,
could only be redeemed by the original owner in the Tear of
Jubilee if he paid this excess in value ; in case this was not done,
the buyer acquired a perpetual right to them.6 A further con
sequence of this was tha/t aliens, if they wished to acquire real
property in Israel which could be inherited, were limited to the
acquisition of houses within walled towns.
These relations would also affect the priesthood in a pecu
liar manner. Since consecrated gifts generally were considered
capable of redemption,7 every hereditary estate which had
been devoted to the Sanctuary without being placed under the
ban, might be redeemed by paying the redeemable value together
with the one-fifth of the same which was customary in the case'
of consecrated inanimate property. But should the owner have
already sold his estate to a third party before presenting it to the
Sanctuary, or if he were without either the means or the will to
1 Lev. xxv. 13-17, 23, comp. 27 sq., certainly a technical term employed only
50-52, xxvii. 17 sq. in trade.
2 This is involved in the expression » The Gbel p. 168.
niVpy1?, LeT- x*v. 23, 30, whose root ' Lev. xxv.' 24-28 ; Jer. xxxii. 6 sqq.
, ,, , , ... ** " , s-i * Lev. xxv. 14, 17.
should be compared with ^ and ^ . ^ ^y ^^
eternal, as well as with YQft. It was 7 Pp. 79 sqq.

CONNECTION WITH SLAVERY. 377
redeem it on his own account, or at least to pay in the Tear of
Jubilee one-fifth of the value which it had at the time of the pre
sentation, then, at the jubilee, it became the perpetual property of
the Sanctuary. If on the contrary, any one presented a field which
he had merely purchased from the original owner, the Sanctuary
gave it up to the latter before or at the Tear of Jubilee in case he 421
discharged the liabilities due on its account.1 On the other hand,
houses in the Levitical cities, as well as the open spaces round
about them,2 were regarded as necessarily reverting to the Levites
in the Tear of Jubilee, since they formed their permanent and
indispensable dwelling-places.3 The immediate consequence of
this was that these town-houses and commons could never obtain
a high commercial value.
A further important consequence of all the changes here
described was the impossibility of perfectly restoring in the
Tear of Jubilee the original ownership of property. To these
causes others might be added, e.g. the complete extinction of a
family. In every Tear of Jubilee, then, what would be essen
tially a new register (Doomsday-book) of landed estates and
houses would have to be compiled and set down in writing, in
order to serve as a document throughout the foUowing fifty
years.4 With this, the financial register already spoken of
would evidently stand in connection.5
Whoever had lost his hereditary estate thereby sank, toge
ther with his whole family, into a servile condition. Such a
man ought, according to the oldest law,6 to have regained his
freedom in the seventh year of his service ; and when free, the
way was open to him to earn by industry and skill sufficient
money to redeem his hereditary estate even before the Tear of
Jubilee. If the jubilee occurred before he had served six full
years, the liberation of his estate furnished, him all the
sooner with the means of emancipating himself. But after
this most ancient regulation had gradually become obsolete,
the Book of Origins desired that every serving-man of
Hebrew blood (apart from the question whether he had an
hereditary estate to hope for or not) should at any rate be
emancipated and restored to his clan in the Tear of Jubilee ; 7 422
truly but a paltry remnant of the right which had secured
him against having to serve more than six years ! And
1 This is the meaning of Lev. xxvii. Num. xxxvi. 4.
16-24. s P- 304.
2 Pp. 286 sq., 306 sq. . « Pp. 213 sqq.
s Lev. xxv. 32-34; in ver. 33 ti? is ' Lev. xxv. 39-43; comp. ver. 10 ad
therefore wanting before ?N2>. _ _ fin.
1 This is even once casually indicated,

378 THE YEAR OF JUBILEE.
since at that time many a Hebrew by birth would be in the
service of an Israelitish half-citizen or his descendants,1 the Book
of Origins desires the privileges of the jubilee to be no less
extended to such a serving-man, commands him to be set free
at the Tear of Jubilee, and allows his redemption at any time
when relatives were willing to redeem him (as duty would
require them to do) or when he himself found an opportunity
for it ; so that his redemption could be effected on easier terms
the nearer the Tear of Jubilee.2 It seems that in such a case
the average value of the yearly work of a day-labourer was
made the basis of the estimate, just as in the case of the re
demption of an estate the estimate was made on the average
produce of the annual harvest.
3. These are the most essential features of the form which
the Tear of Jubilee had assumed at the time when the Book of
Origins was written, and this of itself is enough to prove the
entire groundlessness of the doubts raised by modern writers
as to whether its celebration ever was actuaUy observed. To
invent laws, particularly such as are of extraordinary impor
tance, is wholly foreign to the character of the Book of Origins.
The law of the Tear of Jubilee had moreover by its time deve
loped its minutest details under a varied execution and experi
ence, and had even passed through a varied history. That no
mention is made of it in the miserably scanty historical nar
ratives of the earlier centuries, is purely accidental, and can
furnish no support for such doubts,3 which are clearly refuted
on other grounds. On a close inspection nothing is more cer-
423 tain than that the idea of the jubilee is the last ring of a chain
which only attains in it the necessary conclusion, and that the
history of the jubilee, in spite of its at first seemingly strange
aspect, was once for centuries a reality in the national life of
Israel. But the observance of this law required not only the in
fluence of a strong authority during the great year of the res
toration of all original ownership of the soil, but also a
permanent willingness on the part of the people to adapt all
their commercial dealings to it. The same Book of Origins
which on the one side bases this law on the truth that aU mem
bers ofthe community are the direct servants of Jahveh, not the
servants of men, and that they must therefore have an unfet-
1 P. 236 sq. Book of Covenants, Ex. xxi-xxiii, for this
2 Lev. xxv. 47-54. account of the laws has come down to us
" No more than can the fact that the in a shape very far from complete.
jubilee is not mentioned in the laws of the

DECLINE OF ITS OBSERVANCE. 879
tered body and unencumbered estate in order to live worthy of
their vocation,1 is content to let it rest on the other side on the
requirements of a genuine fear (religion) before Jahveh, which
must impel the more powerful citizen to assist the less power
ful to attain freedom for his property and person.2 But the very
sacred dread which the law here had to require would be likely to
exercise in the course of centuries less and less influence in this
respect in proportion as the national relations ceased to retain
the simplicity which the law postulated. AU interruptions of
this kind would be the more keenly felt and the more pernicious
in their effects in proportion to the development of the internal
peace and weU-being of a nation. Besides this, when a nation,
from being engaged principally in agriculture, devotes itself
readily to commerce and manufacture, — as did the whole of
Israel from the time of Solomon — then the possession and cul
tivation of the soU itself will inevitably become an article of
commerce and manufacture, and all manual labour will be
based on relations which are totally left out of account in
the above law. We have just seen that the original laws of
Jahveism concerning the freedom of the person, and hence, too,
those about property, no longer retained their original and 4a*
proper shape by the time of the Book of Origins. The Tear of
Jubilee, whose benefits primarily applied only to property, is
still insisted on here and is further extended to the personal
freedom which could no longer be legally secured in any other
way. But even the observance of the jubilee as regulated by
the Book of Origins, evidently declined to such an extent
from the days of Solomon, that the Deuteronomist is quite
silent on the subject, and only endeavours to save the remission
of debts in the seventh year, as well as, in like manner, the
freedom of the person, by reverting to an antiquated regula
tion.3 When the great Prophets of the ninth and eight cen
turies B.C. complain of the accumulation of too many acres in
the hands of a few owners,4 the law of the jubilee could hardly
have been in force in the actual national life. Nevertheless the
recollection of it never entirely faded away in the better class
of minds, and its image is again most vividly present to the
minds of the later Prophets and authors.5 Its essentially
1 Lev. xxv. 42, 55, comp. ver. 38. ' P. 370 sq.
2 Lev. xxv. 17, comp. ver. 36, 43. ' P. 185.
Still more is the Deuteronomist xv. 9, in 6 Such allusions to the fallow-years
his regulations constituting the ordinary and the jubilees occur Is. xxxvii. 30, Lev.
sabbatical year the time for » general xxvi. 34 sq. (comp. below) ; to the jubilee
remission of debts, obliged to rely on Ezek. vii. 12 sq., xlvi. 16-18 ; particularly
religion as the sole ground for the regu- as the time of the great investigation,
lationa restoration, and liberation, Jer. xi. 23,

380 THE YEAR OF JUBILEE.
pure and divine purpose was gradually esteemed all the more
highly as the want of it was felt in ordinary life and nothing
better was found to take its place.
The ancient law also recognised other great epochs in the
life of the nation and realm, — epochs which seemed to it to
possess a sacred character, and which brought with them a
final decision as to the guilt or innocence of many citizens
425 which man had previously been incompetent to give. The
accused persons who had fled to a legal place of refuge were sure
of their lives there, only as long as the high-priest lived under
whose supremacy and, as it were, with whose consent they had
fled thither.1 With the accession ofthe new high-priest there
seemed to commence a period of general new investigation
and decision about all sins committed against life as something
most sacred in Israel; so that the fugitive was either once
more publicly recognised as innocent, and left at liberty to
move about freely among the whole people, or else if in the
mean time substantial grounds against him had been discovered,
he finally expiated his transgression as the law prescribed.
And when it was a king who wielded the supreme power in
Israel, the same usage prevailed on occasion of the death of
the reigning monarch and a new accession, only being more
stringently executed in conformity with the regal dignity.2
But all such extraordinary epochs, suspensions, and important
new commencements, invariably involve violent disturbances of
public and private relations which are most undesirable, and
which only appear inevitable as long as the palpable deficiencies
cannot be removed in any less violent manner. This we see
most clearly in the great instance of the Tear of Jubilee gradu
ally sinking beneath its own weight.
xxiii. 12, xlviii. 44; bk. Is. Ixi. 1 sq. — kind, the- execution of the law of the
Moreover the bk. Ruth contains an allu- jubilee appears to have been once again
sion to the custom : Elimelek's hereditary recognised, at any rate as possible, by
estate was only purchased for a, term of the national reformation under Josiah ;
years, not in perpetuity, so long as the but from that time to the overthrow of
childless widow or the next-of-Mn would the kingdom fifty years did not elapse.
not allow anything else. And since Jer. ' P. 172.
xxxii. 6 sqq. presupposes something ofthe 2 See Hist. III. 213 sq.

INADEQUACY OF ALL EXTERNAL INSTITUTIONS. 381

CONCLUSION.
THE HUMAN KINGDOM.
Even the final and most powerful of the means supplied by
external institutions were, accordingly, insufficient to uphold
the earliest form which was assumed by true religion in Jah
veism. They could not permanently supply the deficiencies
inherent in this form. Precisely the boldest system which could
be erected on the given foundation of the earliest Jahveism and
which ought to have served to protect aU the other external
institutions, was the first to faU. The Tear of Jubilee did not
permanently secure a restoration of the original independence 426
and equality of the citizens. The sabbatical year did not
avert the evil consequences of the growing desolation and loss
of fertility ofthe soU which proceeded parallel with the internal
decay of the nation. The obligation to perform annual pil
grimages did not prevent a lethargy graduaUy overcoming the
original vitality of the national religion. And while these
extensions of the sacred rest (of the Sabbath) which moderated
human energy, and which in their youth were full of vitality,
gradually became obsolete one after another, there was im
perceptibly growing up within the community of Jahveh
a whoUy new form of energy, which after many temporal
vicissitudes finally took such vehement possession of the
entire nation that no more rest seemed possible until the
earth itself, utterly desolate and disorganised, should begin
the long-deferred celebration of all the ancient sabbaths.1
This new energy arose from the increasing needs of the
Human Kingdom. It expended itself for a considerable period
in actually introducing and developing in the realm this new
power, which at the time of its first origin was only one power
1 This is the meaning of the prophetic shall come into the land (Canaan), and
discourse, equally true and elevated, and this on its part shall solemnize its sab-
dating from the eighth or seventh century, baths when they will remain in it : then
Lev. xxvi. 34 sq. 43 ; a discourse which, shall they know the Year of Jubilee ! '
according to 2 Chr. xxxvi. 21, Jeremiah and again, 'The Years of Jubilee will
quoted in a passage which is now lost vanish (i.e. will not be kept) until Israel,
from his works.  In connection with such free from all unrighteousness and impiety,
thoughts the Liber Jubilaeorum (1. s. 164 shall dwell for ever in the land securely
sq. of the Ethiopic) subjoins its Messianic and peaceably.' Here, accordingly, the
hopes after referring to the sabbatical Messianic era is put on a par with the
laws in Ex. xvi. and Lev. xxv. ' But its Year of Jubilee and the Eternal Sabbath,
year (when the Year of Jubilee should to the exclusion of the idea that the jubi-
eommence) we have not indicated, until it lee had formerly actually been observed.

382 CONCLUSION.
among others, hke prophetism or the superior priesthood,1 but
which like these latter powers, intertwined itself more and more
closely with the entire national life and furnished this for
centuries with new life and vigour. It finaUy became a devas
tating storm, when, in spite of the centuries of its highest de
velopment, it yet failed to attain the summit to which consis
tency led it in the community of Jahveh, viz., the perfect king
of the community of the true God — the Messiah. But all this
has been already explained at greater length \a the second
era of the History of Israel. 1 P. 257 sqq.

INDEX.

N.B. Wliere a number is distinguished by an asterisk, the principal section on the
subject will be found on that page.

AAR
Aaron, 66, 232 ; family of, 275, 289 ; see
High-Priest
Achor, or Achan, 77, 234 nt.
Adoption of children, 180, 210
Adjuration, 19, 313
Altar, 30, 54, 117 sqq.*, 128 sq.; the
brazen, 326 sq. ; the golden, 329
Amen, 20 ; threefold repetition of, 133
Animal-offerings, ground of their pre
dominance, 36 sq.
Animals available for sacrifice, 31 sq. ;
unclean, 146 sqq.
Antiquity, characteristics of, 7, 24, 28
Antiquities of Israel, plan of the pre
sent work, 4 sq.
Ark of the Covenant, 122 sqq. see Holy
of Holies
Assembly, the national, 246
Atonement, water of, 60 sqq., 152; day
of, 124, 281, 361* sqq.
Avenger of blood, 168
Azazel, 362 sq.
Azkara, 46

Baal, 229
Ban, the, 15, 75-79*, 84, 154 sq. 236 sq,
Banishment, 314
Beating as a punishment, 315
Birds, how offered for sacrifice, 32, 45 ; ex
cluded from thank-offerings, 51 ; un
clean, 147
Blasphemy, 220
Blessing, the, 15, 132
Blood, ideas about, 35-41* 54, 147 sqq. ;
sprinkling of the, 44 sq., 62 sq. ; shed
ding of, 104, 138
Blood-money, 169 sqq.
Book of Origins, aim of, 2; foundation
of present work, 3
Bread of the countenance, the, 27
Bull, worship of a, 225
Burial, rites of, 153
Burnt-offerings, the, 46-50, 116

EXP
Census, 274, 304
Charity, 183, 186, 217, 219
Cherub, its symbolical meaning, 123, 321
Circumcision, 89-97 ; where in use, 90 ;
origin and significance, 91 sq., 231 ; a
sacrament, 95, 110; exceptional, 163
Cities of refuge, 172
Colours, the sacred, 278, 292, 321*; of
sin, 60
Combinations, prohibited, 160 sq.
Compensation for damages, 175, 186 sq.,
311
Concubines, 199 sq., 214
Confession, 65, 313
Consecration, 67 sq., 107 sq. ; of priests,
279
Corban, 41, 81
Corn-offerings, 33, 45 sq , 49, 51, 62, 66,
117
Corporate associations, 257
Court of the tabernacle, 323 sq., 326 sqq.
Curse, the, 15
Curtains ofthe tabernacle, 321 sq.

Day, commencement of each, 341
Dead, contact with the, 149 sqq.
Debt, laws of, 181 sqq.
Divine service, 130 sqq.
Divorce, laws of, 203 sqq.
Drink-offerings, wine, water, broth, 34 sq.
50, see Libations

Egyptian customs, 30, 82, 90 sq., 146,
164, 198, 315, 342 sqq., 347 sq.
Elders, the, 245 ; committee of the, 248
sqq.
Entrails, objects of sacrificial art, 41
Epochs, the four great, 40, 103 sq., 138 sq.
Ephod, 224, 293 sqq.
Equality, spiritual, 230 sq.
Eunuchs, 164, 238
Expiation, purpose and means of, 55-59
limitations of, 57 ; feast of, 361

384

INDEX.

EXP

Expiatory-offerings, 55-66 ; distinguished
from guilt-offerings, 57 ; three grades of,
61 ; disposal of the carcases, 63, 65 sq.

Fasting, 83 sq. ; on day of atonement, 362
Fat, devoted to the altar, 41, 51
Feast of Arbours, 351*, 355, 364* 369,
372
Feast of unleavened bread, the, 352 sq.,
357 sqq.*, 368
Festivals, pre-Mosaic, 348 sqq. ; annual,
351 sqq.; Mosaic, 354 ; the autumn-,
355, 364; the spring-, 356 sq., 360, 368
Fines, 315
Fire from heaven, 29
Fire, strange, 330
First-fruits, 301 sq. ; presentation in
spring, 75, 352, 360
Flood, the, 40 ; important in connection
with the calendar, 342, 347
Footstool, sacred, 123 sqq., 363
Free-will offerings, 73, 303
Garments, sacerdotal, 277 sq. ; of the
high-priest, 292
Gifts, sacred, 71-81; temple-slaves, 75;
ban-gift, 75 sqq.
Gleaning, 217
God, early dread of his wrath, 12, 55,
136 ; fear of losing, 113 sq., 133, 155
Government, 140, 232 sq* ; ancient form
of, 307 sqq.
Guilt-offerings, 55-66 ; distinguished from
expiatory-offerings, 57 ; grades of, 61 ;
disposal ofthe carcases, 63, 65 sq.

Hair, 164, s«eNazirites
Hands, meaning of laying them on the
head, 42 sq.
Hereditary estates, 177 sqq., 207, 373 sqq.
High places, bamah, 120 sq., 227 sq.
High-priest, the, 58, 288 sq.; had to give
oracles, 290 ; attire of, 292 sqq. ; scep
tre, 298, 330 ; a president, 308 ; to
enter the Holy of Holies, 325, 363 ;
death of, 79, 172, 380
Hindoo customs and beliefs, 15 sq., 30,
36, 40, 44, 82, 174, 198, 209 nt., 345
Hired service, 185, 217 sq.
Holy of Holies, the, 320, 322 sq., 325,
331, 363
Holy place, the, 320, 322 sq., 325, 328
Human sacrifice, 27, 69 sq., 228
Hyssop, use of, 41, 151

Idolatry, 222 sqq., see Worship
Images of the Deity, 119 sq. ; idols,
223 sq., 325
Imprisonment, 313 sq.

HUE
Incense, 35, 45, 62, 66, 205, 330, 363
Infanticide, 174,»189
Inheritance, laws of, 1 79 sq.
Interest, when forbidden, 182

Jealousy, ordeal for, 205
Jephthah, 70, 80 sq.
Jubilee, Year of, 372 sqq. ; ceased to be
observed, 379 sqq.
Judges, the so-called, 233, 249 ; the sub
ordinate, 253, 310 sqq.
Justice, administration of, 310 sqq.; held
in public, 312

Lampstand, the sacred, 115, 328*
Land, special laws in regard to, 177 sqq. ;
value of, 376 ; registration of, 377
Leaven, laws about, 34
Leprosy, 157 sqq.
Levites, 265 sq., 281 sqq. ; their three
clans, 282 ; substituted for the first-born,
283 sq. ; their cities, 286, 306; their
bondsmen, 287 ; seek to be priests, 287
sq. ; collect tithes, 300 ; aet as judges,
311
Levitical cities, 286, 306, 377
Libations, 27, 28, 34, 46, 329, 352
Local sanctuaries, 128 sq.
Lot, use of the, 224, 259, 276, 291 sqq.,
295, 362

Magic, 16, 119, 260
Marriage, 190 sqq., 200; of priests, 191,
206, 277* ; with the heathen, 193 ; for
bidden degrees of, 196 sq. ; ceremo
nies, 201 sq. ; with a brother's widow,
207 sqq.
Meals, sacrificial character of all, 54, 68
M6rcy-seat, see Footstool, sacred
Mincha, 36, 40, 46
Miriam, 159, 232, 286
Mohammedanism, 16, 83, 91, 147 nt.,
175, 206 sq., 235, 303, 336, 347, 357
nt., 367, 372 nt.
Moloch, 70, 228
Months, 342, 345 ; names of, 345 sqq. ;
extra, 347 sq.
Moon, 99 ; the full- and new-, 341, 347;
celebration of, 349, 356
Moses, special allusions to, 6, 28, 30 sq.,
42 sq., 66, 70, 77, 85, 88, 92 sqq., 98,
100 sqq., 104, 107, 113, 115 sq., 121,
125 sq., 132, 135. 139*, 154, 158 sq..
175, 177, 180, 193. 195, 198, 209, 226,
232, 235, 238, 243, 248 sq., 251* sqq.,
256, 261 sqq., 271, 275, 279, 283, 291,
300, 304 sq., 308 sqq., 318, 329, 331
sq., 336, 341. 343 sq., 347, 354, 361,
363 nt., 368, 372
Murder, 168 sq. ; different cases of, 171 sq.

INDEX.

335

MUT
Mutilation of the body, SI sqq., 89, 163
sqq.

Names given children at circumcision, 96
Nation, lofty feeling of the, 229 sqq., 234 ;
admission into, 238 ; organisation of,
241 sqq.
Nature, respect for, 7 sq., 142 sq., 166
Nazirites, 51, 80, 84-88*, 152, 281
Netunim, the, 287
North, supposed abode of the Deity, 44

Oath, the, ready use of, 16 ; language and
application of, 17-21, 220, 313
Offering of thanksgiving, 52 sq.
Oil, sacrificial, 33, 35, 62, 205; of conse
cration, 108, 330
Oracles, 50, 126, 139, 224, 259, 275, 290*,
294

Parents and children, 188 sqq.
Passover, the, 33, 353* 358 sq., 368
Patrons and clients, 179, 216*
Perpetual light and sacrifice, 49,114 sqq.*,
330, see Lampstand
Pilgrimages, the three, 366
Pledges, 183 sq., 190
Plunder, how divided, 303
Polygamy, 195 sq., 199
Prayer, at first no fixed form of, 14 ; pos
ture at, 15 ; public, 46, 132
Priesthood, the, 260-306; the earlier
form of, 263 sq., 283 ; the Levitical,
265 sqq. ; general function of, 269 sqq. ;
its three grades, 273 ; duties of the
regular priests, 273 sqq. ; their quali
fications, 276 ; their garments, 277 ;
consecration, 279 ; inferior priests, 44,
see Levites ; see also High-priest, Mar
riage, First-fruits, and Tithes
Prince, of a clan, 245 ; of the nation, 254
sqq.
Prophecy, 258 ; not hereditary, 266
Property, private, 141, 176 sqq. ; sale of,
180 ; loan of, 181 ; stolen, 185 sq.
Punishment, right of inflicting, 134 sq.,
137 sqq.; by parents, 189; different
kinds of, 165, 198, 314*; capital, 104,
110, 138, 163, 165, 189, 191, 198, 220
sq., 223, 313, 315 sqq*
Purification, 67, 107, 150 sqq.* 159, 357

Rainbow, the, 104, 321
Rechabites, the, 88
Redemption of sacred gifts, 79 sq. ; of
tithes, 300; of hereditary estates, 180,
373 sqq.
Registration, financial and military, 304 ;
of land, 377

TAB
Release from slavery, 21S, 371, 377
Revelation, ark of, 125
Rulers, human, 137 sqq., 231 sqq., 2-11
sqq., 254 sqq.
Ruth, 209

Sabbath, the, 25, 97 sqq* ; day of rest,
102 sq., 313 ; recreation and instruction
allowed on, 106, 372 ; a sacrament, 110 ;
extension of its idea, 337 sqq., 365 ;
the sabbath-month, 338, 348 sqq. ; tho
sabbath-year, 338, 369 sqq., 372
Sacraments, 39 sq., 95, 108 sqq.; the
three special ones, 110; contact with,
155, 221 ; the Passover included, 359
Sacred externals, the, 111 sqq.
Sacred places, 120 sq., see Tabernacle
Sacred times, 113, 116; based on the
lunar calendar, 343, see Sabbath and
Festivals
Sacrifice, 23 sqq. ; origin and development
of, 25 ; different kinds of, 27-106 ; two
main divisions, 47 ; a sacrament, 39,
110 ; priests' share in, 52, 305 sqq., sec
Human
Sacrificial ritual, 42-46, 130 sq.
Salt, employed at every sacrifice, 34
Sanctity, inherent, 140 sqq.; human, 112,
167 ; national, 230
Sanctuary, the, 127 sq., 317 sqq.*
Saturn, connection with the week, 100 sqq.
Saul, 54
Scape-goat, see Azazel
Seventy, the, 247 sqq.
Sexes, opposition between them in
sacrificial ritual, 33, 48, 53, 60 sq. ;
general relations between the, 190 sqq.,
198 sqq.
Signs, early use of, 9 sq., 180
Sinew, the sacred, 148
Singing at the temple, 44, 46, 53, 108,
131, 285 sq.
Sin-offering, see Expiatory-offering
Slain-offerings, same as thank-offerings,
51, 53
Slavery, 75, 185 sq., 190, 200, 210* sqq. ;
privileges in, 212; release from, 213,
371, 377; attempt to abolish, 215;
fugitive slaves, 217
Sprinkling of the blood, 44 sqq., 62 sq.,
363
Stones, monumental, 21, 118 sq., 122,
226; magic, 119
Strangers, feeling towards, 216, 234 sqq.
Suicide, 174
Sun-dials, 341

Tabernacle, the, 317 sqq. ; its heavenly
model, 319 ; construction of, 319 sqq. ;
removal of, 332

C C

386

INDEX.

TAB
Table-offering, the, 27, 115, 305; the
sacred table, 328
Tamar, 209
Tassel, the, ordered to be worn, 231
Taxation, direct, 304
Ten Commandments, 126 sq., 185, 188,
190
Teraphim, 223 sqq.
Thank-offerings, the, 50-54 ; three
varieties of, 52
Theft, laws regarding, 185 sqq., 313
Time, early divisions of, 339 sqq.; lunar
months, 342 sqq.
Tithes, the, 299
Treaty-sacrifice, the, 21, 68
Trees, sacred, 120, 260
Trumpets, the sacerdotal, 130, 288*, 331,
374
Truth, regard for, 221 sq.

Unchastity, 72. 191* 198, 201, 214
Unclean, what is, 144 sqq., 150 ; unclean
animals, 146 sqq.
Uncleanness, personal, 156 sq.
Urim and Thummim, 294 sq.

TEA
Vassal-tribes, 235 sq.
Vow, the, 21 ; aim of, 22 ; laws about, 23*,
81, 83 ; of thanksgiving, 52, 72 ; in
fluence on the ban, 77

War, laws of, 237 ; spoils of, 303
Washing-basin at the sanctuary, 285, 327
Wave and heave, 74 sq.
Wedding customs, 202
Week, origin of the, 98
Whitsuntide, 360
Whole-offerings, the, 46-50* 116
Witnesses, 21, 176, 180, 313*
Women, general position of, 207 ; serving
at the Sanctuary, 285 sq., see Singing
Worship, public, 46, 130 sqq. ; idolatrous,
222 sqq.; of a bull, 225; of stones,
226; of Molocb, 70, 228; of Baal,
229; of stars, 100 sq., 229
Writing, use of, 21, 126, 181* 313, 377

Year, lunar and solar, 342 sqq., 347 ;
commencement of the, 343 sq., 355 ;
of Jubilee, 79, 180, 338, 372*

SIHJTH

^WEST
-O  Q  0  e-

./'

T -

- O O O 0"
? ;
is

/

ooooo

OC

D-

o tfOETH

IE AST

a Entrance to the Fore-court.
b The Brazen Altar.
C Site of the "Washing-basin.
d The Tabernacle.
¦r The Holy Place.
v The Holy of Holies.

a Entrance to the Tabernacle.
b The Sacred Table.
c The Sacred Lampstand.
d The Golden Altar.
e The Ark of the Covenant.
'/ The Corner-planks.