Skip to main content

Full text of "The decline and fall of the Kingdom of Judah;"

See other formats






Demy Zvo. Cloth. Price 1 5S« net. 


Demy Zvo. Cloth. Price 1 5Sa »et. 


Part I. — Isaiah and Jeremiah, price 2s. 6d. net. 
Part II. — Ezekiel and Minor Prophets, price 3s. net. 
Part III. — The Books of Samuel, price 3s. net. 
Part IV. — The Books of Kings, price 3s. net 
Part V. — Joshua and Judges, price 3s. net. 







The Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, D.Litt., D.D. 







Digitized by tine Internet Archive 

in 2007 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 




I WOULD most gladly have offered the reader results of 
study which involved somewhat less unpopular critical 
presuppositions. The time for that does not seem to have 
come, but I think that with a good will students who have 
not gone as far as I have will be able to find many useful 
facts and ideas in my book. The Introduction contains an 
explanation of a theory which is assumed in the following 
studies, and which ought to be called, not the Jerahmeelite, 
but the North Arabian theory. It also contains answers to 
critics, many of whom, as it seems to me, have continued 
the bad tradition of controversial unfairness which has been 
handed down to us from an earlier age. I hope that those 
who misapprehend and misrepresent, or who not less unfortu- 
nately ignore me, may be brought to a sense of their in- 
justice, without having their feelings wounded, by what I 
have written. I should not have sought to answer them if 
the injury done to the cause of free inquiry had not been so 

Part I. gives an account, as complete as the often 
doubtful evidence allows, of that interesting and changeful 
period which begins with the finding of the great law-book 
in the Temple under Josiah, and ends with the destruction 
of Jerusalem. It has, of course, not been possible to treat 
this portion of history without reference to an earlier period. 
The contents of the work called Traditions and Beliefs of 
Ancient Israel have therefore had to be frequently referred 
to. As to the higher criticism, it will be clear that my 


conclusions on Genesis and Exodus throw considerable 
doubt on the strict accuracy of its results. The time has 
not come, however, to revise these results. I have, there- 
fore, provisionally adopted the generally accepted statements. 
Professor Eerdmans' relative conservatism in textual matters 
makes it unwise to follow him implicitly, suggestive as his 
recent work on the composition of Genesis may be. I am, 
however, glad of his support in the view that the narrators 
of Genesis, generally speaking, believed in more than one 
god. If he has ignored my own work, that is no reason 
why I should ignore or depreciate his. 

Part II. contains a study of the Israelite law-books, 
with the exception of the Priestly Code, which, though it 
certainly contains a kernel of older date, is in its present 
form naturally considered to be post-exilic. Both here and 
elsewhere the point of view is that set forth in Traditions 
and Beliefs and in the Introduction, which, while recognising 
both direct and indirect Babylonian influence on Palestine, 
finds in the extant evidence a larger amount of reference to 
N. Arabian influence, both political and religious. 

In conclusion, I may draw attention to a passage in the 
Introduction relative to the one-sided character of the 
literary monuments of the pre-exilic period, which helps to 
account for the large number of problems which are very 
plausibly solved by the N. Arabian theory. I think that 
this suggestion makes for peace. The present condition ol 
the study of the Old Testament is far from satisfactory; 
there is still a sad amount of partisanship, though the points 
at issue have changed. ' Give peace in our time, O Lord ! ' 

Oxford, Sept. i8, 1908. 



Introduction ix 



Introductory — From Hezekiah to Josiah ... 3 

The Story of the Finding of the Book ... 8 




Jeremiah's Attitude — Josiah's Defeat and Death — 

Fear of the North Arabians 32 


Jehoahaz — Jehoiakim — His Contest with Jeremiah — 
Portraits of Kings in Jeremiah — Jehoiakim to 
HAVE NO Public Mourning — Litany of Lamentation, 
ITS Value for the History of Religion ... 44 




JEHOIAKIM {continued) — THE Invasion (or Invasions)— The 
Two Babels — Jehoiachin — Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's 
Utterances — Jehoiachin's Captivity — Turn in his 
Fortunes 56 

Zedekiah — Morality and Religion — Ezek. viii. . . 70 
Special Notes 85 


The Two Decalogues — The Book of Covenant . . 99 

Deuteronomy — Introductory 109 

The Legislative Kernel (chaps, xii.-xxvi.) . . ,112 

The First Preamble (l i-iv. 43) 133 

The Second Preamble (iv. 44-xi.) 145 

Concluding Sections (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 153 

Index 185 




In the present Introduction the writer, with much reluctance, 
deserts the paths of simple inquiry and exposition. He 
will not, however, try the reader's patience by condescending 
to the procedure of ordinary controversialists. The attacks 
directed against him may often have been of a singular 
vehemence. But the only mode of self-defence that he will 
adopt is the removal of misapprehensions. Very likely the 
most violent of his assailants may pass over these pages, 
but there must still be some unspoiled Bible-students who 
value the jewel of an open mind, and who would say to the 
writer as the Roman Jews said to St. Paul, " We desire to 
hear of thee what thou thinkest." What is it, then, that 
requires to be freed from misapprehensions ? It is the 
N. Arabian theory in its fullest form. It is here con- 
tended that Arabia, and more distinctly North Arabia, 
exercised no slight political and religious influence upon 
Israel, especially upon the region commonly known as 
Judah. And now, as always, the writer will combine this 
with a Babylonian theory, viz, that, subsequently to a great 
migration of Jerahmeelites and kindred Arabian peoples in 
a remote century (B.C. 2500 ?), and again later, Babylonian 

1 The present Introduction, in a shortened form, has appeared in 
the Hibbert Journal^ October 1908. Hence the irregular spelling, 
'Jerahmeel' for ' Yerahme'el,' 'Mizrim' for ' Misrim.' 


culture exercised a wide influence on Syria and Palestine, 
and that South Arabia too, which was within the Baby- 
lonian sphere of influence, and about which we may hope 
soon to know much more,^ profoundly affected North Arabia, 
and, through North Arabia, South Palestine. Both directly 
and indirectly, therefore, Palestine received a powerful and 
permanent stimulus from Babylonian culture. 

The portion of this complex theory which is most 
sharply attacked is one which claims to be based, not only on 
inscriptional evidence, but also on passages of the Old Testa- 
ment. The question whether it really has an Old Testament 
basis has not yet, I think, received half enough attention. 
This is unfortunate. The South Arabian evidence may be 
only probable ; the Assyrian and the Hebrew may, in my 
opinion, be called decisive. Open-minded students may 
well be surprised that there should be Biblical scholars of 
the first and second rank who fail to see this, and who, 
strong in their presumed security, not only attack the N. 
Arabian theory themselves, but warn their pupils or readers 
against it as a phantasy. 

It may perhaps be objected that the keenest adversaries 
are a relatively small number of persons, who, being on 
these questions orthodox, may be expected to show the 
qualities characteristic of orthodoxies. In reply, lapsing 
into the first person, I admit that the most hostile writers 
may be comparatively few, but when a number of the larger 
and less bitter class, in paraphrasing a simple narrative of 
the origin of a book, succeeds in transforming an act of 
generosity into an act of calculating prudence,^ even a saint 
might feel justified in breaking silence. Is this, then, the 
right way for a young convert to the historical spirit 
(for such Prof. Witton Davies is) to treat a work of some 
originality ? I know that it is hard to enter into a new 
point of view, but those who cannot yet do this are scarcely 

^ The death of Eduard Glaser the explorer makes it probable that 
the inscriptions (about 2000) which he had collected will soon become 
available to scholars. 

2 I am sorry to have to point this out, for Prof. Davies is zealous for 
the higher education in Wales. But it is inevitable. See Review of 
Theology, etc., edited by Prof. Menzies, May 1908, p. 689, and cp. 
Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, p. v, ' To the Reader.' 


qualified reviewers. It is disappointing, but I must confess 
that hitherto only ' one man among a thousand have I 
found' (Eccles. vii. 28), and he is an American. Prof. 
Davies says that he is also an ex-Baptist, and that he has 
' defended some points of Jerahmeelism.' Apparently the 
two things go together. 

Professor Nathaniel Schmidt (the ' one man ' referred 
to) has written an article in the Hibbert Journal (January 
1908), entitled 'The "Jerahmeel" Theory and the Historic 
Importance of the Negeb.' The opening words remind me 
too much of the misleading title of another American article, 
' Israel or Jerahmeel.' ^ The truth is that there are other 
ethnic or regional names of N. Arabia — Mizrim, Asshur, 
Cush — which would have as much right to form part of the 
title of the theory as Jerahmeel, I would dissuade, how- 
ever, from parading any of these names in a title. Let the 
names be well studied, remembering the important questions 
symbolised by them, but let not any one of them be singled 
out to the disparagement of the rest. If I now give an 
incomplete study of one of the names, the reader will under- 
stand that it is not with the object of making a new title 
for a theory. 

The passages which I am about to consider are some of 
those which contain the N. Arabian regional name, Asshur 
(or Shur) or Ashhur, perhaps the A'shur of Minaean inscrip- 
tions.^ And first, let us study Gen. xxv. 3 and Ezek. 
xxvii. 23. In the former, Asshur[im] ^ is connected most 
closely with Dedan, and only less closely with Sheba, which 
are both admittedly N. Arabian. In the latter, Asshur 
stands between Sheba and Kilmad, both which one expects 
to be N. Arabian. Kilmad is no doubt corrupt, but the 
origin is plain. KLMD has come from RKML, which, like 
the place-name KRML, represents Jerahmeel. 

Next Gen. xxv. 1 8. Here, certainly, Asshur is best 
explained as a N. Arabian regional name. The true 

^ See American Journal of Theology, October 1907 (article by 
Prof. H. P. Smith). 

- See the inscription Glaser 11 55, first pointed out by Hommel. 
See p. XV (n. 5). 

3 Prof. Ed. Meyer is bold enough to question the existence of 
Asshurim {Die Israeliten, p. 220). 


rendering is, * And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, 
which is in front {i.e. eastward) of Mizrim.' To this an 
ancient gloss is added, ' in the direction of Asshur ' ; Shur 
is the short for Asshur. 

Another passage is Gen. xxiv. 63. Here no doubt 
the text is corrupt, but the right correction, for those 
who are not * naturally prejudiced,' is transparent. But 
let us first look at the traditional text, which may be 
represented thus, ' And Isaac went out to x in the field 
at eventide.' Here x stands for a word which is corrupt 
and untranslatable — in short, an unknown quantity. A list 
of the widely different renderings of commentators would at 
once make this clear. And until we try some new methods 
we shall still continue to be baffled ; x will remain x. If, 
however, we overcome our ' natural prejudice ' and apply the 
new methods, we shall see that the true reading (for x) is 
' to Asshur,' which should probably be restored to verse 62, 
where a place-name is really wanted. Thus we get for 
verses 62, 63, ' Now Isaac had come to Ashhur from the 
way {i.e. the caravan road) to the Well of Jerahmeel, for he 
was a dweller in the Negeb. And Isaac went out into the 
field at eventide,' etc. Ashhur was probably, not the region 
so called, but the city where Ephron and, for a time, 
Abraham dwelt, and which was called, corruptly, Kiriath- 
arba', i.e. Ashhoreth-'Arab.^ The Well of Jerahmeel, mis- 
called Beer-lahai-roi, was no doubt the great central well of 
the north Jerahmeelite country. For a definite view of the 
situation of this country we may turn to Gen. xxv. 18, 
already explained. 

Another interesting passage is i Sam. xxiv. 14 (cp. the 
parallel, xxvi. 20). Does our Bible really give us the 
original writer's meaning? With tasteless servility the 
chivalrous David is here made to say — what every one 
remembers and wonders at. The true reading, however, of 
the closing words is, not "irrN t&:&"iD, but nntDN NID, 'a wild 
ass of Ashhur.' A good part of the wide region called 
Asshur or Ashhur was no doubt steppe country, where wild 
asses delighted to roam (Job xxxix. 5-8). That, surely, is 
a figure both fine in itself and specially appropriate for 
^ See Traditions and Beliefs., pp. 337/, 349/ 


David, who roamed at large in the south country like a 
wild ass. 

We have seen where an early narrator placed the N. 
Arabian Asshur. It is quite another thing to be able to 
locate it on the map. It is also troublesome that we 
have two N. Arabian Asshurs to provide for, there being 
apparently two uses of the name, a narrower and a 
wider.^ There was an Asshur which probably adjoined, 
and anciently may have included, the Negeb, and another 
which was some way from Southern Palestine, and whose 
king at some period claimed suzerainty over the smaller 
kingdoms to the north, including especially Mizrim. One 
might possibly identify this with Meluha, which, as an 
inscription of Sargon tells us, adjoined Muzri. The capital 
was probably called Babel.^ 


I have mentioned these things, partly to justify my 
objection to the phrases * the Jerahmeel theory ' and 
' Jerahmeelism,' partly because of the intrinsic importance 
of the result to which the facts appear to point, viz. that the 
rulers of a distant Arabian land, called conventionally by the 
Israelites Asshur or Ashhur, were strong enough to invade 
the Negeb and the land of Judah, and were confounded by 
later scribes with kings of Assyria. The cause of the 
confusion is obvious ; it is that the tradition of Assyrian 
invasions was still in circulation. Parallels for the con- 
fusion are given elsewhere (pp. Z6 ff.\ I may therefore now 
proceed to explain another regional name Mizrim, or, in 
Assyrian, Muzri or Muzur, which I have already had occa- 

1 Hommel, however, who knows only of one Asshur, thinks that it 
extended from the Wady el-Arish ( = the nahal Mizritn ?) to Beer-sheba 
and Hebron, and that it is the A'shur mentioned, together with Muzr, 
in a Minaean inscription dating, according to him, before looo B.C. 
Winckler, however, makes the inscription several centuries later, and 
others (e.^. N. Schmidt) bring it down to Cambyses. It is interesting 
that in crusading times there was a thick forest, called Assur, near 
the coast, some way to the north of Jaffa (Maspero in the Leemans 
memorial volume). 

2 Among the curiosities of Prof. Witton Davies (Rev. of Theology, 
p. 692) is a Babel in the Negeb, for which I am not responsible. 


sion to use. Whether it means ' border region ' seems to 
me doubtful ; the true meaning of regional names is not 
always the most plausible one. There is, however, one 
result of criticism which seems to me to have not been 
overthrown either by Ed. Meyer, or by Flinders Petrie, or 
by the newest writer, A. T. Olmstead : ^ it is that there 
was a second land of Mizrim or Muzri, not indeed in the 
Negeb (as the latest writer strangely supposes Winckler to 
think), but in a tract of N. Arabia extending perhaps as far 
south as Medina, and in the north probably not far removed 
from the better-known Mizrim,^ i.e. the Nile Valley. Many 
equally strange doublings of regional names will at once 
occur to the scholar. For instance, it is an irrefutable 
historical fact, not dependent on i K. x. i8, 2 K. vii. 6f 
that there was a third Muzri in N. Syria.* The Assyrian 
inscriptions state that it sent tribute to Shalmaneser II., and 
that its king was afterwards a vassal of Damascus. 

About the second Muzri there is, I admit, much dispute. 
Among younger scholars one may refer with pleasure to 
L. B. Paton and Wilhelm Erbt, but it is a misfortune that 
Prof N. Schmidt's pupil, A. T. Olmstead, should have ex- 
pressed himself so strongly against Winckler (other critics 
on the same side are not even mentioned), because strong 
language always makes it difficult to turn back, especially 
when you have made such a huge mistake again and again as 
to represent your opponent as believing in a Negeb Muzri. 
I sorely fear that Prof Ed. Meyer is not unaffected by this. 
Fortunately Winckler is great even as a controversialist. 
Fortunately, too, it is admitted by all that there are some 
inscriptional references to Muzri which cannot possibly 
mean either a N. Syrian state or the land which we know 
as Egypt. 

Things being so, we must give our best attention to any 
evidence adduced from Assyrian or Egyptian sources, and 

^ Western Asia in the days of S argon of Assyria (1908), pp. 56-71. 

2 Mizrim and Mizraim are virtually the same. See Enc. Biblica, 
* Mizraim.' 

2 The plausibleness of Winckler's view may be frankly admitted. 
Olmstead's remarks {op. cit. p. 58) hardly do justice to this. 

* According to the later boundaries. 


the newest writer on Biblical archaeology ^ refers me, in 
correction of my own views, to Prof. Flinders Petrie. Be 
it so. Eager and impetuous, alike as an explorer and as a 
writer. Prof Petrie must produce some effect, even though it 
may not be altogether what he desires. I therefore turn to 
his latest expression of opinion, and what do I find ? He 
tells us that the theory of a second Muzri is a fantastic 
result of unchecked literary criticism.^ Have we really to 
believe this ? I admit that all unchecked criticism is 
dangerous ; but how can the Muzri theory (for me, a part 
of a larger theory — the N. Arabian), based as it is on 
inscriptional as well as literary evidence, be an example of 
this ? Or will it be asserted that unchecked inferences from 
inscriptions are less dangerous ? Can one, for instance, 
infer from the fact that ' Sinai ' contains Egyptian monu- 
ments down to the 2oth dynasty (Petrie, 1 202-1 102 B.C.), 
and from that other fact (if it be such) that the Egyptian 
frontier stretched across into S. Palestine at many periods, 
that a Hebrew writer would call the added region Mizraim ? 
Yet Prof Petrie draws this inference, while frankly admitting 
(Researc/ies, p. viii) that * there is no trace (in Sinai) of any 
permanent garrison.' Elsewhere ^ this scholar speaks of the 
supposed Muzri as situated in ' the almost uninhabited 
desert' Such an assertion, however, is arbitrary. As 
Hugo Winckler remarks, ' If Roman civilisation penetrated 
into this region under Roman rule. Oriental civilisation 
penetrated before under Oriental rule,' nor can we doubt 
that stimulating influences came from the more developed 
culture of S. Arabia, especially if Winckler is right in 
supposing that the king of Meluha (W. Arabia), who was 
probably the suzerain of Muzri, was the head of the Minaean 
empire,* i.e. that the archaising phrase, ' king of Meluha,' 
should rather be 'king of Ma'in.'^ At any rate, N. 

^ See Prehistoric Archceology and the Old Testament, by H, J. 
Dukinfield Astley, M.A., Litt.D., 1908. 

2 Researches in Sinai, p. 195. 

3 History of Egypt, iii. 283. 

* KAT^^\ pp. 141/!; cp. Musri, Meluhha, Ma^in (Mitteil, der 
Vorderasiat. Ges.), 1898. 

^ There is a Minaean inscription (Glaser 1155) in which a district 
called Misran (postpositive article) and another district called Ma'in 


Arabia cannot fail to have been affected in many ways 
by the more civilised south. The tillage of any productive 
parts of the land, especially the important oases, would 
certainly not have been exempt from this influence. 

I have now to speak of passages respecting Muzri in the 
Assyrian inscriptions. And first of all, of the passage in 
which Tiglath-Pileser III. states that he appointed Idi-bi'lu 
(evidently an Arabian, not [as Meyer, Kuchler, Olmstead] a 
tribe) to be kipu {kiputu)^ or, as we, thinking of Indian states, 
might say, a * resident ' over Muzri.^ Where was this Muzri 
situated? In 1889 Winckler supposed the reference to be 
to the N. Syrian Muzri, but in 1893, with more Tiglath- 
Pileser texts before him, he was able (in my opinion) to show 
that a N. Arabian Muzri would alone satisfy the conditions 
of the case. Prof Petrie, however, whom our latest Biblical 
archaeologist brings up against me, interprets this Muzri as, 
not indeed the Nile Valley, but either what he calls Sinai or 
the isthmus of Suez. One or two chiefs on the eastern side 
of the Egyptian empire, who had acquired their independence, 
may have made their submission, and received an Assyrian 
resident. The theory takes no account of the other facts 
adduced by Winckler, and implies that the Assyrian king 
had an ill-served intelligence department. 

Next, I will refer to an inscription of Sargon. It tells 
how Jamani (probably a Jamanite or Javanite of N. Arabia),^ 
an adventurer put up by the anti-Assyrian party in Ashdod, 

Misran are mentioned as being under a Minaean viceroy (133). See 
Winckler, Altor. Forsch. i. 29, 2)7>1- According to Olmstead, the 
Misran here mentioned is 'naturally taken (by Winckler) to be his 
Negeb Musri ' {Sargon, p. 59). That is not the case. Winckler says, 
'only the N. Arabian region el-Misr and the Minasan colonies in N. 
Arabia (inscriptions of el-Oela !) can be meant.' It should be noticed 
that A'shur is also mentioned, and carefully distinguished from Misr. 
The question arises, Is this the N. Arabian Asshur of the O.T. which 
the commentators agree to pass over ? 

' See Winckler, Die jungsten Kdmpfer wider den Par.-Babylonismus, 
p. 42. 

- Less probably a Phoenician or (so, after Winckler, Olmstead, 
Sargon of Assyria, pp. 77 /■) a Greek from Cyprus, or (Winckler, 
Musri, etc., p. 26, n. i) a man of Jemen (Yemen). Like Jamani, Omri, 
Zimri, and Tibni were all probably adventurers from N. Arabia (see 
E. Bib.). As for Winckler, what is the history of the name Jemen ? 
Did ' Jaman ' ( = Jerahmeel, p. xxxvi) extend to S. Arabia ? 


fled before Sargon ' to the region of Muzur which is at the 
entrance to Meluha.' This at least is Winckler's present 
translation. I do not know whether it is the correct one. 
It is possible to render ' to the border of Muzur, which {i.e. 
Muzur) is beside Meluha,' which Prof. Petrie paraphrases, ' to 
the frontier of the Egyptian power in Sinai which joins on 
to Arabia.' This, he says, is 'a perfectly sound expression.' 
It is at any rate sound English, but in what sense can it 
have been said that the region which Prof. Petrie designates 
Sinai was distinct from Meluha? And can Meluha be 
rightly paraphrased ' Arabia ' ? The inference which Prof. 
Petrie, and now too (June 1908) a young American scholar,^ 
have not drawn from the Assyrian phraseology, but surely 
ought to have drawn, is that the Muzur referred to by Sargon 
needed to be distinguished from some other Muzur, i.e. 
naturally, from Egypt. 

I see no necessity for discussing these points further. 
Dr. Astley has accused me (not discourteously) of rashness 
on the ground of historical statements of Prof. Petrie, and 
these statements, upon examination, prove to be very 
doubtful. The chance, however, remains that some other 
writer may compel my assent. Let us search the more 
recent books and magazines. 

I have no doubt that all honest work contains elements 
of truth. But though both Kuchler ^ and Olmstead ^ are 
promising young scholars, and have really worked at the 
inscriptions, they are (as I have pointed out elsewhere) not 
open-minded enough for their criticisms on older scholars 
(which contain serious inaccuracies) to be accepted. Prof. 
Eerdmans, too, a scholar of higher rank, in his notice of my 
second Psalter in the Theologisch Tijdschrift, has fallen into 
grave misapprehensions, and is hampered by an inflexible 
textual conservatism. I turn therefore unsatisfied from 
Leyden to St. Andrews, and look into the useful review 

^ See Olmstead, Sargon, p. 79, who remarks, most unsatisfactorily, 
* When Musuri is said to be sha pat of the region of Meluha, need it 
mean more than that the fact of Ethiopic control was known in Nineveh?' 

2 Die Stellung des Propheten Jesaja, etc., Tubingen, 1906 ; reviewed 
in Rev. of Theologv, Jan. 1907. 

^ Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of Assyria, New York, 



edited by Prof. Menzies. Here another young scholar 
appears, Prof. Witton Davies by name. I have already 
had to speak of him ; he doubtless wishes to promote Old 
Testament researches, but I cannot see on what lines he 
expects to do this. At any rate he firmly holds that every 
form of the N. Arabian theory is ' impossible.' How, he 
demands to be told, can two peoples, both called Mizrites, 
' have existed side by side without some notice of the fact ? ' 
And must not an exodus from a N. Arabian land of Mizrim 
' have been known to at least the oldest writers (Amos, etc.) 
of the Bible, who connect it with the well-known Egypt ? ' 
To Drs. Kiichler and Olmstead I need not reply here ; 
indeed, I have elsewhere criticised them already. To Prof. 
Witton Davies, however, I may continue my remarks. First, 
it is too much to assert that ' no notice of the fact ' was ever 
given. One notice we have found already in Sargon's 
inscription, and in such O.T. passages as Deut. iv, 20, 
Ps. Ixxviii. 51, cv. 27, cvi. 21, 22, a reference to N. Arabia 
(rather than to Egypt) is guaranteed by the rule of 
synonymous parallelism. Prof Witton Davies may indeed 
question this in Deut. iv. 20, but the phrase 'the furnace of 
iron ' has no meaning, and only prejudice can oppose the 
methodical textual correction, * the furnace of Arabia of 
Ishmael ' (see p. 144). Still less can it be denied that 
' Mizrim ' in the passages from the Psalms is synonymously 
parallel to ' Ham.' What, then, does this strange, short name 
signify? I think I have answered the question elsewhere 
(see p. xxvii). It is an abridgment of the form 'Jarham,' 
and is therefore equivalent to the racial as well as tribal name 
'Jerahmeel' Passing to the second point, how can any 
critic prove that references in Amos and Hosea to ' the land 
of Mizrim ' in connexion with the exodus mean ' the land 
of Egypt ' ? A thorough study of Amos and Hosea seems 
to point rather to the land of Mizrim in N. Arabia. 


I turn much more hopefully to Prof Nathaniel Schmidt, 
both because he has attracted the censure of an opponent of 
my own, and because I know that, like Chaucer's priest, 


'gladly would he learn and gladly teach.' Indeed, his 
previous changes of opinion conclusively prove this. He is 
aware of the complexity of the problems before us, and fair 
enough to hold that neither Winckler's theories nor my own 
can possibly be as absurd as Prof Eduard Meyer and 
his younger allies suppose. At present he inclines to think 
that the kings of Muzri spoken of in certain Assyrian 
inscriptions were not kings or viceroys of a somewhat ex- 
tensive N. Arabian region, but dynasts residing either in 
Egypt or in districts adjoining it on the east, and also that 
the region called in these inscriptions Meluha was not 
Western Arabia, but Ethiopia. I am sorry that Prof. 
Schmidt should defend this, and against it would refer to 
Prof Winckler's able reply to Eduard Meyer.^ The latter 
scholar is widely different in tone from Prof. Schmidt, and 
his self-confidence seems to me unjustifiable. 

Still, I do not myself belong to the irreconcilables, and, 
agreeing on this point with Winckler, am willing to make an 
admission in the interests alike of peace and of truth. It 
may be true that Meyer's view of Muzri and Meluha has 
fewer elements of truth than Winckler's in the inscriptional 
passages to which a Muzri and Meluha theory is applied. 
But it seems possible that Egypt and Musri alike, and Magan 
and Meluha, represented to the Babylonians the southern 
part of the earth.^ The door is thus opened for different 
geographical uses of these names. Magan, for instance, may 
mean the east and south of Arabia, but also Nubia. At the 
same time, how can we believe that any Hebrew writer can 
have regarded Hagar as an Egyptian ? The connotation of 
Mizrim must by a certain time have shrunk, leaving room 
for a twofold interpretation, Egypt and N. Arabia. Similarly 
Meluha may perhaps have come to mean either Ethiopia or 
West Arabia. 

Prof. Davies is shocked by all this ' confusion which, 
according to Winckler, abounds in our Bible,' and, referring 
elegantly to myself, finds it * impossible that all our notions 
of ancient geography should be so muddled and muddling.' ^ 

^ Die jiingsten Kdmpfer wider den Pan-Babylonisjuus, Leipzig, 
1907. 2 See Winckler, E. Bib., ' Sinai,' §§ 4, 7. 

3 Review of Theology and Philosophy, May 1908, p. 697. 


But can any critic assert that our ' notions * of ancient 
Arabian geography were ever precise ? This was Prof. 
Schmidt's great difficulty. For a long time he hesitated as 
a student of the new theories because of his * ignorance of a 
region of which we had no good maps and no accurate 
descriptions.' Hence, when Winckler ceased to identify the 
nahal Mizrim (usually Mizraim) with the Wddy el-Arishy and 
maintained that it was ' the stream that rushes into the sea 
at Raphia,' he reserved his own opinion till he could examine 
the locality. Winckler's difficulty, of course, was that he 
was loth to accuse a capable Assyrian scribe of topographical 
vagueness. Nor does Winckler speak of a ' rushing stream.' 
He is much too careful for that, and expressly remarks that 
even an insignificant water-course might have political and 
legendary importance. Whether this is a conclusive argu- 
ment, is very doubtful. A water-course like the Wady 
el-Arish must surely have been specially distinguished in 
phraseology. I have not myself seen the wady, but the 
description of it given by the late Lieut. Haynes seems to 
me ground sufficient for adhering to the usual view. 
Winckler's comment on the Assyrian passage, however, is 
certainly interesting. 

But the Cornell professor's interest centres in the Negeb 
— that region at the extreme south of Palestine which forms 
the transition to North Arabia, and which his assistant, 
Dr. Olmstead, so strangely makes Winckler identify with 
Muzri. The cause of his interest is manifest — it is the close 
association of localities in the Negeb with the history of 
religion. Some of the eloquent sentences in which he sums 
up his views sound almost like passages from the article on 
Prophecy in the Encyclopczdia Biblica. Nor can I avoid 
mentioning that he still holds the opinion that ' the Jerah- 
meelite [rather N. Arabian] theory unquestionably promises 
to throw much light on the obscure history of the Negeb.' ^ 
Among the points of detail referred to by Prof Schmidt is the 
origin of the Cherethites, who, in David's early time, occupied 
a section of the Negeb. Were they really Philistines who 
had come over from Crete ? Prof Schmidt thinks so, and the 
view is widely held ; it is indeed as old as the Septuagint. 
1 E. Bib., « Scythians,' § 8. 


We know, however, that Cherethites and Pelethites formed 
the bodyguard of King David, and it cannot be called likely 
that this force was composed partly of Semitised descendants 
of a Cretan race (Cherethites), partly of fully Semitic Arabian 
tribesmen, akin to David (Pelethites). The prevalent theory 
is based on i Sam. xxx. i6 (cp. v. 14). But is it certain 
that ' the land of the Philistines ' is not equivalent to ' the 
land of the Pelethites ' ? Is it certain, too, that David's 
suzerain the king of Gath was a Philistine?^ If Achish 
were a Philistine, is it likely that he would have accepted 
David as a vassal, or that David would have wished to 
become one .'' And is it not plain that Gath and Ziklag 
lay farther south than is consistent with their being in the 
ordinary sense Philistian localities ? 

Who the Cherethites were, will, I hope, appear presently. 
At present I devote myself to the very difficult name 
' Philistine ' ("TIQjSd). It is most obvious to identify it with 
' Purusati,' the first on the list of the * sea-peoples,' which, 
perhaps about 1230 B.C., invaded Syria from the north, and 
were opposed on land and sea by Rameses III. We cannot, 
however, infer from this (assuming it to be correct) that Saul 
and David had to deal with Semitised descendants of the 
Purusati. Indeed, with Hommel I am of opinion that those 
of the Purusati who remained in Palestine found it convenient 
to settle in the north. Prof Schmidt will admit that this 
view is perfectly tenable, and that my theory that the seem- 
ingly express references to Philistines in the O.T. are due to 
a confusion between Pelishtim and Pelethim is at any rate 
plausible. For my own part I cannot recall any other 
critical theory of which even this can be said. The confusion 
referred to must have spread widely in Palestine, and have 
been current even among the most highly educated class, 
from whom, in the eighth century, the Assyrian scribes must 
have derived it. We need not therefore emend ' Philistines ' 
into ' Pelethites,' provided that, in our translations, we attach 
to the former a marginal gloss, ' that is, Pelethites.' There 
is evidence enough that the O.T. writers really meant, not 

1 A king of Ekron is called I-ka-u-su in an inscription of Esarhaddon. 
But (l ) the reading is somewhat uncertain, and (2) in any case a Pelethite 
might have borne the name. 


what the ordinary student means by ' Philistines,' but some 
population in South Palestine or North Arabia which in- 
habited not only the Negeb (i Sam. xxx. i6), but Gerar 
(Gen. XX., xxvi.) and the so-called five Philistine cities 
(Josh. xiii. 3). 

And who were those ' Pelethites ' ^ whom I am virtually 
substituting for the familiar Philistines ? Let us look at the 
evidence.^ {a) In three of the so-called Philistine cities 
Joshua is said to have found Anakites (Josh. xi. 22) ; now 
p3i; is to be grouped with ]5l^, ;pi;, ]pi?\ ]i;3D, p'pDi;, all of which 
names (even pD3) are of N. Arabian origin,^ and very possibly 
arose out of popular corruptions of f?NDm\ ij)) In i Sam. 
vii. 14, after a statement that Israel recovered its lost 
territory from the Philistines, we read that ' there was peace 
between Israel and the Amorites.' Now, the probability 
is that ""nDN, like the clan-name "idn from DnN, has come by 
a popular transposition of letters from ""DTn, ' one belonging to 
(the southern) Aram.' {c) In Judges xiv, 3, xv. 18, i Sam. 
xiv. 6, xvii. 26, 36, xxxi. 4, 2 Sam. i. 20, we find h^^ 
(Arel[ite]), D''7*ii? (Arelites), either in the text or as a gloss, 
where tiid'pd (Pelishti), DTICD^d (Pelishtim), or rather ti^d 
(Pelethi), DTi^D (Pelethim), are meant. Now Arel[i] is only 
a popular corruption of Jerahmeel[i], unless indeed any one 
deliberately prefers the tasteless and misleading traditional 
rendering.* (oT) In i Chr. ii. 25-33, which is based on old 
traditions, we have a record in genealogical form of a 
number of Jerahmeelite peoples or clans. If we look closely 
at the names we shall see that some of them at least are 
corruptions either of Jerahmeel, or of some equivalent name, 
such as Ishmael, Asshur, Ashkar, or Ashtar. Thus, Ram is 
the same name as Aram (see p. xxxv) ; Jether comes from 
Ashtar ; ' Atarah also from Ashtar, but with the feminine 
ending; Jamin is a modification of Jaman (see p. 64, n. i), 

1 See E. Bib. 'Pelethites' ; T. and B. p. 312. 

2 The difficulties in Josh. xi. 22 and i Sam. vii. 14 have already 
been pointed out by Mr, S. A. Cook {Critical Notes on O.T. History^ 

p. 44). 

3 T. and B. pp. 121, 175. 

* If the reader will hunt up the references to ' uncircumcision ' in the 
O.T., and avail himself of the help I have offered, he will receive an 
agreeable shock of surprise. 


and * Eker of Ashkar ; while Peleth, like Tubal (Gen. x. 2) and 
Tophel (Dt. 1. i), comes from Ethbal, an ancient corruption 
of Ishmael. In short, the phrase Peleth ben Jerahmeel 
indicates that the Pelethites were one of the many peoples 
into which the ancient Jerahmeelite or Ishmaelite race broke 
up. According to Am. ix. 7 the Philistines, i.e. the Pelethites, 
came from Caphtor, and the original reading of Gen. x. 14 
probably agreed with this ; Caphtor (TiriDD) is not Crete,^ but 
an Arabian region, and by a permutation of letters the name 
has not improbably come from n*inm (Rehoboth). Thus 
we see at last what the Cherethites were, viz., certainly N. 
Arabians, and probably Rehobothites ; and since Cherethites, 
like Cherith, has almost certainly the same origin as Caphtor, 
and the Pelethites, in the true text of Amos, are said to have 
migrated from Caphtor, we may reasonably hold that tradi- 
tion admitted no difference between Cherethites and Pelethites. 
See further on Dt. ii. 23, and T. and B. pp. 191 / 

So much for the names, which, here as elsewhere, 
symbolise historical facts. But was David really (as I have 
said) a kinsman of the Pelethites ? Most probably. How 
else could he so easily have obtained a hold on the Negeb, 
and become, as Prof Schmidt puts it, ' the creator of the 
Judaean state ' ? Did not one of his sisters marry an 
Ishmaelite ^ (2 Sam. xvii. 25), and he himself take one of his 
two first wives from (the southern) Jezreel (i Sam, xxv. 43) ? 
It is true he is said to have been born at Bethlehem of Judah 
(i Sam. xvii. 12). But there were doubtless several places 
called Bethlehem ; * lehem ' is a popular variation of some 
shortened form of Jerahmeel (like melah in the witty phrase 
ge-melah, ' valley of salt ' !), so that we can well believe that 
there were several Bethlehems, and that one was in Zebulun, 
another {Beit-Lahvi) in the later Judah, and another in the 
Negeb of Judah. It is also true that David's father is called 

1 See T. and B. ip. 191. That there are graves in a certain stratum 
of the remains of Gezer (supposed, from 2 S. v. 25, to be a Philistine 
city) containing objects which show ' a fairly strong Cretan affinity ' 
(Myres), must not override the strong textual evidence adverse to the 
identification of Caphtor with Crete. 

2 See I Chr. ii. 16/. In 2 Sam. I.e. Ishmael is confounded with 
Israel, as probably in Ezek. viii. 10 (see pp. 74/). 


an Ephrathite (i Sam. xvii. 12). But the same appellation 
is given to Samuel's father (i Sam. i. i), who was doubtless 
of southern origin ; indeed, the Septuagint expressly calls 
him a ' son of Jerahmeel ' (the Hebrew text has ' son of 
Jarham,' which means the same thing). Hence, unless we 
assume two inconsistent traditions, and neglect i Chron. 
ii. 19, 24, we must obviously hold that there was a Calebite 
or Jerahmeelite district called Ephrath. 


Thus on the Philistine question I agree more nearly with 
Mr. Stanley A. Cook {Critical Notes, 1907) than with Prof 
Schmidt. But I have still quite sufficient points of contact 
with the latter respecting the Jerahmeelites and the Negeb. 
Not that even here we are completely agreed. I think that 
Israelites and Jerahmeelites began to mingle as early as the 
Exodus.^ It also seems to me to stand to reason that the 
Jerahmeelites called Cherethites and Pelethites not merely 
served David in his bodyguard, but intermarried with Israel, 
and settled in the enlarged territory of J udah. I should not 
venture to say without qualification that it was David who 
made Yahweh the god of Israel, for I think that long before 
David's time the priesthood represented by Jethro incorpor- 
ated a number of Israelite clans into the people (federation) 
of the Jerahmeelite God Yahweh, an event which marks the 
entrance of the original Israel upon a more settled stage of 
life. But we must, of course, acknowledge that David did 
much to heighten the prestige of the cult of Yahweh as 
practised at Jerusalem. 

With regard to Moses, Prof Schmidt held at one time 
that he was the historical creator of Israel, who gave to this 
people a new divinity, Yahweh. Now, however, he sees 
that Moses is a ' mythical figure,' whose home was first in 
Midian and then in Kadesh-Barnea, agreeing in essentials 
with the article 'Moses' (^§ 14, 17) in the Encyclopcedia 
Biblica. In details the writer of that article might not always 
agree with the American professor. But on this important 

^ See T. and B. p. 546, and cp. p. 382. 


point he has the support both of Prof. Schmidt and of 
Prof. Ed. Meyer, viz., that ' modern historical research, when 
it seeks for the earhest history of the Hebrew tribes, must 
travel away from Egypt into N.W. Arabia.' Whether these 
two scholars agree in inferring from the supposed Egyptian 
names Moses and Phinehas that the priestly families of 
Kadesh must have had some connexion with Egypt, I do 
not know. It is at any rate Prof. Meyer's view, but I trust 
that no one will be so rash as to adopt it. I observe that 
Prof, Schmidt congratulates himself (p. 338) that his own 
and Prof. Meyer's main conclusion ' does not in the least 
depend upon the acceptance of the Muzri theory.' The 
statement is literally correct. I venture, however, to think 
that the conclusion referred to would be stronger if the two 
scholars did accept that theory, and if one of them at least 
did not support a disproved explanation of nOD (Moses) and 
the less probable of the two explanations of Phinehas.^ It 
may be added that even if the tradition of the sojourn of the 
Hebrew clans in Muzri be rejected, it supplies valuable 
evidence of the N. Arabian connexion of the Israelites and 
of Moses. But I for my part question whether that tradition 
ought altogether to be abandoned. 

On another matter this fair-minded critic proclaims his 
agreement with me (p. 333). He thinks that I have 'rightly 
divined ' Jerahmeelite influence upon Judah in post-exilic 
times. It is indeed certain that Jerahmeelite tribes under 
whatever names were driven north in the Persian period by 
the advancing Edomites (themselves pressed by the 
Nabataeans), and so infused a N. Arabian element into the 
weakened population of Judah. There is evidence for this 
in Ezra and Nehemiah, and to some uncertain extent in 
Chronicles. Thus in the post-exilic catalogue of ' the men 
of the people of Israel ' (Ezra ii., Neh. vii.) we find among 
the names, as given in the Hebrew text, the bene Par'osh 
(the Flea-clan !) and the bene Pashhur (unexplained), 
designations which (like most others) have had a strange 
history, and ultimately come, each by its own road, from 
bene 'Arab-Asshur and its equivalent bene 'Arab-Ashhur 
respectively ; also the bene 'Elam Aher, i.e. bene 'Elam- 
1 T. and B. pp. 173, 521. 


Ashhur ; the bene Ater, i.e. bene Ashtar ; the bene Salmai, 
i.e. the bene Salmah ; the bene 'abde Shelomoh, i.e. ben^ 
'Arab-Salmah. We find, too, the place-names Tel-Melah 
(see p. xxiii), i.e. Tubal -Jerahmeel, and Tel-Harsha, i.e. Tubal- 
Ashhur. These names prove that many families from the 
region still conventionally called Asshur (Ashhur, Ashtar) or 
Jerahmeel were admitted into the renovated Israelite com- 
munity. Presumably they were proselytes or the children 
of proselytes. We also hear much in Ezra and Nehemiah 
of the abundance of mixed marriages, which, however, were 
not recognised by the religious authorities. In Neh. 
xiii. 23, 24, wives of Ashdodite origin are specially men- 
tioned ; Ashdod (Asshur-Dod) is a regional name of North 
Arabia. Another witness for an Asshurite or Jerahmeelite 
immigration. Let us turn next to the list of builders of the 
wall (Neh. iii.). The goldsmith and the spice-merchant in 
V. 8 were, surely, a Zarephathite and a Korahite respectively. 
The ' ben Hur ' in z^. 9 was of an Ashhurite family. In z'. 14 
we meet with a Rechabite, i.e. a Kenite, and at the end of 
the list with a number of Zarephathites and Jerahmeelites 
(surely not goldsmiths and merchants). Two of these, it 
will be noticed, are heads of political districts. 

It would not be wise to reject this criticism as speculative. 
Evidence from names, critically treated, is almost irresistible. 
I will not, however, deny that its value would be increased by 
monumental evidence. It is, of course, too soon to say that 
no monuments exist, for we have not yet looked for them.^ 
Prof Schmidt's recent expeditions into the Negeb, when 
director of the American School of Archaeology, were rather of 
the nature of preliminary surveys than of explorations, and 
the N. Arabian Muzri, supposed by Winckler and myself, 
was out of his range.^ He informs us that he found but few 
tells in the Negeb, and specifies but one site (not a tell) which 
looked very ancient (Meshrifeh), and which he identifies with 
the ancient Zephath. The fewness of the mounds may 
surprise us, considering the long list of ' cities ' in Josh. 

^ Cp. Winckler, in Helmolt's Weltgeschichte, iii. 230. 

2 Since the above was written, Olmstead's remarkable statement in 
his Sargon of Assyria^ p. 61, came to hand, — the Negeb taking the 
place of Egypt for several centuries ; obviously, a mistake. 


XV. 21-32 (cp. Neh. xi. 25-30). We need not indeed 
suppose that that list accurately represents the Negeb of 
early times ; still the early cities (partly disclosed to us by 
textual criticism of legend and history) cannot have been 
much fewer. Let us remember, however, that ' city ' in the 
O.T. may mean very little. Many so-called * cities ' were of 
highly perishable materials, and would be easily effaced by 
the destroyer's hand. 

One criticism I cannot help making, — that Prof Schmidt, 
like Prof Meyer before him, confines the Jerahmeelites within 
too narrow an area. It is true that in i Sam. xxvii. 10, 
XXX. 14, the Negeb appears to be divided into sections, one 
belonging to Judah, and others to the Jerahmeelites. But, 
properly speaking, Jerahmeel was not a tribe but a race, and 
is to be distinguished from the tribes which broke off from 
the parent stock, and sometimes even developed into peoples. 
At this point I must ask leave to enter into more details, for 
of what use would unsupported general assertions be ? There 
will have to be details about names explained from the point 
of view of my theory. And why not? Until any other 
point of view produces more natural explanations of the 
names I see no reason for retracing my steps. My present 
object is to demonstrate that the name Jerahmeel or Ishmael 
has more than a tribal reference. 

I must, pause for a moment, however, to justify, so far 
as space allows, the equivalence of these two names. To 
me this is a fact, but Prof Meyer's recent work on the 
Israelites and their neighbours does not even mention it as 
a possible theory. And yet it appears certain that neither 
this scholar nor Prof Schmidt will be able to solve the 
problems of Gen. ix. 20-27 and x. without this assumption, 
and if it involves the novel identification of Ham with 
Yarham or Yerahme'el, and of Shem with Ishma or Ishmael, 
yet the popular shortening of ethnic names is no new 
phenomenon. Just so, in that much - disputed passage. 
Num. xxiv. 17, Sheth is a shortened form of Ashtar. This 
passing notice seems all the more called for, since Prof 
A. R. Gordon has revived the interpretation of bene Shem as 
* sons of renown ' and of bene Jepheth as ' sons of beauty,' ^ 
^ The Early Traditions of Genesis {i<)0'j), pp. 182, 184. 


while Prof. Witton Davies is even so kind as to make me 
say that * Shem and Ham are in reality one word, viz. 
Yerakhaman, miswritten through ignorance or prejudice or 
both.' ^ I may add that it is difficult to read the prophets 
critically — with a view to textual restoration — without 
perceiving that the early editors and gloss-makers regarded 
' Jerahmeel ' and ' Ishmael ' as equivalent. 

The evidence which I have to offer for a wide reference 
of these names is drawn from the traditions of Babylonia, 
Phoenicia, and Israel. i. Babylonia. It is the opinion of 
Hommel ^ that Sumu, in the royal names Sumu-abu and 
Sumu-la-ilu in the first dynasty of Babylon, means ' his 
name,' which is a periphrasis for God {smnu-hu being con- 
tracted into siiiml) ; he compares the Hebrew Shemu-el, the 
Phoenician Shem-zebel,^ and the Palmyrene (Aramaic) Shem- 
rapha. Other names of the same early period are Shumu- 
hammu, Sumu-ramu, Hammu-rabi. Hommel would call this 
dynasty ' Arabian,' while Winckler prefers to call it 
' Canaanite.' Certainly the names must be either North 
Arabian or Canaanite. To me it appears that Sumu in 
Sumu-abu, as in the Hebrew Shem, Shemfiel (Samuel), 
Shebuel, and Shobal, is to be connected with Ishmael, while 
Ramu in Sumu-ramu is to be grouped with Ram or Aram, 
i.e. Jerahmeel (see below). The stages of development we 
cannot, with our scanty evidence, determine. Zebel too in 
Shem-zebel, not less than hy\ in Judg. ix. 28, is a corruption 
of Ishmael, the origin of which was early forgotten, just as 
the meaning of many religious phrases of the Bible was 
doubtless almost or quite forgotten long before the time of the 
writers who used them. Rapha is possibly an early popular 
corruption of 'Arab"* (Arabia). Ham, presupposed by 

1 Review of Theology (Menzies), May 1908, p. 695, Elsewhere, 
incredible as it may seem, ' Yerahme'el ' is given as ' Yerakh.' 

2 Grundriss der Geogr. u. Gesch. des Alten Orients^ i. 95 (n. i); 
Anc. Heb. Trad. p. 100. Winckler too {Gesch. Isr. i. 130, n. 3) 
recognises Sumu-abu and Sumu-la-ilu as Canaanitish. 

3 T. and B. p. 117 (n. i), ^ Ibid. p. 240. 


IJammu (which need not represent Di;) in Shumu-hammu 
and Hammu-rabi, is exactly parallel to Shem and has been 
already explained. These are, of course, not the only 
personal names which admit of a ' Canaanite ' or North 
Arabian explanation, but may suffice for our present purpose. 
And among ethnic or tribal names special attention may be 
called to the name Ahlami in the Tel el-Amarna tablet No. 
291, given to an Aramaean tribe in the steppe country 
between the mouth of the Tigris and the Euphrates and the 
mountains of Edom,^ which had some relations to the king 
of Babylon early in the fourteenth century. Like rrD^nN 
in Ex. xxviii. 1,9, and rh'n, noNSTr in 2 Sam. x. 16 /, it 
probably comes from ^Nom\ Evidently the Jerahmeelite 
migration was widespread. 

2. Phoenicia. Here again the royal names are specially 
instructive.^ Two will suffice here, Hiram and Ithobal. The 
former is clearly the same as Ahiram (Num. xxvi. 38), which, 
according to analogy, should represent Ashhur-Ram ( = 
Aram ; cp. i Chr. ii. 25), and the latter is, in its origin, 
identical with Abitub ( i Chr. viii. 1 1 ), i.e. 'Arab-Tub, 
which is a shortened form of 'Arab-Tubal. It should be 
remembered that the early Hebrew traditions represent the 
Israelites, the Jerahmeelites, the Mizrites, and the Philistines 
(Pelethites) as speaking either the same tongue, or not 
widely different dialects of the same tongue ; such a com- 
munity of language certainly existed between the Phoenicians 
and the Israelites. No wonder, then, that a series of names 
should be held in common by these peoples. If we accept 
these traditions, I see no possible doubt but that N. 
Arabian names were carried northward by the Jerahmeelites. 

3. The Israelite traditions. We know (see p. 64) that 
there was an Asshur in the N. Arabian border-land, and also 
one that was called ' a far-off land,' a phrase which reminds 
one forcibly of Sargon's description of Meluha.^ It appears 
from an ancient gloss inserted by mistake in the original 
text of Isaiah x. 5, that the far-off Asshur was considered to 

1 So Sanda, Die Aramder (in Der Alte Orient^ iv. 3), p. 4, 

2 T. and B. p. 46. 

3 Has Meluha, like Ahlami, come from Jerahmeel ? Hebrew 
parallels are m:D (Judg. xiii. 2), nmra (Judg. xx. 43), nmo (Gen. xxxvi. 23). 


be 'in Jarham.' It is true the traditional text says, not * in 
Jarham,' but * in their hand,' and Duhm, who holds that 
WVI VC\T\ is a correctly written gloss, thinks that the gloss- 
maker had taken offence at the poetical statement that 
Asshur himself was a staff or rod. Poor silly annotator ! 
But was he really so dull ? Do not commentators sometimes 
nod ? There are not a few geographical glosses in the 
Hebrew Bible,^ and surely this is one. The gloss, in its true 
form, runs thus : DHTl Nin, ' it (viz., Asshur) is in Jarham ' 
{i.e. in North Arabia). 

Another tradition of great interest is given in Num. 
xxiv. 20, * Amalek was the first of the nations.' Certainly 
the first of the nations must have spread itself out widely. 
But what is this strange-sounding name Amalek ? Evidently 
transposition and permutation of letters has taken place ; 
pSiOi?, like ^N*iDp, comes from f^NonT. Hence the Kenites 
can be said equally well to dwell near the Amalekites and 
near the Jerahmeelites (i Sam. xv. 6, xxvii. lo, xxx. 29). 
We even find the same geographical limits given to the 
Ishmaelites in Gen. xxv, 1 8 « and to the Amalekites in 
I Sam. XV. 7. 

We cannot, then, be surprised that Mizrim too (see p. 
xviii) was considered Jerahmeelite and Asshurite. In Gen. 
X. 6 the pointed text calls the second of the sons of Ham 
Mizraim. But, as Mr. S. A. Cook perceives,^ Ham is, to 
say the least, a S. Palestinian name, so that the reading 
Mizraim (Egypt) is at once condemned. In fact, as we have 
seen, Ham is a shortened form of Jarham. Psalmists too 
support the view expressed in Gen. x..(Ps. Ixxviii. 51, cv. 23, 
27, cvi. 22). They actually make Mizrim parallel to Ham. 
Ham, as usual, is = Jerahmeel, and though some commentators 
defend a reference to Egypt by adducing the native name 
for Egypt — kemet (the black country) — the improbability 
of this is obvious. We also find Ham as the name of a 
southern stock to which the original inhabitants of a valley 
near Gerar (which in Gen. xxvi. i is a Philistine, i.e. Pelethite, 
country) are said in i Chr. iv. 40 to have belonged. 
Comparing v. 40 with v. 43, we see that Ham and Amalek 
are here synonymous, so that one branch of the Hamites went 
1 Critical Notes, p. 58 (n. 2). 


by the name of Amalek, which is indeed merely a modifica- 
tion of Jerahmeel. To the confusion of Mizrim and Mizraim 
we shall return later. 

Summing up, it has been shown by the above facts that 
the Jerahmeelites were a widely-spread race, portions of 
which, starting from Arabia, settled in Babylonia, Syria, 
Phoenicia, and both the north and the south of the land of 

I will now turn to some of the other personal and 
place-names in the Hebrew traditions upon which I have 
endeavoured to throw some fresh light. My friend Prof. 
Schmidt may or may not see that I am on the right track, 
but he cannot avoid recognising the precariousness of the 
current conjectures. Nor can he help regretting the tone 
of the following sentence in an article, already (p. xi, n. i) 
referred to, by Dr. H. P. Smith, a professor at Meadville 
Theological Seminary (U.S.A.) : ' We are at a loss to 
discover why Jabal, Jubal, Mahalaleel, Lamech, , . . should 
not have been allowed to appear in their original form as 
Jerahmeel, or why Joktheel should supplant Jerahmeel as 
the name of a city, or why Beer-lahai-roi should be forced 
into the place of En-Jerahmeel.' Allowed ! Supplant ! 
Be forced ! Could there be any greater proof of un- 
willingness to enter into a new point of view than this ? 
Surely the first duty of the critic is not to tell the world 
whether he agrees with, i.e. is prejudiced in favour of, some 
other scholar, but to show that he comprehends the other's 
point of view. And the second duty is ' like unto it ' : it is 
to study the new tracks which the new point of view has 
suggested to that other, and state where he understands and 
where he requires further help, and also no doubt where he 
can himself offer help to that other. And the whole in- 
vestigation should be permeated by the spirit of fairness 
and accuracy. 

But no, the critic is not to be the fellow-student, and in 
some sense the disciple, of that other, but his judge. As if 
any critic could venture either to praise or to blame a book 
of extensive range and originality, except with modesty, and 
as the result of sympathetic study. A judge, indeed, is not 
called upon to be modest, but how can any critic pass 


sentence on a book of this character? If he assumes the 
r61e of judge, is he not in imminent danger of hindering the 
progress of his study, and discouraging that originality which 
is the salt of learning, and the prize of long years of critical 
research ? 

For his own part, the Meadville professor is convinced 
that * proper names, both of persons and places, are 
tenacious of life.' That is not untrue, but life assumes 
many forms, and no verbal forms are so apt to suffer change 
as personal and place-names. In the case of the Hebrew 
names this transformation was greatly facilitated by 
historical circumstances. The stories which underlie the 
Israelite legends were, many of them, brought from a 
distance, and with the stories came the names of the 
legendary places and the legendary heroes. These stories, 
if I see aright, were derived from different tribes, all Jerah- 
meelite, and it is probable that almost in each the name 
Jerahmeel took a different form, or different forms. That 
ethnic names like Jerahmeel, Ishmael, Asshur, Israel, should 
be worn down by use, was inevitable, and the attrition would 
have different results among different groups of people. 
When therefore it is said that Jabal and Jubal are forms of 
Jerahmeel, and that Tubal is a form of Ishmael, it is not 
meant that they have come directly from Jerahmeel or 
Ishmael, but from some popular or tribal corruptions of 
those names. As for these much-suffering proper names, 
I cannot discover that here or elsewhere Prof H. P. Smith 
explains them. But in case he should say that ' praise of 
God ' is a credible meaning for Mahalaleel, and ' strong 
young warrior ' (Dillmann and A. R. Gordon) for Lamech, 
I can only regret that such statements should still be within 
the bounds of possibility. In 1903 Prof Smith considered 
that Mehujael might mean * wiped out by God,' which seems 
to me worse even than explaining Methushael * man of 
Sheol.' ^ Or can Prof Smith really think that tradition 
would substitute for the genuine names of ancient tribes 
other names of artificial origin which indicated that the 
tribes had become ' wiped out,' and had as it were gone 
down to Sheol ? Some readers may think these problems 
^ Old Testament History, p. 24. 


trifling. They are not trifling ; they affect many more 
questions which have not been answered with such a skill 
and insight as would justify the contemptuous rejection of 
new methods and results. As I have pointed out {T. and B. 
p. 107), these names contain corrupt forms of 7NDn*T' or 
fpNl^DQ)"'. No other methodical explanation has yet, so far 
as my long experience goes, been offered, except, indeed, by 
extreme mythologists.^ 

With regard to the place-name Joktheel, there is one 
important point which this critic (like many others) appears 
to have overlooked. It is that the scene of the battle 
between Amaziah and the Edomites, 2 K. xiv. 7 (or, perhaps, 
the Arammites) was ' in the valley of [hamjmelah,' i.e. ' in 
the valley of Jerahmeel ' (' melah,' like * lehem,' being a 
witty popular corruption of that widespread racial name).^ 
Joktheel is therefore most naturally viewed as a Jerah- 
meelite, Ishmaelite, or Asshurite name. In applying this 
key I have myself wavered. Most probably, however, the 
original name was equivalent to Ashkar-el,^ i.e. ' belonging 
to Asshur-Jarham. The unsatisfactoriness of other theories 
must be my excuse for making the present explanation thus 
prominent. Many parallels to the name will be found in 
Joshua, in the lists of Israelitish towns. 


I will now mention some other forms assumed by 
the names Jerahmeel and Ishmael in their wanderings. 
Beginning with Jerahmeel, one may refer in particular to 
Rekem, Kerem, Kedem, Aram, Javan. 

(a) Rekem ^ (Dpn), i.e. Yarham, occurs as a Midianite 

^ Boklen, for instance, thinks that ' man of Sheol ' may be right, 
and refer to the chthonic side of the moon-god {Adam und Qain, 1907, 
p. 132). But Prof. Smith does not belong to this school. 

2 Probably Dr. H. P. Smith will be driven to defend the ancient 
but difficult explanation * Valley of Salt.' 

3 Vxpn' = SxpriN = h»pvK = Sun^B-N. Cp. '73pn and xhpvK, and on 13 in 
-iDCN see next note, hn is merely formative. 

* We also find both T and pi for Dpi : the former in ii3n (Gen. 
xli. 43, T. and B. pp. 462/), "pin (Zech. ix. i), and "P'n, a place-name 
in M. Pognon's famous Aramaic inscription ; the latter in Gen. xx. 1 1 
(see T. and B. pp. 313, 467). 



name in Num. xxxi. 8, a Hebronite in i Chr. ii, 43 /". 
(brother of Shema = Ishmael), a Manassite in i Chr. vii. 16 
(close by are Raham and Jorkeam, which can hardly be 
explained except as popular corruptions of Jerahmeel). 
Rekem is also used in the Targum for Kadesh-Barnea, and 
it is extremely probable that the unintelligible i?Dni (Barnea) 
has arisen by transposition of letters from pN"i, i.e. jDN'n, an 
equivalent of Jerahmeel, Eusebius and Jerome assert that 
" Petra, a city of Arabia, in the land of Edom, surnamed 
Joktheel, is called Rekem by the Syrians ' (Eus., Assyrians). 
The identification of Joktheel with Petra can hardly be 
maintained ; no doubt more than one N. Arabian city bore 
the name of Rekem. {V) Kerem ( = Rekem, by transposi- 
tion and change of k into k) has received a superfluous and 
misleading article in the place-name Beth-hakkerem, Jer. 
vi. I, and by scribal error has become Beth-kar, i S. vii. 1 1. 
It is also presupposed by Karmi in i Chr. iv. i (where 
Karmi corresponds to Kelubai and Kaleb in i Chr. ii. 9, 1 8). 
{c) We find the name Kedem in the phrases ' the sons, land, 
mountains of Kedem * (' the east ' is, of course, inadmissible).^ 
This is a further modification of Rekem, and though 
seemingly a scribal error, may have arisen very early from 
causes on which it would be vain to speculate. In Judg. 
vi. 3, 33. vii. 12, 'the Amalekites ' ( = Jerahmeelites — see 
p. xxx) is inserted as a gloss. 

{d) Aram (Assyrian, Arimi, Aramu) is familiar to us as 
the name of a land and people to the N.E. of Palestine. But 
it is also, as recent scholars agree, the name of an Arabian 
people. This Hommel infers^ from Gen. x. 23, xxii. 21. 
I should hesitate myself to assign these Arammites to ' a 
large part of Arabia ' on Biblical grounds ; the traditions of 
Israel seem to me to point more definitely to N. Arabia as 
the original seat of this people. In Num. xxiii. 7 we find 
' Aram ' parallel to ' the mountains of Kedem,' and Kedem, 
as we have just seen, is an early modification of Rekem, i.e. 
Jarham. That Balaam was a N. Arabian soothsayer, has 
surely been proved.^ As to the name Aram, we can hardly 

1 See T. and B. pp. 179, 200, 372 ; E. Bib., 'East, Children of; 
'Rekem.' 2 Grundrtss, t^. 188. 

3 T. and B. pp. 40 (n. 3), 41, 179, 190, 314, 43°- 


doubt its connexion with Jerahmeel (cp. Shem = Ishmael ; 
Sheth = Ashtar). A shorter form is Ram (in i Chr. ii. 9, 
brother of Jerahmeel and Kelubai). We have it in the 
patriarchal name Abram, which is doubtless equivalent to 
Abraham ; at least, no other equally probable account can 
be given of these two forms than that ' ram ' comes from 
' Aram,' and ' raham ' from ' raham,' i.e. Jarham. The name 
Aram must have gone northward in the migration. In 
Amos ix. 7 the Arammites (who follow Israel and the 
' Philistines ') are said to have been brought (by Yahweh) 
from Kir or (see ^) Kor ; possibly Ashhur in the wider 
sense is meant. From another point of view one might place 
Kir ' somewhere in S. Babylonia on the Elamite border.' ^ 

{e) There remains Javan ( = Jaman). The identification, 
so widely accepted, of Javanites with lonians, seems to be 
only tenable in Dan. viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2, and even here the 
question arises whether in an earlier, underlying form of the 
Book of Daniel ^ the name Javan may not have had a 
different meaning. Everywhere else, at any rate, Javan can be 
shown to have sprung either from Jerahmeel or from Ishmael. 
For the O.T. passages, and such criticism as was possible 
to me when the article was written, reference may be per- 
mitted to ' Javan ' in the Encyclopcsdia Biblica. In my later 
works ^ the best explanation known to me was pointed out 
more and more clearly. It was added that the Jamani who 
displaced Sargon's nominee as king of Ashdod (p. xvi) may 
have been, like other adventurers {e.g. Omri, Zimri, Tibni), 
a N. Arabian.* This will gain in probability if the Jamnai 
whom Sargon {KB ii. 43) 'drew like a fish from the midst 
of the sea' can in any sense be N. Arabians. And why 
should they not be? It seems clear that the N. Arabians, 
in their migrations, carried their names with them, and in 
the present case it is noteworthy that one name for 
Phoenicia till quite late times was most probably Jam, 

^ Sanda, Die Aramder (in Der Alte Orient, iv. 3), p. 8. 

2 T. and B. pp. 159 (n. 2), 160. 

3 Crit. Bib. Part II. (1903), p. 104 ; cp. Part I. p. 48 ; T. and B. 
pp. 6 (n. 3), 160/, 210. 

^ Winckler suggests Jemen as his origin {Musri, Melukha, Ma'in, 
p. 26, n. i). 


i.e. Jaman ( = Javan). The equation Jam = Jaman is by 
no means arbitrary. In the Hebrew Bible, as I have 
pointed out elsewhere/ Jam is sometimes a shortened form 
of Jaman, and it is difficult to resist the view, which (taken 
in connexion with certain parallel theories) smooths over 
exegetical difficulties, that in Phoenician inscriptions too 
Jam means Jaman (' Zidon of the sea ' should be ' Zidon of 
Jaman '). I hold, therefore (after E. Robertson), that the 
Jamnai of Sargon are the Phoenician inhabitants of Arvad, 
which was an insular city,'^ and support this by the similar 
figurative phraseology of Ashurbanipal {KB iii. 170, n. 2). 

It is true, Robertson gives the theory a different setting.^ 
He is of opinion that the original Javanites were that highly 
civilised people which preceded the Semites in Babylonia, 
whence, as he thinks, they spread to the Mediterranean, 
and became known as the lonians ; while some settled in 
Phoenicia, and ' developed that navigation which they had 
learned on the Lower Euphrates and Persian Gulf.' The 
theory, as proposed by Robertson, has a wide basis, taking 
in the 'Iaoi/e«? of Greek and the Javana of Sanskrit literature. 
Whether the facts adduced are all relevant may be matter 
for debate. The result which appears to me the most 
satisfactory is based solely on the Hebrew, the Phoenician, 
and the Assyrian evidence. Except in our present text of 
the Book of Daniel, Javan or Jaman is equivalent to 
Jerahmeel or Ishmael. 

It is now time to refer briefly to the corruptions of the 
name Ishmael. I give a larger number than in the case of 
Jerahmeel, because Ishmael has not taken so much hold on 
my critics as the parallel name. Here, then, are some of 
those disclosed by the new methods, — 27Dm^ ^Dtt), NltD, pi^DtD, 

xay, DT. The only remark on these names that I can 
allow myself is this, — that a considerable number of theories 
{e.g. the existence of traces of totemism in the O.T.,* and 

1 T. and B. pp. 44/ 2 See E. Bib., 'Arvad.' 

3 'Notes on Javan,' Jewish Quarterly Review, April 1908, pp. 

* Prof. Witton Davies states in his article (p. 704) that the present 
writer ' nowhere shows the slightest interest in totemism.' A reference 
to the index {s.v. Totemism) will disprove this hasty statement. 


the mention of the north pole as the seat of the supreme 
God) ^ are shown by a keen criticism of the names to be 
fallacious. For further information I may refer to passages 
in the present work and in Traditions and Beliefs, and for 
the name Simeon to T. and B. p. 375, and Meyer's Die Isr. 
p. 425. 

I trust that I have not exhausted the patience of my 
readers. I would far sooner have refrained from anti- 
criticism, but the injury done to the cause of free inquiry 
was too great. My anti-criticism, however, has not excluded 
explanation ; indeed, it has to some extent facilitated it. I 
will now venture to ask. What are the most probable reasons 
for the violent and uncomprehending opposition to these 
researches ? 

The reason that I shall mention first is by no means 
devoid of plausibility. It is that some may question the 
possibility of solving so many problems by a single key. 
This I meet by the admission that all pioneers are liable to 
go too far. Aware of this, I have not waited for helpers, but 
have to a large extent criticised myself And yet, even 
after this, a huge number of cases remain, in which the 
only complete explanation of the problems cannot be 
ignored. Is there no consideration which may conciliate 
opponents, and induce them not to go on ignoring ? There 
is. It is plain that when Samaria was taken the catastrophe 
which ensued was not only political but literary. What was 
saved of the N. Israelitish records must have been scanty in 
extent, and the S. Israelites or Judaites did not care to 
preserve it except in a mutilated, confused, and altered 
form. Hence by far the greater part of the extant literary 
monuments of ancient Israel are precisely those monuments 
whose producers were most preoccupied by N. Arabia. 
This is why the history both of Israel and of Judah has 
found such a one-sided representation in the Old Testament. 
This, too, is why the N. Arabian key has plausibly solved 
so many problems that critics who have not gone deeply 
enough into the matter are repelled. Had a different class 

1 On safon see passages referred to in the index of this work and 
of 7! and B. ; also Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 23 ; Zimmern, KAT, pp. 



of documents been transmitted, the N. Arabian key might 
not have equally fitted the new problems. 


Still the repugnance to progress on these lines would 
not be quite so keen but for some additional reasons. 
These are : — i. The opinion of conservative critics that the 
results to which the multitude of new facts (or asserted 
facts) seem to lead are intrinsically improbable. Prof 
H. P. Smith,^ for instance, has said a great deal on this 
head, and asked many questions which we have not the 
means of answering. But this scholar and those who go 
with him seem to have approached the study of the new 
theories at the wrong end. Sound method requires us to 
begin with the facts, and only after a sufficiently long and 
unprejudiced study of details can we venture either to 
maintain or to oppose a historical theory. We must not 
say with Olmstead ^ that ' we are naturally prejudiced against 
such a theory.' Imperfectly known truth always appears 
improbable, but it cannot be natural to a candid student to 
meet any theory based on real or, at least, asserted facts 
with a dogmatic denial suggested in the first instance by 

2. The second reason is that the textual critics of the 
day do not probe the Hebrew, and, one may add, the 
Septuagint text, half deeply enough, and lack that wide 
acquaintance with the textual phenomena, the habits of the 
scribes and editors, and recurring types of corruption, which 
has to be superadded to the practice of the older critical 
methods.' This must surely be the case with Professor 
Witton Davies in the Review of Theology^ who falls into the 
error of supposing me not to ' bother myself about versions,' 
and with Prof Gordon of Montreal, who, with unconscious 
arrogance, speaks of my work as * unfortunately dominated 

1 American Journal of Theology^ October 1907. 

2 S argon of Assyria^ p. 60. 

8 Cheyne, Crit. Bib. Part I. (1903), pp. 3/ 

* Article on T. and B., May 1908, p. 696. 


by peculiar textual principles.' ^ Until the old methods fail, 
I am heartily with these scholars and with their teachers. 
But I certainly am convinced that the old methods, including 
the old method of using the versions, will not go far to help 
us with really hard problems. 

3. The third is that these critics seem to mix up 
conceptions of their functions which ought to be kept 
distinct. I mean that they seem to have no clear idea of 
the twofold task devolving upon them, viz. first to find out 
the meaning which the latest ancient editors put upon the 
text which they had themselves corrected, and next, to get 
as near as possible to the underlying original text and its 
meaning. It is of no use to try to perform both these 
duties simultaneously. The result can only be a form of 
text which, as a whole, never existed, and a largely imaginary 
exegesis. The traditional text has its own historical rights, 
and so also have the fragments of the original text which 
may still be detected underlying the text transmitted by a 
late tradition. 

But let us now return to the first- mentioned reason 
for the vehemence of the opposition to progress on the 
new lines. I spoke of the probability that the new key 
has been applied somewhat too often. More than this I 
cannot say, for the pioneering work has in a multitude of 
cases been fully justified, and not un frequently, even if the 
solution offered was incorrect, the pioneer was nevertheless 
on the way to truth. I venture to add that a pioneer of 
criticism would not be worth his salt if he did not sometimes 
go too far. It is in the interests of critical study that some 
one should at first make the utmost of a new theory. 
Winckler is, I think, unwise in not always doing this, 
when the correction of the text is concerned. Without a 
more consistent and methodical criticism of the text I do 
not see how his historical constructions can be defended in 
all points against the enemy. 

But what is to be done if both Winckler's Babylonian 

and my own N. Arabian theory are rejected ? It is, of 

course, far too late to seek shelter with Gesenius and 

Ewald ! Shall we be content with a strictly moderate 

^ The Early Traditions of Genesis (1907), p. viii. 


Babylonian theory, using Babylonian illustrations for 
exegesis, and drawing on the Assyrian lexicon for the 
explanation of strange-looking Biblical words ? Our newer 
dictionaries and commentaries betoken a growing tendency 
towards such a course. I do not believe, however, that it 
will suit the conditions of the case. For an example take 
Amos V. 26, where Nowack, adopting just such a moderate 
theory, renders, ' Therefore shall ye take up Sakkuth your 
king, and Kewan, your images which ye made for yourselves, 
and . . .' We may, however, safely decide that a by-name 
of the god Ninib (himself nowhere mentioned in the O.T.), 
would not be handed down in a Hebrew prophecy.^ Nor is 
there any passage of Amos which refers to the worship of 
Assyrian gods by the Israelites, And even if this argument 
were repelled, how could the carrying away of Assyrian 
gods by captive Israelites into Assyria be put forward in a 
threat ? ^ 

From the strictly moderate point of view here indicated, 
many other O.T. passages might be provisionally illustrated. 
One might, for instance, utilise the suggestions of Winckler 
for Gen. xiv. and Judg. v., and those of other critics for the 
Book of Nahum and other parts of the O.T. But I have 
not the requisite space to enter into further detail, and I 
hope that the reader will see that one whom Giesebrecht 
has attacked for being too courteous and respectful to 
Winckler is not likely to cavil at Babylonian or Assyrian 
explanations of Hebrew difficulties, when they are in a high 
degree plausible. Only too often, however, I am brought 
into contact with some preliminary textual problem, the 
solution of which by new and more adequate methods 
removes the ground for reference to Babylon. So far as 
I can as yet see, it is only now and then that the textual 
critic derives undeniable assistance from the inscriptions. 

1 On the question of a Ninib cultus in ancient Palestine see Zimmern, 
KAT^^\ pp. 410/; Pinches, 'Was Ninib the "Most High God" of 
Jerusalem?' PSBA, June 1894; Budde, Buck der Richter (^\n KHC) 
p. 15. 

2 From the earlier point of view, E. Bib., 'Amos,' § 13; ' Chiun 
and Siccuth'; Muss-Arnolt, Expositor, ii., n.s., pp. 414^ (1903)- 



The most striking instances of such assistance are 
passages in which Mizraim has been misread {i.e. mispointed) 
for Mizrim, or Zor misread for Mizzor (Mizrim and Mizzor 
both meaning the N. Arabian Muzri), or Mizri, Mizrim, 
misinterpreted as ' Egyptian,' ' Egyptians.' The passages 
referred to are (i) Gen. x. 6, xiii. lo, xvi. i, xxi. 21, 1. 11, 
I Sam. XXX. 13, 2 Sam. xxiii. 13, i K. iii. i, xi. 18, 40, 
Isa. XX. 3, Am. i. 9, Isa. xliii. 3, xlv. 14, Joel iv. 19, Ps. 
Ix. II, Ixxxvii. 4 ; (2) Gen. xxv. 3, Lev. xxiv. 10, I K. iv. 30 
(v. 10), X. 28/!, xiv. 25, 2 K. vii. 6, Isa. xxx. 2, xxxi, i, 
Ezek. xvi. 26, xxviii., Ps. Ixxxiii. 8, and other passages ; 
(3) Gen. xii. 10-20, xxxvii. 25, 28, 36, xxxix. i, etc., 
I K. vii. 13/, 2 K. xxiii. 29, etc., Isa. xix., Ezek. xxvi., 
xxvii., xxix.-xxxii. Of these three classes the first contains 
nearly all the most obvious cases of the misreading (Miz- 
raim) ; it is the list offered by Winckler.^ The second, 
those which require in general a little more explanation 
than the preceding ones. The third, those which originally 
referred to Mizrim, but have been manipulated by editors 
so as to seem to refer to Mizraim. Manipulation has done 
its utmost in the story of Joseph. I might also have 
included the story of the Exodus, which in its original 
form probably referred to Mizrim in N. Arabia. This, 
however, is so contrary to traditional opinions that, in this 
highly condensed essay, I refrain." 

The textual evidence is of considerable value as supple- 
menting the too scanty details of the inscriptions. At the 
same time, we cannot say that the Hebrew writers coincide 
altogether with the Assyrian scribes. I may here state 
briefly, on the basis of Winckler, what it is that these scribes 
partly state, partly seem to imply. Their references to 
Muzri in N. Arabia occur from the time of Tiglath-Pileser 
III. to that of Esarhaddon;^ the king of Muzri seems to 

^ KAT, pp. 144/ For the other passages see Cheyne, Bible 
Problems, pp. 167-178 ; Hommel, Aufsiitze, pp. 304/ 
- On the Exodus passages see Cheyne, T. and B. 
3 See Winckler, KAT, pp. 150/ 


have been, subsequently to the fall of the Assyrian kepu, the 
vassal of the king of Meluha, or, more correctly, Ma'in (the 
Minaean empire). Danger constantly beset the N. Arabian 
kingdoms from Assyria. Among these was the people or 
state called Aribi on the east of Muzri, whose queens were 
brought to acknowledge the suzerainty of Assyria ; its 
capital may have been Tema.^ This was in the reign of 
Tiglath-Pileser III. Under Ashurbanipal we meet with the 
Kidri (Kedar) and the Nabaiati (Nebaioth) by the side of 
Aribi. It is a natural inference from what is said in the 
inscriptions that the kingdom of Muzri was involved in the 
misfortunes which shortly after befell the Minaean empire, 
and that the Kidri and the Nabaiati, with perhaps other 
tribes, settled in the region once known as Muzri. It must 
be remembered, however, that in Gen. xxv. 13 Nebaioth 
and Kedar appear as Ishmaelite tribes,^ and that between 
Ishmaelites and Jerahmeelites there was no marked 

Of the history of the Arabian Kush still less can be 
said.^ This region is certainly referred to in the inscriptions 
of Esar-haddon, but only four times. Was it in S. or in 
N. Arabia ? The name may perhaps have had a variable 
significance. Esar-haddon speaks of ' the people of Kusi 
and Muzur,' which apparently means S. and N. Arabia. 
Some of my own textual results, however, point rather to 
N. than to S. Arabia as the seat of the Kushites, and con- 
sidering that the name Achish (Akish) seems to be closely 
related to Ashhur, and that there was probably, according 
to Hebrew writers, both a nearer and a more distant Ashhur, 
the question arises, whether Ashhur and Kush may not 
have had the same origin, and have been nearly or quite 
equivalent. Eduard Meyer, consistently enough, denies 
the Arabian Kush, but he is ably answered by Winckler, 
who of course explains the identity of the names of Ethiopia 
and S. Arabia by the nafve geographical views of early ages 
(see p. xix). 

^ Winckler, I.e. For the Aram, inscription of Tema see Cooke, 
North Semitic Inscriptions, pp. 196-199. 

2 It is true, the twelve sons of Ishmael are from P. But P's source 
need not have been post-exilic. ^ See Winckler, KAT, pp. 144/ 


There is a fairly large group of passages in which the 
N. Arabian Kush is probably or certainly referred to, viz. 
Gen. ii. 13, x. 6, Num. xii. i, Judg. ii. 10, 2 Sam. xviii. 21, 
2 K. XIX. 9, Isa. xviii. i, xx. 3, xliii. 3, xlv. 14, Hab. iii. 7, 
Zeph. ii. 12, iii. 10, Ps. Ixxxvii. 4, 2 Chr. xiv. 9, xxi. 16. 
For explanations I may refer to my own recent works, as well 
as to those of Professors Winckler and Hommel. It may be 
added here that the phrase ' king of Kush,' ^ and similarly 
the phrases ' king of Mizrim,' ' king of Aram,' ' king of 
Asshur,' and perhaps ' king of Kush,' were used archaistic- 
ally even after the political situation had altered. This 
seems to me the only way to reconcile the statements of 
the inscriptions with the results of a thorough textual 

The conclusion at which we are arriving is that a full 
N. Arabian theory, suggested and helped by the cuneiform 
inscriptions, together with a keen textual criticism, can 
contribute most to the solution of our textual and historical 
problems. And if any further proof is needed, it will be 
the wreckage which strews the shores of ' moderate ' criticism. 
A whole volume would be required to indicate these critical 
failures in detail, but a few instances seem to be not un- 
called for. Let us begin with the Book of Genesis. The 
most recent commentator ' makes this remark on the ' short 
tribal poem' in Gen. ix. 25-27 : — 

' It is difficult to understand how a poem of that date 
(the early monarchy) could still look back upon the 
Canaanites as " brethren " {v. 25). The tendency at that 
period was rather to obliterate all trace of their kinship. . . . 
For a period when the term " brother " could be applied to 
Canaan we must go beyond the Exodus and the wars 
between Israel and Canaan that followed it. In this respect 
no time seems so suitable as the Amarna period, when Israel 
and Canaan fought side by side against their Egyptian 

The improbability of this view is manifest. A real 
monument of the nomadic period (as Gordon supposes the 
song to be) would have had much more colour than the 

1 See CHt. Bib. pp. 383/ 
2 Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis (1907), p. 183. 


song, at any rate in its present form, can be said to possess. 
The true solution of the problem must take account of the 
facts already mentioned respecting Shem and Ham, and ot 
the other fact (which is a result of wide textual observation) 
that vnN is not unfrequently a corruption of TintDM.^ 

1 may also refer to the Ur-kasdim problem. As Prof. 
Meyer points out. Gen. xxiv. 4, 10 expressly states that 
Abraham's country from which he migrated (Gen. xii. i) 
was Aram-naharaim. At any rate, such is the reading of 
the present text. But according to Gen. xi. 31, xv. 7, the 
patriarch's starting-point was Ur-kasdim, i.e.^ as we are told, 
but without sufficient proof, the old Babylonian city of Uru. 
Prof Meyer ^ evades the difficulty by the supposition that 
the ancestors of Abraham belonged to Babylonia, not he 
himself This solution, however, is arbitrary, and the full 
difficulty of the statement in Gen. xi. 3 1 (as this passage is 
usually interpreted) is not even hinted at by this scholar. 
For a full setting forth the student is referred to the 
Encyclopcedia Biblica (' Ur of the Chaldees '), where the N. 
Arabian theory suggests an adequate solution, which, in a 
modified form, is further justified in Traditions and Beliefs 
(see below). The riddle of Arpakshad (Gen. x. 22) is 
equally baffling to the current criticism. It is closely con- 
nected with the problem of Ur-kasdim, as Hommel, though 
not Prof Meyer, is fully aware. It is usual ^ to invoke 
the help of the Arabic lexicon, but the true origin is plain 
as soon as we throw off the prejudice against the new 
theory, tin is from Sn, i,e. either mw, or, better, mi;, and 
Dnw (in ^m3D^N) is from mr. TQJD in the latter word is from 
D'^ltDD, and this from mtDD, i.e. mw nn©N. For further 
explanations see T. and B. pp. 178, 214. 

I Sam. ii. 36 (as the text stands) spoils the prophecy. 
Nor is any great improvement effected by appending n"in% 
and so eliminating the troublesome word no. The passage 
must be studied as a whole, and suggestions taken both 
from the N. Arabian theory and from one of the famous 

^ See T. and B. p. 15 3, 

2 Die Israeliten, p. 284 (n. i). Gordon's suggestion {Early Tradi- 
tions^ p. 174) is less arbitrary, but also less plausible. 

^ So Gordon, ETC., p. 322. 


Elephantine papyri, which throws a flood of h'ght on an 
important problem. See p. 24, n. i. 

The last two words of i Sam. x. 27 have caused much 
perplexity. We have been told that certain discontented 
Israelites brought the new king no presents. Then follow 
the words, tD''nnD, TT"'"!, which is thought to mean, ' and he 
(Saul) made as though he did not observe it.' There are 
several corrections of the text, but none of them very 
plausible. Is it not therefore time to appeal to a new 
theory for a new suggestion ? The suggestion, when 
methodically carried out, seems to me altogether adequate. 
It is that tD''inD3 "^n"^"! comes from Dimni Nim, and that 
this is a gloss on ' Jabesh-gilead,' indicating that this Jabesh 
was not in the trans-Jordanic Gilead, but in an Asshurite 
region which was also called Gilead. This result throws a 
fresh light on the impossible words ^NiDtD iriNI in xi. 7. 
That Samuel took part in Saul's enterprise cannot be 
maintained (see i Sam. x. 7). The words should be 
^Ni^OtU"' ~inmN1, which ought to follow f?j^itD% or perhaps, 
omitting the l, to be substituted for Snt2?\ 

Among the other highly corrupt passages in i Samuel, 
I may at least mention xv. 9, which I cannot bring myself 
to think that Wellhausen has healed. Why should it be 
emphasised that the oxen were ' fat,' when just before the 
narrator has referred to ' the best ' of the cattle ? Why 
should the synonymous terms r\ni and riDNDi be combined ? 
And why is D'^lD left uncorrected, considering that in the 
parallel passages, vv. 1 5 and 2 1 , the lambs are not men- 
tioned ? And considering, further, that in v. 20 (cp. v. 8) 
the * devotion by slaughter ' (□"'nnrr) is mentioned with 
express and undeniable reference to the Amalekites, are we 
justified in retaining unaltered the latter part of our v. 8, 
the phraseology of which is itself peculiar enough to en- 
courage emendation ? To me Wellhausen's treatment of 
the text seems superficial and unsatisfactory. But grant 
that the Amalekites were a branch of the Jerahmeelites, 
and that Jerahmeel (or Jarham) and Ishmael are equivalent 
(see p. xxviii), and suitable corrections at once suggest them- 
selves. W^O, like DnD (p. xxxiv), represents DJlT (Jarham), 
D''3tt?n comes from D^'DntD, i.e. Wl^mi (see p. xxxvi), 'dnSd from 


D"^'?NDD ( = Jerahmeelites), 'nn3 and ddd from [D"']2DtD. See 
Crit Bib. pp. 222 f.\ T. and B. p. 59. 

I cannot attempt to be exhaustive, but must at least 
refer to some of the prophets. Amos ii. 6 is a testing 
passage, and I am afraid that the old methods alone will 
not enable us to explain the difficulties. The A.V. makes 
Yahweh threaten Israel with an irreversible punishment,^ 
' because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for 
a pair of shoes.' Explanations of this are numerous, but 
who can help feeling that neither ' for silver ' nor * for a pair 
of shoes ' is natural ; the one is weak, the other grotesque. 
The N. Arabian theory, however, suggests probable correc- 
tions of the text which bring the lines into perfect parallel- 
ism. What one expects is regional names, such as Kasram 
and 'Arab-Jerahme'el (cp. on Isa. xlviii. 10, p. 144), which 
should be substituted for ^dD and tyh^l Till? respectively. 

Another such passage is Amos iii. 12, which the A.V. 
renders thus, ' As the shepherd taketh out of the mouth 
of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear, so shall the 
children of Israel be taken out that dwell in Samaria in 
the corner of a bed, and in Damascus in a couch.' * A 
piece of an ear ' is very odd ; were the ears of the goats 
referred to specially large ? And does hll really mean 
' piece,' and ptDDT ' damask ' (so Harper) } The N. Arabian 
theory gives the only remedy (see Hibbert Journal^ July 
1905, p. 831). 

I will only cite one more passage of Amos (ix. 11). It 
is at the opening of the epilogue, and runs thus in the 
A. v., ' In that day will I raise up the tabernacle (lit., booth) 
of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof.' 
Elsewhere in the epilogue the style is quite clear ; how, 
then, came the writer to use at the outset such an obscure 
expression (Amos ix. 1 1 ) as * the booth of David that is 
fallen down ' ? The explanations are very various, but none 
is satisfactory. How can a booth have ' breaches ' like a 
walled city ? But are the points of n3D right ? Referring 
to T. and B. p. 397, should we not read nsp, t.e. T\y7D (see 
on Deut. iii. 10)? In this case T^n should be TH, which 

1 Prof. Hogg's plausible explanation of ua'E'N n*?, ' I will not turn 
him {i.e. the dreaded invader) back, deserves notice, however.' 


was a regional as well as a divine name {T. and B. p. 47). 
The idea is that when Salekath, that important city of the 
N. Arabian border-land, has been reoccupied by the Israelites 
and rebuilt, it will be easy for them to subjugate all the 

Much more might be added to show the unsatisfactory 
state of the current criticism of the O.T., and the help which 
the new methods, largely directed by the N. Arabian theory, 
are able to give. My limits, however, compel me to con- 
dense, and in my recent works, including (particularly for 
Jeremiah) the present work, there are many things which may 
serve to fill up the lacuncs of this essay. I may, however, 
call attention again to two or three passages in the obscure 
Book of Habakkuk.^ That nothing can be made of moD n'? 
at the end of i. 1 2 « is generally admitted. Marti would 
therefore remove these words to the margin, as a gloss to 
V. 12 b. But is such a gloss needed ? Surely miD3 has 
come from pon, i.e. 7lDn, which is often a corruption of 
^NI^iDtD"'. The two disputed words are a gloss on the corrupt 
word ^p2>c {v. 4), which should be ^NDp (cp. ^NiDp). ' Is it 
not Ishmael ' is a perfectly correct gloss, "'NDm'^ (underlying 
'd) and f?Ni;Dtt>'' being equivalent. 

A similar case meets us in Hab. ii. 2. "in1"i has not, so 
far as I know, been really explained. The same word 
occurs in Deut. i. 5, xxvii. 8, on which see at a later point 
(pp. 135, 154). nNl*) has probably come from I'ys Nirr, ' that 
is Arabia,' a gloss on T'NDm'' underlying ll Nip. The pre- 
ceding words yrv \vt^ should be pT 'h, so that the sense 
produced is, ' in order that Jerahmeel may be broken.' It 
is, in fact, not the Chaldaeans but the Asshur-Jerahmeelites 
from whom the danger of invasion threatens. Let us now 
pass on to the series of woes in chap. ii. Nothing can 
possibly be made of Till prr "'D PINT {v. 5). ]^^n should 
surely be ""iVn, * the Javanite ' ; the Javan meant is in 
Arabia (see p. xxxv). Similarly in Hos. iv. i i p should 
doubtless be p"* ; the whole verse, when corrected, runs 
thus, ' Shamnith of Javan and Ashtar take away the under- 
standing.' And again, in Isa. xxviii. i p"* '•mSn probably 
comes from ]v fpNonT (glosses) ; see p. 88, n. i. 

1 'Criticism of Habakkuk,' yifw/j^ Quarterly Review, Oct. 1907. 


It must now be plain that there are excellent reasons for 
a far-reaching and yet methodical treatment of the text, and 
in my opinion, to guard in some measure against arbitrari- 
ness, it is well to have some external check. Such a check 
is supplied by the N. Arabian theory, and considering the 
great results which the new critical methods, directed by 
that theory, have produced, it seems to me impossible that 
the hypothesis should be wholly wrong. No doubt some 
clever scholar, making use of freshly discovered facts, may 
be able to improve it, and that is why I appealed to 
fellow-students (not to judges) for a help which has hardly as 
yet been given. None of us is infallible ; why, then, should 
not both Professor Winckler and I, and even our critics, 
have made many mistakes ? As Professor William James 
well says/ ' The wisest of critics is an altering being, subject 
to the better insight of the morrow, and right, at any 
moment, only " up to date " and " on the whole." When 
larger ranges of truth open, it is surely best to be able to 
open ourselves to their reception, unfettered by our previous 
pretensions.' It is these previous pretensions which seem 
to me among the greatest hindrances, both in the pursuit of 
truth and in the fair estimation of the work of pioneers. 
And which of us has not made such pretensions ? Let us 
then have the courage to confess that many of them prob- 
ably were mistaken pretensions, and be thankful to those 
who shake us out of our slumber. 

^ The Varieties of Religious Experience^ p. 333. 





Few things are more uncertain than the exact course of the 
history of Judah from the time of Hezekiah to the fall of 
Jerusalem, and few subjects raise more difficult questions. 
Did the king of Assyria in the time of Hezekiah really 
perform all that by the common interpretation of the Hebrew 
traditions is ascribed to him? Did Hezekiah, like Josiah, 
initiate and complete a considerable religious reformation ? 
Was Manasseh really carried captive to the city called Babel, 
and if so, what was the country in which this city was 
situated ? What was the nature of the religious reaction 
connected with the name of Manasseh ? Did Josiah really 
go to Megiddo, and contend with a king of Egypt on his 
way to the Euphrates, or has there been some misunder- 
standing of the original tradition ? What was the nature of 
Josiah's reformation, and how far, geographically, did it 
extend ? Who was the great enemy of the kings of Judah 
after Jehoahaz ? or were there more such enemies than one ? 
Into the hard questions relating to Hezekiah and 
Manasseh I cannot at present enter, though later on I shall 
have to refer to some plausible results of criticism. It is 
Josiah and his successors who just now claim our attentions, 
though for the sake of Josiah's reformation I must refer in 
passing to that of Hezekiah. But, first of all, to clear the 
air of some prejudices, let me recall the fact that religious 
innovations are not uncommon in the history of Babylonia 
and Assyria, while in that of Egypt we can refer particularly 
to the well-known religious revolution of Khu-en-aten (Amen- 
hotep IV.). For examples of the former one may mention 



the supremacy accorded to Marduk, the god of the city of 
Babylon, by Hammurabi, and the overshadowing and 
ignoring of Nab(i. Also the reaction, under the Assyrian 
king Adad-nirari III., against Marduk in favour of Nabii, 
indicated by the inscription on a consecrated statue — ' Trust 
in Nabu, trust not in another God.' 

Let us now turn to Hezekiah. Tradition is on the 
whole unusually communicative respecting his reign. The 
same remark may indeed be made with regard to the reign 
of Josiah, but whereas in the case of this king warlike matters 
have but slight and religious matters very extended mention, 
in Hezekiah's it is religion which on the whole comes rather 
short, while a foreign invasion is related with much 
particularity. According to the statement of 2 K. xviii. 3-6 
Hezekiah was a fervent puritan, and abolished the time- 
honoured sanctuaries where the cult was polytheistic, with 
the accompanying sacred objects ; he is also said to have 
broken in pieces a famous serpent of bronze, to which, as 
inhabited by a divinity, the people still offered sacrifice. It 
is reasonable to assume that some historical fact lies at the 
foundation of this statement ; in particular, the tradition of 
the destruction of the sacred serpent (see special note i ) has 
every appearance of truth. But exactly when this reform 
movement took place, and to what extent it proceeded, we 
can hardly conjecture. According to some,^ it was a kind 
of thank-offering to Yahweh for the withdrawal of Sen- 
nacherib from Jerusalem, and was promoted by the preaching 
of the prophet Isaiah. The Assyrian inscriptions, however, 
say nothing about this withdrawal. This may of course be 
due to accident, but it is also possible that the Hebrew 
redactor fell into a confusion between two invasions, that of 
an Assyrian and that of a N. Arabian Asshurite king. 
What the inscriptions do mention is a punitive mutilation of 
the territory of Judah by Sennacherib, and this (if it was 
carried out) was hardly calculated to dispose the king and 

1 Stade, GVI \. 623; W. R. Smith, Prophets, p. 359; Cheyne, 
Introd. to the Bk. 0/ Isaiah, p. 165 ; M 'Curdy, History, Prophecy, and 
the Monutnents, ii. 385. For other views, see Cheyne, E. Bib., 
'Hezekiah,' § 2; 'Isaiah,' §15; Winckler, KAT^^\ pp. 271/. (the 
reform after Sennacherib's second expedition to the West). 


people of Judah to adopt the practice of a purified Yahwism. 
Such an event would appear to them to show that Yahweh's 
power was limited, and that he could not save them from a 
powerful and determined enemy. 

The Chronicler, however, has no scruple in exaggerating 
to the utmost what little he may have learned from tradition 
(2 Chr. xxix. 3-xxxi. i). According to him, Hezekiah was 
to a large extent the forerunner of Josiah, and anticipated 
the remedies for the religious abuses applied by that king, 
with this important exception — that Hezekiah's measures are 
not related to have been taken on the authority of an ancient 
law-book. The Chronicler's narrative, however, is obviously 
not history ; it is rather a development of what is related in 
2 K. xviii. 4 a, and it serves as an explanation of the 
prosperity ascribed by the Chronicler to Hezekiah. Here, 
said this pious writer, is an opportunity of proving on a 
grand scale that righteousness exalteth a king as well as a 
nation. The law-books of antiquity bid the Israelites break 
the idols of Canaan in pieces, and abolish all heathen symbols 
(Ex. xxiii. 24, xxxiv. 13, Dt. vii. 5, xii. 1 f^. Surely there 
must have been some kings of the Davidic line who carried 
out these iconoclastic injunctions and were rewarded for it. 
The most exemplary of these kings, according to the 
Chronicler, were Hezekiah and Josiah. 

This view of history appeared to the Chronicler to 
be supported by the contrasted fortunes of the royal 
representatives of Yahwism and of Baalism respectively. 
Hezekiah, for instance, opposed the Baalistic or N. Arabian 
type of religion, and was recompensed by a marked inter- 
position of Yahweh against the ' camp of Asshur.' ^ His son 
Manasseh, on the other hand, supported a religious reaction, 
and was punished by an invasion of his land by the same 
warlike king, and by his own captivity in the chief city of 
his conqueror^ (2 Chr. xxxiii. 11). Josiah returned to the 
courses of Hezekiah, whom in fact he outdid, and was 

^ 2 K. xix. 35. The king referred to, as one must on the whole 
beheve, ruled over Asshur or Ashhur, one of whose vassals was the king 
of Misrim. 

2 Why this is not mentioned in 2 K. is a secret of the last 


rewarded by a long period of peace.^ His son Jehoiakim 
restored the old ' abominations ' (2 Chr. xxxvi. 8 ; cp. 2 K. 
xxiii. 37), and received his retribution (virtually) at the 
hands of the victorious king of Babel.^ 

Between Manasseh and Josiah in the list of kings of 
Judah comes Amon, who is said by the chronologist to have 
reigned two years. Just so, between Josiah and Jehoiakim 
comes another son of Josiah, Jehoahaz, who is credited with 
a reign of but three months. Amon continues the religious 
policy of Manasseh ; Jehoahaz is the religious forerunner of 
Jehoiakim. Amon is assassinated ; Jehoahaz is carried 
captive to the land of Misrim (see chap. v.). To this un- 
fortunate king we shall return later ; we are now more 
concerned with his father. Tradition says that the ' people 
of the land,' i.e. the freemen at large, slew the assassins of 
Amon, and made his son Josiah king in his stead, i.e. 
perhaps, confirmed the claim of the latter prince to the 
succession.^ Josiah is said to have been only eight years old 
on his accession (2 K. xxii. i, 2 Chr. xxxiv. i). The original 
text, however, may perhaps have said * eighteen years.' * 
We can hardly suppose that the assassins of Amon were 
religious reformers, and anticipated the accession of a mere 
child under the tutelage of the leaders of the reforming party. 
On the other hand, if ' eighteen ' is correct, Amon must have 
come to the throne earlier than 2 K. xxii. 19 states. 

Only two events are recorded (from different sources) in 
the reign of Josiah, his reformation and his ill-fated encounter 
with a foreign king. Nothing is said of any embassy being 
sent on his accession to the potent king who had made 
Manasseh his prisoner (2 Chr. xxxiii. 11); nothing too of 
the counsellors who were at the helm of the state during the 
king's childhood (accepting the ' eight years '). Did Josiah 
fall at once into the moulding hands of the friends of 

^ It is of course adverse to the orthodox view that Josiah fell fighting 
against an enemy. 

2 Asshur and Babel are, when N. Arabia is concerned, equivalent. 
See 2 Chr. xxxiii. 1 1. 

* Of course, there may have been a son of Amon by another wife, 
who might have succeeded, but was passed over, just as Jehoiakim was 
passed over on the first vacancy. 

* So Klostermann and Stade. 


Yahwism ? And what were the political results of this 
tutelage ? 

The Chronicler, after his manner, fills up the gap with 
an account of a religious movement. In the eighth year of 
his reign Josiah * began to be zealous for the God of David 
his father,' and in the twelfth to ' purge Judah and Jerusalem ' 
(2 Chr. xxxiv. 3). It so happens that — if the accepted 
chronology is correct — the twelfth year of king Josiah was 
the death-year of the last great Assyrian king — Ashurbanipal 
(B.C. 626). The change which this event marks in the 
fortunes of Assyria may, as Erbt thinks,^ have encouraged 
the advisers of the young king to initiate a reform movement. 
It is possible indeed that the * book of torah ' was brought 
forward in the eighteenth year, but surely the root and 
branch reform ascribed to Josiah must have taken longer 
than would appear from the account in 2 K. May not the 
movement really have begun in the twelfth year? This is 
indeed only an ingenious surmise, and may, to some, appear 
discredited by its connexion with the Chronicler. Still 
intelligent surmises are often called for, and may we not — 
must we not — believe that the Chronicler had access to and 
used, even if uncritically, older historical sources ? His facts 
may sometimes be right, even if the setting or the colouring 
is wrong.^ 

1 Die Sicherstellwtg des Monotheistnus, pp. 4-6. 
2 On the problems of the reign of Josiah, cp. E. Bib., ' Josiah.' 



Let us now turn to a narrative much more likely a priori 
to contain historical elements (2 K. xxii. 3-xxiii. 25). It 
opens with an account of the reparation of the temple 
{vv. 3-7, 9) which is meagre in details, and consequently 
obscure. We must not, however, omit to refer to it here in 
conjunction with the story of the reparation of the temple 
by Jehoash in 2 K. xii. 4-16. The two stories are in fact 
closely parallel, and it is very surprising (i) that the kings 
of Judah should have repeatedly allowed their own 
sanctuary to get so thoroughly out of repair, and (2) that 
the narrators of both reparations should have worked on 
the same model. 

The most probable explanation appears to be that in 
both cases the story of the reparation of the temple is an 
imaginative addition to the story of the destruction of 
heathenism.^ The Chronicler's account of Hezekiah's refor- 
mation is not without a faint trace of a similar supplement. 
In 2 Chr. xxix. 3 it is said that in the first year of his 
reign, in the first month, Hezekiah opened the doors of the 
house of Yahweh (which had been shut up by Ahaz), and 
repaired them. Nothing of this kind is ascribed to Hezekiah 
in 2 Kings, nor to the reforming king Asa either in Kings 
or in Chronicles, but we do hear, in both, of the dedicated 
vessels of silver and gold which Asa brought into the house 
of Yahweh. Altogether it would seem as if the narrators 
felt that merely to uproot bad religious growths was not 
enough ; for a king to win his full meed of praise he must 

1 So in the main Erbt, OLZ, Feb. 15, 1908. 


be shown to have rendered some signal service to the 
sanctuary of the true God. 

The account of the ' finding ' of the Book and of the 
subsequent religious revolution is much more full of circum- 
stantial details. We must, however, be on our guard, and 
not assume that the traditional story has altogether escaped 
imaginative expansion or redactional manipulation. A 
moderate view of the redactor's alterations will be found in 
Prof Kittel's Commentary. It is there pointed out that 
' high priest ' (xxii. 8, etc.) should be ' priest,' that the close 
oi V. 18 has been omitted,^ and that v. 20 is not the original 
close of the oracle ascribed to Huldah. Prof Kittel is 
also of opinion that xxiii. \b, 5, 7 b, 14, 16-20, 26 /"., and 
perhaps 24 _/!, are redactional insertions.^ What remains 
this scholar regards as on the whole historical. More 
radical critics, however, reject the whole story of the reforma- 
tion as an imaginative representation of facts not handed 
down historically,^ or as ' a late fiction of men who wished 
to give credence and authority to this law-book with its 
purer morals and its more pronounced recognition of 
Yahweh as the God of Israel."' Lastly, Prof R. H. 
Kennett, without rejecting the narrative in toto, considers 
that the story of the desecration of Bethel is a later insertion. 
He also supposes that the book which so powerfully affected 
the king was ' some denunciation of sacrifice such as we find 
in either Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, or Micah,' and that * this 
might have been described in the earliest form of the story 
as a book of tord, which in later times would be interpreted 
as a book of the tora, i.e. the Deuteronomic Law.' ^ Accord- 
ing to this view, the writing ' found ' in the temple was not 
the Deuteronomic Law, which was of post-exilic origin, but 
a prophetic utterance on sacrifice. 

I must confess that extreme negative theories seem to 

^ Stade and Schwally in SBOT not satisfactory. 

2 Cp. Stade, GV/'u b^if.; Benzinger, Kon. p. 297. 

3 Erbt, 'Der Fund des Deut.,' OLZ, Feb. 15, 1908. ' Es gilt 
also die Geschichte vom Funde des Dt. als Aussenstehender zu be- 
trachten, fiir den sie ja auch erzahlt ist.' 

* E. Day, Journ. of Bibl. Lit. xxi. 198 ff. [1902]. On the late date 
of Dt. see L. Horst, Rev. de Phist. des religions, xvi. 20-65 (continued). 
5 'The Date of D&cX.,' Journ. of Theol. Studies, July 1906, p. 492. 


me at present unwise. I am not opposed to the admission 
of imaginative elements, and I own that a strictly logical 
reconstruction of the later pre-exilic history would be easier 
without the reformation ascribed to Josiah. But I doubt 
whether history is always logical, and whether these negative 
conclusions both as regards the tradition and as regards 
Deuteronomy can be justifiable till we have made more sure 
that we have rightly understood the documents. It seems 
to me that the critics may have relied too much on im- 
perfectly scrutinised texts. If so, what we have to aim at 
first is a keener textual criticism, and such an interpretation 
of the contents as the revised text may seem to require. 

Let me as briefly as possible recall the religious situation 
in the eighteenth year of Josiah. The controller of the 
Divine Company was no longer Yahweh but Baal, and the 
impure worship of the goddess Asherah had become gener- 
ally prevalent. In short, the heathenish reaction which had 
set in under Manasseh was still in full force. This appears, 
not only from the earlier prophecies of Jeremiah, but from 
the drastic measures which, as we shall see, the royal 
reformer considered necessary, when, after long waiting, he 
set himself to purify the land. 

Such was the state of things when Hilkiah, as we read, 
found a book in the temple (2 K. xxii. 8). The story of its 
' finding ' is in fact the second part of the preface to the 
story of the reformation, the first being the incomplete story 
of the reparation of the temple. We are told that, exactly 
as in the restoration under Jehoash, the king's scribe was 
sent to the temple to count the money that had been 
collected, and to give directions as to its disposal. It was 
just then (so the text may once have stated) that Hilkiah 
the priest found a book which he unhesitatingly recognised 
as the book of torah. Hilkiah told this to Shaphan the 
scribe, and then handed the book to him to read. The 
questions now arise. What did Hilkiah mean by ' the book 
of tdrahl and what by his statement that he had ' found ' it ? 

The first question can be answered at once. By ' the 
book of tdrahl Hilkiah must have meant some written 
record which surpassed every other in the distinctness with 
which it defined the ' ways ' pleasing to Yahweh, and the 


torah, or body of directions, contained in it, must have taken 
the form of commands. Such a law-book might naturally 
claim to be Mosaic. Indeed, earlier law-books, such as the 
Book of Covenant, had doubtless already made the same 
claim, for the priests of the greater sanctuaries, when they 
gave tdrdth or ' directions,' must have done so under the 
authority of Moses. It stands to reason that the writer of 
the greatest of the law-books did not neglect older works 
of the same kind, which served as links between himself and 
the great reputed law-giver Moses. It was on the basis of 
such earlier books that the kernel of our Deuteronomy may 
be considered to rest, and no purely conjectural writing 
(such as that suggested by Prof. Kennett) can have such a 
claim to be Hilkiah's ' book of torah ' as is possessed by the 
kernel of Deuteronomy, when duly provided with prologue 
and epilogue. 

The second question is more difficult. In what sense 
did Hilkiah ' find ' the book ? Had the book once been 
known to the priestly keepers of the archives, and been lost 
sight of during the religious troubles of Manasseh's reign, 
till by a pure accident Hilkiah's eyes rested on the precious 
roll ? Or does the phrase imply a theory, which, though 
incorrect, was thought necessary for the success of the law- 
book, viz. that a statement of fundamental laws given of old 
had been lost for centuries, and just now been recovered ? 
Both these theories imply that ' found ' is to be taken 
literally. The interpretation has the merit of simplicity, but 
when an Oriental text is in question simplicity is not 
necessarily a recommendation. Oriental phraseology must 
be interpreted in accordance with Oriental ideas and 
customs. Now it is an idea of Oriental priesthoods that 
religious authority needs to be kept up by illusion. We 
may assume, therefore, that Hilkiah was not groping in the 
dark, but saw what, from a priestly point of view, had to 
take place for the good of religion. Acting according to 
an ancient priestly custom, which involved illusion, he took 
the recently composed law-book to the temple that he might 
' find ' it there. 

One may venture to speak of ' custom,' in spite of the 
fact that there is no distinct reference to such a custom in 


the Old Testament. For what is the Old Testament but a 
selection of those relics of the old Hebrew literature which 
approved themselves to exilic and post-exilic editors? A 
lacuna such as that referred to is unimportant, and is 
compensated for by parallels to the single piece of evidence, 
derived from external sources. 

Certainly, of such parallels there is no deficiency. How 
the priesthoods of Assyria and Babylonia acted, is no secret. 
The royal inscriptions are our sufficient authority. For 
where religion is concerned, the real speakers in these are 
the priests. Take, for instance, the oracle said to have been 
given by the goddess Nannai, — ' Ashurbanipal shall deliver 
me from wicked Elam';^ 1635 (1535) years passed, and 
the fulfilment came. Needless to say who wrote the oracle, 
and who fulfilled it. 

If more decisive parallels are asked for, they can be 
supplied. That the kings of the New Babylonian Empire 
were great builders of temples, is well known. Perhaps the 
greatest of them all was Nabu-na'id (Nabonedus), who, if 
the inscriptions may be trusted, undertook no important 
temple-restoration without seeking the foundation stone of 
the original builder.^ In almost every case — so he declares 
— he found it. How great is his self-admiration when he 
tells (or is made to tell) how he met with the foundation- 
stones of Ibarra, the temple of Shamash in Sippar, ' which 
for 3200 years no king had found who lived before me,'^ or 
of lulbar, the temple of Ishtar in Agani, which Nebu- 
chadrezzar, that great builder, had vainly sought ! * Such 
are the inscriptional statements ; can we regard them as 
historically true ? Is it at all probable that Nabft-na'id was 
really so keen an archaeologist ? May we not assume that 
the modern Babylonian priests not only inspired the inscrip- 
tions, but produced the old foundation-stones in accordance 
with their inherited belief in the necessity of illusion for the 

1 Keilinschr. Bibliothek {KB), ii. 211. 

2 Rogers, Hist, of Babylonia and Assyria, ii. 359-363. The 
parallel was noticed by Erbt, Sicker stellung des Monot/ieismus (1903), 
pp. zff-'f Di^ Hebrder (1906), p. 165. 

3 KB iii. 2, p. 105. 
* Ibid. p. 85. 


religious authority? If they did so, let us not be rash 
enough to condemn them. 

Next let us turn to Egypt In remote ages the imperial 
people of the Nile valley must surely have exercised some 
religious influence on Palestine, which was counteracted 
indeed by much stronger influences, but may be supposed, 
in some points of detail, to have continued. 

Now there was a practice of Egyptian scribes, first 
pointed out by Maspero, and among Biblical scholars in 
1888 by the 'present writer,^ which bears closely on our 
subject. It was the custom of these officials to insert in 
transcripts of important works, whether purely religious or 
quasi-scientific, and whether ancient or not, a statement that 
the writing in question had been * found ' in the temple of 
some deity. For instance, a chapter in the medical papyrus 
now in the British Museum has this rubric, * This cure was 
discovered at night by the hand of a minister of the temple 
of the goddess who happened to go into the hall in the 

1 My attention was turned to this matter by a suggestion of 
M. Maspero's in the Revue critique (1878 or somewhat later) and 
again in his Histoire ancienne de P Orient (1875), PP- 73/> 45 i- I" 
Jeremiah, his Life and Tifnes (1888), p. 85, I collected the available 
Egfyptian facts, and mentioned the possibility that Hilkiah's ' finding ' 
might be like the ' finding ' of the Egyptian officials. I hesitated, how- 
ever, to adopt this view for want of an O.T. parallel or analogy. I 
have long felt that the objection is not a serious one. In 1906 — 
eighteen years afterwards — Prof. Budde referred to Maspero's illustra- 
tion in his Geschichte der althebr. Literatur (1906), p. 109 n. I. In 
1907 M. Ed. Naville published his article 'Egyptian Writings in 
Foundation-walls, and the Age of the Book of Deuteronomy,' PSBA, 
xxix. 232-242 (1907), which was noticed by Erbt in OLZ, Feb. 15, 
1908, and has stirred up a little controversy in that learned periodi- 
cal. The authorities cited by me in 1888, besides Maspero, are 
Brugsch, Gesch. Aeg. pp. 60, 84; Birch, Aeg. Zt., 1871, p. 63. To 
these should now be added Ed. Meyer, Gesch. Aeg. pp. 79, 303 
(referred to by Marti) ; Lepage Renouf, TSBA ix. 2, pp. 295 /, 
PSBA XV. 6 (1893), and Naville (as above). [Prof. Marti informs me 
that he too in 1892 took up the subject, mentioning my own book, in 
an article in the Zt. fiir Theol. u. Kircke, p. 44. M. Naville, in a 
letter to the author, draws a distinction between M. Maspero's theory 
and his own, in that the former considers the documents said to have 
been ' found ' to have been forgeries, while he himself regards the rubrics 
as veracious. I do not, however, see the necessity for such a distinction, 
and incidentally I think the word ' forgeries,' with its Western associa- 
tions, should be avoided.] 


temple of the city of Tebmut in the secret places of that 
goddess. The land at the time was in darkness, but the 
moon shone on that book all over it. It was brought as a 
valuable treasure to His Majesty King Kheops.' Similarly 
it was claimed for a copy of one of the medical treatises in 
the Berlin papyrus, edited by Brugsch, that it ' was found in 
ancient writing, in a coffer of books at the feet of the god 
Anup of Sekhem, in the days of the holiness of the king of 
the two Egypts, the Veracious.' Again, in the ' Book of the 
Dead ' (Naville) there is an important chapter entitled the 
' chapter of the heart,' and supposed to be spoken by a 
deceased person to his heart when it was weighed on the 
scale in the judgment. The rubric attached to it runs thus, 
' This chapter was found at Shmun (Hermopolis) on a slab 
of stone of the south, written in true lapis under the feet of 
the god.' There is also another chapter (Ixiv.) of the same 
' Book of the Dead ' (Naville), which, in one of its versions, 
has the following rubric, ' This chapter was found in the 
foundations of Amihunnu by the overseer of the men who 
built a wall, in the time of king Usaphais ; its figures are 
mysterious, nobody has seen them nor looked at them.' The 
meaning appears to be that the writing, which was ancient 
and difficult, had been placed in a foundation-wall, and that 
it was found afterwards by the overseer of a party of masons 
engaged in repairing the temple. And just so, in a very 
late text (time of Ptolemy XIII.) on a wall of one of the 
crypts of the temple of Denderah, it was stated that 
Thothmes III. 'found the great rule of Denderah . . . inside 
a wall of bricks of the southern house in the time of the 
king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord of the two lands, 
Meri Ra, the son of Ra, the lord of diadems, Pepi.' ^ 

Now, it is of course conceivable that copies of ancient 
and important Egyptian writings may sometimes have been 
placed, as soon as written, in temples, either near * the feet 
of the gods ' {i.e. near their statues) or in foundation walls. 
But that all the written documents for which this claim is 
put forward were really ancient and from the first so placed, 

1 One may add that Philo of Byblus (second century a.d.) asserts 
that the Phcenician history of Sanchoniathon had been brought out of 
concealment by himself. 


is most improbable. There must generally have been much 
illusion in the matter. It must be repeated that our own 
standards of morality cannot be applied to ancient Oriental 
priests or scribes. One must, I think, agree with Maspero 
and Hugo Winckler that this would be undue modernising, 
and would not correspond to our experience of the habits of 
the ancient priesthoods. 

Two incomplete analogies for the course here ascribed to 
Hilkiah may be adduced from the Old Testament itself, 
(i) In Neh. xiii. i ff. it appears as if the passage, Dt. xxiii. 4-6, 
was for the first time ' found written ' in the ' book of Moses ' 
in the age of Nehemiah. Yet it was only ' found ' there 
because it had lately been inserted. And (2) in Dt. xxxi. 26 
Moses is said to have commanded the Levites thus, ' Take 
this book of torah, and put it beside the ark of the b^rith of 
Yahweh your God.' The late writer of this passage must 
have known the narrative of the finding of the law-book, 
and may have sought to justify the ' finding ' by a tale of 
the original depositing of the previous roll, not indeed in the 
temple, but in the most honourable position possible, beside 
the ark of Yahweh. 



Let us now return to the story in 2 K. xxii. No import- 
ance attaches to the fact that Shaphan and not Hilkiah is 
expressly stated to have read the book that was found. 
Even if the reformers had taken the trouble to put the law- 
book into ancient Hebrew script, yet we might fairly assume 
that priests of high rank would be able to read it, otherwise 
how could they hand on the old religious traditions, or adapt 
old laws to the use of a later age ? M. Naville, therefore, 
has no solid ground for maintaining that Shaphan the scribe 
read the book to Josiah because he had enjoyed a better 
literary training than Hilkiah. He read it because it was 
his function to do so, just as a secretary in our day would 
naturally read a newly found document to his superior. 
Whether any one else heard it besides the king, we are not 
told. But we are informed that as soon as the reading was 
over (it cannot have taken long), the horrified king sent a 
deputation, including both Hilkiah and Shaphan, to obtain 
an oracle from Yahweh. It is evident that some part of 
the book was of a highly threatening import. Most probably 
there were solemn curses imprecated upon the people, in the 
event of its disobedience to certain fundamental laws, and 
forming a suitable close to the entire law-book. 

Can this part of the traditional story be altogether 
historical ? Surely Josiah and his priest must have been at 
one as to the best means of reforming religion. Surely, too, 
Josiah must have foreknown and approved the choice of a 
prophetic adviser made by the deputation (cp. 2 K. xix. 2). 
The choice fell, not, of course, on Jeremiah, who was out of 



sympathy with book-religion, but on the prophetess Huldah. 
She is described (xxii. 14) as being 'the wife of Shallum, 
son of Tikvah (or as otherwise called), son of Harhas, keeper 
of the garments.' So at least the traditional text says, but 
some of the words appear to be wrong, and the whole 
description may have been misunderstood. The name 
Huldah, for instance, is neither an epithet of a deity ^ nor a 
monument of early Semitic totemism,^ but, like Hadlai in 
2 Chr. xxviii. 12, is of Ishmaelite or N. Arabian origin ;^ so 
too, obviously, is Shallum ^ (cp. i Chr. ii. 40). Tikvah 
(' confidence ' !) is not less transparent ; it is a corruption of 
Teko^a. More than one Teko'a probably existed ; ^ the one 
meant here was in the district called Harhas (in 2 Chr. 
Hasrah), ie. Yarham-Ashhur.'' Next comes the strange title 
shotner begddlvi, which is usually explained as ' keeper of the 
royal wardrobe.' The theory has very slight probability. 
Nowhere else does such an official title occur, and there is 
nothing in the context to suggest that the royal attire is 
referred to. It is reasonable to suspect corruption of the 

Let us act on this suspicion, and begin with nniX 
Sound method requires us to group this word with similar 
corrupt combinations of letters, the key to which has been 
found. Such combinations are D''"TDi in Ezek. xxvii. 11,'^ 
and D'^niD in 2 K. xix. 35.^ The former occurs among a 
number of ethnics or place-names in a poetic description of 
the commerce of Sor, i.e. Missor (the N. Arabian Musri) ; 
Cim is of course miswritten for D"'"iDl, which should be the 
plural of nDi, from the well-known but much misunderstood 
^Di ^ (Gen. x. 2, Ezek. xxxviii. 6), which, like DiT in *7^o DiT 

1 'The Ever-young Virgin' (Winckler, Krit. Schriften^ ii. 45/). 

2 See E. Bib., ' Shaphan.' 

3 If the d in both these names, as well as in the Nabatasan Haldu 
(G. A. Cooke, N.-Sem. Inscr. p. 256) is an error for r, we may group 
them with Rahel, which is probably a popular corruption of Scm = Skdht 
(7". and B. p. 373). Cp. "jmnK, i Chr. iv. 8, i.e. Ashhur-Yerahme'el. 

4 E. Bib., ' Shallum.' 

5 Ibid., ' Tekoa.' 

^ T. and B. pp. 23, 205, etc. 

"^ Crit. Bib., on Ezek. I.e. 

8 Ibid., on 2 K. I.e. ; T. and B. p. 147. 

8 T and B. p. 157. 



(Zech. vii. 2), comes from DHT (Yarham-Yerahme'el). D*'niD 
occurs in the narrative of the destruction of an Ashhurite 
king's army, where again the original is D"«-idi. There 
remains notD, which is probably the short for pnott), an 
expansion of the clan-name notD, such as may have existed 
in more than one district. It is not, therefore, a court title 
that we have before us, but a geographical gloss stating that 
Dmn is = D"'noi pnom, ' Shimron of the Gamrites (Gomerites).' 
And our total result is that Shallum at any rate was a native 
of N. Arabia, and that Huldah as well as Shallum has a 
name of N. Arabian affinities. 

These facts are not unimportant, for the original centre 
of prophecy was not in Palestine but in N. Arabia. Some 
at least of the O.T. prophets can be shown to have originated 
in N. Arabia, i.e. in that part of the N. Arabian border-land 
which appears to have been occupied, at any rate at intervals, 
by Israel. It was indeed the Holy Land of the Israelites ; ^ 
there was the scene of their most sacred stories, and though 
there were great religious risks, yet those very risks called 
forth the heroic courage of the io.^^ chief among whom were 
Elijah and Elisha. Could we then be surprised if a 
prophetess like Huldah, with her N. Arabian though Israelite 
husband, resided among the Israelites in that region ? And 
it so happens that in 2 K. xxii. 14 there is a parenthetic 
note which refers to Huldah's place of residence, and 
probably supports my suggestion. Usually it is supposed 
to state that ' she dwelt in Jerusalem, in the second quarter.' ^ 
But how can this be correct ? Surely it is most unimportant 
whether the prophetess lived in the first quarter or in the 
second. The lexicons, it is true, confirm the explanation of 
mishneh as ' second quarter ' by Zeph. i, i o, but that passage 
too has been misunderstood. For the most probable view 
of mishneh in Zeph. i. i o is that it is a popular corruption 
of Ishmanah or Shemanah ^ (fem. of Ishman or Shemen, i.e. 

1 See Introduction (on the Negeb). 

2 For another view see E. Bib., ' College,' ' Hassenaah,' ' Huldah. 
The explanation of mishneh given above will also suit for Gen. xli. 43, 
2 Chr. XXXV. 24 (see 7! and B. p. 462, with note 3). 

3 Following Marti as to the extent of the strophe, but using our own 
lights as to mishneh and maktesh, we obtain this sense — 


Ishmael), and that this was the designation of a quarter of 
Jerusalem specially appropriated to N. Arabians, including 
the numerous class of magicians. A gloss in ^'. 11 explains 
that ' all the people of Canaan are destroyed, all that practise 
secret enchantments ^ are cut off.' What Canaan is we may 
learn from Zeph. ii. 5 ; it is the land of the Philistines, and 
the Philistines are not Semitised Cretans, but a tribe of 
Ishmaelites, as their name, duly criticised, shows.^ 

But to return to 2 K. xxii. 14. The note may con- 
ceivably state that Huldah resided ' in Jerusalem, in the 
N. Arabian quarter.' I think, however, that the other view 
is much more attractive, viz. that the prophetess resided in 
Israelitish N. Arabia. In this case we must suppose that 
Ishmanah or Shemanah in the note is a place-name, and 
that Yerushalaim has sprung (as in some other passages) 
from an ill-written Ishmael, and the note will state that 
Huldah dwelt in the country of Ishmael {i.e. N. Arabia), in 
a place called Ishmanah. I call this view the more attrac- 
tive one, because, since the greatest moral dangers arose 
from the borderland, it would be natural to seek counsel of 
one who resided in the neighbourhood of those dangers. 
May I not go even further, and suggest that Huldah may 
not merely have been consulted on the occasion related 
in 2 Kings, but have already been specially concerned in 
the expansion of Yahwistic laws. It is not unreasonable to 
assume that an earnest effort had been made to keep 
Israelitish residents in N. Arabia in the right path. The 
effort would naturally take the form of the preparation of a 
law-book claiming divine authority. It had very possibly 
done so before this time, and a careful scrutiny of Deuter- 

Hark ! a cry from the fish-gate, 
A howling from Ishmanah ; 
Great wailing from the hills, 
The dwellers in Methukash howl. 

Ishmanah and Methukash are parallel, and have the same meaning. 
K-smD ( = nncK '7j?DnK), underlying rnso here, and n^nco in 2 K. xxiii. 1 3, 
means the N. Arabian quarter. 

^ Read ^b-d 'a'Sn (cp. d*b'?, n'onS). 

2 ' Pelethites ' and ' Philistines ' have been confounded, i.e. cnrSs 
should be dtiSd ; cp. XiSn and nSs, also '?Bn (Dt. i. i). All these latter 
forms originate in Ethbaal= Ishmael. On the Philistine question see 


onomy may show us that it did so in the time of Josiah. 
Among the chief helpers of such an attempt we may perhaps 
venture to reckon the prophetess Huldah. 

We can now understand better on what grounds Hilkiah 
and the others probably selected their counsellor. It was 
not the first time that they and she had met — either in 
Jerusalem or in the N. Arabian border-land. The law-book 
' found,' or brought forward, by Hilkiah was really a revised 
and adapted form of a law-book intended for Israel in 
Arabia. And it is reasonable to surmise that Josiah knew 
this, and that the account of the visit of the deputation to 
Huldah is far from corresponding to facts. Indeed, would 
it not be passing strange if all that the deputation had to 
do was to report the nervous prostration of Josiah, and his 
inability to determine upon a course of action ? And then, 
as to Huldah's answer (xxii. 15-20), to what state of 
mind can it be said to be related ? Is it to that described 
\n vv. 11-13? Surely not. How would it comfort Josiah, 
or restore his moral energy, to be told that Jerusalem and 
all its inhabitants except himself should be destroyed ? Or 
is it to that which is here supposed to be his true mental 
state — viz. abounding joy at the happy completion of the 
law-book ? Still more certainly not. 

The most probable view seems to be that Huldah — if 
she gave any oracle at all — had an eye at once to religion 
and to politics. She knew that there was constant danger 
from one or another troublesome potentate. Assyria, 
indeed, was sinking into decay, but more than one 
N. Arabian power was capable of disturbing the peace of 
Judah. The oracle which one naturally expects would 
have contained something like this : ' Danger still threatens, 
not from Assyria, but from the land of Saphon.^ There- 
fore, O king of Judah, reconcile thyself and thy people with 
thy God. The book of the torah of Yahweh is before thee. 
By obedience to its precepts shalt thou be exalted above 
thy foes. Otherwise great evil shall fall upon thee and 
upon thy people, and ye shall die in a land which ye have 
not known.' 

1 The region whence the invaders come is commonly so styled by 
Jeremiah. See below. 


Let us now return to the tradition. There is no trace 
of moral discouragement in the resolute and imperious 
monarch who, at the head of his people, accepts Hilkiah's 
law-book (2 K. xxiii. 1-3). He knows his strength and he 
uses it. The phraseology of the narrative may have been 
manipulated, but if there was an assembly at all, the circum- 
stances must have been somewhat as they are here described. 
Prophets must have been there as well as priests and elders 
of the people, and the position taken up by the king in 
order to read the law-book (in this copy, then, the letters 
were not archaic) is entirely in order, as we shall see by 
comparing v. 3 with the statement in 2 K. xi. 14, 'and 
when she looked, behold, the king (Jehoash) stood by the 
pillar, as the usage was.' The pillar, in both cases, was no 
doubt that called in the Hebrew of i K. vii. 21 Yakln. 
This appears to be a corruption of some form of Yerahme'el 
(such as Yakman), the name of one of the holy Two, or 
Three, who formed, in N. Arabia, the divine Company. It 
will be remembered that Yakin and Bo'az ^ (in @" Yakum 
and Balaz — the latter points to some corrupt form of 
Ishmael) were the two bronze pillars erected in the porch of 
Solomon's temple. The original names were not such as 
Josiah would have sanctioned. But he did not scruple to 
station himself by one of them after the objectionable names 
had (probably long ago) been modified. There it was that 
he read the law-book aloud, and there that he made a 
covenant or compact before Yahweh (as Jehoiada in the 
name of Jehoash had done before) to walk before Yahweh, 
and so to verify the words (promises) of this compact that 
were written in this book (xxiii. 3). 

The ease with which the revolution was effected may 
well startle us. How many there must have been in that 
assembly who had luxuriated in the enjoyment of the 
popular cults ! Yet now such persons gave up their most 
cherished practices, and accepted the yoke of a book- 
religion. It is passing strange. Had Josiah the assistance 
of a second wonder-working Elijah ? No ; but he had on 

^ See E. Bib., 'Jachin and Boaz'; Crif. Bib. p. 324 ; T. and B. 
pp. 30 (n. 2), 369; Nikolsky (Hilgenfeld's Zt., 1904, pp. 1-20); 
W. E. Barnes,/ of TheoL Stud., April 1904, pp. 447 i^ 


his side not only the two chief priests ^ and the three 
keepers of the sacred threshold,^ but most probably, like 
Jehoash, at no great distance off, the royal guards. 

The work assigned to the great temple ministers at 
once suggests the real nature of the reformation. It was 
an attack on that harmful type of religion, established by 
Manasseh, which most^ regard as Assyrio-Babylonian, but 
which, more probably, was N. Arabian. At the king's 
command (z/. 4), Hilkiah and his fellows brought out all the 
vessels of Baal and Asherah,* and of all the host of heaven 
(see p. 25). These were burned outside Jerusalem in the 
smelting-furnaces (?) ^ of the Kidron ; their ' dust,' we are 
told, was taken to Bethel, i.e. probably to the bdmaJi made 
by Jeroboam, and destroyed (as we shall see) by Josiah. 
From the same source (probably) we learn that the venerated 
symbol of Asherah in the temple {v. 6 ; cp. xxi. 7) was 
carried to the Kidron, where it was burned and actually 
stamped to powder (cp. vv. 12, 15), as if to minimise the 
risk of malign supernatural influence. Nor was even this 
enough to satisfy the foes of heathenism. To desecrate this 
image still further, the powder was despitefully cast upon the 
common burying-place (xxiii. 6). 

Already, perhaps, we can see the real nature of the 
movement. It appears that Baal (or Yerahme'el) and 
Asherah, or sometimes Ashtart, were combined in a 
N. Arabian divine duad, and if it be urged that Yahweh 
may also have been worshipped by the N. Arabians, yet 
the directing member of the triad thus produced was, not 
Yahweh, but Baal. (To these deities we shall return.) As 

^ That is, the priest of Jerusalem and the priest (not priests, see 
XXV. 18) of the second rank (in xxv. 18 parallel to 'the chief priest'), 
or perhaps the priest of Shemanah, i.e. Ishmael (see p. 19). The title 
may have been borne by the priest of the sanctuary of the Israelites in 
N. Arabia (see on Dt. xii. 5). The writer of xxv. 18 may not have 
known the true origin of mishjieh ( = Shemanah). Huldah, as we have 
seen, was probably a prophetess of Shemanah. 

2 See E. Bib., ' Threshold.' 

3 E.g. M'Curdy, Hist., PropJi., and M on. ii. 385. 

* In 2/. 5 Mazzaloth (Yishme''elith) stands for Asherah {T. and B. 
p. 19, n. 2 ; Crit. Bib. p. 390). In i K. xv. 13 we meet with the name 
miphleseth, which may have the same origin as viazzaloth 

5 niB-^rD (Klostermann). 


the foe of Ashtart, Josiah was, of course, violently opposed 
to all that belonged to the cult of that goddess, and 
especially to the sacred prostitution suggested by the names 
kedeshim (xxiii. 7 «) ^ and ^edeshoth. The men and women 
so called were numerous both in N. Arabia^ and in the 
land of Judah.^ The urgent need for a distinct prohibition 
of that unhappy devotion was met by the command in 
Dt. xxiii. 18. Not less numerous were the priests called 
kemdrim. This we learn, not only from the narrative before 
us, but from a much-vexed passage in Isaiah (ii. 5), where 
the reason why Yahweh has forsaken his people is stated to 
be their addiction to foreign magic and soothsaying ; evidently 
inikkedem should be kemdrlni. The name is suggestive ; it 
shows that the priests so styled had N. Arabian affinities.* 
On the whole passage, see chap. v. 

The fact is that religion was a specialty of the 
N. Arabians, and priests as well as prophets travelled about 
Judah in search of occupation (xxiii. 5). Wherever there 
was a bdinah their services were in request ; the kings of 
Judah had themselves 'ordained' or sanctioned this custom. 
Now, however, the priests had to retire in obedience to a 
fresh command. They were the guardians of all those 
practices which Josiah most abhorred. It was essential to 
save the people from their pernicious influence. They were 
therefore deposed. According to another account {y. 9), 
the priests {kohane) of the bdmoth were allowed to eat 
unleavened bread among their brethren, though they might 

1 The gloss in v. "] b'xs obscure. 

2 T. and B. p. 448. Simulation of this cult was one feature of this 
cult in N. Arabia (see on Dt. xxii. 5, 9-1 1). 

2 See I K. xiv. 24, xv. 12. 

* The name almost certainly comes from D'opn. opi is a frequent 
corruption of □nT = '7K3nT (see T. and B., pp. 62, 376 ; cp. 372). The 
kemdrlni are also mentioned in Hos. x. 5, Zeph. i. 4, and probably 
Job iii. 5, where the text is plainly wrong, and should be read innya* 
ID' no3, Met the priests of Yaman affright it.' The origin of the word 
goes back into remote antiquity, at least if kdmiru in the Amarna 
Tablets has the meaning ' priest.' It also occurs in an Aramaic form 
in the first of the Elephantine papyri edited by Sachau (1907), where, 
as in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is doubtless used without knowledge of 
its origin. In fact, the writer who speaks for the Egyptian-Jewish 
community uses k'too of the priests of the Egyptian god Khnum. 


not take part in the altar-service at Jerusalem. Apparently 
these priests either were or became Yahwists. It is of the 
distress of such persons that a pathetic account, in the 
style of prophecy, seems to be given in i S. ii. 36. They 
are represented as the descendants of Eli {i.e. Abiathar), 
displaced by the * faithful priest ' (Zadok), to whom they 
come crouching for some humble priestly office, as a means 
of livelihood. The one objection to this is that there are 
two glosses^ in v. 36, which (critically restored) run thus, 
' with regard to the temple of Kashram, Ashkar-Yerahme'el,* 
and ' with regard to Ashkal, Beth-Yerahme'el,' implying 
that the priests are Yerahme'elites, and that they are in 
search of posts in their own chief sanctuary (see p. 27), 
called sometimes Ashkar - Yerahme'el, sometimes Beth- 
Yerahme'el. It is possible that in xxiii. 9 DStDTT* has been 
substituted by the redactor for ^nijdD'' (Ishmael = Yerahme'el). 
At any rate, these priests seem to be worshippers of Yahweh. 
They may perhaps have traced their origin to Eli. The 
Shiloh referred to in i S. i.-iv. was probably in the 
N. Arabian border-land. A third statement about the 
priests (xxiii. 20) is probably a late fiction. 

Among the worst abominations were sacrifices of 
children. They were offered to Melek,^ who was the great 
N. Arabian god, regarded no longer as the giver of vegeta- 
tion, but as the stern ruler of the underworld, and who was 
also called Ethbal, i.e. Ishmael ( = Yerahme'el). This we 
learn from 2 K. xxiii. 10, where the impossible TifplS^ is 
simply miswritten for ^pSHnS (cp. ^rhl from Sidn in Isa. 
X. 4), which is a gloss on "^^CiS. Child-sacrifices in Canaan 

1 The words en"? idd id3 rmivh and nnS-ns '?3k'? are glosses. The text 
needs correction. In the former gloss, idd, as in Isa. xlviii. 10, comes 
most probably from moa = oirn (see note on d'-icd). mux is the Aram. 
miJK, which, in the Targums has the late meaning ' heathen altar,' but 
in the Aramaic papyri (see especially those of Elephantine) is used of 
the temple of Yahu ( = Yahweh). Thus, an O.T. passage for the first 
time receives a natural and a practically certain explanation, thanks to 
an unexpected find of papyri. In the latter, Ssk, as often, represents 
^DrK ( = Asshur- Yerahme'el) ; S^vh, presupposed by © in t/. 28 
(ets f3p(^Lv), has the same meaning as here, viz. ' with reference to 
Ashkal.' no represents n'3 ; cnV is a popular corruption of ^om (Vkdht). 

2 See E. Bib., ' Molech ' (Moore) ; T. and B., pp. 50-54. 
2 Not recognised by @, Pesh. 


are proved by the explorations ; ^ in N. Arabia, by the 
original underlying text of Gen. xxii. They are denounced 
and forbidden in Dt. xii. 31, xviii. 10, though the strongest 
prohibition is in Lev. xviii. 21. Jeremiah^ (xix. 4/!, 
xxxii. 35) and Ezekiel (xx. 26) are equally vehement, and 
it was only to be expected that what Manasseh had 
sanctioned by his own practice Josiah should do his utmost 
to extinguish. 

Sun-worship was also prevalent in Judah {vv. 5,11 f^. 
Ezekiel (viii. 16) tells of men who worshipped the sun 
towards the east, with their backs towards Yahweh's temple. 
Predecessors of Josiah had dedicated horses (of bronze ?) to 
the sun. These Josiah destroyed ; the chariot (so Stade, 
after 0) of the sun-god he burned. Whence came this 
sun-worship ? Perhaps from Assyria. But it is very 
possible that Baal or Yerahme'el in one of his aspects was 
the sun-god,^ and that this is the source of Manasseh's sun- 
worship. In z'. 5 ' the sun and the moon ' may be an 
interpolated gloss on ' Baal and Mazzaloth ' {i.e. Yerahme'el 
and the Ishmaelite goddess), and it is certain that in v. 4 
(cp. 2 K. xxi. 3) the cult of Baal is closely joined to that of 
' all the host of heaven.' The fusion of the cult of Baal or 
Yerahme'el with that of the sun in Judah may perhaps be 
placed in the reign of Manasseh (2 K. xxi. 5). 

Even the bdnioth of Solomon were not spared. Sidonian, 
Moabite, and Ammonite cults should no longer defile the 
neighbourhood of the temple. The description of the site 
of these places is remarkable. It was east of Jerusalem, 
and south of the har hammashhlth, ' the mount of the 
destroyer.' Most probably, however, mashhith (like inaktesh 
in Zeph. i. 1 1 ; see p. 18, note 3) comes from some form 
like metJiushah, i.e. ' Ishmael-Ashhur."* The name of the 
hill alludes to the fact that the original inhabitants of the 
district were Jebusites, i.e. a tribe of Ishmaelites. 

And now a grave difficulty arises. We are told in 

^ P^re Vincent, Canaan (1907), pp. 188, 195. 

2 Jeremiah, in xix. 4^], speaks of Baal, but clearly Baal and Melek 
are parallel (Jer. xxxii. 35). 

3 See T. and B. p. 273 (on the connexion between Ishmael and the 
sun, and the origin of the name Bethshemesh). 

* See T. and B. p. 107. 


2 K. xxiii. 4 that the ' dust ' of the vessels that were burned 
outside Jerusalem was carried to Bethel, and m v. 15 that 
Josiah broke down the altar and high place of Bethel. To 
reject the Bethel-episode would be arbitrary. Shall we, 
then, suppose that, in the enfeebled condition of Assyria, 
Josiah felt the stirrings of ambition, and aspired to re-unite 
north and south under one sceptre ? ^ The theory is in 
itself plausible, and harmonises with the statement that 
Josiah went to meet an Egyptian army at Megiddo in 
N. Israel. Still, apart from the uncertainty of the reading 
* Megiddo,' the close political and religious relations between 
Israel and N. Arabia, which I have tried to point out else- 
where, may lead one to think that another theory has a still 
greater probability. The theory is, that Bethel (which, like 
Ti"?!, 2 K. xxiii. 10, probably comes from Ethbal, i.e. 
Ishmael) may, in vv. 4, 15, be the name of a place in 
the N. Arabian borderland, to which region therefore Josiah 
must have extended his iconoclastic operations. And why 
should Josiah not have done so ? Obviously the reforma- 
tion was needed in N. Arabia as much as in Judah, and 
Josiah was not the man to leave his work half done. If 
he occupied the Israelite territory in N. Arabia, he would 
feel bound to make it genuinely a Holy Land. As to the 
evidence, the whole story of the reformation is presumptive 

It is an important fact, which I must not omit to point 
out, that by this theory, and this alone, is it possible to give 
a perfectly natural correction of the text of xxiii. 8 b. This 
is how the passage runs in the A.V., ' and brake down the 
high places of the gates that were in the entering in of the 
gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a 
man's left hand at the gate of the city.' ' The high places 
of the gates ' ; how impossible ! If, however, we correct 
D''^2?Q>^, not into D'^T'l'torr, ' the satyr-like demons,' but into 

1 The Chronicler (2 Chr. xxxiv. 6/, 33) may have had a similar 
notion respecting Josiah, but there is reason to think that the state- 
ments of the earlier writer on which he built may have had a different 
reference. This means correcting the two corrupt words at the end of 
V. 6 into Dm' mama, ' in Yarhamite Rehoboth,' indicating that the icono- 
clasm took place in some part of the N. Arabian border-land. This 
affects the correctness of 2 Chr. xv. 19, xxx. i, 10/, 18, xxxi. i. 


D'^I^nTt/ ' the Asshurs/ i.e., the symbols of the N. Arabian 
god Asshur,' ^ we shall have taken the first step towards a 
consistent sense. And how improbable are both the defini- 
tions of the situation of the bdmdth ! Neither Kittel nor 
Stade suggests any probable or even plausible emendations. 
Perhaps it is some defect in their point of view which 
hinders them. At any rate, we surely want, not a personal 
name like Yehoshua, but a place-name. T'i^n-nto i^mhrT"* 
should probably be TiJH n^Nhrr"), ' the city Yehoasshur,' ^ or 
perhaps Trn ncJN'DnT. * the city Yarham- Asshur.' It is 
probable that the equivalent forms Asshur- Yarham and 
Ashkar-Yerahme'el underlie cryptic phrases in Dt. xii. 5 
and I S. ii. 36 respectively, and that it is the name of the 
place where was the central sanctuary which claimed the 
exclusive veneration of N. Arabian Israelites. Almost the 
same name (7N5D12J"^"*i©n) underlies part of the equally 
corrupt second descriptive clause (D"'N blND2?-Si?ntDN) ; ■* 
what remains (Tl^rr nrlDl) represents beyond doubt T'^jrr IONH, 
* in the city Asshur.' Thus, omitting incorrect variants, we 
obtain this simple and natural sense of the original, under- 
lying text, * and broke down the bdmdth of the Asshur-idols 
which were in the entrance of the city Yarham-Asshur.' 

We cannot, however, pass over the first part of xxiii. 8, 
which states that the bdmdth on which the priests had 
offered illegitimate sacrifices were spread ' from Geba to 
Beer-sheba.' These places, it may be objected, were not 
in the N. Arabian border-land, but formed the northern and 
southern boundaries respectively of the land of Judah. If, 
then, we have found the right explanation of v. 8 b, it would 
seem that this passage cannot be the right sequel of v. 8 a. 
It would indeed seem so. But must we not go further, and 
say that v. 8 a, if the ordinary explanation is correct, 
excludes the view that Josiah carried the reform to any 

1 Asherim (from Asher) is a parallel form to Asshurim (from Asshur). 
See T. and B. p. 24. The Asherim were, of course, destroyed by 
Josiah, xxiii. 14, cp. Dt. vii. 5. 

2 See T. and B. p. 24. 

' The form would be unusual ; cp. the personal name rxi.T. 

4 The first half of the clause represents ' Asshur-Ishmael,' the second 
' Ishmael-Asshur.' ex comes from tk, i.e. "ivk. The two forms, of 
course, refer to the same city. 


district or region outside Judah proper? And yet, as we 
have seen, to deny that he crossed the border at all, would 
be arbitrary. The solution of the problem is that either 
V. % a belongs to a different source from v. 8 b — a source 
which did not refer to the extension of the reform beyond 
the limits of Judah proper, or else the Geba and Beersheba 
referred to were not in Judah but in the N. Arabian border- 
land.^ In the latter case, a shortened form of ' Yerahme'el ' 
must have been mistaken for a shortened form of ' Yehudah ' ; 
i.e. for ' out of the cities of Judah ' we should read ' out of the 
cities of Yerahme'el.' ^ 

The conclusion here arrived at is not without conse- 
quences. If there is a N. Arabian Bethel in 2 K. xxiii., 
there must also be one, not only in i K. xiii., but in i K. 
xii. (the steers of gold), and why not also in Gen. xxviii. and 
in the Book of Amos ? The truth is that the different parts 
of the Old Testament are so closely connected that we 
cannot change our opinion on one without having to 
reconsider our opinion on some of the others. As another 
instance of this, take the story in Jer. xli. 5 respecting the 
eighty men from Shechem, Shiloh, and Shomeron, who came 
in mourning guise to Mizpah, the seat of government of the 
hapless Gedaliah.^ Their object is said to have been to 
bring offerings to the ' house of Yahweh.' What was this 
' house of Yahweh ? ' Most reply, the great one at Jeru- 
salem. But how came pilgrims from the land of N. Israel 
to be so deeply interested in the fallen sanctuary of Judah ? 
Must we not exchange our point of view for one in 
harmony with the preceding results ? As I have pointed 
out already by anticipation, the Israelites in the southern 

^ Geba is only another form of Gibeah. Beer-sheba = well of 
Shema (Ishmael), not 'well of the Seven-god.' Bethel = Ethbaal = 
Ishmael (2". and B. pp. 311/, 371). 

2 Cp. I S. XXX. 26, where, in the original text, as restored, David 
sends presents to the elders of Yerahme'el. In the M.T. of v. 29 we 
actually find the two glosses, ' in the cities of the Yerahme'elites ' and 
•in the cities of the Kenites.' See Crit. Bib. p. 245. 

^ It is here supposed that Gedaliah was governor of the 'cities of 
Yerahme'el ' (reading thus in Jer. xl. 5 instead of ' cities of Judah,' as in 
2 K. xxiii. 8. Cp. Crit. Bib., p. T}„ and on the story in Jer. xli., The 
Historian^ History the World, ii. 7. 


border-land occupied by Josiah had probably their own 
sanctuary. It has also been shown that Shechem, Shiloh, 
and Shdmeron (or Shimron) were most probably N. Arabian 
as well as N, Israelite place-names, the Yerahme'elite clans 
having carried these names with them in their migrations. 
The pilgrims, therefore, were very possibly Israelites of N. 
Arabia, who resorted to their own sanctuary, situated 
perhaps near Mizpah.^ 

The destruction of the altar and bdmaJi at Bethel ^ 
{v. 15) was only to be expected considering their history. 
From some other source it is added {y. 19) that what Josiah 
had done at Bethel he repeated at all the houses of the 
bdmotJi that were in the cities of Shomeron,^ and that he 
slew all the officiating priests. The latter statement need 
not delay us ; it may be a mere fiction suggested by i K. 
xiii. 2. As to Shdmeron or Shimron, it is plainly in the 
same region as Bethel, i.e. in N. Arabia. As we know 
already (p. 18) there was a Shomer5n or Shimron of the 
Gomerites ; Huldah's husband was a native of this place or 
district. It is also noteworthy that in Am. vi. i ^VS and 
X\'y'C:i'!!li should be parallel, which can only be the case if ]V2 
can be corrected into pi;l!i, i.e. not ' hyna,' but ' Ishmael.' ^ 
In other words, in Am. vi. i Shomeron is a N. Arabian name. 
And still more important is it that in 2 K. xvii. 6 there appears 
to be a confusion between the Assyrian capture of the city of 
Shomeron in the north, and the Asshurite conquest of the 
region of Shomeron or Shimron in the south.^ 

The only other important detail of the reformation is 
that in xxiii, 24, relative to magic and all heathenish objects 
(teraphim, etc.), and practices surviving in the land of Judah. 
By abolishing these, Josiah undid the mischief caused by his 

1 There were many hill-towns called Mizpah. Cp. Crit. Bib. on 
I K. XV. 22. 

2 For Winckler's ingenious but arbitrary correction see KAT^\ 
p. 277. 

3 Shomgron here, as in i K. xvii. 24, etc., is a regional name. 
* See Introduction (on forms of Ishmael). 

^ See Special Note. The names of places and deities in i K. xvii. 
liiff. point in different directions. One may, however, venture to lay 
the most stress on those which point to N. Arabia, for what redactor 
would have inserted these among Assyrian-sounding names ? 


reactionary grandfather (xxi. 6). Manasseh was a pro- 
Asshurite king, and among the most popular Asshurite or 
N. Arabian religious forms were those which opened the door 
of the unseen world. How earnestly the Deuteronomist 
dehorts from such practices, is well-known (see Dt xviii. 
10^-12). One may greatly doubt, however, whether Josiah 
did permanently abolish them (see Zech. x. 2). 

The reformation being finished, the workers * returned to 
Jerusalem.' Was there any concluding celebration ? From 
2 K. xxiii. 21-23 we might suppose that there was — viz. 
the passover. The account may, however, be a mere 
appendix, as the highly artificial narrative in 2 Chr. xxxv. 
undoubtedly is. On the other hand, in the Hezekiah- 
narrative the passover precedes the reformation (2 Chr. 
xxx.-xxxi. i). The probability is that there were two 
forms of tradition,^ according to one of which the covenant, 
and according to the other the passover, was the sign that 
Israel had again become Yahweh's people. It was not easy 
to work these two forms of tradition together, and the 
compilers took different lines. It will be noticed that both 
in 2 Kings and in 2 Chr. the reformation -passover is re- 
garded as the first legal one (cp. Dt. xvi. 2, 5-7). Forgetful 
of his own elaborate account of Hezekiah's national passover, 
and with only slight variations on 2 K. xxiii. 22 (cp. Neh. 
viii. 17), the Chronicler fervently declares that such a 
passover as this had not been held since the days of Samuel, 
nor had all the kings of Israel kept such a passover. How 
far even the brief notice in 2 Kings is based on fact, it is 
impossible to say. Most probably the reformation-passover 
has but a symbolic value. 

It is much to be regretted that the imaginative element 
in this lengthy narrative is so considerable. In Wellhausen's 
abridgment of the Book of Campaigns of the Messenger of 
God by Wakidy, we find a striking sketch of the Arabian 
reformer overthrowing the 360 idols around the Ka'ba at 
Mecca, and looking on while, at his command, the great 
image of Hubal was broken in pieces. A description as 
full of colour of Josiah's proceedings would have been very 

1 So first Erbt, OLZ, Feb. 1908. 


precious. We may note, by the way, that Mohammed does 
not seem to have shown any hostility to Arabian dolmens, 
which militates against Colonel Conder's theory^ that the 
paucity of such stone monuments in W. Palestine is due to 
the iconoclasm of Josiah. For my own part, I think that 
the amount of Josiah's iconoclasm has been exaggerated. 
To have ordered the universal destruction of bdmoth would 
have been futile ; the order would not have been carried out. 
I base my scepticism on these two grounds. The first is 
the fact that the old Canaanite and N. Arabian cults at 
once regained their prominence on the death of Josiah. A 
similar reaction took place in Egypt on the death of the 
'heretic king' Amen-hotep IV., and its violence unmistak- 
ably shows that the religious revolution set on foot by that 
king had not been at all universal or complete." The second, 
that among the virtual opponents of Josiah were not only 
the partisans of the displaced religion, but also the adherents 
of a diametrically opposite school. It was a school with a 
moral strength out of all proportion to its numbers, and its lead- 
ing member was that lofty prophet and soldier of God, whose 
greatness cannot have been wholly unseen during his lifetime, 
but was first fully recognised after his passing — Jeremiah. 

That Jeremiah, a pioneering thinker, was opposed to 
book-religion will be one of the acquisitions of our next 
chapter. In justice, however, to the school of Hilkiah and 
Josiah, let it be acknowledged that Jeremiah, saintly as he 
was, lacked that faculty of persuasion which the Second 
Isaiah seems to have possessed, and without which Jeremiah 
and his disciples could not possibly have converted the 
unspiritual minds of their countrymen. Nor must our 
inherited prejudices hinder us from assimilating the lesson 
of Jewish history — that it was the combination of legal and 
prophetic elements which alone saved Israel, and enabled 
it to remain unmoved, though not unaltered, amidst the 
tempests of the centuries. 

1 Syrian Stone-lore^ p. 126 ; cp. Vincent, Canaan (1907), p. 423. 

2 Erman, Handbook of Egyptian Religion, p. 64. — ' It is easy to 
understand that for ten or twenty years the new faith actually prevailed, 
at least among the upper classes of the people.' The qualification is 



We have seen that the traditional account of Josiah's 
reformation is in some respects not fully trustworthy, and it 
would be natural to hope that the Book which bears the 
name of Jeremiah would compensate us for our disappoint- 
ment. To some extent it certainly does, but only on con- 
dition of our applying a keen criticism to the contents. 
Scholars like Duhm and Cornill are well aware of this, and 
the experience of the last half-century has taught them to 
distinguish better than their predecessors between that which 
is and that which is not genuine in this prophetic collection. 
They have also, perhaps I may say, learned more fully that 
the non-genuine passages by which a redactor has supple- 
mented the fragmentary relics of the true Jeremiah may 
contain valuable material for the later history of Israel's 

There is one result of recent criticism which is of special 
importance for the history of the reformation. Through 
insufficient criticism of chap, xi., which certainly contains 
some work of Jeremiah's, the French scholar Dahler 
(1825-30) was led to believe that Jeremiah was so friendly 
to the reformation that he actually became an itinerating 
advocate of the claims of Deuteronomy. Not in deference 
to Josiah, but following an inward divine call, he is thought 
to have proclaimed ' all these words {i.e. the words of this 
covenant) in the cities of Judah and in the streets of 
Jerusalem.' The passage on which this view is based is Jer. 
xi. 1-8, which is not only poor in diction and devoid of 



metre,^ but quite out of harmony with what Jeremiah says 
elsewhere. Take for instance Jer. viii. 8, 

How can ye say, We are wise, 
And the torah of Yahweh is with us ? 
Verily, into a lie has he made it ^ 
The lying pen of scribes. 

Could there be a plainer contradiction of those who asserted 
that they had Yahweh's direction in a written form ? And 
how can one who wrote thus have been a friend of 
Deuteronomy and the reformation ? 

Nevertheless, Jeremiah was at one with Josiah in his 
abhorrence of the Baalistic religion established by Manasseh. 
What the religion of Jerusalem was like before the reforma- 
tion can be seen from Jer. ii. 28 ^ (see 0). This is how, 
most probably, the text originally ran, — 

For as many cities as thou hast, 

So many gods hadst thou. 

And as many streets as Jerusalem has, 

So many sacrifices have they burned to Baal. 

Some early scribe altered the text of the fourth line, which 
in the M.T. runs thus, ' so many altars have ye set up to 
Bosheth, altars to burn sacrifices to Baal.' The scribe's 
explanation is perfectly good, only we must restore the name 
of Baal's consort, here miscalled ntDl (Bosheth), to its true 
form n"'i7l» = n"'i'D^J^ one of the titles of the great N. 
Arabian goddess and consort of Baal.^ To Jeremiah, the 
most damning sin of his people is frequenting the house of 
Ashtart. This appears from Jer. xi. 15, where the opening 
words should run, ' What has my beloved to do in the house 
of Ashtart ' ; * also from Jer. v. 7, where the Israelites are 
accused of cutting their flesh (to propitiate the deity) * in the 

1 The most certain prophecies of Jeremiah are distinguished by 
their metrical character. 

2 Reading nw^ with Comill and virtually Duhm. Driver's 'hath 
wrought falsely ' is surely too vague. 

3 See T. and B. p. 1 8. 

* Reading mnry, for nmcv. Cp. on nKB-, Gen. xlix. 3 {T. and B. p. 
500) ; also on Judg. xiii. 19, Hab. i. 7. 

^ Cp. Dt. xiv. I, I K. xviii, 28, Jer. xvi. 6, xli. 5, xlvii. 5, Mic. 
iv. 14. 



house of Sibeonah.^ We may also compare Jer. vii. 17^, 
where, ' in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem * 
the prophet sees the ritual cakes being prepared for the 
' queen of heaven, * ^ i.e. for Ashtart 

On the popular religion of Judah which, as we shall see, 
revived after Josiah's death, I shall speak again in chap. v. 
I have now to follow our only authorities, who pass abruptly 
from the religious revolution to the ill-advised warlike under- 
taking in which Josiah met his death. How gladly would 
we have had more information alike as to the years of peace 
which preceded and as to the disaster itself ! I have already 
treated this subject,^ but must return to it again in this 

The text of 2 K. xxiii. 29 runs thus, — ' In his days 
Pharaoh-Neko, king of Egypt, went up against the king of 
Assyria to the river Euphrates ; and king Josiah went to 
meet him ; and he slew him at Megiddo when he saw him.' 

A number of questions now suggest themselves. Thus, 
with regard to Josiah. (i) Was it ambition that stimulated 
him (p. 26), an ambition which may have been strengthened 
by the belief that Yahweh was now on good terms with his 
people ? It may have seemed worth while even to run a 
considerable risk for the prize of the hegemony of the peoples 
of Palestine. It is probable, however, that Josiah's ambition 
was of a more limited range, and was satisfied by the 
occupation of the N. Arabian border-land. (2) Did Josiah 
fight among other Assyrian vassals against the foe of his 
suzerain ? * But the growing dangers which now beset 
Assyria must surely have incapacitated its king from putting 
any pressure upon Palestinian rulers. Ever since the death 
of Ashur-bani-pal ' the air must have been filled with 
rumours of rebellion and with murmurs of dread concerning 
the future.' ^ Or (3) Did several Phoenician and Palestinian 

^ njit is a corruption, probably not undesigned, of njyx i.e. njiyax. 
Sibeon = Ishmael (7*. and B. p. 19, n. i). 

2 But see T. and B. p. 18. 

3 ' The Decline of the Kingdom of Judah,' Nineteenth Century and 
After, May 1908, pp. 8 1 1-8 18. 

* W. Max Miiller, Studien zur vordcrasiat. Gesckic/tte, p. S4/-i cp. 
£. Bib., ' Necho.' 

^ Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria, ii. 285. 


princes combine on their own account against the new 
would-be suzerain under the leadership of Josiah ? 

Next, with regard to ' Pharaoh - Neko.' There are 
arguments which have to be considered both for and against 
the traditional view. It must be admitted that an ambitious 
Egyptian king might well determine to profit by the decay 
of Assyria, and revive the ancient claims of Egypt to the 
overlordship of Syria and Palestine, The sovereign of 
Egypt at this time was Ne-ka-u or Niku ( = Heb. Neko) II., 
the son and successor of Psametik I. (26th dynasty). His 
enterprising character is sufficiently clear ^ from Herodotus 
(ii. 158 /[), who states, near the end of his eulogy, that 
Nekds ' made war by land on the Syrians, and defeated 
them in a pitched battle at Magdolon, after which he took 
Kadytis, a large city of Syria.' That the Syrians here 
referred to are the Assyrians,^ seems most unlikely ; the 
battle intended is most probably that in which Josiah fell, 
only the scene of the contest is, not Megiddo, but Migdol. 
There were of course many Migdols ; Winckler thinks of 
Caesarea ; my own view will be mentioned presently. As to 
Kadytis, in Herod, iii. 5 it is thought to be Gaza; here, 
according to PraSek,^ it is Kadesh on the Orontes. This, 
however, depends on our general view of the narrative. 

To the statement of Herodotus we may add the evidence 
of a small monument found (it is said) at Sidon. It is a 
fragment of a thin tablet of basalt, on which is part of a 
royal figure holding staff and mace. In front of this is a 
scrap of a cartouche with the legs of a bird remaining.* The 
cartouche is that of Niku II. The fragment having probably 
been found at Sidon suggests that in Phoenicia at any rate 
Niku had acted as suzerain. 

I am afraid, however, that neither Herodotus nor the 
basalt slab supplies perfectly decisive evidence. The * father 
of history ' had no immunity from error. In the present 
case he may have confounded a little-known N. Arabian 

^ The circumnavigation of Africa is now proved by Bouriant's 

2 S. Reinach, Re^me archeologique^ xxvii. 366. 

^ Forschungen zur Gesch. des Alter/hums, ii. pp. ^ /• 

4 F. LI. Griffith, ' A Relic of Pharaoh Necho from Phoenicia,' PSBA, 
Jan. 1894, pp. \o f. 


king with a well-known king of Egypt, just as, in ii. 141, he 
or his authority apparently confounded a little-known king 
of the Arabian Asshurites with a well-known king of Assyria.^ 
And as to the slab of basalt, it will only prove that Niku 
had close relations with Sidon, not that he defeated Josiah, 
and became suzerain, as the M.T. of xxiv. 7 tells us, of the 
territory between the torrent of Egypt and the river 

Against the opinion that NikO really did what he is 
commonly represented to have done, these arguments may 
be adduced, (i) It is not in itself probable that an Egyptian 
king should have intervened in the affairs of Palestine with- 
out there being any reference to this in the prophetic writings. 
On a close critical examination of the occurrences of D'^nSD 
in the prophets, we find that by this name not Egypt, but 
the N. Arabian Musr or Musri is generally intended. Of 
references to a possible Egyptian domination of Judah there 
is no trace. It is true, the prophets do not mention every- 
thing, nor have we all that they wrote. But what external 
evidence of such a domination is there ? (2) There are only 
two cases of the prefixing of ^r2?^D to the name of a king ot 
D'^nSQ ; ' Pharaoh-Neko' is one, * Pharaoh-Hophra ' is the 
other. Now Hophra (see p. 80) forms no part of the true 
text of Jer. xliv. 30 ; it is probable therefore that Neko too 
should be omitted. r7I?^D should probably be li;*iD, * the 
name (as we may suppose) of some Misrite king who became 
famous. At any rate, it (Pir'u) was the name of a king of 
Musri in Sargon's time.'^ 3. In 2 K. xxiii. 34 we are told 
that the Misrite king changed the Judaite king's birth-name 
Eliakim to Jehoiakim. Had the suzerain been an Egyptian, 
he would have given his vassal a name connecting him in 
some way, secular or religious, with Egypt. 4. In the 
parallel, 2 Chr. xxxv. 21, Neko sends a message to Josiah, 
which, from a religious point of view,^ would be entirely 

1 See E. Bib., ' Sennacherib,' § 5 ; Crit. Bib. p. 393. The Sethos 
of Herodotus is surely Seti, and not, as PraSek supposes, Taharka, nor, 
as W. M. Miiller {Eg. Researches, p. 33), Merneptah. 

2 T. and B. p. 223. 

' Note the emphatic reference to Elohim, and cp. an Asshurite's 
reference to Yahweh in 2 K. xviii. 25 (see p. 89). 


congenial to that king. Surely the writer on whom the 
Chronicler depends had in view, not a king of Egypt, but 
one in some respects not unlike the N. Arabian king or 
chieftain Abimelech in Gen. xx.^ 

We see, then, that there is evidence both for and against 
an Egyptian intervention in Judah, and it may not un- 
reasonably be held that the arguments against it are on the 
whole the weightier. That the final editors or redactors of 
Kings and Chronicles, and of the headings of Jer. xlvi. and 
xlvii., believed in that intervention, may be granted, but we 
cannot tie ourselves to their opinions or surmises. It is 
possible that, like Herodotus, they made a confusion between 
two different kings. The king who really intervened was a 
Misrite of N. Arabia, but they, like Herodotus, confounded 
him with a better known king of Misraim. The textual 
results of this view are, that Par'oh should probably be Pir'u,^ 
that Neko (Nekoh) should be omitted, that Misraim should 
be Misrim, that Karkemish (Chronicles, Hebrew but not 
Greek) is miswritten or substituted for Rekem - Kush ^ 
( = Kushite Yarham), that Megiddo should be Migdol (one 
of the southern Migdols ; see Jer. xliv. i, for a Misrite 
Migdol), and that the highly improbable phrase (2 K. 
xxiii. 29) inN iriNnS, ' when he saw him,' should be corrected 
in the light of the preceding emendations. Exegetically, too, 
some changes are necessary. Asshur is not Assyria,* but 
the territory of a king who at any rate claimed to be 
suzerain of all the Yerahme'elite kingdoms, including Misrim. 
Perath is not the Euphrates but the Ephrath, a N. Arabian 

And now as to the words in 2 K. xxiii. 29, in which the 
latest commentator finds the suggestion of an assassination, 
paraphrasing, ' the Egyptians killed him (Josiah) in Megiddo 
as soon as he came within sight of their king.' ^ One would 
be sorry if criticism could do no better than that ! From 

1 See further below. 2 7; and B. p. 223. 

8 Ibid, pp. 170/, 179. ■* Ibid. pp. 171- 173. 

* Ibid. pp. 91, 262 ; and below, on Dt. i. 7. 

6 Barnes, Kings (Cambr. Bible), 1908, p. 316. Winckler and 
Benz. suggest 'ibk riKnna, which is improbable. See also E. Bib. col. 
261 1 (n. I). 


our point of view, and granting the value of experience of 
recurring types of corruption, the text which has most 
probability leaps into view. iriN is a dittograph which 
arose after the preceding word had been corrupted. That 
word is the astonishing inNl3. iriMT has come by trans- 
position from TinN, and this (one letter being dropped, as in 
nn>< from intDN) represents TintDN, an incorrect form of 
nntDN. D, naturally, has come from l. Thus Josiah fell ' in 
Ashtar.' The place or region was, or had been, dedicated 
to the god Ashtar (the masc. of Ashtart). ' It was against 
such a deity that Josiah had striven. But what did the. 
place-name matter, if only the dangerous N. Arabian cults 
were abolished ' ? That Ashtar is sometimes = Asshur and 
Ashhur, has been pointed out elsewhere ; ^ it is one of the 
regional names of the N. Arabian border-land. 

That names such as Misrim, Asshur, Ashtar, were used 
by the Hebrew writers with historical precision, no scholar 
would assert. A change in the dominant race involves the 
introduction of new ethnics and regional names. Still the 
old names are tenaciously preserved by neighbouring 
peoples and used by their writers. Nor could I, of course, 
maintain that 2 Chr. xxxv. 2 1 f. correctly represents the 
relation of the two religions — the Judaite and the con- 
temporary ' Misrite.' According to this passage, the Misrite 
king knows and reveres Elohim {i.e. Yahweh), from whom he 
receives oracles, either directly, through travelling prophets 
of Yahweh (cp. Elijah, i K. xix. 15), or indirectly, through 
information, somehow obtained, as to Hebrew prophecies 
against Asshur'"^ (cp. Cyrus's reference to H. Isaiah, 2 Chr. 
xxxvi. 23). 

I will now endeavour to sketch the outlines of the 
historical and exegetical picture. At the end of Josiah's 
reign the king of Misrim conceived the idea of annexing 
the N. Arabian borderland of Judah. This territory was 
claimed by the king of Asshur, but had been occupied by 

1 T. and B. p. 70. 

2 I Esd. i. 28, ' Howbeit Josias . . . presumed to fight with him, 
not regarding the words of the prophet Jeremias (spoken) by the mouth 
of the Lord.' Jeremiah, however, does not seem well-chosen (cp. Jer. 
xlvi. i/). 


Josiah, as the vassal of the Asshurite suzerain. In this 
capacity, and perhaps with the help of Asshurite troops, 
Josiah went out in the direction of the stream of Ephrath, 
to meet the Misrites.^ The battle-field was near a Migdol, 
or fortified tower, in a district called Rekem-Kush or Ashtar. 
Josiah was mortally wounded, and had to be conveyed to 
Jerusalem in another chariot. A comparison of 2 Chr. 
XXXV. 24 with Gen. xli. 43 enables us to say what this 
chariot was ; it was one of those which passed among the 
Israelites as ' Ishmael-chariots ' ^ (see p. 18). In an earlier 
form of the text it was merely stated that Josiah's men 
removed him (his own command was, ' Remove me ') to 
Jerusalem on the Ishmael-chariot which he had. He died, 
universally mourned (2 Chr. xxxv. 24). How highly 
Jeremiah respected him, we shall see later. 

The tragedy of this king's death may be variously 
interpreted. It is often held to consist in the disappoint- 
ment of his earnest faith that having obeyed the prescriptions 
of legal righteousness he was sure of the divine protection 
against his enemies. But it may also be considered to arise 
from the fact which we have just now brought to light that 
Josiah sacrificed his life in the cause of a foreign despot, 
whom all in Judah but a few interested partisans agreed in 
hating. The evidence of this strong national feeling is to 
be derived from the prophets. This may seem to many 
impossible, but a keen scrutiny will show that Nahum, for 
instance, is thinking, not of Assyria but of Asshur when he 
says (iii. 19), 'All that hear the report of thee shall clap 
the hands over thee.' 

Certainly it is of N. Arabia that he is thinking when he 
bids Nineveh, or the city whose name underlies ' Nineveh,' 
take warning by the fate of No-Amon (iii. 8-1 i). If I may 
be allowed a brief digression, this appears from two parallel 
and interdependent passages, which Nahum evidently has in 

^ Observe, it is not said, as we should have expected, 'and the 
king of Asshur went to meet him,' but ' and king Josiah went to meet 
him ' ; so ' king Josiah ' must in some sense be equivalent to ' the king 
of Asshur.' 

•^ On the rarity of chariots in Judah see Duhm on Isa. xxii. 18 ; the 
passage, however, originally said nothing of chariots. For tiu3 m33-o 
read nmup, « thy sepulchre.' 


mind. The first is Isa. x. 9-11,^ where Asshur iv. 5), i,e, 
the king of Asshur (which, as a gloss tells us, is ' in 
Yarham ' ^) arrogantly declares that, as he has done to 
certain other cities, so he will now do to Jerusalem. Where 
are those other cities ? A careful scrutiny shows that they 
are in N. Arabia. Jerusalem, says the king, cannot expect 
to fare better at the hands of the N, Arabian Asshur than 
Kalno (?) and Rekem-Kush, Hamath and Arpakshad, 
Shimron and Ramshak. The second is Am. vi. 2,^ where 
the Israelites are bidden to study the fate of Kalneh (?), 
Hamath of Arabia, Gath of the Pelethites. Except 
Jerusalem, all the cities spoken of in these passages are 
most probably N. Arabian. It is therefore a priori likely 
that No-Amon in Nah. iii. 8 is a corruption of some N. 
Arabian place-name. That it can hardly be the Egyptian 
Thebes, W. Max Muller has shown ; * some city in the 
Delta, standing on a mound and surrounded by canals, 
would be more conceivable. 

If we are right (as surely we are) in grouping the three 
parallel passages, and interpreting them on the same lines, it 
is plain that unless there is any strong objection drawn from 
the rest of Nahum (omitting the spoiled alphabetic poem at 
the beginning), the city of the oppressors is in N. Arabia, 
and presumably one of the chief cities of the Asshurite 
kingdom. As for objections, the strongest (if correct) would 
be the occurrence in Nah. iii. 17 of two Assyrian loan-words 
under the forms ni3D and nDDlD. The Assyriological 
explanations,^ however, though tempting, are not suitable 
enough, and against these supposed indications of Assyria 
may be placed several possible or probable references to 
N. Arabia.® ' Nineveh ' therefore, in ii. 8, iii. 7, must be a 

^ Karkemish is no doubt a real name, but it is substituted here for 
nropn (see p. 37). ibik is a short way of writing nrsBiK, on which see 
T. and B. p. 178. prDT = nrDn {T. and B. p. 249). 

2 DT3 Kin should be cnrz win. That Kin often introduces a gloss, is 
well-known. See Introduction. 

2 Underneath nan ncn lies probably a^^ 'n ; under DTir"?!! lies dt'jb, i.e. 
D''?v3nK (7". and B. p. 192 ; and cp. on ' Tophel,' Dt. i. i). 

< E. Bib., ' No-Amon.' 

5 See Crif. Bid. p. 169 ; E. Bid., ' Scribe,' § 4. 

* E.£^. DnKD, D'yVnD, and t^inn (ii. 4), which are probably corrupt 
fragments of N. Arabian ethnics. Also the place-names in iii. 8 / 


corruption. The original name can most probably still be 
traced underneath it. The initial « is a dittograph ; what 
follows should be read * Yewanah ' (rr^T). It is a feminine 
form of tV = ]D^, a shortened form of ^ndjit.^ All that 
need be added is, that, as the heading informs us, Nahum, 
like Huldah the prophetess, was an Israelite of North 

The digression is over. Has it not become evident that 
if any Hebrew poet, projecting himself into the future, raised 
a song of triumph over the fall of Nineveh, it was not 
Nahum ? Also that for anything that we have lost we 
have been adequately compensated ? A prophetic song of 
triumph over N. Arabian oppressors is not to be undervalued. 
And we can see now that there was an added bitterness in 
the lamentations for Josiah in the thought that he fell in the 
cause of an abhorred tyrant. And yet, if he had not gone 
out to contend with the Misrites, might not some worse 
thing have happened ? For, not without excuse, dread of 
the Asshurites oppressed the minds of all the people of 
Judah. Jeremiah himself gives the most powerful descrip- 
tions of the foe, one of which I will quote.^ 

Behold, he cometh up as clouds, | and like a whirlwind are 
his chariots ; 

Swifter than eagles are his horses ; woe unto us ! we are 
destroyed (iv. i 3). 

Bow and spear they grasp, [ cruel are they, without com- 
passion ; 

Their voice roareth as the sea, | on horses do they ride. 

Arrayed like a man for war | against thee, O maiden 

We have heard the report thereof ; | our hands slacken ; 

Anguish hath seized us, ] pain as of a woman with child. 

Go not forth into the field, | nor walk in the way, 

For there is the sword of the foeman. | {Gloss, Gomer 

^ See Introduction, and cp. T. and B. pp. \bo /., 188. 

2 ' Nahum the Elkoshite ' should be ' Nahum the AshkaUte.' On 
Ashkal, see T. and B. pp. 18 (n. 4), 23, 40 (n. 3). 

3 It will be noticed that for a'aoo iud I read '20' lai ; cp, oa;, the 
name of a branch of the Ishmaelites. 


O my people, gird thee with sackcloth, | wallow in ashes. 
Make for thee the mourning of an only son, | bitter 
lamentation (vi. 23-26 <a:). 

Again and again the invasion is spoken of, and even 
Jeremiah's supplementers knew how to write what, except in 
form and style, recalls Jeremiah. It is from Saphon that 
the invasion comes (see Jer. i. 13-15, vi. i, 22); all are 
agreed about that. To render ' the north ' introduces an 
intolerable vagueness ; a large number of passages (see e.g. 
Isa. xiv. 13, xiv. 31, Jer. xlvi. 6, Ezek. xxxviii. 6), have 
become obscure in consequence. Saphon is really the name 
of a region ; it is a dialect form of Sibe'on, i.e. Ishmael.^ A 
passage from Zephaniah (ii. 1 2 /), who must have been 
contemporary with Jeremiah, will further illustrate, not only 
this point, but also the strong feeling of the time against the 
N. Arabian peoples called (loosely enough, probably) Kush 
and Asshur. 

Ye too, O Kushites, (shall be) [ slain by my sword. 

And I will turn my hand against Saphon, | and destroy 

Asshur ; 
And I will make Yewanah [see p. 41] a desolation, | dry 

like the wilderness. 

The two following verses ^ are also interesting. Verse i 5 
indeed must be a later insertion, but it is at any rate a 
judicious one. Just as t/. 14 has points of contact with the 
oracle on Babel in Isa. xiii., so has z;. i 5 with the taunting 
song on Babel in Isa. xlvii. To appreciate this, let us 
remember that Yewanah and Babel both belong to the great 
kingdom of Nimrod (Gen. x. \o f^ often spoken of as 
Asshur, but also sometimes, by a lax usage, as Babel. By 
good fortune the ' exultant city ' of Zeph. ii. i 5 is explained 
by a gloss to be ' the city of Yewanah.' The gloss pene- 
trated into the text of iii. i , the words m*!"* T^i? being misread 

1 T.and B. pp. 32, 50 (n. 3). Ishmael, or Yerahme'el, and Asshur 
may be used in a wide sense. 

2 I leave the strophes (see Marti) undetermined. 


by the redactor rrDV T":?, after which each word was provided 
with an article.^ 

Such was the feeling towards the troublesome peoples 
of N. Arabia not unnaturally entertained by their less 
warlike neighbours. Let us now pass on to the unhappy 
story of Josiah's successors. 

^ The other occurrences of r^y^ (Kal) are in Jer. xlvi. 16, 1. 16, and 
no doubt also Jer. xxv. 38. In each case we should read 'jvri ain, 'the 
sword of the Yawanite.' On 'Yawan' see Introduction. 






It was a perilous time. The king had been defeated and 
had died of his wound, and no one could tell what would be 
the conqueror's conditions of peace. The 'people of the 
land' — those who were freemen and proprietors — took 
Jehoahaz, a son of Josiah, and anointed him as king 
(2 K. xxiii. 30, 2 Chr. xxxvi. i). He was twenty-three 
years old. The ' epitome 'in 2 K. xxiii. 3 2 speaks badly 
of him ; doubtless in the same sense, and with as much or 
as little cause, as in the case of his successor Jehoiachin. 
For reasons of his own the Misrite king was discontented 
with Jehoahaz. Perhaps of his own accord, or perhaps sent 
for, Jehoahaz went to the Misrite head-quarters at Riblah 
in the land of Hamath. We must remember that there was 
a southern as well as a northern Hamath ; ^ most probably 
there was also a southern Riblah ; both names seem to be 
Yerahme'elite.^ The alternative is to suppose that we have 
here a mixture of the reports of two distinct invasions, one 
Egyptian, the other N. Arabian. 

Three months, no more, had the reign of Jehoahaz (or 

^ See 7". and B. p. 196. 'Riblah' is generally supposed to have 
been on Israel's ideal northern or north-eastern border (Num. xxxiv. 11, 
Ezek. vi. 14). In Ezek. xlvii. 16 Hamath seems to take the place of 
Riblah. See E. Bib., ' Riblah.' 

2 Cp. ^yai' and hz-». 



Shallum ; see p. 49) lasted. Very possibly it was not so 
much * the people of the land ' who made him king, as a 
royal lady, whose combined energy and ambition check- 
mated the adherents of Josiah's eldest son. This lady was 
Jehoahaz's mother Hamutal piDinn), who, in Ezek. xix. 2, 
is represented allegorically as a lioness.^ She was also the 
mother of the well-meaning but incapable Zedekiah, to 
whom we shall return. Her name may be connected with 
the southern place-name Hamath (see above) ; cp. rriODn, 
Josh. XV. 54. Her favourite son Jehoahaz was succeeded 
by Neko's nominee Jehoiakim, who was twenty-five years 
old, and whose mother was named Zebudah.^ It is this 
lady who is referred to in Jer. xiii. 1 8 as * Mistress,' this 
being the title of that exalted personage the queen-mother. 
The king's own name had been Eliakim ; the Misrite king 
(more competent, surely, than the Egyptian Niku) changed 
it to the equally Judaite name Jehoiakim ^ (cp. 2 K. 
xxiv. 1 7). This was merely a sign of his overlordship ; we 
can hardly suppose, with Professor H. P. Smith, that a 
contrast is intended between the meaning of * Jehoahaz ' 
and that of 'Jehoiakim.' Regarding these names as 
religious, there is no substantial difference between them. 

Jehoiakim is reported to have reigned eleven years."* 
His first business was to raise a large sum of money either 
as a war-fine or (Winckler's opinion) as an acknowledgment 
of the conqueror's royal grace in placing him on the throne. 
It is disappointing that so little should be told us in 2 Kings 
of this important period. Fortunately we are helped by 
the Book of Jeremiah, for though narratives from the 
prophet's biography cannot be trusted in all details, yet 
we may assume that they have at any rate more or less 
foundation in traditional facts. The Book also contains 
(see p. 32), genuine prophecies of Jeremiah, and these are 
of course first-rate historical sources. 

1 See Kraetzschmar, Ezechiel^ ad loc. 

2 Cp. Zabud (I K. iv. 5), Zebadiah (son of Yeroham = Yarham, 
I Chr. xii. 7 ; in Ezra viii. 8, son of Mika'el = Yerahme'el). 

3 Eliakim interchanges with Jehoiakim as Ilubi'di with Yaubi'di 
(names of a king of Hamath). 

* See 2 K. xxiii. 36 ; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 5. Kittel questions the tradition. 
In fact our evidence is too scanty to permit either affirmation or denial. 


It is best, wherever this can be done, not to mix up 
heterogeneous material. Let us therefore begin with some 
narratives and prophecies from the Book referred to. This 
involves putting Jeremiah very much in the foreground, but 
how can we avoid doing so ? The evidence before us 
clearly shows that Jehoiakim and Jeremiah were the two 
great powers in the land, even though the action of the 
latter was not marked by the usual signs of success. What 
Jeremiah was, we have seen ; he belonged neither to Hilkiah's 
reforming party, nor to the party of the heathen reaction ; 
one thing he did, both in season and out of season, he 
preached the necessity of spiritual conversion. Jehoiakim, 
on the other hand, was the impersonation of the Baalistic 
revival. His name, it is true, may plausibly be offered as 
evidence for his Yahwism, and the narrative in chap, xxxvi. 
may be taken to imply that he was no Baal -worshipper. 
But while not denying that Yahu is one element in the 
king's religious name, I cannot hold that Jehoiakim is rightly 
described as a Yahwist. It is certain from Jer. vii. 9, 1 8 ^ 
that the people at large worshipped Baal and Ashtart, as 
well as ' other gods ' ; the reference surely is to the early 
part of Jehoiakim's reign, when the reaction was again in 
full force. 

Into the question of the position of Baal and Ashtart in 
astral mythology we need not enter at length. Inscriptions 
appear to suggest that at a late period Yerahmeel ( = Ba'al) 
was identified with the sun-god, and many besides Schrader 
(/.f.) have taken Ashtart to be the moon-goddess, in spite of 
the fact that the Babylonian Ishtar was connected with 
Venus. Theologians may have seen the sun and moon 
deities in Ba'al and Ashtart, but the people at large, always 
conservative, doubtless retained earlier conceptions, even if 
some of them were inconsistent, also a popular failing. She 
was above all, the goddess of fertility, and we can well 
understand what treasures of love and gratitude were poured 
out upon the Dodah or friend (p. 54). But to those whose 
view of religion was fundamentally ethical, Ashtart was not 
a good but an evil goddess. The consecrated prostitutes 

' Cp. Schrader, Sitzungsber. der kbnigl. Preuss. Akad.y 1886, 
xxviii. II ; Zimmem, KAT^^\ p. 441. 


belonged to her, and how much the ethical religionists 
abhorred the custom referred to, we see again and again. 
To admit such a deity as Ashtart into the Divine Company 
was revolting.^ That the people beloved of Yahweh should 
be found in the house of Ashtart (Jer. xi. 15, see p. 33), 
was an insult to Yahweh. What indeed was a Yahweh 
who would tolerate Ashtart as his companion ? How could 
such a Yahweh be the God of Israel ? 

In Jer. xxxvi. we have a record, partly fact, partly fancy, 
of a duel between the representatives of the two Yahwehs, 
not unlike the great contest, now in the remote past, between 
Ahab and Elijah. Certainly the combatants do not meet 
face to face, but Jehoiakim knows full well that the roll 
which he treats with a kind of personal hatred has been 
dictated by Jeremiah, and in fact makes an attempt to 
arrest Jeremiah and his scribe {v. 26). The date of the 
occurrence is the fifth year of Jehoiakim, an important year 
as we shall see later. The occasion is the recitation of the 
contents of a roll of prophecies. A temple-fast is about to 
be proclaimed for the citizens of Jerusalem and for any of 
the country-folk who may come in. Jeremiah seizes the 
opportunity for making public the summary of his dis- 
courses which his scribe has lately written. He cannot 
indeed do this himself; for some reason he considers 
himself forbidden to enter the temple. But Baruch is ready 
to be his deputy. A room is offered to him within the 
sacred precincts that he may read the prophecies in public. 
Afterwards the princes in their council -chamber send for 
Baruch. They too desire to hear the roll, but when they 
have heard it they seem to regret their temerity, for, we are 
told, they turn tremblingly one to another, and say to 
Baruch, ' We will surely report all these words to the king.' 

' We all know the sequel. Jehoiakim sends for the 
scroll. It is December ; Jehoiakim is sitting in the " winter 
house," and there is a fire burning in the fire-pan or brasier. 

1 The male deity Asshur might have been less glaringly repulsive. 
Once indeed (Jer. xvii. 2) Jeremiah speaks against asherlm { = asshiirtm^ 
symbols of Asshur), but in the genuine prophecies of Isaiah they are 
not once mentioned. See below, on Dt. xii. 2 ; Cheyne, Introd. to Bk. 
of Isaiah, p. 93 ; T. and B. pp. 24/. 


A group of courtiers stands in the background. Jehudi 
comes forward and reads first one column, then another, and 
then another. But the proud king can bear it no longer ; 
he rises, he steps forward — three high officers in vain attempt 
to check him — he snatches the scroll from the reader's hands, 
— he cuts it, with a cruel kind of pleasure, into piece after 
piece, and throws it into the fire. Then, as he watches the 
curling fragments, he dispatches three other high officers to 
arrest the prophet and the scribe on a charge of high 
treason.' ^ 

The details of chap, xxxvi. have been much questioned. 
The second narrative which I have to mention is a simpler 
one, and is equally instructive as an illustration of 
Jehoiakim's attitude towards the prophet. It is to be found 
in Jer. xxvi., and the address which Jeremiah, according to 
this narrative, delivered in the temple, appears to form some 
part of Jer. vii. 3-viii. 3.^ The date of the episode is placed 
(see Jer. xxvi. i) 'in the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim'; 
any specially important words in this address may therefore 
very possibly have been repeated on that other critical 
occasion described in chap, xxxvi. 

* It appears that some great festival, or possibly fast, 
had brought together a large number of people from all 
quarters to the temple, and that Jeremiah was directed to 
stand between the inner and outer court and address them. 
. . . When they heard these echoing words of relentless 
doom, " This temple shall become like Shiloh," ' they seized 
him. But in the nick of time a fresh power appeared on the 
scene — the " princes," or high officers of the state, who came 
up from their place of deliberation in the " king's house " 
(v. 10 ; cp. xxxvi. 12) and apparently the "elders," some of 
whom had doubtless taken part in Josiah's reformation. 
Jeremiah in dignified terms defended his own right to 
prophesy, and warned the people of the consequences of 
their act* How the * princes ' interfered, denying the 

^ Cheyne, /eremiaA, his Life and Times, p. 144. 

2 Duhm, however, thinks that Jer. vii. 3-15 gives the most correct 
idea of Jeremiah's address. 

3 See T. and B. pp. 502/. 

* Chtyn^ Jeremiah, etc., pp. 115, 120. 


existence of a crime, and how certain elders appealed, in 
Jeremiah's interest, to the precedent of Micaiah or Micah 
(cp. Mic. iii. 1 2) need not be related anew. It is noteworthy 
that Jehoiakim is not here said to have interposed ; presum- 
ably he endorsed the decision. Here we may pause, trusting 
that, even though not from Jeremiah's hand, a true tradition 
lies at the heart of it. 

But without the shadow of a doubt we may refer to a 
cycle of beautiful poems (xxii. 10-19, 24, 28, 30 [part]) as 
historical authorities and as faithful representations of 
Jeremiah's attitude towards the kings. For they are 
admittedly Jeremiah's work. They contain portraits of the 
kings Jehoahaz (here called Shallum), Jehoiakim, and 
Jehoiachin (here called Coniahu). There is also an incidental 
eulogy of Josiah, in whose death the poet sees no call for 
beating of the breast in lamentation.^ I shall here consider 
only the portraits of the first two of these kings, reserving 
that of Jehoiachin for a later page. 

I need hardly remind the student that the central poem 
(that on Jehoiakim) is so extremely difficult in our text that 
almost all commentators allow themselves the liberty of 
emendation. It is all the more pleasant to admit that in 
the short elegy on Shallum {vv. 10-12) the meaning is 
transparently clear. This, however, is partly due to an 
interpolated gloss, which spoils the metre, while it gratifies 
the expositor. It is on the name Shallum, and informs us 
that it was this king who ' reigned instead of his father 
Josiah,' and who 'went forth from this place,' so that 
Shallum must be the birth-name, and the (to us) more 
familiar Jehoahaz the royal or accession-name of Josiah's 
successor. Of the young prince's character the poet says 
nothing ; what were three months either for forming or for 
showing a character ? But what he does say is at any rate 
sympathetic, i.e. it reveals a sense of the pathos of Shallum's 
fate. And in some degree this may be affirmed of Ezekiel 
(xix. 1-4). Surely such glimpses of contemporary feeling 
infuse new life into the dry statements of chronicles and 

Of the successor of Jehoahaz Jeremiah gives us a more 

1 Contrast 2 Chr. xxxv. 25, ' and Jeremiah lamented for Josiah.' 



definite appreciation, though the details cause much trouble 
to the commentators. The usual view is thus summarised 
by Prof. H. P. Smith.^ ' At a time when his kingdom was 
impoverished by the exactions of Egypt, he was possessed 
by the royal mania for building. He was more concerned 
to vie with Ahab [see Note] in the beauty of his palace, 
" panelled with cedar and painted with vermilion," than he 
was to follow his father's example in administering justice.' 
I confess that I cannot find this view satisfactory. Certainly, 
to build elegant palaces in the newest style at such a time — 
when all that part of the East was in a ferment — would 
have been as blameworthy as Nero's fiddling when Rome 
was burning. But is it likely that Jehoiakim's offence was 
mere frivolity or blindness to the signs of the times ? The 
commentators, it is true, admit that the received text is 
rather uncertain. It is far more than this, it is so improbable 
that it demands a thorough re-examination. To refer here 
only to a single detail. Why should Jehoiakim be censured 
for vying with Ahab or Ahaz, when either Solomon or some 
foreign king (say Nebuchadrezzar) was so very much more 
clearly marked out as the lover of cedar-wood ? 

I venture to hope that at least some of my new 
suggestions may approximate to the truth. I hold that the 
original text of the passage contained references to certain 
fortified places captured by Jehoiakim. These references 
became indistinct (though Ferdinand Hitzig, many centuries 
after, to some extent divined them) owing to corruption of 
the text ; indeed, the whole context offers problems which 
urgently need a new and more methodical treatment. 
Evidently the passage was already corrupt when it reached 
the final editor of Jeremiah, who, to produce an apparent 
sense, skilfully manipulated or revised the material, without, 
however, removing all traces of the original text. What 
that text contained, I have endeavoured to show. It was 
not palaces but fortresses to which Jehoiakim directed his 
attention. Josiah, as we have seen, had occupied the portions 
of the N. Arabian border-land which had formerly belonged 
at intervals to the kingdom of Israel. This territory had to 
be protected against N. Arabian raids, and Jehoiakim was 
1 Old Testament History, p. 282. 


enough of a king to recognise the duty of fortifying it. In 
this he did but follow the example of an earlier king of 
Judah (Jotham), who is reported to have built ' castles and 
forts ' in his own portion of the region vaguely called Ashhur.^ 
It was all the more necessary to do this because of his 
obligation to pay an annual tribute to his Misrite suzerain. 

The fortifications were not perhaps on a large scale, but 
even so they could not have been erected without that forced 
labour so characteristic of the East.^ One of the fortresses 
was probably at the place called Beth-Melek, a corrupt form 
which has come, through Beth-Rakmal ( = Beth-Karmel), 
from Beth-Yerahme'el ;^ the place seems to have been 
equally coveted by Israelites and N. Arabians, and therefore 
to have been the scene of many a conflict. In Jer. 
xxii. 6 it is called Beth-Melek-Yehudah, doubtless an 
impossible name, which cannot be correctly written.* The 
probability is that both here and in 2 K. xxiii. 8 (see p. 28), 
'lirf has been miswritten for 'm*', i.e. hwdTW. The 
explanation is all the more plausible, because now and only 
now do we understand the phrase in Jer. xxii. 6b^ ' I will 
make thee . . . cities not inhabited ? The meaning of this 
phrase, so baffling to most commentators, is, that Beth-Melek 
and its dependent towns will soon have to share the same 
terrible fate.^ 

Let us now return to the fortifications and the forced 
labour. The corvee may be an institution of venerable 
antiquity, but the prophet likes it none the better ; evidently 
he is of the same school as the describer of the ' manner of 

1 2 Chr. xxvii. 4. For ''cinai read iinrNai. 

2 On Hammurabi's ^£'rj'd?V, see Johns, Bab. and Ass. Laivs^ etc., 318. 

3 That ■i'?D and Sma both sometimes come from ^xcnr, has been 
indicated already. ' Beth-Yerahme'el ' was also called ' Beth-Hakkerem' 
(Jer. vi. I, Neh. iii. 14), and perhaps ' Beth-Arbel' (Hos. x. 14). The 
last-cited passage may serve as a commentary on Jer. xxii. 6/. 

^ Duhm renders, ' For thus saith Yahweh on the house of the king 
of Judah ' ; Cornill, ' ... on the royal palace of Judah.' The former 
criticizes the heading as plainly incorrect ; a royal house cannot become 
' uninhabited cities.' The latter expatiates further on the impossibility. 
Oh, these poor supplementers and redactors ! How absurd they often 
are ! But may not the fault sometimes lie in ourselves ? 

^ To avoid misunderstanding it may be remarked that Jer. xxii. 1-5 
and vv. 6, 7 have no real connexion. 


the king' in i S. viii. 11-18. Verses 14 and \^a are not 
out of harmony with z'. 1 3, but the difficulties are such as to 
force us to suppose that they have been recast. Our only 
hope of approximately restoring the original lies in turning 
to account familiarity with the habits of the scribes. In the 
following translation of a text oi vv. 13-16 corrected partly 
by this means and partly by consideration of the metre, 
some omissions will be noticed. These, however, are only 
glosses, and will be referred to and justified in the * Note on 
Jer. xxii. 13-19, 24-30.' 

He that buildeth castles with unrighteousness, | and fortresses 

with injustice ; 
That maketh his neighbour work for nought, | and giveth 

him not his wage ; 
That saith, I will build me castles | and forts in Yarham ; 
And he captured for himself Yahlon (?) in Saphon, | and 

Ramshah in Asshur. 
Shalt thou go on reigning, because thou | goest to war with 

Ezrah ? 
Did not thy father perform | judgment and justice ? 
He redressed the wrongs of the poor and needy ; | then he 

fared well ; 
Was not this to know me ? | (This is) Yahweh's oracle. 

It will be noticed that Josiah is praised, not for his 
patriotism, nor yet because he conducted his people to a new 
religious stage, but because, as supreme judge, he did justice 
to the oppressed poor. On the other hand, Jehoiakim is 
blamed, not for any want of patriotism, nor yet for religious 
backsliding, but because his building operations were carried 
on by forced labour. Verse 1 7 is a dull, prosaic sequel. It 
contains a number of vague charges, and, as Cornill points 
out, is probably a redactional insertion, designed to link 
together vv. 13-16 and 18-19. 

The latter passage is probably of later origin than 
w. 13-16, with which it is imperfectly connected by the 
particle "•3, ' for.' The honour of a public mourning is 
refused to the unjust king.^ How he was to die we are not 

1 The case of Jehoram would be a parallel. ' His people made no 
burning for him' (2 Chr. xxi. 19). 


told, but from v. 19 Jeremiah would seem to have anticipated 
some great slaughter or massacre in which Jehoiakim 
perished (cp. Jer. xv. 3). The prophecy is genuine for it 
was not fulfilled (see 2 K. xxiv. 6), and no ' supplementer ' 
would have ventured to produce an unfulfilled prophecy 
(Duhm). The closing words, ' beyond the gates of Jerusalem,' 
are, however, apparently due to such a person ; we can 
hardly suppose Jeremiah to have meant what they say. 
And what is the most interesting point in the whole passage ? 
As it seems to me neither of the two points which have been 
mentioned, but the very strange formulae mentioned here as 
usual in the litany of lamentation. As the Hebrew text 
stands there are two double formulae, {a) hoi dhi and hoi 
dhoth^ and {b) hoi dddn, and hoi hodoh. (3, it is true, gives only 
"n aBe\<f>e and Oifioc Kvpie, but is not to be followed ; the 
translator omits two members because of their diflficulty. 
How is this to be explained ? Shall we suppose with 
Movers that the funeral procession consisted of two parts, 
each condoling with the other ? Or that there is some 
hitherto lost meaning which it is for us, with the help of 
textual criticism, to recover? Surely the latter course is 
preferable, for experience shows that in the hardest cases the 
boldest course has the best chance of success. Let us, then, 
begin with that hard phrase, ' Alas ! his glory.' Is it enough 
to explain with Hitzig, ' because with the death of the king 
his glory is put out ' ? Surely not ; the formulae have to be 
parallel, and the parallel word is nirTN, a feminine form, 
which ought either to be a title or to cover over a proper 
name. From this we infer that underneath mrr there lies 
some other word in the feminine gender analogous in mean- 
ing to niTlN. The word has actually been found by 
Bernhard Duhm, but not been rightly interpreted, for surely 
to render TllM ' aunt,' ^ produces a most unsatisfactory sense. 
Those who are at home in Semitic mythology will at 
once divine the true interpretation. That Dodah is a divine 
name we may assume from the existence of a divine name 
Dod,^ and we find it plainly enough in the inscription of 

1 So Duhm, remarking that among almost all nations the uncle and 
the aunt enjoy only less respect than the father and the mother. 

2 See 71 and B. pp. 46-49, 379. 


Mesha (1. 22), where Ar'al-Dodah is the name of a compound 
deity worshipped by the Gadites, and also very probably by 
the Israelites at large. For we can hardly doubt but that 
Dodah (' beloved ') is another name for the great Canaanitish 
and N. Arabian goddess Ashtart The Canaanitish myth 
of Dodah or Ashtart has not reached us, but we know 
something about the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. The so- 
called ' Descent of Ishtar ' may indeed present a highly 
developed form of the myth, but here — as in the case of 
textual developments — experience may qualify us to discern 
something older that lies underneath. That * something ' 
may perhaps be that Ishtar, the goddess of fertility, passes, 
stript of her glory, into the nether world, and while she is 
there the fertility and productivity of earth and its living 
beings are suspended. In Canaan, too, such a myth may 
have existed, and in connexion with it a ceremony of 
mourning for the vanished goddess. A similar story must 
have been told of the god of vegetation, known as Tamuz, 
and probably also as Adon and Dod.^ Can we doubt any 
longer as to the meaning of Adon and Dodah in the old 
Hebrew litany ? They are the original male and female 
deities of Canaan and N. Arabia. 

Next, as to A^ii and Ahoth. Certainly no ordinary 
brother or sister, whether in the family or in the clan, can 
be meant. We shall not, however, understand the names 
till we recognise that JiN and tin are popular abbreviations 
of TirrN, i.e. TinmN,^ and that niiN and (Gen. xxx. 8) -TTirrN ^ 
may, consistently with recognised phenomena, have come 
from n"jnipN,* a feminine form of -nnB?M. Both Ashhur 
(Ashhor) and Ashhoreth are divine names, equivalent to 
Adon and Dodah. 

But here I must guard the reader from drawing a false 
inference. It is true the formulae in the primitive ritual 
lamentations for the dead god and goddess contained 
the four divine names Ashhur (Ashhor) and Ashhoreth, 

1 See Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. SJZf- 

2 T. andB. pp. 51, 308. 

^ Giesebrecht's reading 'ninK ' my brotherhood ' will hardly find 

* T. and B. p. 377. 


Adon and Dodah. Three of these, however, had most 
probably, before Jeremiah's time, become corrupted into Ahi, 
Ahoth, Hodoh, and Adon might be applied to any human 
king. Thus to the prophet and his contemporaries the 
formulae had no definite meaning, i.e. the collocations of 
words of which the formulae consisted had become symbolic, 
and only suggested the vague idea of an extremely bitter 
lamentation. As a rule they were probably only used in 
public mournings, especially on the occasion of a king's 
death ^ (cp. Jer. xxxiv. 5), which makes it all the more 
interesting that in i K. xiii. 30 the lamentation formula for 
the ' man of God ' who cried against the altar at Bethel is 
"^JlN "•in. It is possible that an eminent personage might 
be honoured at his death with a royal mourning. But 
the authority for this is late and we cannot press it. 

Said I not right that the cycle of beautiful poems is of 
first-rate historical value ? Even the formulae of mourning 
are valuable for the history of religion. 

1 Frazer {Adonis, A fits, Osiris, pp. 1 1 ff.) thinks that at Byblus and 
elsewhere the king was required to personate the god of fertility (Baal 
or Adon) and marry the goddess (Baalath or Ashtart). Was it so in 
Canaan ? 






The beginning of Jehoiakim's reign was probably not 
altogether unhappy. The king was on good terms with 
his suzerain,^ and paid his tribute punctually. He not only 
strengthened the fortresses which he already had in the 
Negeb, but captured two fortified places in the territory of 
Asshur. The gracious goddess Ashtart seemed to have 
befriended her worshippers, so that when strict Yahwists 
spoke up for a sterner morality such as the Yahwistic law- 
books — notably Deuteronomy — required, their advice was 
received coldly. ' I spoke to thee in thy careless ease,' 
says Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah, ' but thou saidst, 
I will not hear.' But the time was close at hand when 
that pleasant insouciance would have to be exchanged for 
the dread of coming evil. This is what the composite 
narrative in 2 K, xxiv. tells us. ' In his days Nebuchad- 
nezzar king of Babel came up, and Jehoiakim became his 
vassal three years ; then he turned and rebelled against 
him.' Who, we ask, is this potentate, able to compel a 
rival king to relax his grasp on cities and lands ? What 
do his name and title signify ? Let us seek to be cautious, 
critical, and thorough. The question is not so easy to 
answer as it seems. 

^ One convenience of this was that Jehoiakim was able, upon 
occasion, to fetch troublesome prophets out of Misrim and put them to 
death (Jer. xxvi. 20-23). Extradition of offenders. 



1. As to the personal name, we find it (sometimes as 
Nebuchadrezzar, sometimes, less correctly, as Nebuchadnezzar) 
in 2 K. and the parallel passages of 2 Chr., also in part or 
parts of Jer., Ezek., i Chr., Ezra, Neh., Esth., and Daniel. 
Now it is undeniable that (as ^ also shows) the redactors 
understood the Babylonian king Nab<i-kudur-usur to be 
referred to, and this view may be supported by the occur- 
rence of other names such as Nebuzaradan, Nebushazban, 
Nergalsarezer (Jer. xxxix. 13), which, as they stand, are 
Babylonian. On the other hand, there are some of the 
foreign personal names in the story of the captivity which one 
might expect to be, but certainly are not, Babylonian,^ while 
Nebuzaradan himself (2 K. xxv. 8, Jer. xxxix. 9, etc.) holds a 
distinctively N. Arabian office.^ And it must be remembered 
(i) that the text in both its forms shows traces of much 
manipulation, and (2) that the redactors would have been 
perfectly able to insert a few Babylonian names, including 
Nebuchadrezzar,^ if their theory required it. 

2. As to the geographical name Babel, it is not denied 
that it must sometimes {e.g. in Ezra) mean the world-famous 
Babylon. On the other hand, it must often, like Kush and 
Misrim, have a second meaning, i.e. be the designation of 
one of the two chief cities of a kingdom called Asshur 
or Ashhur, which claimed suzerainty over the smaller 
N. Arabian kingdoms. A conspectus of the textual evidence 
has been given elsewhere.^ Suffice it here to point out that 
there are a number of passages, chiefly in the prophets, 
where a methodical criticism hardly leaves much room for 
doubting the above statement. Thus, in Zech. ii. lO f. 
' Babel ' (omit bath as a dittograph) and ' the land of 
Saphon ' {i.e. Sibe'on = Ishmael), in Jer. 1. (i) 8 'Babel' 

^ One of these is Ashpenaz (Dan. i. 3), which, according to analogy, 
must come from Asshur-Sibe'on, a compound N. Arabian name. Other 
foreign non- Babylonian names are Sarsekim, Rab-saris, Rab-mag 
(Jer. xxxix. 3), of which the first is probably from d'dd-is:' (cp. d"dd, 
2 Chr. xii. 3), where d'3d has the same origin as ni3D {T. and B. p. 406); 
the second comes from iicN-a-ij; (cp. nid'o), and the third from isj-any. 

- See T. and B. pp. 443/ 

2 ' Nebuchadrezzar' has been interpolated once or twice in Jeremiah 
(xxv. 9, and probably xxix. 21). 

4 T. and B. p. 187. 


and 'the land of Hashram ' (see p. 63), and in H. 41 
* Ashhur ' (underlying itDtD) and ' Babel ' are parallel, while 
in H. I ' Babel of Yarham ' (MT., ""Dp nSn) is a gloss on 
'Babel.' The parallelisms in Isa. xlvii. i ('Babel' and 
'Hashram'), Ps. cxxxvii. 7 / (' Edom,' or rather 'Aram,'^ 
and ' Babel '), also deserve examination. Nor ought we 
to pass over 2 Chr. xxxiii. 11, where Asshurite captains 
take Manasseh and carry him to Babel,^ which is evidently 
in the kingdom of Asshur, and 2 K. xvii. 30, where the 
worshippers of Sukkoth-Benoth are most probably not 

A side-question here arises. We sometimes meet with 
kings of Babel who seem to be distinguished from kings of 
Asshur ; so e.g. in 2 K. xxiv., Jer. 1. 1 7 /[, 2 K. xx. 1 2 
(Isa. xxxix. i). Must Babel there mean Babylon? Yes, 
most probably, in 2 K. xx. 1 2} But usually the change of 
title may, on the N. Arabian theory, be adequately accounted 
for by a change of dynasty, accompanied by a change of 

The facts which have been mentioned suggest two at 
first sight mutually exclusive theories. According to one, 
it was Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon who invaded Judah, 
and besieged and took Jerusalem. According to the 
other, it was some N. Arabian king, whose name, unless 
indeed it underlies ' Nebuchadrezzar,' has not been pre- 
served. There is evidence for both theories. It would be 
hyper-criticism to deny that the great king who is known 
by this name (604-562 B.C.) interfered in the affairs of 
Judah ; certainly, like every one else, I admit that he did. 
Still, it must also be universally admitted that the external 
evidence for this, though sufficient, is comparatively small. 
It may be that this is the result of mere accident — accident 
which may some day be remedied. But at any rate, as 
things are, Nebuchadrezzar's piety is much better recorded 
than the success of his campaigns. He is never tired, in 
the inscriptions, of dilating on his restorations of temples, 
and forgets to mention the cities and lands which he 

1 So Paul Haupt, JBL xxvi. 2, thinking of a northern Aram. 

2 We have no right to alter ' Babel ' into ' Nineveh ' (so M'Curdy). 

3 Cp., however, Crit. Bib. p. 388. 


conquered. To the historian it is piteous to be only able 
to refer to a fragment of an inscription relating to the 
things which interest him. This relic (dated by the experts 
602 B.C.) refers to a campaign of Nebuchadrezzar against 
Hatti-land {i.e. the region to the west of the Euphrates). 
It needs, however, to be supplemented, and for this purpose 
we have to rely on Josephus's report^ of the late but 
conscientious Berossus, which speaks of the rebellion of the 
satrap appointed by Nabopolasar in Egypt and the region 
of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, of his defeat by Nabuchodo- 
nosor, and of the captives of the Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians, 
etc., made by that prince after his accession to the throne.^ 
The report, however, is tantalisingly meagre. One would 
like, for instance, to have been told something about these 
Jewish captives. The sepulchral remains on the ancient 
site of Nippur have led Hilprecht^ to the conclusion that 
a large number of Jewish exiles were settled in that 
neighbourhood. Did Nebuchadrezzar bring them thither? 
Or was it only after the Captivity that they settled there ? 

On the other hand, the O.T. witnesses to a N. Arabian 
invasion and captivity. Some of the passages quoted above 
respecting Babel may be referred to again here. For 
instance, in Zech. ii. 10 f. we read, 'Ho, ho! flee ye from 
the land of Saphon, saith Yahweh. . . . Make thy escape 
to Zion, thou company that dwellest in Babel.' So in Jer. 
i. 14, vi. I, 22, X. 22, XXV. 9, it is Saphon {i.e. Ishmael 
in a wide sense) from which the invader comes (see p. 42), 
and according to Jer. iii. 18, xvi. 15, it is Saphon where 
the companies of captives will be placed. In this con- 
nexion, too, I may certainly mention Ezek. xxxviii.-xxxix., 
which are full of reminiscences of Jer. iv.-vi.,* and, not less 
plainly than Jer. iv.-vi., refer to a N. Arabian invasion, 
though not to the same one as Jeremiah, the context being 

1 Against Apion, i. 19. 

2 Cp. Winckler, Keilinschr. Textbuch^\ p. 58, n. 3. 
2 Palestine Fund Statement, 1898, p. 55. 

* QorrixW, Jereinia, p. 85, thinks that Ezek. regards Jer. iv.-vi. as an 
unfulfilled prophecy. But Ezek. xxxviii. 17, xxxix. 8 do not prove this. 
Ezekiel probably believed that great prophecies had more than one 
fulfilment. Certainly he held that the king of Babel of his own time 
was a Sephonite (Ezek. xxvi. 7). 


evidently eschatological. And it may fitly be added that 
in Jer, xxxix. 3 the princes, or high officers of the king of 
Babel, do the very thing at Jerusalem which the prophet 
has foretold (Jer. i. 15) will be done there by 'the families 
of the kingdoms of Saphon.' We cannot, therefore, be sure 
that ' king of Babel 'in 2 K. xxiv. i means ' king of 
Babylon,' or that ' the king of Babel brought them captive to 
Babel ' (2 K. xxiv. 1 6) makes the prevalent theory secure. As 
we have seen, there was a southern as well as a northern Babel. 

I must not try the reader's patience too far, but there is 
still some supplementary evidence to be mentioned. Professor 
Bernhard Duhm ridicules the idea that a king of Babylon 
should trouble himself about a Hebrew prophet. Now I do 
not assert that the anecdote told in Jer. xxxix. w f. \s 
historical, but it should be clear that the narrator is no 
scribbler of absurdities. Suppose that it is the king of the 
N. Arabian Babel who is referred to ; he, at any rate, would 
be likely to trouble himself about a Hebrew prophet.^ 
Another much misunderstood story may also be mentioned. 
As the text of Jer. xxix. 22 f. stands, the king of Babel 
' roasted in the fire ' two Hebrew prophets, because they 
had committed adultery and spoken false prophecies. It 
would be easier to believe that he killed them (cp. t'. 21) 
because they had expressed patriotic anticipations. In fact, 
a keen textual criticism bids us correct tDNl D7p into oStaf? 
1^N3, 'whom he killed in Asshur'^ (cp. 2 Chr. xxxiii. 11). 
These two captives, among others, were certainly settled in 
the N. Arabian Asshur, and ' Nebuchadrezzar ' in v. 21 is 
an interpolation. 

I reserve the most important passage for the end. In 
a singularly striking passage (Ezek. xxi. 24 ff^ Ezekiel 
describes how the king of Babel set forth on his expedition. 
He had to choose one of two roads, both of which, we are 

' This remark illustrates a saying of Rab-shakeh (2 K. xviii. 25), 
the Neko-narrative in 2 Chr. xxxv. 21, and the story of Jonah. When 
that prophet entered the city of Yewanah (corrupted into Nineveh, 
see p. 41), the king of Yewanah arose from his throne and put on 
sackcloth (Jon. iii. 6). 

2 icK was probably written short as tk. In compound proper 
names the popular speech constantly made this shortening, e.g. iinrK, 


told, came nriM pND. What does this mean ? The render- 
ing * from one land ' is impossible, but the obvious rendering, 
'from the land of one,' is absurd. How shall we escape 
from the dilemma ? There is no possible escape (see the 
commentaries). It has been shown,^ however, that irTN and 
nriN are repeatedly miswritten for, or corrupted in popular 
speech from, intDN, somewhat as ")^i^ (Ezra ii. i6, 42) 
from nnt&N, and mntsi; (Josh. xvi. 2, etc) from ninntDN. 
Clearly the right reading is ' from the land of Ashhur.' 
Not only is it in itself natural, but it is also consistent with 
many other equally necessary corrections of passages which 
have baffled earlier critics. Thus, the prophetic writer 
assures us that the king of Babel who destroyed Jerusalem 
started from the land of Ashhur. 

Are we, then, driven to make our choice between two 
mutually exclusive theories ? No. There is, happily, a 
third choice open to us, viz., so to reconcile the theories as 
to do justice to the facts which underlie both views. If 
there was a confusion between the Egyptian king Nikii 
who marched victoriously to Phoenicia and a king of the 
N. Arabian Musri who defeated Josiah in the far south, why 
should there not have been a similar confusion between 
Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon and a king of the Babel 
in N. Arabia? In the former case we have been able to 
determine the facts belonging to each king. In the latter 
we are less fortunate, for it is impossible to distribute the 
traditional facts of the conquest of Jerusalem between the 
two potentates, greater and smaller, both of whom intervened 
in the affairs of Judah. I hardly like even to make the con- 
jecture that there was an understanding between the kings, so 
that what Nebuchadrezzar began the N. Arabian king finished. 
Nor is it safe to decide whether the name ' Nebuchadrezzar ' 
has, or has not, grown out of some N. Arabian royal name '^ 
(see p. 58). There are some problems which are incapable 
of solution. All that I need add is that in a Special Note 
the reference made above to the confusion of the kings of 
the northern and the southern Babel is supplemented by 
parallels elsewhere in the historical narratives. 

^ T. and B. pp. 329, 505 ; and cp. on Dt. vi. 4. 
2 Cp. Crit. Bid. p. 395. 


Let us return to the narrative in 2 K. The passage already 
quoted (2 K. xxiv. i) comes most probably from the royal 
annals. Its brevity and baldness are unfortunate. Nebuchad- 
rezzar, we are told, ' came up,' i.e. made a sort of demonstra- 
tion in force, upon which Jehoiakim ' became his servant,' i.e. 
took the oath of fealty. We naturally ask for the date of 
this important event, but no answer is forthcoming. It is 
added, however, that three years after Jehoiakim rebelled. 
What can have emboldened the king to do this ? Did he 
rely on his fortresses (see p. 50), especially on Jerusalem ? 
Did he confide in the promises of his former suzerain, the 
king of Misrim? From another source {y. 2) we learn 
that bands of Kasdim (?), Aram,^ Moab, and bene Ammon 
made incursions into Judah to 'destroy' it. If (in spite of 
Jer. xxvii. 3) this is correct, the neighbouring peoples were 
more malignant than the king of Babel himself, who only 
required Jehoiakim to be loyal. But may we not suppose 
that the commission of these ' bands ' has been misappre- 
hended, and that it was really a licence to plunder what 
they could, and especially the temple of Jerusalem, for the 
benefit of Babel, and then to seize and carry off Jehoiakim 
as a captive to Babel ? That most of this was somehow 
achieved, is expressly stated in 2 Chr. xxxvi. 6 and Dan. 
i. 2, though the conqueror mentioned there is Nebuchad- 
rezzar king of Babel, and in the latter passage (the source 
of which is unknown) the royal temple is said to have been 
in the land of Shinar,^ i.e. Ishmael-Arabia. True, it is only 
the Chronicler who states this, but may he not have had 
some ground for this ? ^ Whether the mention of the king 
of Babel as present with the army is correct, may be left 
open. We may, of course, assume that, after some punish- 
ment, Jehoiakim (unlike his son and successor) was restored 
to his country. 

But we must not linger on such conjectures. There are 
great textual difficulties which have to be considered. First 
of all, we must seek for a meaning for D'"ltDD which will 
accord better with the Hebrew narratives and prophecies 
than the familiar one — ' the Chaldaeans,' i.e. the people 

1 Gratz and Benz. would read ' Edom.' 
2 T. and B. pp. 185/ 3 So Benzinger. 


called Kaldu, whose seats were to the south-east of Baby- 
lonia. Hugo Winckler ^ hazards the theory that the Kasdim 
of 2 K. xxiv. 2 are different from those of 2 K. xxv., and 
are really the Bedouins in the far south of Judah. But we 
must surely take a much broader view of our problem, and 
seek the aid of a keener textual criticism. Such a criticism, 
based on experience of the habits of the scribes and of 
recurrent types of corruption, seems to show that the word 
D"'ltD3 is miswritten, that the original error was repeated 
again and again through the levelling process of redaction, 
and that the true reading is D"ntD3 ^ (a regional name), or, 
where the name of a people is required, 'mtDD ( = D'^mtDD). 
A more correct form would doubtless be DlUJn, since the 
name consists of abbreviated forms of nntDN and Dnw. In 
Dan. ii. 2 we find a list of terms for the wise men of Babel, 
beginning with D'^oionn and ending with D'^TtDD, and it is 
suggested elsewhere ^ that the former word may have come 
from n''Dnmn, the plural of mtDn, which I have just now 
proposed as the most probable origin of D"'ltZ?D, so that 
hashrainini^ in Dan. ii. 2, will be an explanatory gloss on 
kasdim. The people of Ashhur ( = Ezrah) and Aram were, 
in fact, proverbial, not only for their courage, but for their 

It was, however, the courage, the fierceness, the elemental 
force of this people which just now impressed the inhabitants 
of Judah. The prophets of the time must have had frequent 
occasion to refer to them. One of these was Habakkuk, 
who, undismayed, reports this as a divine revelation ^ (Hab. 
ii. 4)— 

Lo ! he is swallowed up — and cannot save his soul ; 
But the righteous liveth on by his faithfulness. 

The enemy, then, according to this oracle, will be suddenly 

1 AOF xii. 1^0 ff. So, too, Gunkel, on Gen. xxii. 22. 

2 T. and B. pp. 214, 332. 

3 Ibid. pp. 460/ 

4 Cp. I K. V. 10/ [iv. 30/], where note that ' Ezrahite ' is = 
' Ashhurite,' and see T. and B. 40. 

^ Cheyne on the criticism of Habakkuk, Jewish Quart. Review, 
Oct. 1907, where Duhm, Marti, and Budde are considered, and an 
attempt is made to go forward. 


overthrown. It is the enemy whose name is Hashram. So, 
at least, Habakkuk interprets the supernormal experience 
which he has had. Was the vision entered in the Book of 
Destiny, or, as later writers would have said, in the heavenly 
tablets .'' No ; the seer spoke an unfulfilled prophecy. Yet 
he was a true ' man of God,' though, conscientiously, a 
speaker of smooth words for Israel. Little that is certainly 
his may have come down to us, but that little is full of faith 
and moral earnestness. It is to be found in i. 5-10, 14-17, 
ii. 1-4, and almost at the beginning we are confronted with 
the Hashramim (Kasdim), i.e. the men of Ashhur-Aram. 
Now it cannot be doubted that the prophet's idea of this 
people is definite enough (see v. 6), and yet we cannot fail 
to notice that v. 5 is rhetorically expressed. In fact, the 
warriors of Ashhur or Asshur had been seen in Palestine 
often enough for a conventional form of description of them 
to have sprung up. Still more essential is it to recognise 
that the people which Yahweh is about to * stir up ' {y. 6) is 
a N. Arabian people, not one of the nearer populations, but 
a comparatively distant one (Isa. v. 26, Jer. vi. 22), and a 
people whose language is, even if our scholars would call it 
akin to Hebrew, yet for practical purposes so unlike it as to 
be unintelligible to the Judaites (Jer. v. 15, Isa. xxxiii, 19) — 
an additional cause of terror. See Note on the Kasdim of 

No wonder, then, that the country-folk were seized with 
terror, and fled to the nearest fortified towns. It may help 
us in realising this to refer to a little poem, referring surely 
to an earlier N. Arabian invasion (Isa. x. 27 end-32), which 
tells how the people of the small towns fled before the 
foe. Jeremiah, too, in prophetic imagination, summons 
the Judaite inhabitants of the south border- land to take 
refuge in the fortified cities, especially in Zion or Jerusalem ^ 
(Jer. iv. 5 /., vi. i). This race for safety may be illustrated 
by the story of the Rekabites (Jer. xxxv.). We need not, 

1 On Jer. iv. 5/, vi. i, see Crit. Bib. pp. 53-55. As Duhm points 
out, it would be absurd to call on Jerusalemites to flee to Zion. It is 
also extremely strange to summon only Benjamites to flee before the 
foe, and to summon them to flee, not to, but from Jerusalem. And if 
people are to flee from Jerusalem, what is the good of blowing the 
trumpet in Tekoa ? The remedy is to read 'm' for miT, pc 'J3 for 


of course, accept all the details. It is incredible that 
Jeremiah should have tempted these simple folk to break 
their law by drinking wine. But there seems to be a 
foundation of fact. The statement that the Rekabites 
adhered to the rules of their reputed ancestor is in itself 
probable.^ Jeremiah, too, may have made an instructive 
comparison between this tribe or clan and the people of 
Judah.^ That the Rekabites fled from the invaders is also 
probable enough, for i Chr. ii. 55,^ rightly (as I hope) 
explained, shows that they dwelt in the south border-land. 
Tradition further states (Judg. i. 16) that the Kenites, to 
whom the Rekabites belonged, dwelt in the most southern 
part of Judah. We can therefore well understand how the 
members of the clan should have fled with the Judaites of 
the border to Jerusalem ' because of the army of Hashram 
and because of the army of Aram *^ {v. 11). 

It is not certain to which invasion of Judah this story 
of the Rekabites refers. Probably, however, it was the 
second (2 K. xxiv. 2 ; see p. 62). The first invasion — 
that mentioned in 2 K. xxiv. i — was hardly terrifying 
enough, if, as I have suggested, it was really a ' demonstra- 
tion,' a sort of object-lesson to Jehoiakim. But the second 
invasion (if invasion it was) does appear to supply an 
adequate cause for the flight of the Rekabites. 

j'D'ja '33, and "jkvdb" for dWit (see p. 24). The * sons of Yamin 
( = Yaman)' are the Israelite or Judaite inhabitants of part of the 
N. Arabian border-land so often called 'Yerahme'el' and ' Ishmael,' 
among whom, as we have seen, was probably Huldah the prophetess. 
Tekoa and Beth-Hakkerem are both places in that district. See 
Introduction on Beth-Hakkerem, and E. Bib., ' Tekoa.' 

1 See E. Bib., ' Rechabites.' 

2 The Rekabites had a pure form of Yahweh-worship (cp. 2 K. x.) 
See E. Bib., ' Rechabites.' 

3 py (A. v., Jabez) is corrupt ; it may have come from pyax ( = 
Ishmael). nnn is probably an abbreviation of nam (cp. Dm = Gm', v. 44). 
cnso means, not ' scribes,' but ' men of ibd (or, msD) ' ; ' Sophereth ' is 
the name of a place in Ishmaelite Arabia (Neh. vii. 57 ; see E. Bib., 
' Solomon's Servants '). Meyer's theory {Entst. des Judenthums, p. 318), 
that Neh. ii. 55 indicates that the Calibbites of Jabez were specially 
zealous proselytes, is wide of the mark. 

4 Note that @ gives, not 'Aram,' but 'the Assyrians,' i.e. (in the 
original Hebrew) the Asshurites of N. Arabia. This, too, would 
probably be an archaism. 



Jehoiakim looks on while the people is being loosed 
from its moorings. Jeremiah warns him that ruin is im- 
pending (Jer. xiii. 18-21), but in vain. No help from 
Misrim appears ; the king * came no more out of his land ' 
(2 K. xxiv. 1^} Soon the tramp of the invaders is heard, 
but just then the energetic but unwise king passed away. 
The Chronicler (2 Chr. xxxvi. 8) has preserved the tradi- 
tion that he was buried, like Manasseh and Amon (2 K. 
xxi. 18, 26), not in the city of David, but in the garden 
of Uzza.^ He was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin. It 
was hard for the young prince, who was only eighteen. 
Did he trust in Ashtart, or had king and people given up 
hoping in her when the foreign warriors set foot on the soil 
of Judah ? The author of the ' epitome ' is as much pre- 
judiced against Jehoiachin as Berossus is against Evil- 
Merodach, who reigned (as he asserts) 'lawlessly and 
impiously.' Jeremiah, however, finds no more fault with 
Jehoiachin than with Jehoahaz. His fate, indeed, is irre- 
versible, but it is implied that neither Hezekiah nor Josiah 
would have fared better. 

As I live, saith Yahweh, | though Coniah ' were (in very 

The signet on my right hand, | I would pluck him 


In another little poem, written just after Jehoiachin's enforced 
departure, Jeremiah utters the passionate cry — 

Is Coniah a despised work ? | is he a vessel of no value ? 
Why is he tossed and thrown | to the land of Asshur ? ^ 

He feels the hardness of the destiny. The heir of David 
is tossed away like the meanest potter's vessel, and the spot 
on which he lights is the land of Asshur. 

"^ V. ^ would stand more naturally after v. i. 

2 ©" has kv yavo^arj ; Luc. ev yav O^a. The tradition was probably 
omitted from 2 Kings because of Jeremiah's prediction (Jer. xxii. iS/.). 

3 More strictly Konyahu (Jer. xxxvii. i). Elsewhere in Jer., 

* Jer. xxii. 24. Vv. 25-27 belong to the supplemented Read 
' him ' for ' thee.' 

5 The text has been much worked over. @ helps us somewhat ; 
also experience gained elsewhere. 


The note of passion is wanting in Ezekiel, which is 
strange, since he shared Jehoiachin's captivity. A great 
eagle is said to have come to Lebanon (Ezek. xvii. 3 /), to 
have cropped off the topmost of the sprouts of the cedar, 
and brought it to the land of Canaan, i.e., as the parallel 
clause explains, * set it in Arabia of Yerahme'el ' (see 
special note, p. 94). The eagle is the king of Babel ; 
Lebanon, the Davidic family, ' Canaan ' is obviously not 
Palestine, but may, or rather must, be some N. Arabian 
region ; ^ in Ezek. xvi. 29 it is identified with D''~rl&D, under 
which name lies, in a shortened form, ' Ashhur-Aram ' (see 
p. 63), Ezekiel, then, like Jeremiah, implies, both here and 
elsewhere, that Jehoiachin was taken captive by the chief 
potentate of N. Arabia, who, in the prophet's brief explana- 
tion of the parable {y. 1 2), is called ' the king of Babel,' 
That this royal warrior started on his campaigns from Ashhur 
or Asshur, we have learned already (p. 61) from Ezek. xxi. 24, 
Apparently, therefore, he was not Nebuchadrezzar. 

Three months (the Chronicler adds ten days) was all 
the time that the young king had to reign. In this he 
resembled Jehoahaz, but, unlike that king, he did not wait 
to be deposed. Before the siege was far advanced, he went 
out with the queen-mother and his wives (children are not 
mentioned), attended by the princes and courtiers, and 
surrendered. Seven thousand men of the propertied class, 
as well as one thousand craftsmen and smiths," went with 
the king. Some of the prophets may also have been taken, 
though many remained, for Ezekiel can hardly have been 
alone. The treasuries of the temple and of the palace 
were also rifled (see 2 K. xxi v. 10-16, Jer, xxvii. 19-22, 
xxviii, 3, 6). 

From his captor's point of view, it was in favour of 
Jehoiachin that he had not, like his father, broken an oath 
of fealty. Hence, perhaps, the favour into which he was 
taken by the great king thirty-seven years after (2 K. 
xxiv. 27, Jer. Hi. 24-34). He was released from prison, 

1 T. and B. pp. 85, 175, 475. 

2 See Jer. xxiv. i, xxix. 2. A thoroughly Eastern measure. Cp. 
I S. xiii. 1 9 /, where read, ' and they brought down all the artisans of 
Israel to the land of the Philistines.' 


pensioned, and admitted among the king's table -guests. 
No king among those who entered the presence had so 
high a seat as he who once ruled for three months in 
Jerusalem. Is this historical ? we ask. The evidence is 
scanty, but we cannot hastily reject it. Only we have to 
make sure that we understand it. For the words of the 
statement mean more than appears on the surface. They 
imply the recognition of the Jews as a people, with its own 
cultus and with internal independence, under the headship 
of Jehoiachin.^ Further, the royal rights of Jehoiachin 
would be transmitted to his son. In i Chr. iii. 17/ no 
less than seven sons are named ; one of these, clearly, 
would inherit a claim to the throne. 

The story is important on two grounds, i. It shows 
how thoroughly developed was the belief in the Babylonian 
captivity as the only one in the time of the redactor of 
Kings. For the name of the king of Babel who befriended 
Jehoiachin is given as Evil-Merodach. Evidently this is a 
modification of Amil-Marduk, the name of the son and 
successor of Nebuchadrezzar (562-560 B.C.). With much 
ingenuity Winckler^ seeks to show that Amil-Marduk 
favoured a different party from his father — the so-called 
hierarchic party, which was everywhere disposed to sanc- 
tion the repair of temples. More than this the story cannot 
show, for if * Nebuchadrezzar ' is an interpolation, so also, of 
course, is ' Evil-Merodach.' 

2. It has also been thought, somewhat too optimistically, 
to contribute to the solution of historical problems. As we 
have seen, the Chronicler gives a list (i Chr. iii. 17/) of 
the sons of Jeconiah or Jehoiachin, any one of whom would 
be capable of inheriting the crown. In fact, one of the 
seven, Shenassar, has been identified with Sheshbassar (a 
governor of Judah under the Persian king), while a grandson 
of Jeconiah in v. 19 bears the name Zerubbabel (a still 
better known governor of Judah). It is true, all these 
names, Shenassar, Sheshbassar, Zerubbabel, are supposed 

1 Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenihums, pp. 78/ ; Winckler, 
AOFxl 204; KAT^% p. 284. 

2 A OF xi. 198; cp. KAT^^\ pp. no, 284. Berossus may have 
used an old source, influenced by the anti-hierarchic party. 


to be of Babylonian origin. The view is plausible, but 
the proof of it is not as complete as we require. Indeed, 
it is quite possible that any Babylonian appearance that 
these names may present may be due to redactors. Nor 
can one think it likely that a Babylonian name should occur 
in the middle of a list of seven names ^ which, apart from 
this one disputed name, are distinctly S. Canaanitish or 
N. Arabian. May not nSN3tD really represent nswDO, since 
DtD (as in nN3») comes from ;Dt&'' = f?NI;DtD^ and "iSN is an 
Edomite name, attested in Gen. xxxvi. 21?^ I fear, 
therefore, that the expectation referred to has not yet been 

1 As the text stands, there are eight names, but the first, nOK, is 
probably the first part of the compound name rightly read as Asshur- 
Eshtaol (7". and B. p. 540 ; cp. p. 70, n. 3). 

2 T. and B. p. 426. 



Though much was lost, there were still a fatherland and a 
temple. Israel, it might be hoped, had learned its lesson. 
Its new king (provided by the conqueror) was unambitious, 
and may have seemed a safe ruler. He was a still-surviving 
son of Josiah,^ called Mattaniah, a name which, on his 
elevation to the throne, the suzerain changed to Zedekiah ^ 
(properly Sidkiyyahu), The story of his reign is drawn 
largely from the Book of Jeremiah, supplemented by that of 
Ezekiel. Let us first borrow something from the latter 
(Ezek. xvii. 5-21). The allegorist represents the new king 
as a humble vine-plant, trailing on the ground. It was 
planted by the great eagle known to us already (p. 6"]^, who 
imposed upon it one obligation — that its branches should 
turn to him, and its roots be subject to him. Then, we are 
told, came another great eagle, and behold the vine bent its 
roots and stretched its branches no longer to the first, but to 
the second eagle. The consequences of this could be 
foreseen : by the most trifling effort it could be uprooted 
iy. 9). The historical explanation follows {yv. 12-21). 
The king of Babel came to Jerusalem, and removed its king, 
in whose place he set up a royal prince as king, entering 
into a covenant with him. It was but a modest realm, but 
if the king had kept his covenant he might have continued. 
But quite otherwise did he act. ' He rebelled against him, 
in sending his envoys to Mi.srim, that it might give him 

1 His mother's name was Hamutal (see 45). 
2 $idkia was the name of a king of Ashkelon in Hezekiah's time. 



horses ^ and a large force ' (z/. 1 5 ; see on Dt. xvii. 1 6). Here 
the retrospect ceases, and the prospect of calamity begins.^ 
Yahweh is the God of covenants in general ; he notes the 
broken covenant between the foreign king and Zedekiah (cp. 
2 Chr. xxxvi. 13^), and will provide for just retribution. 
The agent may seem to be the king of Babel, but is really 
Yahweh (yv. 19/^. 

There is also another allegory in which Zedekiah is 
referred to (Ezek. xix. 5-9). This time the description is 
idealistic. One might imagine that Jehoiakim (the true 
Jehoiakim) was intended, for the language points to a lover 
of war and even to a conqueror. Nothing could here be 
said of Zedekiah's faithlessness, and the description of his 
final misfortunes passes over the climax of them all — the 
blinding. For a mention of this we must go to Ezek. 
xii. 13;' yet shall he not see it,' says the prophet, ' though 
he shall die there.' Certainly Ezekiel judges the hapless 
Zedekiah by a singularly strict moral standard. 

The historian, however, must not follow Ezekiel in his 
severity, for Zedekiah could hardly call his soul his own ; 
the real power belonged to the upstart princes. Not that 
the princes were alone responsible for the moral downfall of 
the state. ' Every head is sick, and every heart faint.' 
Ezekiel (chap, xv.) compares Jerusalem to the worthless 
wood of the wild vine. Of a piece of such wood the fire 
has consumed both ends, and it has now attacked the 
middle. The * two ends ' are the two kingdoms ; the 
' middle ' is Jerusalem. Ezekiel admits, however (xiv. 22 /!), 
that the exiled portion of the community is not so deeply 
corrupt as the actual Jerusalem ; Jeremiah, too, draws the 
same distinction. Who does not remember the vision (Jer. 
xxiv.) of the two baskets of figs, one containing very good 
figs, like those that are first ripe, the other very bad figs 
which could not be eaten (cp. Jer. xxix. 1 7) ? The former 
denote Jehoiachin and his fellow-exiles, whom Yahweh will 
bring back to their land ; the latter are those left under 
Zedekiah, or those who have fled to the land of Misrim, for 
both of whom a dreadful fate is reserved. 

^ On horses in N. Arabia see T. and B. p. 462. 
2 On V. 17 see Kraetzschmar. nyns is an incorrect gloss. 


It may be that both prophets somewhat failed to com- 
prehend the situation. With their own feet planted upon a 
rock they could not realise the state of those who were storm- 
tossed and without a compass. The gulf between these 
prophets and the average citizens was immense. Jeremiah 
and Ezekiel might have been the compass of the storm-tossed, 
but there was one precious gift which had been denied them 
— that of persuasiveness. Still there must have been some 
who listened more attentively than others to the great 
prophets, and these would naturally be found in the more 
cultured class. We can well understand that the removal of 
this class to Babel would produce injurious effects on the 
residuum. How could parvenus lordlings, who had made 
their fortunes by driving hard bargains with the emigrating 
exiles, help being puffed up with vanity ? ^ And how could 
wise counsel proceed from their collective statesmanship ? 

As for religion, it could hardly have fallen very much 
lower, considering the depth which it had reached under 
Jehoiakim. Nor would it perceptibly have affected the 
religious standard if the lower cults had received a mere 
formal discouragement. Was such a discouragement actually 
given ? In favour of this view it might be urged that 
prophets of Yahweh were consulted both in Jerusalem and 
in the land of exile. Zedekiah himself laid great store by 
Jeremiah (Jer. xxxvii. 3, 17, xxxviii. 14^). It might also 
be held that at the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem king 
and people gave a singular proof of regard for Yahwistic 
moral principles (Jer. xxxiv.). It is well known that both in 
the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxi. 2) and in Deuteronomy 
(xv. 12) there is a law that a Hebrew slave should be set 
free after six years of service. This law had been neglected ; 
now, however, it was carried out with a peculiarly solemn 
covenant {v. 19). Moreover, we learn from Jer. xliv. \7 f. 
that the cult of the Queen of Heaven ^ had lately been 
abandoned. Such appears to be all the evidence that exists 
for a revival of Yahwism. It is not much in quantity, and 
the supposed recognition of Yahwistic morality will not bear 

^ Ezekiel's description of the princes (xxii. 27) corresponds to the 
prevalent tendency of the ruling class at all times (cp. Isa. i. 23). 
2 Or * of Ishmael ' ; see T. and B. p. 1 8. Ashtart is intended. 


examination.^ Still it is probable that as the political 
prospect became darker a tendency arose towards a greater 
regard for the cult of Yahweh. 

The tendency cannot, however, have been a strong one. 
There is abundant evidence for the continuance of the cults 
in vogue before Zedekiah, and the writer of 2 K. xxiv. 19 
asserts that from a Yahwistic point of view that king was 
no better than Jehoiakim. Ezekiel (xiv. 5) distinctly says 
that the house of Israel ' have estranged themselves from 
Yahweh with all their idols,' We know, too, from Ezek. 
viii. 12 that (about 592 B.C.) the cult of Yahweh was 
rejected by elders of the people, on the ground that Yahweh 
did not see them and had forsaken the land. The chapter 
to which this passage belongs is full to overflowing of 
evidence for Jerusalem's heathenism. The lower cults there 
described are those which competed successfully with the 
strict worship of Yahweh. The description, however, is not 
easy to interpret. 

It will not be a superfluous digression if we confront the 
difficulties. Unless we do so, we shall be unable to estimate 
aright the religious and political currents of the time. And 
the question which we have to keep before us, and which 
our study of Ezek. viii. will enable us to answer, is this — 
Were the popular cults in Zedekiah's time of Babylonian, or 
of Canaanite and N. Arabian origin ? ^ 

Certainly, it would be agreeable to suppose that some of 
those cults were of direct Babylonian origin. The supposi- 
tion would be in harmony with the view here adopted that 
Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon played a great role in the 
later affairs of Judah, though not so as to exclude a N. 
Arabian invasion about the same time. If there was just 
now a double danger to the state, one would expect to find 
that some of the popular cults of the day came from N. 
Arabia and some from Babylon. But which of them can 
we, with a safe historical conscience, trace to Babylon ? 
Let us turn to Ezek. viii. and examine the details as briefly 

1 We are told {v. 11) that ' afterwards,' i.e. after the siege had been 
raised (xxxvii. 5), ' all the princes and all the people ' (surely an exaggera- 
tion) cancelled their engagements. 

2 See ' Ezekiel's Visions of Jerusalem,' Expositor., May 1908. 


but as penetratingly as limits of space permit. In v. 3 we 
read that a spirit, or divine energy, lifted Ezekiel up, and 
brought him ' in visions of God ' to Jerusalem, to the door 
of the north gateway of the inner court of the temple, 
' where was the place of the image of Kin'ah [hamjmakneh.' 
Ezekiel means that he was brought to the very same place 
where formerly (under Manasseh) the image referred to had 
stood. In a subsequent passage {y. 5) he says in effect that 
when his attention was free, he observed that the same 
image (removed by Josiah, and not yet set up again when 
the prophet left Jerusalem as an exile) had been erected 
once more, though in a different place.^ Now, we have no 
right to ask, ' What's in a name,' and leave the image 
without any but the impossible name 'Jealousy,' supple- 
mented by ' that awakens jealousy ' (against which philology 
has much to urge). Nor may we, with Gunkel, emend ' the 
image of Jealousy ' into ' the image of the reeds,' and interpret 
this of the dragon Tiamat (Ps. Ixviii. 31,' the beast of the 
reeds ' ?).^ Undoubtedly the goddess referred to is Asherah. 
Several scholars of note have already seen this. What they 
have not seen is the right form, and therefore meaning, of 
the name. The right form throws fresh light on the N. 
Arabian affinities of the late Judaite religion.^ 

It is equally hard to trace the superstitions referred to 
in V. I o. Here we read, ' And I entered, and looked ; and, 
behold, every form of reptiles and (other) beasts, and all the 
idols of the house of Israel, graven upon the wall round 
about' The explanations of W. R. Smith, Toy, and Gunkel 
are hardly satisfactory. Neither clan-totems nor Babylonian 
dragons* ('helpers of Rahab,' Job ix. 13) can justifiably be 
found here, especially as neither theory is consistent with 
the words, ' and all the idols of the house of Israel,' which 
intervene between ' abomination ' and * graven.' It is only an 

^ The prophet's words are, ' and I lifted up mine eyes northward, 
and, behold, north of the gate of the altar (?) was that image of Kin'ah 
at the entrance (?).' On vv. 3, 5, see Kraetzschmar. 

2 Schopfung und Chaos (1895), p. 141. 

8 .iKjp probably comes from n'p:K, and pw, like ^r^ and pK, may come 
from some shortened form of Vkdht (the final S often becomes 3). n:pD 
may come from r\'-!air\; cp. QpT = DnT. See T. and B. pp. 18/, 121. 

* So Gunkel. 


enlarged experience of similarly corrupt passages elsewhere, 
and of the habits of the scribes, which can help us much 
here. For my own part, I have — since 1903 — been satisfied 
with this suggestion, — that here and in Ezek. xviii. 6 (as 
well as in some other O.T. passages) ^N^tD■^ has been mis- 
written for ^Ni^DtDr As for nnmi ©on, that I take to be a 
gloss consisting of two regional names, and defining, for 
ancient readers, the geographical meaning of f?Ni;Dt2?"^ in this 
passage.^ As the most probable original form of the text 
oi V. 10 one may propose, 'every form of abominations 
( = images), namely, all the idols of the house of Ishmael, 
graven in the wall round about.' N. Arabian again. 

A Babylonian origin is more plausibly supposed for the 
strange scene described in v. 14, ' and he brought me to 
the door of the north gateway, and behold, there were the 
women, weeping for the Tammuz.' One thinks involuntarily 
of the ritual mourning of the Babylonians for the disappear- 
ance of the god of vernal vegetation, one form of whose 
name was Tamuz.^ Still I doubt very much whether the 
ritual mourning for the dead god first arose in Canaan so 
late,^ and if (as I suppose) it was of much earlier date, the 
name of the god would hardly have been Tamuz."* For 
light on the passage we must have recourse to Jer. vii. 1 8, 
xliv. ly ff. ; it is surely at the sacred meal that the women 
are sitting, and they are engaged in ritual benedictions (read 
mD^lD) of Ashtart, one of whose many titles was a name 
which may at last have become corrupted into n"'S)D ^ or 
TVMQ (lion, Tamuz). The true name is n"'^N2;Dm\ 

I have not yet done with the prophet Ezekiel, nor 
sufficiently answered the question. Did Babylon, in this 
troublous time, exercise a religious influence on Jerusalem ? 
In the very next chapter (ix.) we find a terrible imaginative 
account of the massacre of the wicked inhabitants of 

1 TDT probably comes from ne-ai, and ncia from ncn-any. In explana- 
tion, see T. and B. pp. 249, 571. 

2 See E. Bib.^ ' Tammuz.' 
' T. and B. pp. 56, 326/ 

* Isa. xvii. 10 suggests the name ' Na'aman,' on the origin of which 
see T. and B. p. 56, n. 2. Hadad and Rimmon (Ra'aman) would 
also be possible. See T. and B. pp. 36, 326, 438^ 

* T. and Bib. p. 19, notes 3 and 4. 


Jerusalem by seven heavenly beings in human form. One 
of the seven (not directly engaged in the massacre) is 
clothed in linen,^ and has a writer's inkhorn at his 
side [v. 2). According to Gunkel and Zimmern,^ this is a 
Hebraised form of NabO, the Babylonian writer -god, by 
whom the destinies of men were written down on the 
heavenly tablets, and who was also one of the seven 
planetary deities. Certainly the parallelism is too obvious 
to be disregarded. But we must not forget two other 
important parallelisms with Ex. xii. 23 and Dan. x. 5 
respectively. In the former passage (cp. 2 S. xxiv. 16) 
' the destroyer ' is clearly the warlike Mal'ak or Mal'ak 
Yahweh {i.e. Yerahme'el) ; ^ in the latter (as a Talmudic 
interpretation also represents) the man clothed in linen is 
Gabriel, who is but a pale copy of Mika'el * {i.e. Yerahme'el). 
The affinity of many points in the Babylonian and other 
W. Asiatic religions is beyond doubt, and fresh importations 
from Babylon may have been made quite late. But why 
should we suppose that Yahweh's great Helper, the second 
member of the divine company {i.e. Yerahme'el), was provided 
with fresh Babylonian characteristics, belonging properly to 
Nabft, in the age of Ezekiel? On the whole, then, there 
seems to be nothing in chaps, viii. and ix. of Ezekiel which 
clearly betokens recent direct influence of Babylon on the 
religion of Judah. The cults or religious forms which are 
there described are those which in earlier or later times 
appear to have come from N, Arabia. 

At any rate, trouble impended from N. Arabia, which 
religious fanatics sought to avert in one way, and politicians 
in another. Nor can the counsellors of Zedekiah be 
supposed to have been alone in their plottings. From one 
petty realm to another the message flew, ' Confederate your- 
selves against Babel.' From Edom, from Moab, from the 
bene Ammon, from Sor, from Sidon, envoys are said to have 
visited Jerusalem with this object in view (Jer. xxvii. 3). It 
is highly probable that all the kingdoms represented were 
near the S. Palestinian border, and were within the range of 

1 The linen represents the luminous appearance of the divine body, 

2 KAT^^\ p. 404. 2 T. and B. pp. 277-280, 291-294. 

♦ Ibid. pp. 102 (n. 3), 293. 


a N. Arabian invasion ; for both here and in chap. xxv. 
we are compelled to admit the existence of a southern Sor 
and a southern Sidon.^ What the result of the negotiations 
was we are not told, but we know that Jeremiah (statesman 
as well as prophet) did his best to prevent them from 
succeeding, and in the style of Isaiah (Isa. xx. 2) performed 
a symbolic act to convey to all beholders his stern message. 
* Thus hath Yahweh said. Make thee a yoke, and put it 
upon thy neck ' (Jer. xxvii. 2) ; it was a symbol of the 
inevitable doom of Judah ; the date is the fourth year of 
Zedekiah (596-595 B.C.). Even the prophets of Yahweh, 
however, disagreed with Jeremiah. One of them, * Hananiah 
the prophet ' ^ (as he is emphatically called), announced in 
public, in the temple, that the sacred vessels which had been 
carried away to Babel should be restored, and Jeconiah and 
his fellow-exiles brought home (Jer. xxviii. 1-4). Jeremiah 
could not pass over this direct contradiction, and administered 
a serious warning to his opponent, whom, however, it could 
not possibly have convinced. In fact Hananiah's next step 
was to treat Jeremiah as a false prophet. Was Jeremiah a 
symboliser ? So, too, would Hananiah be, only for a different 
end. He took the yoke from Jeremiah's neck and broke it, 
exclaiming, * Thus hath Yahweh said, So will I break the 
yoke of the king of Babel from the neck of all the nations ' ^ 
(Jer. xxviii. 11). Upon this, strangely enough, Jeremiah 
' went his way.' Whether afterwards he actually said to 
Hananiah, 'This year shalt thou die' {v. 17) is a matter of 
doubt — not because there are no parallels outside the Bible 
for the fulfilment of such a special prediction, but (i) because 
such predictions are not in the style of the great prophets 
as these are portrayed in their most authentic and most 
characteristic sayings, (2) because the narratives in Jeremiah 
have evidently been retouched, and (3) because such an 
utterance would surely have provoked Hananiah to fierce 

It is from such an authentic and characteristic discourse 
of Ezekiel (chap, xiii.) that we derive the information that 

1 T. and B. pp. 72 (n. 4), 314. 

2 Cp. E. Bib., ' Prophecy,' § 24a. 

3 Following the simpler text of @. 


the prophets and prophetesses of Yahweh who went into 
exile with Jehoiachin were no wiser than those of Jerusalem. 
Ezekiel flatly denies that they have the spirit of Yahweh ; 
their pleasant visions are no better than a plastered wall. 
He does not, indeed, dispute their belief in themselves, but 
asserts that they seduce the people by their * vanities ' and 
their ' lies,' and proclaims that they shall not return to the 
land of Israel. We, more dispassionate, can perhaps 
mitigate the censure of Ezekiel. It was possible to be a 
genuine prophet and yet to misinterpret the will of God. 
One such misinterpreting and yet true prophet was 
Habakkuk, who, a few years earlier, took a not less super- 
ficial view of things (p. 637^), and if we compare Hananiah's 
expressions in Jen xxviii. with those in Isa. x. 25, xxix. 15,^ 
we cannot say that they are altogether dissimilar. 

The question of questions of course is. Did these prophets 
raise, or lower, the moral standard ? In Jer. vi. 1 5 the 
priests and prophets are said to have ' committed abomina- 
tions ' ; the passage, however, is admittedly not Jeremiah's,^ 
and the two preceding verses only speak of covetousness and 
moral superficiality. More important is Jer. xxiii. 1 4, where 
adultery is specified as a common sin of the prophets. 
Taking this in connexion with v. 11, where prophet and 
priest are called ' profane ' or ' heathenish,' and their wicked- 
ness is said to have been ' found ' in Yahweh's house, we 
may plausibly suppose that the * adultery ' is connected with 
some heathenish cult in Yahweh's temple (cp. Ezek. viii.). 
This gives a fresh point to the statement m v. 14 that the 
prophets of Jerusalem ' strengthen the hands of evil-doers.' ^ 
In Jer. xxix. 23 we again find adultery and lying oracles 
coupled as sins of a prophet, but this passage has not 
escaped corruption and interpolation.* On the whole, we 
must take an unfavourable view of the average moral 
position of the prophets, but admit the probability that there 

^ It is true, these passages are probably post-exilic, and written for 
those who were in a different stage of spiritual development. 

2 See Duhm and Comill. 

' It is true, the same phrase is used by Ezekiel (xiii. 22) of the 
* lying ' prophetesses among the exiles without reference to heathenish 

* See E. Bib., ' Ahab,' 2. 


were some who were better, though tradition has passed over 
all but one of them — Habakkuk. 

It is very possible that the king of Babel took notice of 
the ferment among the politicians and the prophets. If 
Jer. xxix. in the shorter form recognised by Duhm is at all 
historical, Jeremiah knew of two leading prophets among 
the exiles ^ whom he accuses of gross immorality and of 
prophesying falsely, and who, he says, will be publicly slain 
by the king of Babel (see p. 60). Moreover, Jer. xxix. 3 
speaks of Elasah and Gemariah, and li. 59 of Seraiah, as 
Zedekiah's special ambassadors to Babel.^ These statements 
may well be trustworthy ; they should probably be taken in 
combination. The king of Babel may have been irritated 
by the fanatical preaching of the prophets and have made 
an example of two specially troublesome ones close at hand, 
and Seraiah (not to mention the others), besides conveying 
the annual tribute,^ may have been charged to minimise 
the political importance of the preaching of the prophets. 
That Zedekiah also went is possible, but not probable. 
For there is no evidence that the suzerain had convoked 
a durbar. Had he done so, Zedekiah (like Ahaz and 
Manasseh on similar occasions) * would have been careful 
to attend. 

According to Winckler,^ the ambassadors of Zedekiah 
(he refers to Jer. xxix. 3) had another object, viz., to bring 
about the restoration of the Yahweh-cult in the temple, 
which, he thinks, was in abeyance throughout Zedekiah's 
reign, owing to the removal, not the destruction, of the sacred 
vessels. ' The temple, however, was still standing, and with- 
out a cult neither city nor king was possible.' Winckler 
supposes, therefore, that it was only the ' orthodox mono- 

1 See£". Bib., *Ahab,' 2. 

2 Reading, in Jer. li. 59, nwD instead of "nK. 

^ @, Jer. li. 59, describes Seraiah as o.p\{iiv 8u)p(i)v (nnjo -w) ; 
similarly Targ.; and, among moderns, Gratz, Cheyne, Pulpit Commentary 
on Jeremiah, ii. (1885), S. A. Cook, E. Bib., 'Seraiah,' who sees that 
tribute is referred to. 

* See 2 K. xvi. 10 (for Ahaz), and the lists of kings' names in 
Schrader, KA T^'^\ pp. 35 5^^ (for Manasseh). The kings were tributaries 
of Esar-haddon and Ashurbanipa 

5 KAT^\ pp. 278-280. 


theistic Yahweh-cultus ' which was abolished ; the ' ordinary 
Canaanite forms of cult ' (* no doubt partly identical with 
those of Zedekiah ') were either allowed to remain or set up 
again. And when Jeremiah (xxvii. 17) adjures the people 
to submit to the king of Babel that they may live, he means, 

* give up the hope of the restoration of the temple-cult in the 
sense of Josiah and of orthodoxy, and be content with what 
is left.' ' This,' Winckler continues, ' is the precise opposite 
of the demands of the Yahweh-party, to which Jeremiah as 
a pro-Babylonian, is absolutely opposed,' 

But, we must ask, why should Zedekiah have petitioned 
for the restoration of the Yahweh-cult when one of the chief 
objects of the party which favoured this petition was the 
restoration of Jeconiah or Jehoiachin (Jer. xxviii. 1-4)? 

* And is there any trace in Jeremiah or in Ezekiel of the 
supposed fact that the Yahweh-cult in the temple had been 
violently closed, or in the records of the life of Jeremiah that 
this enthusiast for Yahweh was " content with what was left " 
after this catastrophe had occurred ? ' ^ 

The year came, however, when no tribute-bearing 
caravan took the road for Babel. The influence of 
Jeremiah and the more sober-minded citizens had sunk to 
zero. The war-party, who still trusted in a foreign king, 
had howled down remonstrance, and Zedekiah rebelled. 
Our information is painfully meagre ; who was this foreign 
king ? In Jer. xliv. 30 (MT.) we meet with the statement 
that the king of Misraim (Egypt) would equally with 
Zedekiah be given into the hand of his enemies. It is 
natural to combine this with Jer. xxxvii. 5 (MT.), which 
relates how, on the approach of Pharaoh's army, the Kasdim 
raised the siege of Jerusalem, and then to infer that the king 
referred to is the Egyptian king Uah-ab-ra, the Apries of 
Herodotus (588-569 B.C.). In fact, according to that 
historian (ii. 161), Apries ' fought by sea with the Tyrians,' 
which, it has been suggested, ' only means that he sent 
assistance to the Tyrians in their long resistance to 
Nebuchadrezzar,' while the statement in the same passage, 

* he led an army against Sidon,' may ' refer to the expedition 
planned with a view to succour Jerusalem.' ^ This view 

1 E. Bib., 'Zedekiah,' § 4. 2 ^. Bib., 'Hophra' (W. M. Miiller). 


appears rather precarious, though certainly, if Ne-ka-u II. 
had already revived the claims of Egypt to Syria and 
Palestine, one might plausibly suppose that Uah-ab-ra would 
follow his example. The first point, therefore, to be decided 
is, whether Ne-ka-u intervened or not in the affairs of 
Palestine. This has been shown (pp. 35 ^) to be doubt- 
ful. The next is, whether ' Hophra ' in the MT. of Jer. 
xliv. 30 is correct. If it is true that Ne-ka-u occurs again 
and again in the O.T, in a slightly Hebraised form, why is 
Uah-ab-ra, in its supposed Hebrew form, only found once ? 
Surely there is an error in the case. The supposed name 
rinn has arisen out of a dittographed rri^lD ^ and ni^lD is the 
redactor's substitute for Inid (see p. 37), so that the original 
text ran, * Behold, I will give Pir'u king of Misrim into the 
hand of his enemies.' 

So, then, the foreign king on whom the war-party relied, 
and to whom Zedekiah, like Hoshea in similar circumstances,^ 
sent an embassy (Ezek. xvii. i 5 ; see pp. 70/.), was the king 
of the N. Arabian Misrim. The use of this name, as we 
have seen (p. 38), is archaistic, but such archaisms occur 
even in late books. The Misrites, however, did not hurry, 
and the king of Babel pressed on unopposed. Strangely 
enough, he had been uncertain whether to march to Jerusalem 
or to Rabbath-Ammon. A graphic description is given by 
Ezekiel (xxi. 2i[26]/.). One of two ways had to be chosen ; 
both started from the land of Ashhur or Asshur (see p. 61). 
So the pious king first shuffled the arrows before the 
teraphim, and then inspected the liver of a sacrificed animal.' 
The result of the divination was that the way to Jerusalem 
was chosen. The incidents of the march are not told us, 
but in Jer. xxxiv. 7 we read of the siege of Lachish and 
Azekah ; perhaps the same course was taken as in the 
Asshurite invasion in Hezekiah's time (see 2 K. xviii. 17).* 
It is hardly likely that the invader paused at Tekoa and 
Beth-kerem, places mentioned by Jeremiah in an imaginative 
picture of such an invasion (Jer. vi. i ; see p. 64 n. i ). At 

1 Cp. Crii. Bib. p. 76. 2 See 2 K. xvii, 4 ; Crit. Bib. p. 376. 

8 See E. Bib. col, 5398. 

* Probably vv. 1 3 <5- 1 6 refer to the invasion of Sennacherib, and the 
rest of the composite narrative to an Asshurite invasion. Cp, p, 89. 



any rate the Asshurites had not long encamped before the 
capital when the siege had to be raised (Jer. xxxvii. 5). 
The Misrites of N. Arabia were on the march. Something, 
then, the ' cracked reed ' really did for the too confiding king 
of Judah. According to Josephus, the king of Egypt was 
defeated, and retired to his own land ; Jeremiah (xxxvii. 7) 
at any rate prophesies that the Misrite army will retire. 

It was at this period (p. 72) that the freed Hebrew 
slaves were reduced to servitude again — a proof of the 
hypocritical character of the new Yahwistic movement. 
These short-sighted people, like their ancestors under 
Hezekiah,^ persuaded themselves that the Asshurite be- 
siegers had disappeared for good, in which case there was 
no special need for them to pretend to be strict Yahwists.^ 
It is true the persuasion cannot have been quite general. 
There must have been not a few who feared the Asshurites, 
and regretted Zedekiah's rebellion. In Jer. xxxviii. 19, 
Hi. 15, we read of a class of persons called 'those who have 
fallen away to the Kasdim.' But there would be others 
who quite agreed with the ' fallers away,' though circum- 
stances prevented them from leaving the city. These must 
have lived in fear and trembling, and it was not unnatural 
that Jeremiah should incur the suspicion expressed thus by a 
warder, 'Thou fallest away to the Kasdim ' (Jer. xxxvii. 13). 
The ' princes ' before whom Jeremiah was brought were 
thoroughly hostile to him ; both now and on a later occa- 
sion their condemnation of the prophet was a foregone 
conclusion. Doubtless he might have defended himself, but 
under the circumstances (cp. Jer. xxxviii. 4) could a political 
tribunal affect impartiality? At any rate, when the 
Asshurites returned, there may well have seemed to be 
no room in the beleaguered city for Jeremiah. The princes 
did not, however, venture to kill the great prophet as 
Jehoiakim killed Uriah (Jer. xxvi. 23); they would rather 
that famine should do the work of the executioner. So 
Jeremiah was cast into the cistern in the court of the prison, 
and * sank in the mire ' (Jer. xxxviii. 6). 

^ Isa. xxii. 1-14 ; see my Introd. to the Book of Isaiah^ p. 135. 
2 There may also have been a plan to utilise the freedmen as 
additional defenders of the walls. 


For the second time Zedekiah interposed for the prophet, 
though most of the credit is due to a Kushite or N. Arabian ^ 
eunuch attached to the palace. Nor was Jeremiah backward 
to act for the good of Zedekiah, who seemed paralysed by 
his troubles. He recognised the poor king's anxiety for 
himself, and urged him to take the only course which 
would at once preserve the city from destruction and save 
his own life. That Jeremiah himself was free from all 
self-regarding thoughts, is clear. One of the most striking 
episodes in his career is his purchase of a small family 
estate at Anathoth, in deference to a moral claim upon him 
(Jer. xxxii. 6-15); it was at the beginning of the period 
of his imprisonment, and while the siege was still raised. 
Unconsciously, Hanameel, Jeremiah's uncle's son, was a 
messenger of Yahweh. The prophet now became clear 
that it was the divine purpose that the land should not 
be utterly desolate, but that ' houses and fields and vineyards 
should continue to be acquired therein.' So he wrote and 
sealed the purchase-deed, took witnesses, paid the covenanted 
price, and gave the deed to Baruch to preserve. 

Certainly the contrast between Jeremiah and Zedekiah 
is as striking as it could well be. The man in the prison 
was far more kingly than the man on the throne. It would 
seem that Zedekiah distrusted the prophet's assurance (Jer. 
xxxiv. 4 /!) that his life would be spared ; and so on the 
ninth day of the fourth month of Zedekiah's eleventh year, 
this poor king's reign came to an end. A breach had been 
made in the wall, and there was no more bread. A hurried 
flight by the ravine of the Kidron, and then all is over. 
Basely abandoned by his men-at-arms, the king is taken, 
and conducted to the headquarters of the foe at Riblah, 
where, as the retribution of his disloyalty, his eyes are put 
out, his sons and ' all the nobles '" of Judah ' having been 
previously slain (Jer. xxxix. 6/1, 2 K. xxv. 6 f. 

At Jerusalem the direction of affairs was assumed by 

^ The sense here given to ' Kushite ' is justified elsewhere (see 
T. and B. pp. lyo f., 181). Note also the name Kushi in 2 S. 
xviii. 2 1 ff. David himself probably came from the southern border- 
land, though not from Kush. 

^ On the horim^ see Ed. Meyer, Entstehung^ pp. 132/. 


' the captains of the king of Babel,' seated, like judges, in 
one of the spacious gateways (Jer. xxxix. 3), But the 
chief work was left to another high officer, who, after 
plundering whatever was of value,^ gave temple and palace, 
and indeed all the city, to the flames, and broke down the 
city wall. I wish that there were no importunate problems 
to distract us. Is it possible, for instance, that Babylon and 
the N. Arabian Babel may have been partners in the work 
of destruction ? The names of the ' captains ' referred to 
are partly of Babylonian, partly of N. Arabian origin 
(p. 57); Nebuzaradan, too, like Nebuchadrezzar, is Baby- 
lonian. At any rate, we cannot reject the evidence for 
two invaders of Judah, or deny that captives were carried 
away both to Babylon and to N. Arabia.^ It is by a most 
unkind fate that the written documents of the exilic and 
post-exilic age which have been lost have been precisely 
those which must have referred unmistakably to the Baby- 
lonian captivity. 

And what was the result of this event for N, Arabia — 
for Babylon — for Israel ? The first part of this question we 
cannot answer. The history of N. Arabia is to a great 
extent a sealed book to us. On the other hand, if (as we 
must believe) the Babylonians were, somehow or other, the 
destroyers of Jerusalem, we can quite well state the result. 
It was important to conquer Jerusalem as a step to the 
reduction of the entire West. The next cities to be 
mastered were Tyre and Sidon, and the ultimate object, of 
course, was the possession of Egypt. How far Nebuchad- 
rezzar realised his aspirations, I leave it to special historians 
to consider. 

Nor could I, without a renewed, serious, penetrating 
criticism of the later portions of the Old Testament, venture 
to answer the final question. What was the result of the 
great catastrophe for Israel ? The question has, indeed, 
been answered again and again, but a still more com- 
plete and satisfactory answer needs, as it seems to me, 

1 The temple utensils which still remained formed part of the spoil 
(2 K. XXV. 13-17 ; Jer. lii. 17-23). 

2 See my sketch of the History of Israel in The Historians' History 
of the Wor/d {igoS), ii. 24. 


to be given. Sooner or later we may trust that it will 
be given. 


i. On the Sacred Serpent (Nehushtan) in 
2 K. XVIII. 4 b (p. 4) 

There are two possible views of this serpent. It might 
represent the primeval serpent of chaos and darkness, and 
(by an allegorising which may have begun pretty early) of 
evil. In that case it has the nature of an amulet. Or it 
might be a symbol of the N. Arabian healing god, who went 
with migrating N. Arabians to Phoenicia, and was there 
called Eshmun ( = Ishmael ?) This view is favoured by 
Num. xxi. 9. The tradition was that the serpent worshipped 
by the people was that which Moses had made. Probably 
it was ' a magic symbol which brought the divine Healer 
near his people' (7! and B. p. 42). The divine Healer was 
not originally Yahweh, but Yerahme'el ( = Ishmael) ; indeed, 
2 K. xviii. 4 b (as originally read) gives, in a gloss, as two 
current designations of the serpent, Yerahme'el (or some 
form of that name) and Hashtan ( = Ashhur-Ethan). These 
names underlie the very improbable words 1^ Nip"* and 
]ntDnD, to account for which corruptions see my explana- 
tions of Judg. XV. 19 {En-hakkdre\ Gen. iv. 22, Zech. vi. i 
{Crit. Bib. pp. 183, 484; T. and B. p. 109). The name 
Hashtan or Ashhur-Ethan suggests that some at any rate 
explained the serpent as representing the power which was 
always dangerous to Israel, whether it happened to be 
Misrim or the more distant Ashhur. Ezekiel in fact repre- 
sents Misrim as an evil serpent (Ezek. xxix. 3), and two 
glosses found with great probability in the work of a name- 
less prophet in 'Isaiah' (Isa. xxvii. i) explain the leviathan 
in the eschatological picture as * the serpent Ashkal-Ethan,' 
and ' Asshur in Yaman.' That the symbol of cruel hatred 
should be worshipped will not surprise any one ; it was in 
order to avert evil. On Mr. Macalister's illustration of 


* Nehushtan ' by a serpent of bronze found at the great 
bdmah at Gezer, see Pere Vincent, Canaan, pp. 174-176. 

ii. Parallels for a Confusion of Kings in 
Hebrew Narratives (pp. 29, 61) 

I. I K. xiv. 25 /; 2 Chr. xii. 2-12. A king of Misraim 
(Egypt) called Shishak is said in the pointed text to have 
assaulted and taken Jerusalem, and plundered the treasuries 
of the temple and the palace. He is usually identified with 
Shoshenk I. of Egypt (22nd dynasty), who made a suc- 
cessful expedition into Palestine, recorded in the sculp- 
tures on the south wall of the great temple at Karnak; 
the date, however, is unknown. Recently the suggestion 
has been made that there is probably a confusion between 
two kings of Misraim and Misrim respectively. It was, of 
course, no part of this theory to * repudiate ' the expedition 
into Palestine recorded by the very king who made it. 
That is a careless misrepresentation of Prof Flinders Petrie 
{Researches in Sinai, 1906, p. 195) ; the theory was pro- 
duced by the play of mind upon an Egyptian monument, 
Assyrian inscriptions, and passages of the O.T., and is not 
therefore a ' fantasy ' of ' unchecked literary criticism.' 

The collection of cartouches, or ovals with names, was 
published incompletely by Rosellini and Champollion, but 
the closing part was first uncovered by M. Legrain in 1901. 
W. Max Miiller, in 1905 (?), found a new line {Egyptological 
Researches, vol. i., plate 85), and by a subsequent collation 
in the summer of 1906 discovered that a much more 
important line of the text had been overlooked, viz. the 
closing line, which had been covered over with bushes and 
rubbish. This will appear in vol. ii. of E.R. The names 
Raphia and Ekron show that Philistia was not (as had been 
supposed) omitted in the list {OLZ, Apr. 1908, 186-188). 

There are three difficulties in the way of the ordinary 

identification. (a) The list includes N. Israelitish ones. 

The Hebrew text, however, only mentions Jerusalem. It is, 

of course, open to us to conjecture with W. M. M. formerly ^ 

1 So too G. A. Smith, Expositor, March 1905. 


(5. Bib. col. 4486) that the Egyptian king only conquered 
Judah, and was content with tribute from ' his old proUg^', 
Jeroboam. Now, however, W. M. M. is less disposed to 
question Musri, and thinks that Shishak's object was, ' not to 
help Jeroboam, but to gain tribute and spoils from both 
halves of Palestine.' * Numerous cities, in fact the first and 
greater part of the list, belong to Israel, the northern 
kingdom, and thus give evidence of a conquest of Israel, 
which our Biblical writers, from their exclusively Judaean 
standpoint, did not deem worthy of mention.' ^ The Judaean 
standpoint, however, does not always prevent the mention 
of events affecting the northern kingdom. Why should it 
here .'' 

ib) Presumably Shoshenk reasserted the dormant 
claims of Egypt to the suzerainty of Palestine. Shishak, 
however, is not related to have done so. True, ' Zerah the 
Kushite' is also not said to have done so. But then, there 
is very great doubt whether this invader with a Semitic 
name ^ was a king of Egypt. 

{c) The authority used by the Chronicler (2 Chr. xii. 3) 
speaks of the Lubim, the Sukkiim, and the Kushites in 
Shishak's army. * Hitherto they have not been identified ' 
(Petrie). Lubim, however, is most easily explained as = 
Kelubim, i.e. Calebites, and Sukkiim is also probably a 
N. Arabian name.^ The Kushim and Lubim are also 
mentioned as forming Zerah's army. 

((3?) If ' Shishak king of D'^iSD ' means ' Shoshenk king of 
Egypt ' here, it ought to do so in i K. xi. 40. Winckler,^ 
however, and the present writer,^ have shown the improba- 
bility of this. But to go further (as they did) and excise 
' Shishak ' in xi. 40 was an error. To understand proper 
names, it is absolutely necessary that like should be grouped 
with like, and that the common element should be accounted 
for on fixed principles, 'pxcrm should therefore be grouped 
with "^mm (Jer. xxv. 26, li. 41) and pm» (i Chr. viii. 14), 
which are S. Palestinian or N. Arabian names ; indeed, ID? 
or p{& is a short form of "iDtDN or intDN, a regional N. Arabian 

1 Egypiol. Researches^ i. 51. ^ See E. Bib., 'Zerah.' 

3 Cp. T. and B. p. 397. * For references see E. Bib., ' Shishak. 

5 Jewish Quart, Rev., July 1899, pp. 558-560. 


name. We can now see that Shishak is a development of 
a shortened form of Ashhur, and in i K. xi. 40, xiv. 25, is 
the designation of a N. Arabian king, who in the large sense 
of the word was an Ashhurite. See T. and B. pp. 47, 
187, 363. 

It is possible, however, that the redactor confounded 
Shishak with Shoshenk, which might easily pass into 
Shoshak, the Hebrew text-reading. Cp. E. Bib., ' Shishak * 
(W. Max Muller). 

2. Isa. XX. As most suppose, we have here a prophecy 
of the deportation of the Egyptians and the Ethiopians into 
Assyria. But there was no probability of a conquest ot 
Egypt and Ethiopia by Assyria in Isaiah's time. The 
prophet was too well informed not to know this. n^ili2 and 
IDID must therefore mean, not Egypt and Ethiopia, but 
Misrim and Kush in N. Arabia. The fatal blow here 
announced might be expected to come from a greater N. 
Arabian power with which we are becoming acquainted as 
Asshur or Ashhur. The prophet is well assured that the 
inhabitants of the south of Palestine would take notice of 
the event, and fear for themselves. At the time when the 
oracle was given, they were in alliance with Misrim. It is 
inevitable, therefore, to assume a confusion in the redactor's 
mind between one capture of Ashdod by a N. Arabian 
Asshurite king, and another by the Assyrian king Sargon. 
On the criticism of the chapter see Cheyne, Introd. to Bk. 
of Isaiah, pp. 11 9- 121, and Isaiah in SBOT (Hebrew 

3. 2 K. xvii. 6 a. It is critically probable that not 
only from Assyria but from the N. Arabian Asshur in- 
vasions might be expected by the peoples of Palestine. 
In the eighth century Isaiah gave a gloomy view of the 
future, and, for him, the invader came from the south. 
Isa. xxviii. 1-4, when scrutinised,^ proves to contain a 
prophecy of the conquest of the southern Shomeron (or 
Shimron) by the Asshurites. It may be this event which 
is referred to in 2 K. xvii. 6 a, which tells how the king of 

^ See Crti. Bib. p. 33, where, however, corrections are required. 
D'JDr most probably comes from d'jdb" ( = Ishmaelites), 'oiVn from '?»<Dm', 
and I" from p' (cp. Introduction on this passage). 


Asshur took Shomeron, and carried Israel away to Asshur. 
It will be found that the place-names and divine names in 
2 K. xvii. 2^ff. are partly, at any rate, non- Assyrian. 
There is probably a confusion in the redactor's mind 
between the capture of Shomeron or Samaria and a 
Shomeron or Shimron in the south (see chap. iii.). 

4. 2 K. xviii. 13-xix. It has been supposed — and 
very naturally — that the discovery by Scheil of a fragment 
of an official statement of Sennacherib respecting a second 
expedition to the west provides an easy solution for the 
literary and historical problems of the composite narrative 
in 2 Kings.^ I do not myself think that this is so. To me 
it appears that the only part of the narrative which refers 
to Sennacherib is the short extract from the Annals of 
Judah in 2 K. xviii. 13^-16. The rest of the narrative 
refers to a N. Arabian Asshurite invasion, and the redactor 
has made a confusion between the two Asshurs. The 
names which occur in the narrative are no hindrance ; 
underneath them most probably lie distinctive N. Arabian 
names. It is now possible to understand the saying of 
Rab-shakeh in 2 K. xviii. 25 better (cp. pp. 36, 38, on 
the Chronicler's version of the Neko -narrative). It is not 
' haughtiness,' but faith, which inspires it. Rab-shakeh has 
heard of Yahweh- prophecies, and gives them credit. 
' Yahweh said to me. Go up against this land, and destroy 
it.' At this point it deserves to be mentioned that Sir H. 
Rawlinson long ago ^ divined that there was a confusion 
between two invasions; according to him vv. 13-16 refer 
to one, and the rest of the narrative to another, which is 
not described in the Annals — that which ended in the 
' miraculous destruction ' of Sennacherib's army. Dr. Hincks,^ 
the Irish Assyriologist, on the other hand, supposed a 
confusion between an invasion by Sargon and one by 
Sennacherib. Prasek ■* agrees with Rawlinson ; Scheil's dis- 
covery had not yet been made. Hincks, at any rate, saw 
that two kings were referred to. Rab-shakeh ( = Arab- 

^ Cp. O. Weber, Sanherib : eine Skizze (1905), pp. 21-24. 
2 G, Rawlinson, Herodotus (ed. i), i. 479. 
^ Journal of Sacred Lit., Oct. 1858, p. 136. 
* Sanheribs Feldziige gegen Juda, i. (1903-4). 


Asshur) is a N. Arabian officer, and the king is the king of 
Ashhur. In v. 24 the strange phrase thn nnD should be 
nntDN nns. * Ashhurite governors ' is a gloss on ' servants 
of my lord.' The names in t/. 34 cannot here be discussed. 

iii. On Jer. XXII. 13-19, 24-30 (p. 52) 

I will now endeavour to set forth the grounds of my 
restoration, starting from the very doubtful word niDtO in 
V. 14. After a full discussion Kamphausen ^ arrives at the 
conclusion that ' a perfectly certain explanation can hardly 
be obtained.' The context being equally doubtful, one may 
assume corruption. It should be noticed that a number of 
words beginning with tDQJ (''ffitD, "jmin, ]tDDJ, plDtD ; cp. p. 87) 
have turned out to be N. Arabian Asshurite names. One 
can hardly doubt that the same origin should be assigned 
to nmtD. 

From the same point of view it is possible to restore the 
true opening words of v. 1 3. It was not a house (n"*!) 
and upper chambers (nvSi?) that Jehoiakim thought of 
building in the southern Asshur, but, as my reference to 
2 Chr. xxvii. 4 may already have suggested, and as the 
reference to Asshur \n v. 14 further indicates, 'castles' 
(nv^T*! = n"'l) and ' forts ' (ni^-r:iD). VC\-h-3 occurs again in 
V. 14, and should again be corrected (see below). Now, too, 
we can see that mio vr^l (v. 1 4) is not an expansion of the 
n""! in V. 1 3, as if Jehoiakim specially coveted a * spacious 
house* ; surely Josiah, who had an * Ishmael-chariot ' (p. 39) 
could have managed to procure a sufficiently roomy palace. 
The truth is that a fate attaches to mo and niTD. In the 
phrases mo »"•« (i Chr, xi. 23) and mo ""tD^N (Isa. xlv. 14) 
certainly,^ and in miD "'tDDN (Num. xiii. 32) probably, mo 
or nyiD represents a N. Arabian regional name, such as noT 
or moT (where dt represents mw). Here, too, nno is more 
than probably corrupt ; the best restoration is niSTID, which 
is naturally combined with DTDT^, and is a correction of the 
following nvW The next words in v. 14 D'^nvip nV7:;l 

1 Riehm, HIVB des Bibl Altertums''^\ ' Mennig.' 

2 In I Chr. xi. 23 mo r'n is a gloss on nxn ; in Isa. xlv. 14 'o tjk on 
the preceding regional or ethnic names. 


are commonly rendered 'and airy upper chambers.' But 
how can the feminine noun be combined with a masculine 
participle ? Cornill proposes to point D'^nilD, a word which 
can hardly be said to exist, and which, if it did exist, would 
produce an unsuitable sense. Surely the approximately 
right correction lies close at hand — Dm*'! m^lID. 

That the next clause is specially difficult, Cornill is well 
aware. Here I can only call attention to what is most 
important. "VSiXfTl has been explained already, but why is it 
linked to nhmm ? And what is to be done with n^l i^Dpi ? 
Surely the stress laid on cedar- wood (cp. v. 15^) is un- 
reasonable. From our point of view the questions can 
be satisfactorily answered. ^tDtDl and nNl are parallel. 
nN, like rv\^ ^ and mtN, represents "intJJN. There is no 
violence in this, nor is there any difficulty in penetrating the 
mystery of psD, which is certainly miswritten for pD^, here 
(as in Josh. xiii. 27) a place-name.^ mtDD remains ; it must 
be a corruption of a place-name, probably of nODi ^ (some- 
times less correctly written ptum). The crown will be put 
on our restoration if we succeed in accounting for iS i^npT 
^vhn. It is not enough to put on 1 to ■^niSn ; the ordinary 
rendering of the clause is not natural. Nor can we venture 
to connect the '^yhn of MT. with the architectural term in 
Assyrian, bit hilani, ' fortified portico.' ^ Clearly since forti- 
fied towns are spoken of, i;-)pi is best corrected into Ijpi^ 
(see 2 Chr. xxi. 17, Isa. vii. 6 [Hiphil], and pDD") "'^l^n into 
pssi ]T7n\ The place-name is not attested elsewhere, but 
we do find ]^hn (Josh. xv. 51) and ]hTt (i Chr. vi. 43). 
mtNl is a duplicate reading ; pDSl suffices. At the opening 
of the Jehoiakim-section we should simply read n^inn, as 
Cornill, following (3- It is a description. 

Verse 1 5 looks simpler, but has its own difficulties. 
How can ^^Dnrr possibly mean ' callest thou that being a 
king ' (Cornill) ? Duhm would read l^onnn, ' showest thou 
thyself a king ? ' Both interpretations imply that the next 
words refer to Jehoiakim's preference for cedar-wood in his 
buildings. But, as we have seen, nN may, when circum- 
stances favour this, be an offshoot of "intDN, and we shall 

^ Cp. 'Zerah the Kushite.' - On ps^ see p. 42. 

3 See T. and B. p. 261 (n. 2). * See Muss-Amolt, s.v. xilani. 


now be prepared to admit that tnN, which ^^ presupposes 
instead of ^n, may represent mTN, i.e. intDN. These 
things, in fact, are only strange when we have no reservoir 
of experience to fall back upon. It is from this reservoir 
that we have to draw the analogies which make another 
suggestion as natural as it is indispensable. This suggestion 
is that INHN, presupposed by ^^ instead of nw (miN), is 
really an equivalent of the word underlying "iiN, being a sort 
of popular symbol for ns ^^t&N, ' Arabian Ashhur.' ^ The 
sense therefore remains the same, whichever of these three 
readings we find reason to prefer. And what as to mnno ? 
Cornill's note only shows how difficult, nay how impossible, 
the received text is. But now that we have restored the 
* castles ' and ' forts ' to their proper place, it should not be 
difficult to restore the right word here. Must we not read 
mino (Dt. ii. 5, 19)? And having proceeded thus far in 
connecting our passage with the history of the times (cp. 
pp. 50 /), must we not give "j^Dnn the meaning (which 
obviously it can thoroughly bear), ' Shalt thou continue to 
reign ? ' The idea is that neither courage nor some few 
warlike successes will be a sure foundation for a throne, and 
take the place of judicial accuracy and attention to the rights 
of the poor. Josiah, as we shall hear presently, possessed 
these royal virtues, and was rewarded by prosperity ; by 
the same divine principle of retributive justice Jehoiakim 
must fall. 

And now as to the prophet's eulogy of Josiah {vv. \^b- 
16). The passage continues in MT., 'Did not thy father 
eat and drink, and execute right and justice, — then it was 
well with him ? ' * Eat and drink ' is surely unsatisfactory, 
and ®, which renders nearly the same text, gives no real 
help. We turn, then, to the moderns. According to 
Duhm, the first characteristic of Josiah mentioned by 
Jeremiah is his plain, bourgeois manner of life. Cornill, 
however, thinks that it is not the simplicity of his life, but 
his frank enjoyment of royal luxuries, for which, together 
with his devotion to judicial duties, Josiah is praised. But 
how strange that the same phrase should equally well mean 

^ Similar corruptions occur in Hos. iii. i, iv. 18, viii. 13, ix. 10, 
xi. 4, xii. 8, Mic. vi. 16 ; cp. T. and B. pp. 63 (n. 4), 286 (n. 3), 308. 


either bourgeois simplicity or royal luxury ! That some- 
thing is wrong with the text, which here becomes unmetrical, 
is plain. Order will be restored if we cancel "if? njD In in 
?/. I 5 (at the same time restoring t> in the phrase in v. 1 6), 
and above all omit nntD[*l] fpDN^ underneath which lie S^t&N 
and nnoy, i.e. ^ntD^«. ' Ashkal ' and ' Ashtar ' are suitable 
glosses on the riTN underlying "nN. It is almost needless 
to repeat that ^DCJ^» (Gen. xiv. 13, etc.) is not to be read 
♦Eshkel' (as it = ' cluster '), but ' Ashkal' = Asshur-Yerah- 
me'el.^ Our prophet-poet has said that going to war with 
Ezrah will not avert the dangers by which Jehoiakim is 
threatened ; the gloss reminds us that other, perhaps more 
familiar, names for the N. Arabian border-land are Ashkal 
and Ashtar. At a later age these archaic words had them- 
selves become corrupted, and increased the misunderstanding 
of the passage. 

On vv. 24-30. I must notice (after others) that in 
V. 24 'son of Jehoiakim king of Judah ' is of course an 
interpolation, and that the suffix for ' thee ' should presum- 
ably be the suffix for 'him.' Vv. 25-27 are poor and in 
good part prosaic. They seem intended to link z*. 24 with 
V. 28. In z;, 28 'this man,' 'broken' (pDD), and 'he and 
his seed ' are plainly scribal superfluities. As to pNH Si? 
1»"T ""N*? "itDN it has already been doubted by Duhm ; his 
remedy, to read y^'i^in 'h'3, ' upon the earth,' seems, however, 
rather weak. The truth seems to be that Tt&N, as often, ^ 
should probably be TpN ; *ii;~P nS, in this case, is a scribe's 
endeavour to make sense of a misread Tmw ; the article in 
pNrr is also scribal. The troublesome v. 29 (observe 
Cornill's perplexity) is also the scribe's attempt to make 
sense of material before him. pN (thrice in M.T., twice in 
^) should only occur once ; li?otn has come from a corrupt 
fjNi^DtD"' ; 'otD"" pN is probably a gloss on "nc^N fiN. For the 
overworking visible in t^. 30 it is sufficient to refer to the 
commentaries of Duhm and Cornill. 

1 It is a common thing for one or two of the letters of a regional or 
place-name to be lost. Thus inN often represents "incx. See also 
T. and B. p. 109. 

2 T. and B. p. 247 ; cp. pp. 18, 23. 

3 Ibid. p. 328. 


iv. The Kasdim of Habakkuk (p. 64) 

It would make these pages too dry, and would be too 
much of a digression, to mention all the evidence which 
exists for the N. Arabian reference of the composite Book 
of Habakkuk, and especially of that portion which may 
fairly be assigned to the prophet Habakkuk. For that I 
must refer once more to the appeal for a more thorough 
criticism of the book in the Jewish Quarterly Review^ 
October 1907. But I may remark that in Hab. i. 16 the 
Hashramim (Kasdim) are most probably spoken of as 
offering sacrifices of thanksgiving, not to ' their net ' and 
* their drag,' but to ' Yarham ' and to ' Rakmith ' {i.e. to the 
supreme god of N. Arabia and his consort). That scribes 
and editors of Habakkuk should have inserted glosses to 
explain D"^DltDn (oniDD) is not surprising. Two such 
glosses may be mentioned, both of which, at different places, 
made their way into the text, and became corrupt, viz., 
TintDN N^irr, ' that is, Ashtor,' and DpT ""il Dn, ' they are the 
bene Yarkam (Yarham).' Of course the use of the name 
Hashramim (or Hashrim ?) is archaistic. 

V. Note on Ezek. xvii. 3, 4 (p. 67) 

Not to repeat from my predecessors, let me turn at 
once to the difificult pair of phrases, ]WD pM and D"'f?3T "T'l;. 
The former is most naturally rendered * the land of Canaan,* 
the latter * the city of merchants.' Clearly, however, these 
renderings cannot represent the prophet's meaning. Feeling 
this, translators have abandoned the natural meaning of p3D, 
and substituted ' traffickers ' (A.V. ' traffic '), because the 
Phoenicians were in their time the leading commercial 
people. There is, however, no other passage in which pDD 
will bear this rendering. The other passages quoted are 
Zeph. i. II, Ezek. xvi. 29. But, as to the first, though 
' the people of Canaan ' might conceivably mean ' the 
Phoenician merchants,' yet ' the land of Canaan ' (Ezek. 
xvii. 4) could not possibly be explained ' the land of 
merchants,' with a depreciating reference to Babylonia. 


And the same criticism must unavoidably be passed on the 
customary rendering of riD'^ltDD p3D pN-^N (xvi. 29), 'to 
the land of merchants, to Chaldaea.' Clearly, then, p2D 
must in xvii. 4, as elsewhere, be a regional name, and 
some regional or at least ethnic name must underlie D'^^DI. 
The solution of the problem is pointed to in the article 
' Merchant ' in the Encyclopcedia Biblica. In Neh. iii. 31,32 
D"'f?Dn, or less incorrectly □''Sd^i, has come from the ethnic 
D"'^NonT ; in Cant. iii. 6 Sdit has for its original ^NDm"'. 
To complete the solution let it be pointed out that "T^^ has 
not unfrequently come from 'ii>, i.e. 1*1^5 (see e.g. Gen. x. 1 1 , 
Judg. i. 16, I S. XV. 5); also that there was a southern 
* Canaan ' in N. Arabia — the name was in remote times 
carried northward in the Arabian migration. Thus we get 
as the rendering of Ezek. xvii. 4, 

' He cropped off the topmost growth thereof, and brought 
it to the land of Canaan ; in Arabia of Yerahme'el he 
set it.' 

On the southern Canaan see further T. and B. pp. 85, 
I75> 475. 5 50- It is interesting that Ezekiel (xvi. 3) 
traces the origin of Jerusalem to ' the land of the Canaanite,' 
and presently uses ' Amorite ' and ' Hittite ' as equivalent to 
' Canaanite.' Now, we are nowhere told that Hittites dwelt 
in Jerusalem ; in fact, ' wherever Hittites are mentioned the 
surrounding contexts favour the view that a N. Arabian 
people is intended' {T. and B. p. 194). 

THE LAW-BOOKS (excepting the Priestly Code) 



As far as we know, the young Israelite people had no royal 
codifier of its laws — no Hammurabi. It is true that Josiah 
(as we have seen) was deeply interested in a certain law- 
book, but no one can claim that he originated either this or 
any other book of torah. Nor does such a distinction 
belong even to that darling of Hebrew legend, Solomon, 
though this king is expressly said in tradition to have been 
a model of judicial correctness (i K. iii. 28). Indeed, we 
may safely hold that if there were a civil and religious law 
in written form among the early Israelites, it must have 
been derived either from the Canaanites or from the 
N. Arabians,^ or from both. For the existence of legal 
codes is a sign of no slight social progress, and the Israel- 
itish communities, being younger than either of those 
peoples, and in general the debtors of both, must surely 
have been in this as well as in other respects their pupils. 
Constantly it would happen that Israelitish families fell into, 
or even deliberately adopted, Canaanitish or N. Arabian 
practices, and for them a law-book was obviously desirable, 
and if none such existed, the priests of Canaan or N. Arabia 
would not fail to prepare it. The extent to which, in 
these circumstances, the transformation of Israel proceeded 
can be easily imagined. It may be a late prophet who 
says (Mic. vi. 16), that 'the statutes of the Arammites are 

1 It is interesting that Solomon's two scribes were ' bene Shisha ' 
(i K. iv. 3), i.e. 'bene Ishmael' or N. Arabians, and that David's 
scribe, according to r Chr. xviii. 16, was Shawsha, i.e. Ishmael. See 
T. and B. p. 288. 



observed, and all the practices of the house of Ah'ab,' ^ but 
the same words might have been written much earlier ; and 
for the due observance of statutes of non-Israelite origin, 
even though Judah may have swarmed with N. Arabian 
priests,^ a law-book was indispensable. The Canaanites 
and N. Arabians, in virtue of their precedence, must have 
suggested the idea, but we can well believe that the idea 
was quickly assimilated, and that highly rudimentary Israel- 
itish law-books were forthcoming under the pressure of 
circumstances, as, for instance, when Canaanites wished to 
enter an Israelitish community that remained true to its 
religion. At any rate, both in Canaanitish or N. Arabian 
and in Israelitish sanctuaries such books, based on the 
records of priestly decisions, would beyond question be 
produced at the fitting time. 

Nor can we doubt that even those early law-books were 
quickly invested with the halo of sanctity, and were said to 
have been received from the supreme God by some ancient 
priest, or prophet, or king. More particularly would this be 
the case when a law-book of greater length and complexity 
proceeded from some specially venerated sanctuary. Such 
a work would throw inferior law-books into the shade, and 
either temporarily or permanently be called the law-book 
par excellence of that ancient hero. It would be absurd to 
carp at the morality of this procedure. Was it not reason- 
able to hold that the civil and religious laws systematised in 
such a collection were such as the reputed initiator of the 
legislation, returning to earth, would have sanctioned, i.e. 
that they were virtually Mosaic (cp. Mt. xi. 14)? And if 
this explanation be thought too subtle for many of those 
priests who called such a law-book Mosaic, and taught the 
people accordingly, may we carp at these less clever but not 
less devout men for their greater naivete } In fact there 
were some who even presumed to assert that the two tables 
of stone were * written with the finger of Elohim ' ^ — a 

1 T. and B. p. 63 (n. 4). 

2 Ibid. p. 62, with n. I. Cp. Lev. xviii. 3 (prohibition of Misrite and 
Canaanite practices). 

3 Ex. xxxi. 18, cp. xxxii. 16. Note that in xxxiv. i nana might be read 
either as 'b — or as n — . Apart from this, the whole of v. i b, q':v«-\2 in 


childlike way of expressing the idea of revelation,^ which 
may be compared with the mythic story of the heavenly 
tablets in the Books of Enoch and Jubilees — sometimes 
identified with the Pentateuch.^ 

It has been stated already that the chief pre-exilic law- 
book in its original form was possibly or probably intended 
for the use of the Israelites in N. Arabia. Later on we 
shall have to collect the evidence for this view. Nor can 
we regard it as a priori improbable that some elements, at 
least, of other law-books may have had a similar origin. The 
case will present itself in the course of our study of the so- 
called ' Book of Covenant,' which being, like the Code of 
Hammurabi ^ and that of Deuteronomy, composite, offers a 
fair field to the searcher after surprises. 

It is a misfortune that we cannot determine the age of 
the Book of Covenant as a whole, and of its several parts, 
or that of the two decalogues of which I shall next speak. 
The consequence is that these works give very little help 
for exact historical research, though for the vaguer subject 
of the development of religious and social ideas they supply 
valuable material. We can, however, venture to say that 
the collection of laws in Ex. xxxiv. 17-26 (preserved by J, 
i.e. the Yahwist) is the oldest extant Hebrew work of the 
kind. It stands in connexion with a narrative which tells 
us, very simply and without any admixture of mythology, 
how Moses ' hewed out two (fresh) tables of stone ' {y. 4), 
and 'wrote upon the tables the ten words' {v. 28). From 
this statement we see that what J furnishes is really a rival 
narrative to that of E (the Elohist) ; it is now placed in 
the background, because it could not be combined with E's 
account of the giving of the Decalogue in Ex. xx.'* It is 
true that, as the text of J now stands, the words are not ten, 

V. 1 a, as well as all v. 4, seem to belong to the redactor, who thus 
made a bridge between chaps, xxxii.-xxxiii. and chap, xxxiv. (VVell- 
hausen, CH"^^ p. 330.) See also Carpenter-Battersby, Hex. ii. 134. 

1 T. and B. p. 568. 

2 See references in Zimmern, KAT^\ pp. 540/ The Babylonian 
origin is obvious. 

3 See D. G. Lyon, 'The Structure of the Hammurabi Code,' 
Journal of the American Oriental Society, xxv. [1904], pp. 258-278. 

* Wellhausen. 


but eleven. If, however, we omit the command that all the 
men of Israel shall appear before their God thrice in the 
year, as unnecessary in the context, we obtain a Decalogue. 
And if we omit explanations where they occur, so as to 
restore the ' terse and simple form ' of primitive laws, and 
further transpose the laws in v. i8 and v. 19, and accept 
certain important textual corrections, so as to get nearer 
to the underlying original text, we shall arrive at the follow- 
ing form of decalogue : — 

1. Thou shalt worship no other divinity {eV). 

2. Thou shalt make for thyself no molten gods 

{eldhi massekah). 

3. Every first-born is mine. 

4. Six days thou shalt work, and on the seventh 

day rest. 

5. Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread at 

the time of the month Arab.^ 

6. Thou shalt keep the feast of weeks, and the feast 

of ingathering at the turn of the year. 

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice 

with leaven. 

8. The fat of my festal sacrifice shall not remain 

unto the morning. 

9. The best of the first-fruits of thy land thou shalt 

bring to the house of Yahweh thy God. 
10. Thou shalt not put on the garment of a Yerah- 
me'elite woman.^ 

Neither this decalogue nor (much less) that in Ex. xx. 
can be called primitive. A legislation which forbids the 
use of graven or molten images implies that art has already 
been pressed into the service of religion, and though we 
may admit that moral duties must have been recognised by 
the authors of the decalogue in Ex. xxxiv., yet the fact that 
this decalogue is, and the other is not, purely religious (in 
the narrower sense), requires a considerable interval between 
the two. That the former decalogue (Ex. xxxiv.) is, even 
if not primitive, relatively early, cannot, of course, be denied. 

^ See on Dt. xvi. i. 2 See T. and B. pp. 564/. 


The first two commands, it is true, are almost identical with 
the corresponding ones in the greater decalogue, but Ex. 
XX. 3 f. belongs to an element in that decalogue which is 
at once early and late. At the time when that passage was 
produced, it was still needful to protest against Yerahme'el's 
being placed ' in front ' of Yahweh, and against either 
Yerahme'el's or Yahweh's being worshipped under the form 
of a graven or molten steer.^ The tenth command in the 
earlier decalogue is one among other monuments of the 
opposition of the Yahwists to a dangerous N. Arabian cult, 
and will be referred to again in connexion with Dt. xiv. 21, 
xxii. 5. It will be noticed that I do not, like Wellhausen, 
omit the Sabbath-law. The form in which this command 
appears in Ex. xxxiv. 21 a is so different from what we 
might expect, and from what we find in Ex. xx. 9, 10 a, 
that it is safer to retain it, only in a different place.^ 

And now for the translation of the greater decalogue. I 
omit as late insertions the supplementary passages in the two 
forms of the Sabbath-law (in Ex. xx. and Dt. v.) ; also the 
preamble, ' I am Yahweh thy God,^ who brought thee out of the 
land of Misrim, out of the territory of Arabia,'* though it is 
quite in the spirit of the commands (cp. Ex. xxxii. 4 ^, I K. 
xii. 22> b). I may add that the supplement of the second 
command contains an intrusive gloss stating that the makers 
of graven images, who ' hate ' Yahweh, are Arabians or 
Ishmaelites.^ The images are images of Yerahme'el ( = 
Baal); cp. Hos. ii. 10 (8). 

1. Thou shalt not have other gods in front of me. 

2. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image. 

3. Thou shalt not pronounce the name of Yahweh 

thy God for vanity. 

4. Remember (Dt., observe) the Sabbath day to 

hallow it. 

1 See Ex. xxxii. 4, i K. xii. 28 ; and cp. Crit. Bib. on i K., and 
T. and B. pp. 35, 509. 

2 So B. Baentsch and K. Budde. 

3 Perhaps, however, here, and in the third command, we should 
read ' Yahweh- Yerahme'el,' which was the fuller name of Israel's God 
{T. and B. pp. 16, 28/, 33, 35, 563). 

* T. and B. p. 549. 

^ On the textual corruption see T. and B. p. 564. 


5. Honour thy father and thy mother. 

6. Thou shalt not murder, 

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 

8. Thou shalt not steal. 

9. Thou shalt not bear false (Dt., vain = false) witness 

against thy neighbour, 
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,^ 

The date of this decalogue has been much discussed 
without any decisive result. There is, at any rate, the 
possibility that it may be post-exilic. The use of shabbath 
in the fourth command for the weekly rest-day has suggested 
to Meinhold a date not earlier than Ezekiel, who not only 
refers to the sabbath, but lays the greatest stress on its 
exact observance (' my sabbaths '). For my own part, I 
have a doubt whether nnon DV has not been altered from 
'•i?*'llDn DV, ' the seventh day ' (see, in the first decalogue. 
Ex, xxxiv. 21), At any rate, the absence of any very 
definite hostile reference ^ to the cultus of N. Arabia, such 
as we find at the close of the first decalogue, makes the 
second less important for historical purposes, unless, indeed, 
we point to the depreciation of forms of cultus implied in 
the fourth, and to the heart-searching character of the tenth ^ 
of the commandments in Ex, xx. We are undoubtedly 
fortunate in possessing law-books like the first Decalogue 
and the Book of Covenant, belonging, as appears most 
probable, to the early regal period. 

It is the Book of Covenant (Ex. xx. 22-xxiii. 33) to 
which we have now to direet our attention. This little 
document, the origin of which, unlike that of Deuteronomy, 
is unrecorded, has of late received much special study. It 
is superfluous for me to summarise the work of others,* but 
as regards the relations of this law-book to the Code of 
Hammurabi I may record the opinion that influence of 
the latter upon the former is far from probable ; to prove 

1 Dt. transfers 'house' to the supplement, and substitutes 'wife,' 
which Ex. rightly places in its supplement, 

2 Unless one be implied in the first command, 

3 But why should not ' coveting ' have been accounted a sin com- 
paratively early ? 

* Cp. E. Bib., ' Law and Justice,' § 4 ; ' Law Literature,' §§ 6-9. 


such a thesis a much larger amount of plausible evidence 
would have to be found. That both the Book of Covenant 
and Deuteronomy may contain elements of non-Israelitish 
origin can be admitted, but not that any of these came, 
except indirectly, from Babylon. From Canaan and from 
N. Arabia direct loans may, or rather must, have been 
effected, but not from Babylon. Of course the comparative 
study of the Code of Hammurabi and other legal collections 
is both ethically and juristically important, but with that we 
are not here concerned. 

On the composition of the Book of Covenant there is 
general agreement. It is made up partly of a series of 
Divine Words containing directions as to religion and 
worship, partly of a collection of Judgments, or judicial 
decisions (of the king or the priest), adapted, like those 
in Hammurabi's Code, to particular cases. The opening 
direction (Ex. xx. 24, see p. 114) is very interesting. The 
legislator endorses the objection to the use of iron in the 
shaping of altar-stones, and opposes the tendencies which 
may early have arisen, assigning a special sanctity to some 
leading sanctuary, and have led in some degree to the 
centralisation of justice.^ He says that wherever, according 
to the sacred story, Yahweh has met his worshippers, an 
altar either of earth or of unhewn stones may be raised to 
the Deity. Considering that, in the earlier form of that 
story, the scene of the theophanies was in some part of the 
N. Arabian border-land,^ it is possible that this passage may 
have come from some law-book intended for Israelites 
residing in N. Arabia. The difficulty of deciding on the 
original context of this antique prescription may perhaps be 
relieved by this theory. It is possible that some of the 
laws in Ex. xxii. i7-xxiii, 19 (see e.g. xxii. 19, xxiii. ig b, 
besides Dt. xvi. 2 1 f.) may also have belonged to such a 
document. Let us turn first to xxii. 19 (20). It has been 
shown elsewhere^ why the MT. cannot be right, and that the 

1 Cp. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi^ 

pp. 44/ 

2 See Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel ( 1 907). 

3 See T and B. pp. 28/. The dosing words, 'except Yahweh 
alone,' are defended as they stand by Eerdmans {Theol. Tijdschr., 1894, 


original text must have run, * Thou shalt sacrifice to Yahweh- 
Yerahme'el alone.' This was no doubt suitable enough in 
Canaan, but had a special fitness in the S. border-land, 
where the worship of Baal or Yerahme'el as the supreme 
member of the Divine Company was inveterate. Next, 
with regard to xxiii. \<^ b. Evidently some more important 
matter than ' seething a kid ' was referred to in the original 
text, as indeed appears from the recurrence of the command 
elsewhere (see xxxiv. 26, Dt. xiv. 21, and what is said on 
these passages in the present work). The N. Arabian 
cultus is, in fact, touched here at a vital point. 

The Book of Covenant is, in fact, another monument, 
however small, of the old Israelitish religion, which even in 
its purer form had a strong polytheistic element. One may 
refer in this connexion to the much-disputed passage, Ex. 
xxi. 6, where hd-elohmi means neither the judges nor any 
sanctuary of Yahweh, but the company of the great gods, 
whose director was sometimes said to be Yerahme'el, 
sometimes Yahweh, and images or symbols of whom stood 
probably in every house ^ ' behind the door and the post ' 
(Isa. Ivii. 8 ; cp. Ex. xxi. 6). It was in the sacred presence 
of these deities that the time-honoured custom described in 
the law was carried out. It was they, too, who decided even 
on small trespasses, such as occurred continually in daily 
life (Ex. xxii. 8, note the plural verb). 

Immediately after the law about seething kids (?) begins 
the closing section of the book (xxiii. 20-33). It appears 
to be an amplified version of a hortatory discourse, which 
may or may not ^ be in its original place, but, so far as its 
kernel is concerned, is certainly the work of the Elohistic 
school (E). It commands the sole worship of Yahweh, who 
promises to send a great Being called Mal'ak to conduct 
Israel to the place prepared for it. Mal'ak will brook no 
disobedience, for 'my name is in him.' In v. 23 (and 
xxxii. 34) he is called Mal'aki, a form which ^ and Sam. 

p. 285), on the ground that Yahweh, though alone worthy of sacrifice, is 
one of the Elohim {i.e. the supernatural beings). That is true, but 
does not make the text-reading natural. 

1 According to Eerdmans household gods are referred to. 

2 Plainly vv. 20-22 do not cohere with what precedes. 


also support in v. 20/ and which, like Mal'ak, has been 
shown with high probability to have been produced (in a 
theological interest) out of a corrupt form of * Yerahme'el,' 
the name of the supreme N. Arabian God, who, to the early 
Israelites, was still divine, but inferior to the great divine 
director Yahweh.^ It is true, the name Mal'ak suggests 
the meaning ' messenger,' but the inadequacy of this 
meaning is obvious. How, indeed, can * face ' {pdnlm) and 
* messenger ' be equally original and appropriate names of 
one who was really the second member of the divine duad 
or triad ? For ' face,' too, is a name of this great and good, 
though sometimes stern, deity ; ' my face shall go,' says 
Yahweh elsewhere (Ex. xxxiii. 14), 'and I (through Him) 
will give thee rest.' ^ 

To bring Israel to ' rest ' was, of course, Yahweh-Mal'ak's 
first object, but this by itself would not have sufficed. A 
powerful enemy had to be conquered ; the present in- 
habitants of the promised land had to be thrust out 
(Ex. xxiii. 28). It was therefore added that a divinely 
wrought terror (a panic) should come upon them, and that 
if any of the foes should find a momentary refuge in some 
inaccessible nooks, the swarms of hornets (cp. Isa. vii. 1 8), 
well known, perhaps, from some ancient poem, should find 
them out. Then (v. 2g f. being obviously a redactional 
insertion) the same writer specifies the boundaries of the 
original promised land {v. 31). It is not the only passage 
which gives this information ; e.g. there is Dt. xi. 24, on 
which I shall have to dwell later. The boundaries are 
' from the Yam-Suph as far as to the Yam-Pelishtim, and 
from the desert to the stream.' What does this mean ? 
I. As to Yam-Suph. Elsewhere * this difficult phrase has 
been traced with some probability to an earlier form — 
Yaman-Sophereth (or Sarephath). 2. As to Yam-Pelishtim. 

^ See, further, T. and B. p. 279. 

- There were, of course, opposing currents, and at times Baal 
supplanted Yahweh. 

3 In Ex. xxiii. 15 we again meet with 'my face.' Yerahme'el could 
be spoken of as the divine representative in the cultus as well as in the 
joumeyings. See, further, T. and B. pp. 40, 58-60, loi, 277-280, 
291-294, 318, etc. 

* See on Suph, Dt. i. i, and cp. T. and B. p. 551. 


That Pelishtim and Pelethim are really identical, and that 
Pelethim (original vowels partly uncertain) comes from 
D''f?Dn = D'^Si^inN, has also been shown already.^ Yam- 
Pelishtim, therefore, probably represents Yaman Ethba'alim. 
Thus in one direction the promised land extended from 
Yaman of Sophereth to Yaman of the Ishmaelites (or of 
some particular tribe of Ishmael). In Zech. ix. lo, Ps. 
Ixxii. 8 the statement is more meagre, D"^~'7i> D'^D. 3. Next, 
as to the wilderness (so, too, Dt. xi. 24). We cannot 
venture on identifications, but may suspect that the wilder- 
ness meant is that of Shur, i.e. the southern Asshur or 
Ashhur,^ which, from Gen. xxv. 18, i S. xv. 7 (cp. ^^\ 
appears to have adjoined the land of Misrim. 4. As to the 
stream (^^T^). Both here and in Dt. xi. 24 (see note) the 
stream referred to is apparently that of Ephrath ; Ephrath 
(also Ephraim ?) was the name of a district in N. Arabia.^ 
Hence it would seem that the land extended in another 
direction from the wilderness of Asshur to the stream of 
Ephrath. How far these boundaries are correctly given, it 
is impossible to say. 

The parallelism between Ex. xxiii. 28, 31 and Dt. 
xi. 23 y. is obvious. The ideas must have been the 
commonplaces of the writers of religious history from the 
time of the Elohist onwards. Not that the Elohist (E) is 
the sole producer of the close of the book before us ; the 
original close has been amplified by a redactor of the 
Deuteronomic school. Respecting this redactor there is 
one point specially deserving of notice, viz., that he under- 
stood the original significance of the name Mal'ak or Mal'aki, 
for he makes Yahweh say, ' Mal'aki shall go before thee . . . 
and I will cut them off' {v. 13). 

1 T. and B. pp. 161, 312 ; also Introduction. 
2 See E. Bib., 'Shur' ; T. and B. pp. 269, 559. 
8 T. and B. pp. 262, 419. 



We now pass on to a book which in its present form some- 
what resembles the Book of Covenant — Deuteronomy. In 
an earlier form it was ' found ' by Hilkiah in the temple. As 
we have seen, the priest so named is not to be carped at 
for his statement on grounds derived from modern Western 
morality. It was probably in accordance with ancient 
priestly usage that he said to Shaphan, or to those whom 
' Shaphan ' represents, that he had found the great ' book of 
direction/ As so often happens in the East, more was 
meant than met the ear ; * subterfuge,' as we use the word, 
does not account for it.^ Certainly, the cause of morality 
gained from the publication of Deuteronomy. Why was it 
that N. Arabian religion was required by that book to be 
extirpated ? Because, on the whole, it was adverse to a 
progressive morality. On the other hand, the fine spirit 
of humanity which animates the Deuteronomic legislation 
proves that the morality of its compilers was truly pro- 
gressive. The considerate treatment of the stranger {ger) 
deserves the highest admiration. On this and other topics, 
see E. Bib., ' Deuteronomy,' ' Law and Justice,' ' Law 
Literature.' The kindness to animals required in xxii. 6 /, 
XXV. 4, also deserves notice; xiv. 2i<^, xxii. lo, however, 
cannot be mentioned here.^ 

Some able critics have called Hilkiah's law-book the 
program of the strict Yahwistic party. Here again 

1 Cp. H. P. Smith, Oid Testament History (1903), p. 261. 

2 See notes below. Sternberg, Die Ethik des Deuteronoiniums 
(1908), pp. 98/., bases his view on the MT. 



modernism (if the word may be so applied) has led to a 
misunderstanding. The conception of a party program is 
taken from our own political system, which may perchance 
be the best for ourselves, but certainly receives no support 
from ancient Oriental history. In the present case it has 
apparently been overlooked by program-hunters, that the 
Deuteronomic legislation contains much that is not distinc- 
tively applicable to the age of Josiah. We can therefore 
only venture to say that the religious details of the book 
are in full accordance with what Hilkiah desired the king to 
restore as the basis of the national life. 

As to the extent of our document, it most probably 
included a considerable part of Dt. xii.-xxvi., redacted, 
adapted for a new sphere of influence, and furnished with 
a preamble and a conclusion. Our object here is to search 
the original record and its various accretions for any fresh 
facts bearing on the religious history of Israel, and especially 
for any textual phenomena which point to an underlying 
text referring to N. Arabia. I say, N. Arabia, not Egypt. 
It is a matter of no slight importance ( i ) that there is only 
one passage in the whole of Deuteronomy in which an 
Egyptian custom really does appear to be mentioned, and 
(2) that that passage is outside the earliest part of the book. 
I refer to the description of Egyptian irrigation in Dt. 
xi. 10, which, however, is not as clear as could be wished. 
The supposed reference in xvii. 16 to the royal monopoly 
of the horse-trade with Egypt disappears on a close 

A general survey of the Deuteronomic legislation will, 
of course, not be expected. Something may, however, 
appropriately be said about the law of the one sanctuary 
(Dt. xii. 5, etc.). The legislator cannot possibly have 
intended it to apply to every region or district in which 
Israelites were settled. That he designed it for the N. 
Arabian district (see pp. 19/), where he himself dwelt, is 
certain ; he did not design it for Israelitish Canaan, nor 
would he have imposed it on the pre- exilic Israelitish 
settlements which may have existed in his time in Egypt 
and Mesopotamia.^ He did, however, doubtless approve of 

1 See the publications of Sayce and Cowley, Sachau, Schiffer. 


its subsequent adaptation — so easily carried out — to the 
use of Israel in Canaan. As to the fortunes of the N. 
Arabian sanctuary, I would, of course, not speak dogmatic- 
ally. There is no extant literary trace of the existence of 
such a temple in Josiah's time, but we do hear (2 K. 
xxiii. 8 b) of the destruction of certain bdnidth at a place 
which bears the same name as that of the supposed seat of 
the one sanctuary (see on Dt. xii. 5) of the N. Arabian 
Israelites. That sanctuary was perhaps not much, if at all, 
injured in the final invasion. We hear of eighty pilgrims 
bringing offerings to this house of Yahweh (it can hardly be 
another) after the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of its 
temple (see p. 28). The story may, of course, be fictitious, 
and yet there may have been at the period referred to a 
temple in N. Arabia to which Israelite pilgrims could bring 
offerings. If so, the idea is not an absurd one that psalms 
may have been composed there by temple-ministers, and 
that some of them may, like the famous law-book, have 
been brought from this sanctuary to the restored temple of 
Jerusalem, there to be altered and even transformed (though 
not quite beyond recognition) for the use of later generations. 
As I have ventured to say elsewhere, Ps. cxxii. is one of 
those in the Psalter which can with most plausibility be 
traced to the sanctuary in the border-land, and ' next to 
it stand Pss. cxxv., and cxxxiii., cxxxiv. in their earlier 
forms.' ^ 

Another point may be mentioned in this connexion, viz. 
that there is one passage in the central part of Deut. 
which actually presupposes the existence of a number of 
sanctuaries. The passage is xvi. 2 1 , where it is forbidden 
to raise Asherahs, or rather Ashhur-trees (see p. 113), beside 
altars dedicated to Yahweh. The passage has evidently 
been removed from its original context, perhaps indeed 
from a different book — one of N. Arabian origin. A 
similar suggestion has been made already with regard to 
Ex. XX. 24-26, xxii. 19 (20), xxiii. i(^b\ one's impression 
is that Dt. xvi. 2 1 might perhaps have stood after the first 
of these passages. We now proceed to a special study of 
the great law-book. 

1 The Book of Psalms (1904), ii, 184. 



The opening of our ' document ' may be fitly illustrated 
from the Book of Covenant. This record, in its present 
form, opens (Ex. xx. 23-25) with a prohibition of gold and 
silver gods (cp. Hos. ii. 10), also with directions respecting 
the right construction of altars, and a definition of the right 
sanctuaries. Similarly the greater law-book begins (Dt. 
xii. 2-7) with directions to destroy the wrong sanctuaries 
and objects of worship (cp. vii. 5), and to recognise but one 
sanctuary of Yahweh, the name of which, in the final form 
of the law-book, is wrapped in mystery. To emphasise the 
number (cp. Jer. xi. 13) of these in^komoth, or holy places, 
they are described as being ' upon the high mountains, and 
upon the hills, and under every rdanan tree.' What can 
rdanan mean ? It is something more than philological 
curiosity which prompts the question. The solution of 
verbal problems sometimes produces fresh evidence for 
disputed facts. 

The moderns waver between ' sappy-green ' and 
' luxuriant,' ' spreading.' Indeed the meaning had already 
become uncertain when the Egyptian-Greek version was 
made. Evidently it is not a mere rhetorical epithet ; it 
distinguishes the trees which are suitable for holy places 
from those which are not. It will be best to group it with 
other tree-names, and seek for some explanation which will, 
mutatis mutandis, be applicable to all. Such an one can, in 
fact, be supplied on the assumption that the Israelites had a 
close connexion with N. Arabia, which has left its marks 
here and there in their phraseology. 

THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (Chaps, xii.-xxvi.) 113 

The parallel tree-names are — {a) ]DtD '^'s and {U) pm n"*! ; 
these may safely be explained ' tree of Ishman,' ' olive-tree 
of Ishman ' ( = Ishmael). {c) ^»n (Gen. xxi. 23), '(tree of) 
Ishmael.' (^) T\T13 }>2? (Neh. viii. 15), 'tree of Ethbaal' 
( = Ishmael). {e) D"'iD^N, ' Yerahme'el-trees.' (/) TitDNH, 
'tree of Asshur.' {g) Din ( = Din = nnt&N), '(tree of) 
Ashhur.' (Ji) inS'' n-'T (2 K. xviii. 32) ' olive-tree of Ashhur.' 
Accepting these very natural explanations, can we help 
tracing ]D2;1 to ^Nom"' through the linking form ]Di?l ? To 
justify this, one may refer to 13:? (Gen. xiv. 13) and p^nN 
(Num. xxi. 13), both of which also come from modifications 
of 7NDm"*. if rimmon, like raanafi, comes from rd avian or 
yerakme'el, we may conjecture that the Ra'aman-tree, or one 
of the Ra'aman-trees, was a pomegranate, a tree which, in 
Phoenician Cyprus, was sacred to Adonis. Other rdaman- 
trees may have been those mentioned in Hos. iv. 13.^ 

It will now be clear that instead of ' every Ra'anan (or 
Ra'aman) tree ' the legislator might just as well have said 
' every Ashhur-tree,' for ' Ashhur ' and ' Yerahme'el,' as 
regional names, are nearly equivalent.^ The trees referred 
to were perhaps trees of the hills ; certainly they were trees 
which struck the Israelites in N. Arabia as characteristic of 
the land. Fitly, then, are ' rd anan-tVQes ' mentioned in 
xii. 2, etc., beside the mountains and the hills, and fitly may 
we restore in xvi. 21, for ys h'D mt&N,^ "in0N fT^'^, 'Thou 
shalt not plant for thyself any kind of Ashhur-tree near the 
altar of Yahweh thy God which thou makest unto thyself 
There were, of course, different varieties of trees bearing this 
name; one of them was called Uass/iur (Isa.. xli. 19, Ix. 13). 
Specially abundant were they in the N. Arabian territory 
called Ephrath or Ephraim, if we are right in restoring, in 
Hos. xiii. 15, for the unintelligible DTTN pi ('among 
brethren '), Q-^inmN pi. I do not, at any rate, know any 
equally good correction. The sense, ' Though he (the 
southern Ephraim) be fruitful among Ashhur-trees,' is 
satisfactory, especially when we consider that in chap. 

1 T. and B. pp. 33, 457. 

2 Ibid. pp. 23/ 

3 Prof. G. F. Moore renders the MT. 'an Asherah — any kind of 
tree,' or 'an Asherah — any wooden object' {E. Bib. col. 331). 



xiv. the imagery is clearly taken from the (southern) 

Here, however, it is the Ra'anan-trees which are spoken 
of. The name is a fresh indication of the N. Arabian origin 
of the popular Israelitish cult, and when in the later period 
there had been a fresh infusion of Arabian elements into the 
' people of the land,' it is mentioned as a characteristic 
offence that these people carry on a sensuous cult ' under 
every Ra'anan-tree ' (Isa. Ivii. 5). 

Among other directions to the faithful this may now be 
noticed — ' ye shall destroy the names of them out of that 
place' (xii. 3 ^ ; cp. Ex. xxiii. 13, Hos. ii. 19, Zech. xiii. 2). 
How well this enables us to understand the efforts of ancient 
redactors to conceal the titles of the great N. Arabian 
goddess,^ and such transformations as D''Ti;to, ' goats,' 
'satyrs' (Lev. xvii. 7, 2 Chr. xi. 15, and [see p. 26] 
2 K. xxiii. 8) from D'^lltDM, ' images of Asshur ' ! The com- 
mand itself can be easily explained. Altars, images, and 
names were thought to have magic power ; hence the need 
for their annihilation by the enemies of the cult (cp. vii. 25, 
* lest thou be ensnared thereby '). The safest course with 
images was to pulverise them ; see the story of Moses (Ex. 
xxxii. 20) and of Josiah (2 K. xxiii. 4, 15, p. 22) ; cp. also 
Isa. XXX. 22, 'thou shalt scatter them.'^ 

The sanctuaries of ' the nations,' then, were to be 
destroyed. But where was the pious Israelite to meet his 
God? One answer is given in Ex. xx. 24 (see p. 105), 
where a wide freedom is granted. In Deuteronomy, how- 
ever (xii. 5-7, II, IZ /'> etc.), this earlier permission is 
virtually abrogated. There is only one place at which both 
sacrifices and dues can lawfully be offered. The name of 
the place is not yet to be made known, but in due time the 
place will be chosen, in order to become the depository of 
the divine ' name.' For only when this depositing of the 
name had taken place could there be a real cultus, by 
which the supernatural powers wielded by Israel's God 
might be attracted to earth for Israel's benefit. 

1 See T. and B., pp. 456-458, where mn is also taken to be a 
corruption of ninrw. 

2 See T. and B. pp. 18-22. ^ See 'Dvihm, Jesaia'^^\ p. 193. 

THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (Chaps, xii.-xxvi.) 115 

The place would have to be chosen ' out of all your 
tribes'^ {i.e. tribal territories), and also (see v. 5) on the 
other side of Jordan. pT", however, is again and again a 
scribal error for pm**. In proof of this note IJIT pT in 
Num. xxii. i and elsewhere, which, regarded as a Hebrew 
phrase, is hardly defensible. As is not unfrequently the case, 
the error and the correction stand side by side. Probably, 
then, beyond this stream (the Yarhon, or Yerahme'el stream) ^ 
lay the region in which Israelitish tribes or clans had their 
first settlements, the region for which the Israelites and the 
southern Arammites were continually striving. The place, 
therefore, was not Jerusalem nor yet (as A. Duff thinks) ^ the 
northern Shechem. True, it is just conceivable that the 
expression ' the place which Yahweh your God shall choose ' 
may have been made designedly vague to permit the 
explanation of it as referring to Jerusalem. This, however, 
is not a very natural view, and will hardly satisfy a keen 

No other theory being forthcoming, we are compelled to 
be somewhat sceptical as to the correctness of the phrase. 
The analogy of similarly indefinite phrases in the MT. of 
Gen. xii. i, xxii. 2, which cover over place-names,^ suggests 
that underneath ini"' "ilDi^ there may lie concealed the name 
of a region or city. If we admit this suggestion, we can 
hardly doubt that the underlying name is DflT ntDN, ' Asshur- 
Yarham (or Yerahme'el).' For the prefixed DIpD we may 
compare DDK) 'd in Gen. xii. 6.^ The view is not really 
difficult. Here, as so often, the text has been manipulated 
by a redactor. As soon as * Asshur- Yerahme'el ' was altered, 
words had to be inserted to clear up the meaning of ' which 
shall choose ' ; other alterations or insertions would also have 
to be made on rhetorical grounds.*^ 

1 Cp. I K. viii. 16, xi. 32, xiv. 21, 2 K. xxi. 7. 

2 See especially T. and B. pp. 228, 262, 456. 

s Theology and Ethics of the Hebrews (1902), pp. 139/ 

^ Gen. xii. i originally ran, ' Take thy way from thy land and from 

thy kindred to the land of Asshur-'Arab ' ; xxii. 2, ' Offer him there for 

a burnt offering on Asshur- (or Ashhur-) Yerahme'el.' See T. and B. 

pp. 219 (and note), 328. ^ See ibid. p. 220. 

^ Obviously Dt. xii. 1 1 a is such an addition. Indeed the whole 

of xii. 8-12 might well be spared. 


So, then, in the original writing, not ' the place which 
Yahweh your God shall choose,' but ' the place (or, sanctuary) 
of Asshur-Yerahme'el ' was probably the designation of the 
spot at which alone sacrifices and dues (Dt. xii. 6) might 
legally be offered. It was also the name both of a mountain, 
and of a city upon the mountain (see on Dt. iii. 17). 
Another name for the sacred city may have been Beth- 
Yerahme'el.^ We have seen (p. 27) that it is prominently 
mentioned in the account of Josiah's reformation. To 
this subject we shall have to return later with reference 
to the first of the ' concluding sections ' (chap, xxvii.) of 

We pass on to xiii. 6 ; the transition is an easy one. It 
has been shown already that the reformation of Josiah was 
specially an attack upon the cultus of Baal or Yerahme'el. 
The God of Israel (Yahweh) may have been, in a certain 
sense, a development of that deity, but in course of time he 
had risen so far above Yerahme'el that Israelites of the 
stricter school might be said to have forgotten the older 
God. This act of forgetting, the writers of Deuteronomy 
attribute also to the Israelites at large. They therefore 
solemnly warn their people not to fall from their high estate 
by going and serving other gods * whom thou hast not known, 
thou nor thy fathers, gods such as those of the surrounding 
peoples, near or far, from one end of the land to the other.' 
The near deities are Baal or Yerahme'el (regarded as a deity 
separate from Yahweh), Asherah, and Ashtart ; the far-off 
ones, those of the land of Asshur in the larger sense. To 
these deities Israel owed no debt of gratitude. It was not 
any one of them who had brought the people out of the land 
of Misrim, and redeemed them from the * territory of Arabia ' 
(xiii. 5 ; see below). 

And now comes an important result. The wise legislator, 
who cannot help sanctioning the chief popular festivals in 
spite of their heathen origin, and has, as far as possible, to 
disguise this origin, seeks the means of doing so in the tradi- 
tional history of his people (xvi. 1-15). It is not here denied 
that the Yerahme'elites, from whom presumably the festivals 

1 See Judg. ix, 6, 20, where xi'^o is probably a corruption of some 
form of Vkdht. 

THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (Chaps, xii.-xxvi.) 117 

were derived, and who were a cultured people, may have 
regarded these institutions as commemorative.^ But the 
special turn given to the historical, or supposed historical, 
basis of the feasts by the Israelite legislator was Israelitish. 
To the spring festival called pesah (which was kept by night) 
and the seven following days, in which only massoth (un- 
leavened cakes) were eaten, he gave this explanation — that 
' [out of Arabian Ashhur] Yahweh brought thee out of 
Misrim, by night ' (xvi. i).^ Here, ' out of Arabian Ashhur ' 
seems to be a perfectly correct gloss on ' out of Misrim ' ; it is 
equivalent to ' from the territory of Arabia ' in Ex. xiii. 3, in 
a similar context. Philologically, of course, the name pesah 
has a meaning unconnected with history ; it seems to denote 
a peculiar limping or leaping dance,^ specially characteristic 
of the sanctuary at Penuel.* Penuel itself may have been in 
a N. Arabian district, but the dance was taken up by the 
prophets of Baal in general (i K. xviii. 26). The sacri- 
fice of a lamb, however, in the feast of pesah, suggests the 
cultus of Ashtart.^ 

In a similar way he explains or justifies the so-called 
'feast of Shabu'oth ' (xvi. 9-12) as a commemoration of the 
time when Israel was a slave in Misrim. This is, of course, 
merely a conventional edifying suggestion (cp. v. I5> xv, 15); 
Shabu'oth, like the other feasts, is pre-Israelitish. How the 
name Shabu'oth arose is an interesting question. The seven 
weeks spoken of in v, 9 are an artificial addition, as we see 
from the fact that the feast which is the counterpart of 
Shabu'oth has no such strange prefix to the celebration. 
Besides, the usual plural of sJiabua, ' week,' is shabuim. 
Grimme ^ connects Shabu'oth with shab'at, ' seven,' referring to 
the Seven-divinity, i.e. the Pleiades (Ass. sibe, sibittt). He 
is at any rate on the right track in supposing the current 
Hebrew name to be an alteration of some heathen name (cp. 

1 Cp. Winckler, Religionsgeschichtler und geschichtlicher Orient 
(1906), p. 53. 

" T. and B. p. 549 (on Ex. xiii. 3-10). 

3 Cp. E. Bib. col. 999 (with references). Ex. xii. 13, however, 
alludes to the other root-meaning, viz., ' to pass over.' 

4 T. and B. pp. 398/ 

^ Barton, Semitic Origins^ pp. log f. 

6 Das israelitische Pfingstfest, etc. (1907). 


below, on Sukkoth). But is it certain that the Seven-god is 
the Pleiades ? Winckler identifies it with Nergal.^ And 
even if Beersheba may mean ' the well of the Seven-god ' 
(Winckler, Grimme), can Yehosheba mean ' Yahweh is the 
Seven-god ' (Grimme) ? That the myth of the Pleiades has 
had an influence on Biblical phraseology, and even narratives, 
may be partly granted to Winckler and Zimmern,^ but 
Grimme's fresh evidence for the Pleiades in the O.T. is 
unconvincing. His references to the Harranian Moon- 
Pleiades festival are more striking, though the results which 
he deduces from them are unsatisfactory. For my own 
part (in harmony with the best view of Sukkoth), I take 
Shabu'oth to be a deliberately altered form of Shab'ith, 
which appears to have been one of the titles of the goddess 
Ashtart.^ I venture to think that the feast of Shabu'oth 
may have been of later origin than that of Sukkoth, and 
have been differentiated from it. We must remember that 
Ashtart was probably to the early Israelites, as well as to 
the Yerahme'elites at large, the most popular member of the 
divine duad or triad,'* and that she was symbolised in the 
zodiac as an ear of corn ^ = Aram. wnSllC) (cp. our Spica). 

The observance of the feast of Sukkoth also has a 
historical basis, which he refers to the divine command, *ye 
shall dwell in booths seven days . . . that your generations 
may know that I made the bene Israel to dwell in booths, 
when I brought them out of the land of Misrim ' (Lev. 
xxiii. 42 /; ; cp. Neh. viii. 14-17). This account, though 
not given in Deuteronomy (see vv. 13-15), seems the natural 
complement of what Deuteronomy says of the passover. In 
reality, however, the feast called Sukkoth cannot have taken 
its name from such an accidental circumstance as that given 
by P. If those who in early times kept the feast did 
temporarily dwell in booths (in spite of Neh. viii. 17), this 
must have been from motives of pure convenience. It is 
obvious that the agricultural Yerahme'elites must have had 
^ Nergal as Saturn = the sun {AOF, iii. 266 (n. 7) ; cp. Gesch. Isr. 
ii. 45)- 

2 Winckler, Gesch. Isr. ii. 83; Zimmem, KAT^''\ p. 389. Cp. 
Cheyne, Bible Problems, pp. 1 1 4 yi 

3 T. and. B. p. 18 (n. 2). 

* Ibtd. pp. 16/ 5 KAT^^\ p. 428 ; cp. T. and B. p. 69. 

THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (Chaps, xii.-xxvi.) 119 

a festival of the ingathering which was characterised as 
usual by orgiastic rejoicings ; the deity honoured on this 
occasion would be Ashtart, the patroness of fruit -bearing 
trees. The Israelites, who were one of the less-developed 
branches of the Yerahme'elites, would naturally adopt this 
festival in honour of the same gracious goddess. 

Thus the original Israelite feast of Sukkoth was another 
of those * statutes of (the southern) Aram ' ^ which the 
Yahwistic legislators attempted to render unobjectionable. 
They attempted no doubt, but with what indifferent success 
the indignant harangues of the prophets enable us to realise. 
Two experiments were tried. One was that attested by the 
original Deuteronomy : it was to confine, if possible, the 
celebration of the autumn festival to the one sanctioned 
temple. Another — brought to light by textual criticism — 
was to modify the too suggestive popular name of the 
festival, which seems originally to have been ' the feast of 
Ashkalath ' (the fem. of Ashkal^). By Ashkalath was meant 
the goddess Ashtart, who had several titles, of which 
Ashkalath was one, and perhaps ' queen of Ishmael ' ^ 
another. Ashkalath was probably shortened into Ashkath 
or Shakkath, and this, under manipulation, became first 
Sukkath and then Sukkoth ^ (' booths '). The place-names 
Salekah '^ (Salekath) and Sukkoth have in fact probably the 
same origin. Sukkoth-benoth, the name of a chief deity of 
Babel (2 K. xvii. 30) can now perhaps be more plausibly 

It was natural (cp. i K. xiv. 23 /) that the legislator 
who demanded the destruction of the bdmoth should also 
denounce the practices specially connected with the worship 
of Ashtart, such as the simulation of the female sex (xxii. 5 ; 

1 Mic. vi. 16 (revised text) ; see T. and B. p. 63 (n. 4). 

2 T. and B. pp. 18, 247, 315, 406. 

3 Jer. vii. 18 (revised text) ; see p. 72, and T. and B. p. 18. 

* Hommel's idea {Grundriss, p. 90) that the feast-name Sukkoth is 
= Sakkut, a secondary name of Ninib, so that the feast of Sukkoth was 
originally a festival of Sakkut, is highly questionable. Sakkut is not 
likely to have been known in Palestine, and the presuppositions of 
Hommel's theory need testing. 

5 T. and B. p. 397. 

^ The original form would be something like Shakkath-Tebanith 
( = Ashkalath-Yithmanith). It is the N. Arabian Babel which is meant. 


see below) and the shocking usage referred to in Am. ii. 7 b. 
Similarly in xxiii. 1 8 /. ( 1 7 /!) Israelites of both sexes ^ 
are forbidden to become temple - prostitutes {kedeshim, 
kedeshoth), and (as seems to have been the custom) to bring 
the proceeds of their occupation in payment of a vow to the 
treasury of the temple. One remembers that one of Josiah's 
violent reforming acts was to break down the houses of the 
kedeshim that were by the house of Yahweh (see p. 23). 
But there is a phrase in our passage (xxiii. 1 8 _/!) which has 
not, I think, yet been fully accounted for. What can 
possibly be the meaning of the phrase ' the price (or, fee) of 
a dog,' which is parallel to ' the hire (or, recompense) of a 
zonah ' ? Some have supposed that ' dog ' means ' servant,' ^ 
with the implication of fidelity, like kalbu in the Amarna 
Tablets (75. 36, etc.) in the phrase kalbu sarri. It is 
preferable, however, to take a hint from Hommel,^ who 
explains kalab from kalabu {kalibu) as a West-Semitic loan- 
word in Babylonian meaning ' priest' This is supported by 
a Phoen. inscription from Kition (Cooke, Inscr. pp. 67 /.). 
We have still, however, to account for ni^D. Granted that 
male prostitutes may have ranked as priests, how came Dlf^D 
to mean ' priests of a certain peculiar class ' ? And the 
answer is D^lfpD is a parallel formation to D'^no^, which, as we 
have seen (p. 23, n. 4), is probably = D''3DDn, ' Rakmanites,' i.e. 
' Yerahme'elites.' Not only skilled priests came from the 
land of Yerahme'el, but the male prostitutes referred to in 
the passage before us. Apparently there was no feminine 
form corresponding to n^3. In xxiii. 19 the parallel to 
n^D is niM, which may perhaps be used contemptuously, for 
it is not a technical term. It may be remarked that mi, 
another technical term in the same Phoen. inscription, may 
possibly have come from D''^ir7. By a curious coincidence 
Ephrem the Syrian writes thus, ' It is the star-goddess who 
led astray her own worshippers the Ishmaelites, and into 
our lands is she come, whom the sons of Hagar (Arabia) 

^ Cp. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion To-day^ p. 1 49 (n. 3), 

2 W. R. Smith approaches this view, Rel. Sem.^'^\ p. 292 (n. 2). 

See also Barton, Sem. Origins, p. 251 (n. 2), who even compares 

Num. xxxii. 12. 

2 AHT^ p. 115 ; Grundriss, p, 91 (n. 2). 

THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (Chaps, xii.-xxvi.) 121 

adore' (ii. 457y Thus we see again the wide influence of 
the old N. Arabian religion. 

In this connexion one may best refer to the somewhat 
obscure passage, xxii. 5. According to Driver the prohibition 
which it contains is peculiar to Deut. ; whether that is really 
the case, remains to be seen. It is, at any rate, as the 
commentators remark, directed against simulated changes of 
sex, connected with the cult of Ashtart.^ The obscurity of 
the Hebrew lies in a single word "h^, which cannot without 
arbitrariness be said to mean 'garment,' and still less a 
combination of objects such as dress, weapons, staff, etc.^ 
With experience of new methods Dillmann would certainly 
have seen that '•73, nearly as D'^nT'D in v. 9, comes from some 
form of -'SNDm^ nil from im, and nSott? from n"^^Ni7Dtn\ 
There have also been two transpositions, and XCTxT has 
come from mnSn. Thus we get "'^Nom'' "Til n'^'sV ^f? 
r\'h\^'3t^rm nt&N Tin mnf?n nSi HIDn-'?!?, 'The garment of 
a Yerahme'elite shall not be upon a woman, neither 
shalt thou put on the garment of a woman that is an 

To confirm this result let us direct our attention to 
xiv. 21 and xxii. 9-1 i. Both passages have already been 
explained elsewhere.^ The former has most probably come 
from TT'^NDm"' '^yl mi^n vh, ' Thou shalt not put on the 
garment of a Yerahme'elite woman.' The latter — a three- 
fold enactment — will, in this context, reward a fuller 
treatment. Sorely has it perplexed interpreters. ' Why,' 
they ask, ' should a vineyard not be " sown with divers 
seed " ? And why refer, in prohibitory terms, to the singular 
case of ploughing with an ox and an ass together? Why, 
too, should there be a prohibition of garments composed of 
linen and wool together ? ' A writer in the Encyclopcsdia 
Biblica (" Dress," § 7) suggests that the object of the law 
may have been to mark the distinction between the priest 

1 Quoted by Barton, /i5Z x 81. 

2 For historical instances see Driver, Deut. p. 250. Reclining on 
Yerahme'elite garments is an abuse denounced from a religious motive 
in Am. ii. 8 ( T. and B. p. 360, reading D''?cn). 

3 See BDB, s.v. '^3. 

* T. and B. pp. 565/!, where Ex. xxiii. 19 and Lev. xix. 19 are 
also considered. 


and the layman. But did the priests wear garments of the 
mixed material ? This may be supported by Josephus 
{Ant. iv. 8, ii), but is opposed to Ezek. xlvii. 17, where it 
is said that " no wool shall come upon them." And can 
tiJoro really have been taken to mean " linen and wool " ? 
The writer of Deut. xxii. 1 1 may seem indeed to have given 
the word this meaning, but the Sept., with its KL^hrfKov, 
shows that some early students thought differently. Surely 
WtJrtD cannot be the right reading. Nothing is gained by 
conjecturing that the term, and indeed the law itself, may be 
of foreign origin, unless some other reason than our con- 
venience can be offered for the conjecture.' ^ 

It is to the credit of two recent critics that they have 
made fresh attempts to account for the strange enactments 
in this paragraph. Comparing Isa. xvii. 10 Bertholet offers 
the conjecture that the legislator may here express the 
primitive conception that different objects belong to different 
religious circles, and consequently ought not to be mixed. 
Steuernagel, on the other hand, discovers a reference to the 
cultus of the powers of nature, and even perhaps to the 
fusion (here condemned) of two deities. Neither critic 
apparently has suspected the traditional text, and yet, 
whenever these seemingly insoluble problems of exegesis 
arise, it is the duty of a textual critic to search for traces of 
an underlying text, which a redactor received in an already 
corrupt form, and emended to the best of his own uncritical 
judgment. Now in vv. 9-1 1 there are a number of words 
which, at a first glance, an experienced critic would suspect 
to be, in their combination, corrupt, and which he would be 
able with some confidence to correct. Until any one 
proposes something better (wholly different it will hardly be), 
I venture to restore the text thus, '^NorrT [rrtDN] tonNH n^ 
TitDi [i]nn-N^ : *inNinm 27^ln iidn ^^-n ^Nomlb] t^npn-jD 
! D^nmSo "i^jSp[n] n^i^^im [^il] tniSn ih : SNom^m ; that is, 
* Thou shalt not espouse a Yerahme'elite woman, lest thou 
consecrate to Yerahme'el thy seed which thou sowest and 
the produce thereof. Thou shalt not keep feasts in Shur 
( = Asshur) and in Yerahme'el. Thou shalt not clothe thee 

^ ' Some Testing Biblical Passages,' Amer. J. of Theology, April 
1905, p. 330. c-i in rnnn (xxii. 10) is a dittograph. 

THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (Chaps, xii.-xxvi.) 123 

with the garment of a Shinarite woman in Missor of 
Pelishtim (Pelethim).' ^ 

The easiest words to correct in the MT. are 1013,^ D'^n^D,^ 
n^fpon,'* mDn/ TIQ?,^ non/ Vin\^ ins,^ because experience 
shows that names of peoples or regions may be expected to 
underlie them. That ^NDni"' in various forms is repeated, 
is a not uncommon fact ; in the above restoration repetitions 
are neglected. That ntDN has dropped out after miNn is 
also not surprising ; the eye would easily overlook the 
second occurrence of tDM. 

We can now see more clearly how repugnant the un- 
reformed Yerahme'elite cultus had become to the adherents 
of a more progressive religion. The legislator not only 
forbids the evil usages in force at Yerahme'elite festivals, 
but also (cp. vii. 3 ; Josh, xxiii. 1 2) prohibits mixed 
marriages, as tending to a fusion of religious practices.^" 
Now too, perhaps, we can understand better a difficult 
passage in Zephaniah (i. 8 /!). Those who are ' clothed 
with foreign clothing ' are those who, in order to take part 
in N. Arabian festivals, put on special N. Arabian garments. 
Those who leap over the threshold are those who take part 
in some N. Arabian sacred dance,^^ and the house which 
they fill with the produce of ' violence and deceit ' is some 
temple of Armon, i.e. Yerahme'el.^^ 

In xviii. \o f. other special 'abominations' are forbidden. 
One is child-sacrifice, a terrible rite, known in Canaan, but 
not apparently in Babylonia, and probably borrowed from 

^ Or Pelishtim or Pelethim = Ethbaalim ; see Introd., p. xxi. ; 
T. and B. pp. 192, 312. 

2 Probably from ion3 = jD3\ Cp. ya.pii.av, (3, Ezek. xxvii. 23, = MT. 
loSa, t'.e. '^Ncm', also ttdj, Gen. x. 8, Mic. v. 5, probably from fODa 

3 Another corruption of '?«<Dm', like Sto'o and ik'^d (in '' inSd) ; also 
0'k'?o, I S. XV. 4, from Vkvoh' ('cts"). 

* Also from ^Nam' ; cp. T. and B. on k'jd, Gen. xxiii. 9. 

" See Introd., and cp. Crit. Bib. on msn-nn, Jer. vi. i. 

^ Shortened from -WffK (see Gen. xxv. 12, and cp. T. and B. 269). 

' A modification of onr (see T. and B. p. 32 n. 2). 

s See Isa. xxxi. 3, explained in Introd. 

^ See Crt'/. Bid. on 2 K. iii. 4, Ezek. xxvii. 18. 

10 T. and B. p. 566. 

11 Ibid. pp. 398/ 

12 D.Tnx is probably a corruption of poiK ; cp. T. and B. pp. 55, 569. 


N. Arabia.^ The others are various kinds of magic and 
divination. That the Arabian neighbours of Israel were 
devoted to soothsaying is undeniable. The Ekron where 
Baal-zebub (Baal of Ishmael) gave oracles to his wor- 
shippers (2 K. i. 2) was probably in N. Arabia.^ Isa. ii. 6 
has already been referred to. Lastly, in the original form 
of the story of Bil'am it is plain that he was regarded as a 
N. Arabian soothsayer, skilled beyond others in the use of 

One of the technical terms for magicians and sorcerers 
in xviii. 1 1 is ''Dr^;' IIN ^NlD. Here again it is difficult to 
be satisfied with the general attitude of scholars. Does 
ilN really mean ' a bottle,' or ' a hollow cavern,' or a revenant ? 
Or is it, as Schwally thinks, connected with In, * father,' the 
plural being nilN ? And does ''D2?T' really signify ' a very 
knowing one ' ? The sense indeed is plausible, but how, if 
we adopt it, are the two technical terms for superhuman, 
oracle-giving spirits to be distinguished ? ' It is hard,' 
remarks a writer in the Encydopcedia Biblica (col. 1 1 2 1 ), 
' to establish the distinctions offered by Robertson Smith 
and Driver, the data for forming a judgment being so 
slight' Let us see if the problem admits of a clearer 
solution than has yet been proposed. 

The facts are well set forth by Driver ; * it is needless to 
repeat them at length. Some modifications, however, seem 
required in deference to textual criticism. I begin by 
remarking that we must not infer, either from the list of 
terms in xviii. 1 1 (where ' one that consults the dead ' 
follows ' one that asks an ob or a yiddeoni), or from Isa. 
viii. 1 9 (' that chirp and that mutter ') and xxix. 4 (' thou 
shalt speak out of the earth,' etc.), that ob and yiddeoni 
mean spirits of the dead. It should be noticed that in 
Isa. xix. 3 the list of the givers of oracles opens with uh'h^^ 
and closes with D"^32?T, and that in the same passage, and 
there only, we find mention of the so-called cidn. Now 
Isa. xix., as can be shown, in the original underlying text, 

1 T. and D. p. 52 ; KAT^\ p. 599; Vincent, Canaan, pp. 188/, 
cp. 194. ^ T. and B. p. 109 ; Crit. Bib. p. 353. 

8 T. and B. pp. 40 (n. 3), 41, 190. 
•* Deuteronomy^ pp. 225/ 

THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (Chaps, xii.-xxvi.) 125 

relates, not to Misraim (Egypt), but to Misrim (the N. 
Arabian Musri), and the land of Misrim was regarded as a 
Yerahme'elite region.^ We ought not, then, to be surprised 
if the givers of oracles in this land bear Yerahme'elite 
names. For instance, it is probable that D"'£3n comes from 
D'"^i?inN (Ethbaalites = Ishmaelites), especially as 2dn in 
I K. xxi. 27 and Hos. xi. 4 has been shown ^ to come 
most probably from ^i^iriN. Next, as to tihhv^. It is 
hardly less probable (as has also been shown) that this 
word (certainly neither from T'n, nor = Ass. aldlu, ' weak ') 
is a shortened form for D"'7NDrn\ in the sense of * images of 
Yerahme'el.' And is it not equally reasonable to look for 
a N. Arabian origin for miN and D"'3i?~r"'? (a) For the 
former we may take a hint from the n^ and "^IN in proper 
names, which, as has been shown, most probably come from 
*ilN = nil? = ini?.^ In short, miN means, probably, neither 
' ventriloquists,' nor ' revenants,' nor ' fathers,' but ' images of 
Ashtart ' ; rr^nnx or rather rr'^li? is probably the original 
form both of in (properly 'in) and of miN ; TT'jlli^ is a 
title of the great N. Arabian goddess.^ (d) For the latter 
we may most reasonably assume an original form cdn'T' 
(cp. pN and i'2i}, which have the same origin) = D^NDm\ in 
the sense of ' images of Yerahme'el ' (like D'h'ht^). These 
two terms, then, refer to the god Yerahme'el and his consort, 
who were regarded (as Isa. viii. 19, xxix. 4 show) as oracle- 
giving deities of the under-world. It was by means of images ^ 
(probably rude enough) of these deities that necromancers 
undertook to consult the spirits of deceased persons. It 
should be noticed in this connexion that in 2 K. xxiii. 24 
miM and D"^3i;~r"' are combined with D''D"in ; now teraphhn^ 
as I Sam. xix. 1 3 shows, were images, and, as we learn 
from Ezek. xxi. 6 and Zech. x. 2, were reputed to give 
oracles to those who consulted them. Also that in i Sam. 
xxviii. 7 the phrase n"iN rhvi niDN most probably means, 
not ' a woman who (through a spell) can command a 

1 T. and B. p. 32 (n. 2). 2 /^/^_ p_ 406. 

3 Ibid. p. 286. 4 Ibid. p. 19 (n. 6). 

5 Staerk {Das Deuteronomiam, 1894, p. 96, n. i) has already 
suggested that ^oboth and yidde^onim may represent images used in the 


familiar spirit,' but * a woman of ( = devoted to) the 
Baalah of Arabia' (llN or nN representing li;?). In such 
a passage, however, as Isa. xxix. 4 iin represents not 
nn^, but n"'^*!!;, ' the Arabian goddess ' or ' an image of the 

The repugnance to Yerahme'elite religion which had 
sprung up among Yahweh-worshippers appears, if I am not 
mistaken, in the underlying text of xxiii. 2(1). I do not 
agree with the commentators that the reference of the 
legislator is to two surgical operations producing the 
condition of a eunuch. The context makes it much more 
probable that some ethnic or ethnics originally stood in the 
text. Considering a number of textual parallels elsewhere, 
and also the writer's preoccupation with N. Arabian divina- 
tion, it can hardly be difficult to approximate to the original 
text. It is probably best to read the opening words thus — 
'"\y\ m^D Pi:&DD*i npT nnk, i.e. ' A seer of Rekem and a 
sorcerer of Koreth (shall not enter into Yahweh's com- 
munity).' Rekem is a frequent corruption of Yarham,^ and 
Koreth (like Kerith, i K. xvii. 3) comes from the regional 
name Ashhoreth.^ 

This result may inspire us with the hope of recovering 
the true text of v, 3 (2). 'A bastard shall not enter' is 
surely incorrect ; tidd, so long a subject of controversy,^ 
ought to be a corruption of some well-known ethnic. The 
nearest as regards the component letters is ""nDT, which 
occurs in Jer. xxv. 25, and (from its position in the list)* is 
evidently an Arabian ethnic ; it is also the name of an 
usurper of the throne of Israel (i K. xvi. 9), probably of 
N. Arabian origin. A collateral form poi occurs in Gen. 
xxv. 2. I have elsewhere * expressed the opinion that the 

1 T.and B. pp. 51, 286, 308, 370. 

2 Ibid. pp. 23, 46, 213. 

8 See E. Bib., 'Mamzer' (col. 2916). 

* It occurs between 'Arab (so read twice in v. 24) and 'Elam — 
a shortened form of Ishmael or Yerahme'el (see Ezra ii. 7, 31 = Neh. 
vii. 1 2, 34). See Crit. Bib. ad loc. 

^ E. Bib. col. 2916; cp. Geiger, Urschri/t, pp. 90/; Bertholet, 
Stellung, pp. \a,iff.-, and Deut. p. 71. Kennett, however (Journ. of 
Theol. Studies, July 1906, p. 487), rashly infers from vv. 4 f. that 
Deut. was probably composed later than the destruction of Jerusalem. 

THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (Chaps, xii.-xxvi.) 127 

whole passage xxiii. 2 ff. must be post-exilio. I would now 
add that while Neh. xiii. 1-3 distinctly connects Dt. 
xxiii. 4-6 with the age of Nehemiah, it is quite possible 
that the passage may have been worked over or expanded. 
But however this may be, it seems clear that a connexion is 
presupposed between Israel and the N. Arabians, ' Pethor ' 
being a distortion of ' Pathros ^ (the traditional reading of 
the word), i.e. probably Sarephath. 

We have seen already that the Deuteronomist takes an 
interest in traditional history. Thus, in xxv. 17-19 he refers 
to the feud between Israel and Amalek. The Amalekites 
(a backward branch of the great Yerahme'elite race)^ are 
accused here, not of worshipping God in improper ways, 
but of altogether rejecting the true ' fear of God ' by attack- 
ing the feeble Israelites who were in the rear of the post 
(cp. Ex. xvii. 8). The passage begins with the emphatic 
admonition, ' Remember what Amalek did to thee by the 
way, when ye had come forth out of Misrim.' It is very 
singular that in xxiv. 9 the same form of phrase occurs, 
though with some difference in the historical reference. 
The traditional text reads thus, ' Remember what Yahweh 
thy God did to Miriam by the way, after that ye had come 
forth out of Misrim.' The allusion seemingly is to Num. 
xii., where Miriam is struck with leprosy for seven days, as 
a punishment for the lead she had taken in mutinous 
speeches against Moses. But has the original text come 
down to us unaltered ? A prefixed passage {y. 8) contains 
a warning to Israel to attend carefully to the authorised 
exponents of the law in the difficulties arising out of a case 
of leprosy. How is this warning made more effectual by a 
reference to the exclusion of Miriam from the camp for 
seven days ? The answer is that the admonition gains 
nothing in force by such a reference, and we are further 
driven to the assumption that either v. 8 or z^. 9 is a later 
insertion, the remedy suggested by Steuernagel ^ being both 

^ T. and B. pp. 40 (n. 3), 189/ 

2 Ibid. pp. xiii, 562. 

2 This scholar reduces the exhortation to the words, ' Take heed in 
the plague of leprosy. Remember what Yahweh thy God did to 


insufficient and too arbitrary. We can hardly doubt that 
the later addition is v. 8. If such an important subject as 
the ' plague of leprosy ' were referred to at all, it would not 
be in such brief and uninstructive expressions as we find 
in V. 8. 

But why, then, was the addition made ? We shall 
only be able to answer when we have examined the text 
of V. g. An isolated and obscure reference to Miriam is 
most improbable. The obscurity of it must soon have been 
felt, and this accounts for the prefixing of v. 8, which 
represents an early but a vain attempt to throw light on 
the passage. Taking this improbability, together with the 
parallelism in form between xxiv. g and xxv. 17, we cannot 
but conclude that * Miriam ' is wrong, and, if so, that 
' Yahweh thy God ' is also wrong. D"'nD, like nidd ^ (Gen. 
xiii. I 8), probably comes from JONl ( = '^NDnT'), a gloss on 
the phtiS underlying T^Sn, while niri"' is a redactional 
insertion, and h (in wmh) comes from ff?. Thus we get 
an exact parallel to xxv. 17, which one cannot help think- 
ing must have been misplaced — ' Remember what Amalek 
(gloss, ' Ra'aman) did unto thee in the way, when ye had 
come forth out of Misrim.' 

It may be helpful to add in passing that the improbable 
words in Mic. vi. 4 d, ' and I sent (nfptDNl) before thee 
Moses, Aaron, and Miriam,' should probably be, 'and I 
overcame (tD^riN^) before thee Ishmael, Ashhur, and Aram ' ; '^ 
also that in Num. xx. 10, 'Hear now, ye rebels (D■'^D^7),' 
should probably be, ' Hear now, ye Aramaeans (o'^mNn).' 
Until some better corrections of the texts can be offered, I 
venture to adhere to these not unreasonable suggestions. 
Those who defend the originality of the text of Dt. xxiv. 9 
have to explain why the severe punishment of the sister of 
Aaron should be referred to as a reason for obeying the 
injunctions of the priests concerning leprosy. 

Whether the admonition respecting Amalek formed 
part of the original book seems to me very doubtful. It 
may perhaps more naturally be regarded as an early 
appendix. Another appendix we may reasonably find in 
chap. xxvi. In vv. 1-15 we have an account of two 

1 T. and B. p. 229. 2 Cp. E. Bib. col. 3073 (n. 2). 

THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (Chaps, xii.-xxvi.) 129 

liturgical ceremonies to be performed by the Israelite in 
Canaan, and of the forms of prayer and profession. In 
one of these forms (^. 5) occurs the remarkable statement 
that the father of the people was * a wandering Aramaean ' 
("rnN ""DnN). The phrase represents the earliest tradition, 
according to which Jacob was an Aramaean or Yerahme'elite 
of N. Arabia. The pointed text adds that he ' went down 
into Misraim and sojourned there (consisting?) in a few 
men, and became a nation, great, mighty, and populous.' 
But D2;D TiDl, ' in a few men,' is most improbable. The 
idiom is not free from harshness, and if it means that the 
descendants of Jacob who went down into Egypt (.'*) were 
but few in number, it adds nothing to the force of the 
statement. Indeed, if we omit it, the effect of the passage 
is heightened. But now call in the aid of textual criticism 
as applied elsewhere, and the troublesome words can at 
once be accounted for. The dropping of a letter of a word 
is common ; assume, therefore, that TiD comes from Sion 
("• and 1 confounded), which, like ^loriN, repeatedly {e.g. 
Isa. XXX. 33) stands for 7Ni7DtD\ Assume, too, that £3l?o 
comes from nDi^D (see my note on JDI7D3, Ps. cv. 12, in 
Psalms^ 2nd ed.). We then get ' in Ishmael-Maakath,' 
which is a suitable geographical gloss on 'in Misrim.' In 
fact, it was in the N. Arabian land of Misrim that the 
Israelites (or their ancestors) sojourned (see T. and B. 
pp. xviii-xix, 545-547, etc.). 

One more possible reference to Misrim still deserves 
our attention. It is contained in the law of the king in 
xvii. 14-20. Probably the whole passage is a later in- 
sertion;^ vv. 18-20, at any rate, plainly belong to the 
post-exilic period. But, whenever it was written, it was 
still remembered (see z^. 15) that foreign soldiers of fortune^ 
had forced their way to the throne of Israel. V. 16 has 
evidently received interpolations.^ In its original form it 
ran, ' But he shall not get for himself many horses (or, 

1 On the date cp. Bertholet, Deu^. p. 55 ; Comill, Introd. p. 55. 

2 E.g. Zimri, Tibni, Omri. Cp. E. Bib.., ' Tibni.' 

3 Erbt {Die Hebrder, p. 1 69, n. I ) takes ' in order to multiply 
horses ' to be interpolated ; Steuemagel would omit v. \bb. Both 
scholars seem to be right. 


Ishmaelites ?), and so cause the people to return to Misrim.' 
The latter words are to be illustrated by Hos. xi. 5, where 
we should read, ' He shall return to the land of Misrim,' 
i.e. he shall be brought thither as a captive ; both in 
Deuteronomy and in Hosea it is the punishment of Israel 
that is referred to. With regard to the ' getting many 
horses ' it is certainly not impossible that horses may have 
been procured from Misrim in N. Arabia,^ and it is certain 
that trust in horses, or fear of horses, in warfare is con- 
demned in several O.T. passages {e.g. Dt. xx. i). It is 
also possible, however, that the reference to horses is due 
to a misunderstanding. Again and again {e.g. Isa. Ixvi. 20) 
D''D1D appears to be a popular corruption of D'^S'Ni^DtD'' ^ 
(through D''DC)d). This may perhaps be the case here. If 
the underlying text of i K. v. 6, x. 26, has been correctly 
determined,^ Solomon had a small standing army of N. 
Arabians. There may be a reference to this, supposing 
that the writer had before him a correct text of Kings ; 
there is certainly a reference to Solomon's polygamy in 
V. 17. If so, the legislator may mean that any king of 
Israel who collects such an army does it at his own peril. 
His punishment will be a second captivity and oppression 
of his people in the land of Misrim. 

Some further notice, however, is due to the expressions 
used in v. 16 b. The interpolator (as one must think) refers 
to a ' word ' of Yahweh to the effect that Israel shall not 
have to return that way {i.e. to Misrim). Such a word or 
promise it would be difficult to find. Are we to suppose 
that it once existed in some generally known record ? Or 
does the interpolation refer to the already corrupted text of 
Hos. xi. 5 (see above), ' he shall not return to the land of 
Misrim ' ? The latter seems the more natural view. The 
interpolator looked at these words by themselves, and re- 
garded them as a divine word of promise. 

1 See T. and B. pp. 462-464. 

2 Ibid. p. 488 (n. 2) ; note remark on 'Ddd, i Chr. ii. 40. 

8 See Crit. Bib. pp. 320 (top), 333, but note that on p. 320 d'oid 
should have been traced to d'odo. David, indeed, had also a similar 
standing army or guard — the so-called Kerethites (Ashhartites) and 
Pelethites (Ethbaalites). 

THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (Chaps, xii.-xxvi.) 131 

We have now completed the most important part of our 
search, and found abundant evidence of the N. Arabian 
atmosphere of the original Deuteronomy. The legislation 
in chaps, xii.-xxvi. is largely directed against Yerahme'elite 
or N. Arabian practices dangerous to adherents of the pure 
religion of Yahweh, and the law of the One Sanctuary is 
framed in the interest of a temple which, while religiously 
separate from the impurities of N. Arabian worship, is 
nevertheless, geographically speaking, Yerahme'elite. The 
persons, too, who are addressed are commanded to keep aloof 
from the ' statutes of the Aramaean ' (as a prophetic writer 
calls the N. Arabian usages),^ and yet they had to declare 
most solemnly (xxvi. 5) that their great ancestor Jacob 
had been ' a wandering Aramaean,' i.e. a Yerahme'elite. 

It must now be clear to demonstration that such a law- 
book as chaps, xii.-xxvi. (putting aside the question as to 
interpolations or later additions) was in urgent need of 
adaptation before it could be deposited and subsequently 
* found ' in the royal temple of Jerusalem. With great re- 
dactional skill the references to N. Arabia have been, for 
the most part, entended out of existence. That lexico- 
graphical and exegetical difficulties have been created 
thereby cannot, however, be denied, and it is the study of 
these problems in the light of a theory that has helped us 
in our need elsewhere which has enabled us to solve them 
more adequately than has yet perhaps been possible. 

Besides these verbal and phraseological alterations, the 
law-book referred to needed an introduction and a con- 
clusion. The terror excited in Josiah (as the well-known 
narrative states) by the reading of ' this book ' (2 K. 
xxiii. ii-i3)or, at any rate, in other persons, when they 
read it for the first time, and the references {vv. 16, 19) to 
the grievous fate announced in the book for Jerusalem and 
its inhabitants, suggest that it contained, not only laws, but 
extremely solemn curses on the people in the event of their 
disobedience. Such curses would naturally form part of the 
conclusion, though it is impossible to point them out in the 
present Deuteronomy. The introduction would as naturally 

1 Mic. vi. 16; see T. and B. p. 63 (n. 4). 


give a statement of the situation of the Israelites immedi- 
ately before the crossing of the border-stream ; the speaker 
would, of course, be Moses. We cannot, however, attempt 
to recover this preamble either from chaps, i.-iv. 43, or 
from the second portion of the existing introduction of 
Deuteronomy, chaps, iv. 44-xi. 



In spite of what has just now been said, we are compelled 
to scrutinise closely the existing introduction and conclusion 
(in their different parts). Our object is, not to detect the 
original preamble, but to find any possible or probable 
references to N. Arabia. Here, too, it is not impossible 
that references may occur to an early tradition of the N. 
Arabian residence of the Israelitish clans. Such references 
are not unlikely to occur in passages which contain some 
strange verbal or phraseological difficulties. And behold, 
such difficulties actually meet us in the very first verses of 
the first chapter. ' Terribly corrupt,' is Cornill's verdict on 
i. I, 2. But ought we to sit down, cowed by such a 
remark ? I think not. ITTTT 11^1 ceases to puzzle us ^ 
when we see that ]TT^ in the early traditions is repeatedly 
miswritten for \nyj a border-stream (as exegesis leads us to 
assume) in N. Arabia. It now at once becomes probable 
that the Tis of the text (like the ilis of Gen. x. 21, 24/) 
has arisen out of in^, ' Arabia.' ^ 

Let us now proceed hopefully to the hard problems 
which follow. And first we notice (still in v. i) the words 
^1D rdl^l inon. Why should not nils be miswritten 
for yrp (as in xi. 30, Josh. xii. 3 ?), and 'piD be a shortened 
form of ^N27DB)"' or ^NOm"' (as in iii. 29, iv. 46, xxxiv. 6 ?) } 
For the latter, cp. ^"loriM from fpi^oriN (cp. on Tin, xxvi. 5). 
If so, we shall get the phrase 'dht li^ly ' in Yerahme'elite 

^ Sometimes this phrase is supposed to refer to the east, sometimes 
to the west, of the river Jordan. 

- See T. aftd B. p. 229. ^ So presumably often elsewhere. 



Arabia.' nnn may perhaps be misplaced, and stand pro- 
perly before Pjid, a word which, like the feminine form riDID 
(Num. xxi. 14), probably comes from idd (in nOD TT'ip), the 
"^minine form of which (mDD) occurs in Ezra ii. 5 5 ( = Neh. 
vii. 57), and may be identical with riDlS.^ Then follows a 
group of names, mostly difficult. The origin of pND is 
treated elsewhere,^ Note here that in xxxiii, 2, ' the 
mountain-country of Paran ' and * Meribah in Kadesh ' are 
parallel. Paran, therefore, was at any rate in the Yerah- 
me'elite region. f?Dn is not = et-Tafile in N. Edom, but 
identical with n^D = hlT\ = ^ririN.^ ]n^ (which has nothing 
to do with moon-worship) is, both as a tribal and as a place 
name, of S. Aramaean origin.* msn has sprung from 
nnnpN, a feminine form of the regional name int&N.^ im '^"T 
(0, Karo'^va-ea) is, of course, parallel to the strange- 
looking name im "p ^ (as if ' waters of gold ' in Gen. 
xxxvi. 39), and also to nun^T '^ (Gen. xxxvi. 32). nnt seems 
ultimately to come from ^NrotD"' ; ^ """t or ]l and *'D should 
be corrupt fragments of some ethnic or regional name such 
as pN or D"iN. 

V. 2 in the traditional text runs thus, * There are eleven 
days' (journey) from Horeb by the road to mount Seir to 
Kadesh-barnea.' But is it in the least probable that the 
preamble of our Deuteronomy should contain a statement 
of the distance from Horeb to the so-called Kadesh-barnea ? ' 
Considering how often numerals cover over ethnic or regional 
names, and how often d[*i]"' stands for id"", which again and 
again (through joTT' or joQ?'') represents either ^Nom"* or its 
equivalent S'N:;Dm\^ should we not for ni"" ni&i; "irrN restore 
|D^ [nt&N] "intDN .'' ^^ One may venture to add the conjecture 
that sill in 'n Wlp (Kadesh-barnea) comes from yisi (cp. 

1 T. and B. p. 551. 2 /^/^ p. 242. 

3 Ih'd. pp. 161, 312 (n. 2). Cp. pBx = py3s (t'h'd. p. 50, n. 3V 

* Ibid. pp. 123, 345. 5 iifid^ pp. 23, 319. 

^ Sayce, letter in Academy^ October 22, 1892 ; Marquart, Funda- 
menie, p. 10. 

"^ T. and B. p. 430. ^ /^/^ p. 4^3. 

* Ibid. pp. 6 (n. 3), 161. 

10 Note that inx and ir-y are here taken as representatives of inE^K and 
la'K respectively. Ashhur and Asshur, of course, are alternative forms, 
but Ashhur is to be preferred. 

THE FIRST PREAMBLE (i. i-iv. 43) 135 

plMn), a corruption of ]Di;n, i.e. f?NDm\ Such corruptions 
abound ; the true meaning of the names was, of course, 

What, then, is the origin of vv. i and 2 ? How has the 
present text grown up, assuming the textual corrections 
suggested above ? * These are the words which Moses 
spoke to all Israel ' — that this is the true beginning of the 
little superscription cannot be questioned. But where did 
he speak them ? This had to be stated, but it is difficult to 
make out exactly what the redactor said. Probably it was 
inTn "yy^l, ' in Arabia of the Yarhon,' and as a gloss upon 
this a scribe added ^NoriT 11i?5, * in Arabia of Yerahme'el,' 
and again mD*iD ni"7Q!l, ' in the wilderness of Sophereth ^ 
( = Sarephath).' Some other late scribe, who had access 
to lists of names, inserted ' between Paran, and Tophel 
( = Ethbaal), and Laban, and Haseroth ( = Ashhoreth), and 
Aram-Ishmael.' For these names it would have been much 
simpler to give the well-known compound name, Asshur- 
or Ashhur- Yerahme'el. So thought the ancient scholar who 
inserted the name which, in a highly corrupt form, has 
become ' eleven days.' This final misreading was perhaps 
facilitated by an accident. A few words, which may have 
been meant as a gloss on * Turn you and take your journey ' 
in V. 7, found their way (as is often the case) into the text 
in a most inappropriate place. The words are ' from Horeb 
towards mount Seir as far as Kadesh-barnea (Ra'aman).' 

Verse 5 is at first sight a second version of v. i a. The 
truth is, however, that the compound verbal phrase nwl h^s'yrt 
is corrupt, so that v. 5 is no sentence at all. Natural the 
phrase rendered ' undertook to explain ' certainly is not, and 
the existence of a word in1, * to explain,' is extremely 
doubtful.'^ With so many analogous cases before us we 
can hardly help restoring lijf hi^r^ri'v/ on which In^id pNl 
may be a (possibly incorrect) gloss. The words rriDD 

^ Neh. vii. 57 ; cp. T. and B. p. 382. 

'^ In xxvii. 8, Hab. ii. 2 (the only other passages where iKa occurs), 
•)K3 can be shown to be corrupt, and in Hab. I.e. to have most probably 
originated in a^y. (Cp. also ik3i, xxxiii. 25 ^, from an^'?.) 

3 S'yin probably from VnDm', sometimes with vh prefixed (redaction 
ally?) as in Jer. ii. 11. 


"lON^ nmn mirurnM may be due to a redactor who had 
before him ill-written words (which really constitute glosses), 
of which he could make nothing without conjecture, 'om"* 
ni? is itself, presumably, a gloss, which may very possibly 
be intended to state that the kingdoms of Sihon and Og 
were in ' Arabian Yerahme'el.' 

The speech of Moses is retrospective. It begins with a 
version of a divine command to the Israelites to journey on 
from Horeb to the promised land (i. 6-8). This region is 
represented as in Arabia. Using results arrived at elsewhere 
(see references below), we find it described as embracing the 
land of the Canaanite, and (the southern) Lebanon, while the 
farthest limit (li;) of the region was, not * the great river the 
river Euphrates,' but ' the river of Gilead, the river of Perath 
{i.e. Ephrath).' Between 'the hill -country of the Amorite ' 
and ' the land of the Canaanite ' comes a list of districts 
which adjoin the ' Amorites,' and are ' in Arabia (read 
"yys^), in the mountains, in the Shephelah [in the Negeb], 
and in Rehob-Yaman.' In the parallel passage. Josh. ix. i, 
the Negeb is not mentioned ; perhaps it is here only by 
accident. How far the geographical names in this and 
similar lists represent separate regions, we cannot say. 
One or two remarks may be added. That ' Amorites ' 
means properly ' highlanders ' and ' Canaanites ' means 
' lowlanders ' is a pure imagination. The two designations 
may quite well be synonymous (see on ix. i /!). See, 
further, T. and B. pp. 195, 174/.; on the southern 
Lebanon, ibid. p. 457 ; on the southern streams, ibid. 
pp. 262 f. (cp. 91); and on Rehob-Yaman, ibid. pp. 

498, 504- 

Passing over matters more fitly treated elsewhere, I 
stop next at ii. 10-12, which is rightly regarded by Steuer- 
nagel as a later insertion. Such antiquarian notices are 
absurdly unsuitable in the mouth of the divine Speaker. 
Nor is the annotator's accuracy by any means beyond 
reproach. The Emim {T. and B., p. 241) and the Anakim 
{ibid. p. 121) are both Yerahme'elite peoples, and therefore 
akin to the Israelites ; and the Horites are not cave-dwellers, 
but simply a branch of the Asshurites {ibid. pp. 241, 424). 
That the Horites were destroyed by the bene Esau may be 

THE FIRST PREAMBLE (i. i-iv. 43) 137 

a purely gratuitous statement, based, perhaps, on the corrupt 
reading pNrr '•ntD'' in Gen. xxxvi. 20 {T. and B. p. 425/). 
That they dwelt in Seir is probably correct, and from Gen. 
xxvi. 34, if rightly read (in T. and B. p. 364), it appears that 
Esau's first wife was a Horite. For the Rephaim see on iii. 1 1. 
That ' Rephaim ' means ' giants ' is of course wrong, though 
the tall stature of the earlier masters of Canaan certainly 
formed part of Israelitish folklore (Num. xiii. 33, Am. ii. 9). 

Another late antiquarian notice has to be considered. 
But first let us seek to illuminate a somewhat obscure 
passage which precedes it. In ii. 1 8 we read, ' Thou art 
now about to pass through the region of Moab, An' To 
suppose that there was a district dominated by the city 
of Ar, would be hazardous. It will be observed that in 
vv. 9, 18, and 29 (B, however, in 9, 18, gives '^rjeip), (3 has 
Aporjp (but A in 29, AponjX). Now -ii?*n27 (Aporjp) is most 
probably a compound name. *nr, like "i^^i (see T. and B. 
p. 210), may represent ^Nn)m% and "ys come from inr. In 
Isa. xvii. 2 ni;"ni? actually appears as the name of a district. 
Here, too, it is best to take it so, and also in vv. 9, 29, i.e. 
as a symbol for Yerahme'el-Arab. 

The antiquarian notice is in ii. 20-23. It relates to the 
former inhabitants of the land of the bene Ammon. This 
land, too (cp. v. 11), was formerly inhabited by Rephaim, a 
people whom the Ammonites called ' Zamzummim.' This 
strange-looking word has provoked much learned specula- 
tion. Robertson Smith, following Schwally, explains it 
from the Arabic as meaning ' whisperers, murmurers.' ^ 
This, however, is almost on a par with the explanation of 
Emim {v. 10, Gen. xiv. 5) as 'terrible ones,' which is 
plainly not the original meaning of an ethnic name. DT is 
possibly, like DID and ]ll?, a corrupt fragment of \tiX[r = 
SnI7Q»\ For the reduplication cp. rr3D3D, Josh. xv. 31. 
"r for », as in ^Pllt and mm from SN:;n)m\ In short, the 
Zamzummim, like the Zuzim,^ are a branch of the Ishmael- 
ites, and why should we suppose that the Arammites who 
overcame them were a younger race ? As for the D"'*ii7 
(Avvites), for whom ^ substitutes the Hivvites, and the 

1 MS. note quoted by Driver, Deut. p. 40. 
2 Gen. xiv. 5. See T. and B. p. 241. 


Kaphtorim, we cannot speak quite so confidently. The 
former may be a tribe of Arabians (D''ni;). They are 
generally supposed to have dwelt, according to the Hebrew 
text, in villages, but surely the parallelism of vv. lo, 12, 
20, 22, favours the view that D'^isn represents a proper 
name, ^s^ is the name required ; it was wrongly supposed 
to be the short for D"'isn. nsn, like mT, is most probably 
a distortion of nrrtDN. It is noteworthy that 0" has Aarjhcod, 
i.e. nntDN, which (see on iii. 17) certainly comes from intOM 
( = nntDN). 

As for the latter, it should, I think, be clear that ' the 
Kaphtorim who came out from Kaphtor ' is very improbable. 
Kaphtorim would indeed be a most misleading name for 
emigrants from Kaphtor. The name we should expect is 
DTi^D (often confounded with dtiHj'pd). According to the 
(probably) best reading in Gen. x. 14, the Pelethites came 
forth from Kaphtor, or perhaps rather (see 7". and B. p. 192) 
Rehoboth. Pelethim and Kaphtorim, it is true, are far 
apart, but D''^nDD was probably corrupted from D'^mnD ^ (M.T., 
Pathrusim, Gen. x. 14), or, strictly, DTims. That Pjis 
( = P|-|D or idd) is a clan-name is indisputable. 

The account of the destruction of the peoples of Sihon 
and Og needs critical comment. The geography of the 
original traditions worked up in ii. 24-iii. 1 1 may have been 
different from that of the final redactor. Certainly this is 
suggested by the names. ' Amorites ' is scarcely different 
from ' Arammites,' and it must be admitted that there was a 
southern Aram. ' Heshbon ' is a name which may have 
attached itself to different localities, for imn and DWTl are 
virtually identical, and the origin given elsewhere^ to D'^tDon 
in Ex. xiii. 1 8 and other passages may be given with almost 
equal justice to pntDn. * Bashan ' (as numerous analogies 
suggest) comes from ' Abshan,' i.e. Arab-Ishmael. ' Ash- 
taroth,' or better * Ashtereth ' (i.e. Ashtart), is at least very 
suggestive of N. Arabia (see T. and B. pp. 240/). Here, 
indeed, the residence of Og is further defined as being ' in 
Edrei ' ; the view that ' and ' should be prefixed, so that Og 

^ 3 and D confounded, as in i K, vii. 40 (cp. v. 43) niT3 stands 
for niTD. 

2 T. and B. pp. 489, 552. 

THE FIRST PREAMBLE (i. i-iv. 43) 139 

will have had two royal cities, though quite defensible (see 
0, Vg., and cp. Driver), is at any rate improbable. The 
truth may be that "'i^llM is miswritten for some form like 
'\'3'r\3, which, as we have seen, may represent l"i27 ^NDm"*.^ 
The name pn''D in its present form is inexplicable ; pmo 
would give a clear meaning, for onn is a corruption of intZ?N. 
aii?, too, as it stands, is obscure ; but it is not impossible 
that, like lli and 311D, it may ultimately come from some 
form of ^NDm\^ 

Some names still remain. p31N (ii. 36) represents ;dnt ; 
cp. pi?T (see above, on xii. 2). On the problem of the 
name ' Gilead ' see T. and B., p. 389, in connection with 
the great legendary compact between Jacob and Laban. 
'Salecah' {T\y7D) iii. 10, Josh. xii. 5, xiii. 11, is a very old 
commercial centre, mentioned also in Genesis as N. Arabian.^ 
The money standard established by its merchants was 
probably accepted both in the N. Arabian border-land and 
in the land of Judah, for we find the phrase * the shekel of 
Salekath ' in the earlier text which underlies the MT. of 
Gen. XX. 16. rr3^D may come from fpDtDN, and thereby be 
distinguished as an Ashkalite settlement {T. and B. p. 315). 

In the MT. of iii. 4 b the extent of Og's kingdom ' in 
Bashan ' is described as ' sixty cities, all the region (?) of 
Argob.' Here, however, there are several problems. First, 
as to the * sixty cities.' This, of course, is to be taken with 
Judg. X. 4, where Yair the Gileadite is said to have had thirty 
sons who rode on thirty ass-colts and had thirty cities. It 
is hard to read this without suspicion of error, and having 
found that ethnics are very prone to be transformed into 
numerals, and that T'i; has often possibly come from l"ir, we 
shall do best to correct T':> w^Xb into yrs ^ptp"; ( = Ishmael of 
Arabia).* Next, as to ninw Sin Sd. I have already 
attached a query to * region,' which the lexicons with one 
accord give as the meaning of hin. Unfortunately the 
passages containing hlXl are not free from suspicion, and 

^ Cp. T. and B. p. 421, where it would be simpler to say that "ny 
comes from lyny. 

2 T. and B. pp. 158/ 

^ See T. and B. pp. 315-317, 406/, 409. 

^ See Crit. Bid. on Josh. xiii. 30. 


here at any rate (comparing D"''?in D"^"Til ^ in Am. ii. 8) we 
should read hi:iT\, a shortened form of ^NDm"*. That unw 
means ' stony,' and that such a name points to the Leja^ is 
with much learning denied by Driver (p. 49). It is, 
however, a regional name, and should be grouped with 
JOinw,^ Din in l^o Din, and D^^il, all of which point to 
7NDm"'. It is probable that f?in (^on) is a term of wider 
reference than inw (omN). The origin of both names was 
no doubt early forgotten. 

It is an important geographical note that we find in 
iii. 9. (i) As to T3to. That Saniru was the name of a 
mountain at the entrance of (the northern) Lebanon, we 
know from Shalmaneser (Del, Paradies, p. 104). All the 
other O.T. passages, however, in which TDt& occurs point 
rather to N. Arabia (see i Chr. v. 23, Ezek. xxvii. 5, Cant, 
iv. 8). It is the first of these passages which throws most 
light on T31D, and confirms the view suggested by the 
general scenery of Deut. rightly understood, viz., that the 
mountain or mountain-range referred to in iii. 8 is in the 
N. Arabian border-land. In its original form it may have 
run thus — * The men of the half-tribe of Manasseh dwelt in 
the land from Bashan (Abshan) to Baal-Hermon [Senir and 
the Hermon range signify Yerahme'el].' In this rendering 
of the revised text I have provisionally left ' Senir.' Most 
probably, however, T«3to is miswritten for "ii;3lD, i.e. 111? ^Ni?DlD"^. 
' Shinar ' and ' mount Hermon ' are therefore naturally put 
together (as in Cant. iv. 8), for ' Ishmael ' and ' Yerahme'el ' 
(here represented by ' Hermon ') are synonymous. (2) With 
regard to pD*in. The name thus read may no doubt have 
suggested the idea of sacredness, just as Montserrat, properly 
' mons serratus,' suggested to Catalans the interpretation 
' mons sacratus.' But originally Hermon was formed from 
cm = Dm"' ( ^Nonv) ; originally, too, it designated a 
mountain-range in the Yerahme'elite country. This throws 
light on Enoch vi. 6, where the fallen angels, who bear 

^ Interpret thus, ' that recline on Yerahme'elite garments by every 
altar.' Cp. T. and B. p. 360. 

2 Purple was the dress of Midianite chiefs (Judg. viii. 26), and blue- 
purple and red-purple came from Ishmaelite Arabia (Ezek. xxvii. 7 ; 
see T. and B. pp. 165, 360). 

THE FIRST PREAMBLE (i. i-iv. 43) 141 

Yerahme'elite names, are made to descend on Mt. Hermon. 
Cp. also the apfiayeZmv of Rev. xvi. 6 ; ap^l. = pniD nn = in 
'ht. (3) As to ]''~!to (|Vlto). The name does not occur in 
Ass. inscriptions. Probably, like T'Dtn, it has grown out of 
ni?2t&, and has the same meaning. If so, v. 9 merely tells us 
that the 'Misrites' (read D"'"i?p) and the 'Arammites' (read 
"•aiNn) used different forms of the same name. The alter- 
native is to take at any rate ]r"ilD as = pntD"' = pn©N or ]-i£9n. 
renders ^VntD in Ps. xxix. 6 by o r]<ya'jrr]ixevo^ = ]MW (see 
on xxxii. 15). (4) In iv. 48 pm is corrupted into jN-'lD. 

We now return to royal Og. A strange note about him 
is inserted (^'. 11). (i) Can we accept its contents? Were 
the Rephaim really of an older race which became extinct 
at the Israelitish conquest? Was the name originally an 
ethnic ? Various theories have been broached (see E. Bid., 
' Rephaim '), but the view which seems to me to accord best 
with textual phenomena is that D'^ndt and D'^IDN both have 
the same origin, viz. either n-'lis or (better) ;d"' ni?, ' Yaman- 
ite Arabia.'^ (2) May we regard the story of Og's 
enormous bedstead of iron — or sarcophagus of basalt (?) — as 
a part of Israelitish folklore? Or rather, is not the text 
corrupt ? It appears that htll sometimes represents 
^N^^DtD"^ 1")2?. For a very clear instance of this see iv. 20 
(furnace of iron ?) ; but a study of xxxiii. 25 and Gen. iv. 22 
will lead to the same result.^ As to wis, it may easily have 
come from pw. When the corruptions mis and hMI had 
come into existence, it was easy for the annotator to make 
up a story about the ' bedstead ' (?) being shown at Rabbath- 
Ammon. The story about the size of the relic was a mere 
decoration, and m'^N nDN, 'the cubit of a man,' which reads 
so oddly, has come from ^Ni^DtD"' riQN, ' the cubit of Ishmael,' 
just as tDi3N £D"ini, * with a man's pen,' should be ]nm"^ 121TT2, 
' with a pen of Ishmael.' ^ The cubit of the Ishmaelite 
merchants was no doubt a standard (see above, on Salekah). 
All that the original text had was, ' Surely his land is the 
land of Ishmaelite Arabia.' 

May we altogether trust the account which is here given 
of the extreme cruelty of the conquerors of Sihon and Og 

1 T, and B. pp. 240, 472/ 2 /^^-^ p jog^ with n. 2. 

3 Ibid. p. 368 (n. 2). 


(ii. 34, ill. 6)? Surely this ostentatious reference to the 
destruction of * women and little ones ' is improbable. The 
passage should be taken together with Judg. xx. 48, where 
the destruction of the cattle and afterwards of ' all that was 
found,' and yet again the burning of ' all the cities that 
were found,' startles every reader. First, as to the highly 
suspicious words rrnm and N2D3. The former is probably 
a corruption of nDJTlir,^ where the southern Hamath is 
intended (see Isa. xi. 11, where ' Hamath ' follows ' Shinar,' a 
N. Arabian regional name).^ The latter, like pND? in Isa. 
XXXV. 7, should be read pNp^, i.e. ]li?DlD ( = ^Nrom"'), also the 
name of a N. Arabian district. That T'l? may represent 
"yya has been pointed out already, while the impossible Dno, 
linked as it is to *T'i?, i.e. lii?, hardly admits of being ex- 
plained otherwise than as a short and corrupt form of D''^Dn, 
from f?*)Dn or ^loriN, one of the current corruptions of 
f?N:;Dttr.^ We can now restore Judg. xx. 48 approximately 
to its original form, pNDsn-SD '^^ [nDrrni?] D'^^dd I'rap 
WNl ^rhm nr3ND!irr D"'ni7n-^D D3. In the passage before us 
(ii. 34) we have the same enigmatical phrase nnn *T»i? (which 
baffles interpreters), D''m3 ( = ]Dtt)"'), which corresponds to N2D3 
( = pi^otD), and tjn, which seems to represent niD3 ( = niriDD). 
We may therefore restore thus, ;om"'l D'-Sdh li^-f^D-DN Din^l 
niDDI. The last two words, neither of them being preceded 
by nw, may be a later insertion. 

We have not yet quite done with geography. The 
' tent villages of Yair,' and what is said in different places 
about them, are certainly puzzling. Looking at the text of 
iii. 14/^, it seems most probable that lotD-Si? DHn ('them by 
his name ') has arisen out of two corrupt forms of ^Ni;DlD\ 
Si^DHN is exactly parallel to fpioriN (see on ii. 34), while lotD 
reminds us of Dtt), which has been shown to be a corrupt 
fragment of SNi?Dtl>\* ' Ishmael ' would be a very suitable 
gloss on ' Argob ' (see above). Thus we get, ' and called 
Bashan Havvoth-Yair to this day.' That ' Havvoth ' is correct, 
however, seems to me very doubtful. But what is the right 
reading? We might suggest niano (this would suit Num. 

1 So in Isa. xxx. 6 (3:2 mona), Jon. iv. 11, Ps. xxxvi. 7, 

2 T. and B. p. 185. ^ Cp. on ' Methushael,' T. and B. p. 107. 

* Ibid. p. 117. 

THE FIRST PREAMBLE (i. i-iv. 43) 143 

xxxii. 41), of which non might possibly be a corruption. 
Whether the region referred to was or was not in Bashan 
(Abshan = Arabia of Ishmael), is hardly a fruitful question. 

Nor is it feasible to determine precisely most of the 
places mentioned in iii. 16, 17. If we accept the N. 
Arabian theory (and to some extent we cannot surely help 
doing so), the ' sea ' or ' lake ' intended will be the Dead Sea. 
But where shall we put the Yabbok ? Its name, it is true, 
we can explain,^ but this is all. Where, too, can we fix 
Gebal ? The reading (yii) indeed is secure (see below), and 
the name (' mountain-land ') is clear ; cp. on Ps. Ixxxiii. 7. 
It reminds us of another and more famous Gebal (Byblus in 
Phoenicia). But the most remarkable name is moDH mtnN, 
rendered by most ' the slopes of Pisgah,' but, I fear, by a 
complete misapprehension. First, as to the rendering ' the 
slopes (of).' To justify this either by the Aramaic imN, 'fudit' 
(Gesenius), or by the Assyrian isdu, ' base ' (Delitzsch, Prol. 
p. 46), is a mere caprice. The secret of the word ought not 
to have been missed so long. Transposition of letters 
accounts for the strange name. miDN is simply miswritten 
for nntDN. The names Ashtar and Ashhur are equivalent.^ 
The former is the name of the mountain or mountain-range 
on which the ark was said to have rested, though the' 
traditional text gives us the corrupt Ararat ; ^ with a prefixed 
Yaman it is the designation of the mountain from which 
Yahweh came to Israel.^ The latter, with the addition of 
Yercihme'el, is the name of the mountain on which legend 
originally placed the attempted sacrifice of Isaac.^ It is 
probable that near Mt. Ashtar or Mt. Ashhur there was a 
city of the same name, partaking of the sacredness of the 
mountain. Was it Og's royal city Ashtereth (see above, 
p. 138)? 

Next, as to TODDn, ' the Pisgah.' This is an imaginary, 
non-existent name derived from Num. xxi. 20, where it is 
probably a corruption of rrDptD^n, which was afterwards 
corrected into riDptD^*! (f]plD3rT would have been better), 
without the deletion of nJiDDn. In the process of change 

1 T. and B. pp. 396/ 2 /^/^ p_ 70. 

2 See on xxxiii. 2. * T. and B. p. 146. 

^ Ibid. p. 328. 


the true name may have dropped out Certainly both in 
iii. 27 and in Num. xxi. 20 nissn ^J?N, and in our present 
passage (iii. 17) 'Drr nn»N (Ashtar-Peor), w-ould be a 
plausible name. 

The text of iii. 17 in which our criticism issues, when 
translated, runs thus : * And Arabia of the Yarhon, and 
Gebal, to the sea of Kinnereth, [Arabia of the Yerahme'elite 
Sea,] below Ashtar of Pe'or, eastward.' Here we read 'j^^ 
for Sia^ (tf. 16, 17 ; so Num. xxxiv. 6, Josh. xiiL 23, 27, 
XV. 12, 47). rr^o comes from fpNcm" ; ^ ' salt sea ' is surely 
absurd. It will be noticed that Josh. xii. 3 is in some points 
more correct than the traditional text of iii. 1 7. 

I will conclude this chapter with a reference to the 
strange phrase in iv. 20, ^nin TIDD, ' from the iron furnace,' 
usually paraphrased ' from the furnace which is as hot as one 
for smelting iron.' This, however, is not at all obvious, and 
Prof. Kennett ^ allows it to be probable that * the origin of 
the phrase is unknown to us.' It is indeed only a fuller 
experience of the habits of the scribes that will help us. 
The myster)' lies in 7m[n], which is not exactly a corruption, 
but (see on iii. 1 1 ) a current symbol for '^njcb?" ns (' Arabia 
of Ishmael '). It is therefore parallel to d^iSD, which is, of 
course, to be pronounced Misrim, the name of a N. Arabian 
land and people. Thus we get the very natural statement, 
— * Yahweh hath taken you and brought you from the 
furnace of Arab-Ishmael, from Misrim.' The same striking 
parallelism occurs in i K. viii. 51, Jer. xi. 4, and we are 
agreeably surprised to find an equally exact parallel in 
Isa. xlviii. 10, ' Behold, I ha\-e refined thee in the crucible of 
Kasdim (Hashram), I ha\'e tested thee in the furnace of 

^ T. ami B. p. 239. 

^ 'The Date of Deuteronomy,' y(>«rrr<i/<y TAeol, Studies, July 1906, 
p. 484. 

' Read in Isa. xlviii. 10 <i c-rn •'•ra, and in b Sem' -nrx The MT. 
in a has found no satisfactor>' explanation, and in {> is hardly less 
enigmatical. Scin' in the correction is represented both by •«? and by 
the first *:7c'> in MT. of t'. i i a (n fell out, and 1 became i). The 
second 'ipC* has grown out of •ser jjo> (Duhm, Che>-ne, Marti). 
' Kasdim' (or rather I;iashram ; see p. 63) occurs again in c. 14^. 



This preamble is to some extent virtually a development of 
the first portion of the Decalogue. Several points in v. 6-10 
(Ex. XX. 2-6) have been treated of already (p. 103). Here 
it is only necessary to consider the form of a passage 
scarcely less important than the Decalogue — the passage 
known to Jewish believers as the Shema' (vi. 4-5). In its 
present form, doubtless, it is a bulwark of strict monotheism, 
but has it come down to us as it was first written ? The 
emphasis on the unity or uniqueness of Yahweh docs not fit 
in very well with the context ; moreover, the first part of it 
{v. 4) is extremely difficult of interpretation. Three ex- 
planations are current : ( i ) ' Yahweh is our God, Yahweh 
as the only one' (Steuernagel after Ibn Ezra) ; (2) 'Yahweh 
our God, Yahweh is one' (Ewald, Oehler) ; (3) 'Yahweh 
our God is one Yahweh ' (Dillmann, Driver, Stadey None 
of these theories, however, is satisfactory, and to improve 
upon them one must first discover how the exegetical diffi- 
culty arose. The cause surely is corruption of the text, and 
this corruption was largely due to a redactor's manipulation 
of the text in the interest of a strict monotheism. From a 
comprehensive criticism of a large group of passages we 
appear to learn that one fuller name of the God of Israel 
was Yahweh- Yerahme'el, and that a virtual synonym for 
Yerahme'el was Ashhur," so that ' Yahweh-Ashhur ' was a 
possible name for the conjoined members of the divine duad. 
The original reading, therefore, of Dt. vi. 4 was, ' Hear, O 

1 Stade, Bibl. Theol. des A.T. i. 84. But the phrase 'one 
Yahweh ' (much older than Deut., according to Stade) is highly 
improbable. ^ See T. and B. pp. 24, 284. 

145 10 


Israel ; Yahweh is our God [Yahweh-Ashhur] ' ; in this I 
assume — what seems to me to have been proved — that 
-rriN and irrN often in the traditional text take the place 
of nntDN, so that iriN mri"' (in our passage, but not in Zech. 
xiv. 9) may very well represent nntDN n'in\ Certainly the 
text, as it stands, is incapable of a satisfactory explanation. 
If we adopt this view, it will be best to suppose further that 
in the text underlying the present redacted text ' Yahweh- 
Ashhur' stood in the margin as a variant (an older one) to 
' Yahweh.' This theory is, of course, quite consistent with 
the admission that the present form of the text is the only 
one which, at any rate since the fall of the state, the pro- 
gressive form of Yahwism could tolerate. 

These, then, were the names of the God who brought his 
people out of * the furnace of Arab-Ishmael, out of Misrim ' 
(iv. 20, see above). But whither did the divine guide lead 
them ? As we have seen (on i. 10-12), it was to the land of 
Canaan, which appears to have been originally represented 
as in N. Arabia. The second preamble gives us fresh 
information as to its natural gifts. This is contained in vii. 
12-15, viii. 7-9, and xi. 10-12. The two latter passages are 
the most important. In viii. 7 the promised land is spoken 
of as, first of all, ' a land of torrent-streams (d"'0 'hrxi), of 
springs and (subterranean) deeps, springing forth in valleys 
and mountains.' Torrent-streams in N. Arabia are of course 
quite natural. But what of ' springs and tehonwth ' ? In the 
Negeb at any rate the only considerable springs are in a few 
of the larger wadys (torrent-valleys). One is therefore 
tempted to think that, just as the story of Joseph in Genesis, 
which originally referred to the N. Arabian Misrim, has 
been manipulated (with imperfect success) ^ so as to fit the 
theory that the events took place in Misraim (Egypt), so the 
original text of viii. 7 b has been recast so as to justify the 
view that the land of promise was in Palestine. 

A similar hypothesis seems necessary to account for 
xi. 10, where the promised land, with its mountains and 
valleys and fertilising rains, is contrasted with ' the land 
. . . whence ye came out, where thou sowedst thy seed, and 
wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs.' Here it 
1 T. and B. pp. ASA ff. 


seems to be stated that the land of D'^nSD was fertilised by 
irrigation, though the phrase ' wateredst it with thy foot ' 
still remains obscure.^ It certainly appears as if cnsD here 
ought to mean Misraim, i.e. Egypt, and that the land which is 
contrasted with it is Western Palestine. If so, the whole 
passage, xi. 10-12, which could well be spared from the 
context, is to be viewed as a later insertion. 

Turning now to viii. 8, 9, there is no valid objection to 
holding that these verses (unlike v. 7 b) are original, and 
refer to N. Arabia. It is true that in Num. xx. 5 the 
wilderness of Kadesh is described as being * no place of seed, 
or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates.' This, however, 
is quite consistent with the existence of these plants in early 
times in the cultivated and fruitful parts of N. Arabia. 
That such fruits as figs, grapes, and pomegranates did exist 
in the Ishmaelite or N. Arabian region called Ashkal ^ (MT., 
Eshkol), we learn from Num. xiii. 23, where, be it noticed in 
passing, the untranslatable D"*:]!!^! has arisen out of ^DtD"*!,^ 
' in Ishman (Ishmael) ' ; this is properly a gloss on * Ashkal,' 
which has intruded, as glosses so often do, into the text. 
From this place or district it was that the ' spies ' brought 
back ' a cluster of the grapes of Ashhur ' ; * nor is this, as I 
have shown elsewhere, the only passage in which the culture 
of the vine is spoken of with reference to N. Arabia.^ 

The land of promise is also described {v. 8) as a corn 
country. Now it has been already stated that some of the 
passages referring most probably to N. Arabia have been 
manipulated by a redactor who did not accept, or perhaps 
know, the tradition of Israel's residence in N. Arabia. It is 
quite possible that Gen. xii. 10 and also portions of the 
Joseph-story (which speak of Hebrews going down into 
D"'^2Q in time of famine) refer to Misraim, i.e. Egypt. There 

1 W. Max Miiller remarks (£". Bib. col. 1226, n. i) that water- 
wheels ' cannot be proved to have been known ' in Egypt. ' The ex- 
planation of Deut. xi. 10 as referring to such wheels turned with the 
foot is questionable ; most probably " watering with the foot " means 
carrying water.' There would seem, therefore, to be room for some 
new explanation. 2 7; and B. p. 247. 

3 The same correction of Q'^ca is required in i Chr. xi. 21, and of 
D'jr in Ezra viii. 27. 

* Read inrx' "aay Sidb-k. & T. and B. pp. 453/. 


appears, however, to be evidence enough elsewhere, that 
there were parts of the N. Arabian border-land where, by 
the help no doubt of irrigation, the soil was capable of 
producing grain. Elsewhere ^ I have referred to Num. xi. 5 
(revised text), 2 K. xviii. 3 2, and Ps. civ. 1 5 (revised text). 
Even if the second of these passages should be due to a 
redactor who knows only of a king of Assyria, yet the 
others remain.^ 

* A land of oil-olive-trees and honey.' A fresh feature of 
the description. But the expression jd^ nn is strange, and 
parallels such as '\it\ pi; (which — see on xii. 2 — is most 
probably to be explained as ' tree of Ra'aman ') suggest that 
jotD (as in Isa. x. 27) comes from ]DtD^ i.e. ^Ni>DlD\ The 
phrase indicates, therefore, that olive-trees flourished in N. 
Arabia. A similar phrase is nrrS"' nn (2 K. xviii. 32), which 
must surely come from nntDN nn.^ Apparently the Israelites 
on their first arrival in the highly cultivated regions of the 
border-land admired the olive-trees, and called the best trees 
of this species olive-trees of Ishmael, or of Ashhur. As to 
the honey, what is meant is probably grape-honey (the 
modern dibs). That this was produced in N. Arabia appears, 
I think, from Gen. xliii. 11, where the present sent by 
Jacob to Joseph from (the southern) Canaan includes honey. 
The same delicacy is referred to in vi. 3, where (cp. Ex. iii. 8, 
Num. xiii. 27, etc.) the promised land is said to be 'flowing 
with milk and honey.' This phrase, however, is plainly of 
mythological origin.'* 

' A land whose stones are iron, and out of whose 
mountains thou mayest dig copper.' This is the close of 
the description. Iron and copper do not appear to have 
been found in Palestine, though the well-known Lebanon 
was certainly explored for copper by the ancients.^ What 

1 T. and B. pp. 224, 453/ 

2 I cannot discover that the most recent commentators on Numbers 
and on the Psalter have produced satisfactory explanations of Num. 
xi. 5, Ps. civ. 15. 

3 Note the Levite name its', Ex. vi. 18, which has the same 
origin. The Levite names are as a rule of N. Arabian affinities. 

4 See T. and B. pp. 84, 529/ 

^ See Assyrian passages in E. Bib. col. 893 (n. 5) ; Del., Paradies^ 
P- 353- 

THE SECOND PREAMBLE (iv. 44-xi.) 149 

was the case in the southern Lebanon ? ^ If mountains of 
copper ' in Zech. vi. i were correct, it might be taken to 
prove that copper was found there, for the scene of the vision 
in Zech. vi. 1-8 appears to be laid in the southern border- 
land. I think, however, that nmTO in the MT. is sometimes 
a corruption,^ and that it is so here. But it is very possible ^ 
that the place where Hiram cast the bronze was in N. Arabia 
(i K. vii. 46), and almost certain that in Jer. xv. 12 
' northern iron ' should be ' iron of Sibe'on (Ishmael).' That 
the Ethbaalites (miscalled Philistines) were skilled in 
metallurgy, appears from i S. xiii. 19-21. A passage in 
the letter of Aristeas (§ 119) may also, in spite of its lateness, 
be quoted here : eXeyero Be kol e/c tcov irapaKeLjievoiv opecov r^? 
'Apa/Sta? fieraWa '^dX.KOv koL criBtjpov avvicTTaaOai irporepov. 
eKXiXetTTTaL Be ravra, KaB' ov iTreKparrjaav TLepaac '^povov-* 

In vii. 12-15 Yahweh's faithfulness, it is said, will be 
shown in four ways : ( i ) in the multiplication of his people, 
(2) in the abundant harvests, (3) in the increase of their cattle, 
and (4) in their exemption from pestilences. First, as to the 
pestilences. That pestilences of the Egyptian type ^ were 
known in Palestine appears from Am. iv. 10, where the 
D";*i2p of the pointed text must surely give the true text. 
From this obvious reference to Egypt, however, we are not 
entitled to infer that the N. Arabian theory is put out of 
court. Close by, t.e. in v. 13, there appears to be a pro- 
minent reference to N. Arabia. It will, therefore, probably 
be best to suppose that t^. i 5 is a redactional insertion. 

Next, as to the N. Arabian reference in v. i 3. It occurs 
in the clause on the increase of the cattle. Those two 
strange phrases TS^n "i^O^ and 13n!5 niintDl? have been much 
misunderstood. Haupt, for instance, thinks that ^it& means 
' dam,' * female parent,' ^ and Barton says of the latter that it 
is derived from primitive times * when the connexion of the 
offering with a deity bearing this name [Ashtaroth] had been 

1 Del. Paradies, pp. 123, 457. 

2 See on xxxiii. 2 5, and T. and B. p. 1 09. 
2 See Crit. Bib. on both passages. 

■* Cp. Winckler, Kritische Schriften, i. 124/. Are the copper 
mines at Punon in Edom referred to ? 

5 G. A. Smith, Hist. Geogr. p. 157. 

6 JBL xxvi. 45/ 


observed by the introduction of no other epithet' ^ Both 
phrases, however, need to be more critically examined. 
Experience of textual phenomena elsewhere shows that 's 'X£i\^ 
has come from pi?lS inttJN, ' Ashtar of Sibe'on ( = Ishmael),' 
a regional name. As for TS^N "i^O^. it is hardly too bold to 
group nitD with the highly improbable t&il in xxxiii. 14 
(considered later), and regard it as a corrupt form of a 
regional name, in fact of the name nipi, or more correctly intt?N. 
Similarly TS^n represents fpNn[n]T', i.e. htvCiTxy. Geshur- 
or Ashhur-Yerahme'el will be a gloss on "inoiM (parallel to 
riD^NrT, xxviii. 4). On Ex. xiii. 12 it has already been 
remarked that lilD, or imi, is probably a gloss on '^Di?DD pM, 
the original ' Canaan,' as we have seen, being probably in 
the southern border-land.^ 

In ix. I, 2, a statement of some importance is made. 
Elsewhere {e.g. in vii. i, Ex. iii. 8, etc.) a number of different 
peoples are mentioned as inhabiting the land of Canaan. 
Here, however, only one people is referred to by name, 
though in the opening words the plural * nations ' occurs. 
Similarly in Am. ii. 10 the prophet says that the Israelites 
were brought up ' to occupy the land of the Amorites,' with 
which passages like Gen. xlviii. 22 may be compared. It 
would seem therefore, that ' Anakite ' and ' Amorite ' are, 
equivalent, and in fact p3i7, like p^or, is probably a corrup- 
tion of 7NDm^^ while ^DM, not less probably, comes from 
D"it<(, a popular derivative of ^NDm\ 

And what are the traditional limits of the land of 
promise? An account is given in Gen. xv. 18, Ex. xxiii, 3 i, 
Dt i, 7, xi. 24, Josh. i. 4. The first three passages have 
been treated already ; we now come to xi. 24. In one 
direction, it appears, the land extended ' from the wilderness 
(see on Ex. xxiii. 31) unto Lebanon,' * i.e. the southern 
Lebanon (see on i. 7) ; in another, * from the stream, the 
the stream Perath (Ephrath) as far as Yaman-Ashhur^n.' 
That Yaman was often written Yam, has been shown 
elsewhere ; ^ j'nrrM may come from pniDN, like ^^N from 

1 Semitic Origins, p. 282 ; cp. p. 105. 

2 T. and B. p. 550. 3 /^/^, pp. 121, 247. 

* Reading "?n nyi (Gratz, Steuemagel). 

fi T. and B. p. 6 (n. 3). 

THE SECOND PREAMBLE (iv. 44-xi.) 151 

intDN. The traditional text gives * the western sea,' a phrase 
possible enough in itself (see Joel ii. 20, Zech. xiv. 8), but 
less probable than a definitely N. Arabian place-name. In 
Zech. ix. I o and Ps. Ixxii. 8 the corresponding expression is 
' to the ends of the land.' This, however, seems to be a 
substitute for some more definite phrase. 

A more important because more distinct geographical 
statement is given in xi. 30. It will be noticed that the 
preceding verse contains a command that at a future time 
' the blessing ' shall be set on the former of the two 
mountains (no doubt anciently sacred) Gerizzim and Ebal, 
and * the curse ' on the latter. A similar and comple- 
mentary injunction is given in xxvii. 11-13, the fulfilment 
of which is narrated in Josh. viii. 33. Evidently Dt. 
xi. 30 should state exactly where these two mountains are 
situated. The description, however, presents some special 
difficulties : (i) the words momrr NllD im "'"iriN, generally 
rendered 'behind the road of sunset';^ (2) the reference 
to the so-called 'Arabah, which, if the Jordan -valley be 
meant, is remote from the mountains Gerizzim and Ebal, 
as well as from the * sacred tree of Moreh ' of the established 
tradition ; (3) the reference, seemingly so clear, but really 
so obscure, to ' the Gilgal ' (' over against the Gilgal '). 
Prof. Ed. Meyer thinks that the text has been adulterated 
in the interest of a tradition which placed Gerizzim and 
Ebal in the Jordan-valley near Jericho, a tradition which he 
also finds in xxvii. 1 1-13, Josh. viii. 30^, and which owes its 
origin to the exigences of the Jewish controversy with the 
Samaritans. Such a tradition, however, is a mere imagina- 
tion, and a keener textual criticism reveals a better way of 
dealing with the difficulties. 

It is obvious that * behind the road of sunset ' is by no 
means suitable as a geographical definition, and that "'*inh» 
and ©DtDn must be incorrect. For the former Steuernagel 
suggests TinN, ' behind it,' i.e. * westward of the Jordan.' 
But why should this be followed by ' towards sunset ' ? Can 
no better explanation be found ? As for tDD»n, we know 
that ' shemesh ' is sometimes not the ordinary word for * the 

^ Ed. Meyer boldly asserts that, though the words 'ui yn are corrupt, 
the meaning must be 'on the road to the west' {Die Israeliten, p. 544). 


sun,' but a popular corruption of * Shema ' = ' Ishmael,' ^ and 
that redactional insertions of the article are frequent. And 
as for ""nrrN, we may recall the fact that, like ^^N and "irTN, 
it repeatedly represents the regional name TiniDN ; ^ ' Ashhur ' 
would be a perfectly natural geographical gloss on ' Ishmael.' 
Thus we are enabled to give the words referred to the only 
natural interpretation, viz. * towards the entrance of Shemesh ' 
{i.e. of ' Ishmael '), comparing the familiar phrase non t^IlD 
(Num. xxxiv. 8, Josh. xiii. 5),' the entrance (or neighbourhood) 
of Hamath.' 

We may then (see on i. i) safely venture to restore 
]m>n n.i?? for MT.'s x^-vn nii;^l ; nm^Jl, too, may be 
corrected into n*i$3i. Further, ^if?in may easily have come 
from ir'^irT ; the two names * Gilgal ' and ' Gilead ' are 
occasionally confounded both in the traditional Hebrew text 
and in that which underlies 0. And in this connexion it 
may be well to point out that the mountains referred to must 
have been close to Shechem (Shakram), because of the 
mention of * Moreh ' ^ (Gen. xii. 6), and also (if I am right) 
of ' Gilead ' (cp. Num. xxvi. 31, where ' Shechem ' is reckoned 
among the sons of Gilead). That the name Shechem is not 
expressly mentioned, is no doubt at first sight surprising.* 
The reason most probably is that Shechem (Shakram) was 
first the chief and then (in the original Deuteronomy) the 
one sacred place of the N. Arabian Israelites. At a later 
time, however, the original Deuteronomy was adapted to the 
use of the Israelites of Palestine, and Shechem was sup- 
planted by Jerusalem. Consequently, both in xi. 30 and in 
xii. 5 (see above) the name Shechem or its equivalent is 
intentionally passed over. It only remains to add that, at 
the end of v. 30, "^^I^N should, of course, be p^N (see Sam. 
and i^). One sacred tree is meant. 

The whole passage, in its (probably) most original form, 
will read thus : ' Surely they {i.e. Gerizzim and Ebal) are in 
Arabia of the Yarhon, towards the entrance of Ishmael 
\gloss, Ashhur], in the land of the Canaanites who dwell 
[in Arabia] over against Gilead beside the sacred tree of 

1 T. and ^. p. 273. 2 /^/^. p. 276. 

3 Ibid. p. 221. •* Dillmann has already noticed this. 



In chap, xxvii. the discourse of the great legislator is 
interrupted. It is probable, indeed, that vv. 1-4 and 
vv. 7 <^-8 belong to a Deuteronomistic writer, and that 
vv. S-7 ^ belong to an older source (JE). Still one can 
see that the Deuteronomist has no objection to the state- 
ment that an altar was erected, and that sacrifices were 
offered, on Mt. Ebal.^ What, then, becomes of the inference 
generally drawn from Dt. xii. 5, that Deuteronomy forbids 
more than the one sanctuary at Jerusalem ? In reply most 
are satisfied with remarking that the occupation of Canaan 
was still future ; an altar elsewhere than at Jerusalem was 
therefore not yet illegitimate. But is this at all satisfactory ? 
Must there not be some other explanation which will 
harmonise xxvii. 4 with xii. 5 ? If it has been rightly held 
that the original sanctuary of the early Israelites was at or 
near the southern Shechem, or more accurately at or near 
Asshur-Yarham (see on xii. 5), and if Ebal (Sti?) is a 
corruption of ^^nriN = SNi?Dtn^^ it is plausible to connect 
the sanctuary with Mt. Ebal, and to suppose that the 
sacrifice on that mountain was an anticipation of the 
time when, in the Holy Land of the southern border, 
sacrifices would be offered at Asshur-Yarham ( = Beth- 
Yerahme'el). A parallel anticipation is to be found in 
Gen. xxii., where the interrupted sacrifice of Isaac is an 

^ For ' Ebal ' in xxvii. 4 Sam. reads ' Gerizzim,' which Kennicott 
and Ed. Meyer adopt. The chief argument is that in vv. 1 2 /. Ebal is 
the mountain of cursing, and Gerizzim of blessing (Dt'e Israelii, p. 546). 

2 Ishmael and Yerahme'el are equivalent {T. and B. p. 272). 



anticipation of the sacrifices one day to be offered on 

As to the text. That h'y^ {v. 4) is a much-worn form 
of fpi^nn"* ( = SNroa)'') is plain. In Gen. xxxvi. 23 this name 
is borne by a son of Shobal ( = Ishmael). It is needless to 
alter it. In v. 2 why, we may ask, are the great stones to 
be plastered ? Driver replies ^ that ' in Egypt it was the 
custom to put a layer of stucco, or paint, over the stone 
used in architecture, of whatever quality, even granite.' 
But, as Kennett remarks, ' the instructions about the 
plastering, if genuine, should immediately precede v. 8,' ^ 
to which we may add that in no similar context is a coating 
of paint or gypsum spoken of. Textual criticism must 
therefore be applied. In xi. 30 (see p. 152) the mountains 
Gerizzim and Ebal are said to be 'in the entrance of 
Ishmael,' and to * Ishmael ' there is a gloss * Asshur.' Now 
if TO) is corrupt, the easiest correction is plainly 'y\Xh = Til&M 
(as in Gen. xvi. 7). mtDI as plainly comes from ini&Nl 
(see on mOJM, iii. 17), and DnN from ^2?Dn« = f?NrDlD\ 
Thus the land which the Israelites are to enter, and where 
Mt. Ebal is (vv. 2, 4), is stated in the gloss to be in Asshur- 

Another improvement can be made in v. 8 d. It is 
usually supposed that v. 8 differs from the opening of v. 3 
in that it commands very distinct writing. There is certainly 
no objection to the double infinitive Itsin ^N^. But there is 
great doubt about the verb inI (see on i. 5), and the 
rendering * very plainly ' can hardly be sustained. But 
why should there not be another geographical gloss ? 
liaTn^l comes easily and naturally from hiJ'lTV * ^^lD^<l, 
i.e. ' in Ashhur-Ishmael.' 

We now pass on to chap, xxviii. Without entering 
deeply into analytic criticism, one may regard it as certain 
that from v. 20 onwards many larger or smaller insertions 
have been made. One of these is v. 68. It is usually 
supposed to declare that the Israelites shall once more be 

^ T. and ^. p. 328. 2 Deuteronomy, p. 296. 

3 Journal of Theol. Studies, July 1906, p. 495. 
* Cp. naa' in 2 K. xxi. 19, and "^Kao'TO, Gen. xxxvi. 39 {T. and B. 
P- 432). 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 155 

brought into Egypt, and this time in ships, and shall there 
be sold into slavery. The ships (Driver, slave-galleys) are 
taken to be those of the Phoenicians (cp. Am. i. 9 ; Ezek. 
xxvii. 13 ; Joel iv. 6). It is not certain, however, that the 
three prophetic passages referred to really speak of the 
Phoenicians ; more probably they speak of N. Arabian 
peoples (Missor, Yaman, Tubal, Meshek).^ Moreover, the 
parallelism of phrase between v. 6% ('on the road whereof,' 
etc.) and xvii. 16 ('return no more on that road'; Misrim 
is spoken of) makes it improbable that a sea-voyage is 
spoken of. Now it so happens that nV3N in MT. is some- 
times a corruption ; can it be a rash conjecture that it may 
be so here ? Let us refer to previous experience. In Gen. 
xlix. 13 nV3N, and in Gen. xii. 16, xlix. 11, Judg. v. 10 
n^riN and l^riM, represent either [D"']3n"'N or [D"']DDnN, both 
of which ultimately stand for ' Ishmaelites.' ^ Here, how- 
jpver, it seems best to read jrT'Nl or pnNl,^ where 1 may 
either be the preposition 5 or a fragment of li^ = ni? 
(7". and B. p. 571). 

The result, however surprising, seems plain. ' Arab- 
Ethan ' or * Arab-Ethman ' is a gloss upon ' Misrim,' which 
was, in fact, considered a Yerahme'elite country.* The 
scribe wished to put the reader on his guard against sup- 
posing Misraim, i.e. Egypt, to be referred to — the very 
mistake which the received text has made. 

Chap, xxxii. contains difficult passages which call for 
a searching re-examination. It presents us with a song 
which, according to xxxi. 16-22, xxxii. 44, was written by 
Moses to warn the later Israelites that their apostasy and 
its bitter consequences had been foreseen. It is really, 
however, a work of the period preceding the great exile. 
The * not-people ' in v. 21 (see below) is a N. Arabian 
people ; \x\ v. /\2b its name is revealed as ' Ishmael,' and 
in a gloss as ' Asshur,' or ' Ephrath of Arabia.' Cp. 2 K. 
xxiv. 2, where Dnt&D has come from DltnD, i.e. Ashhur- 
Yerahme'el.^ It closes with a promise of mercy and 

1 See T. and B. pp. 172 (Missor), 160-162 (Yaman, Tubal, Meshek). 

2 Ibid. p. 225. 3 jbid^ p. 504 (n. I). 
* See T. and B. pp. 32 (n. 2), 441. 5 See above, p. 63. 


In V. 5, which presents the infidelity of Israel as a 
contrast to the fidelity of Yahweh, there is much to invite 
textual criticism. We have a right to presume that some 
definite violation of religious duty is referred to, but in the 
form which most critics give to the verse no such reference 
is made. That v. ^ a is highly corrupt, is obvious. ' Cor- 
ruptly has dealt towards him — not his sons are their 
blemish,' though given by Driver, is not really accepted 
by him. But whether ' a twisted and crooked generation ' 
is definite enough, may be doubted. It may be granted 
that the address to Israel in v. 6 is perfectly natural. It is, 
in fact, the folly of this people's conduct which has first of 
all, from an antique point of view, to be exhibited. But it 
is not natural that in the prelude to this address Israel should 
be described rhetorically as * a twisted and crooked genera- 
tion'; we require something much more definite. In these 
circumstances, much weight seems to attach to the fact that 
f?nSnD is a avraf \e<y6iJbevov. Both this word and the pre- 
ceding one should be names of deities. If so, TTiD (omit 
the dittographed f?n), should, like Sdd in i. i, represent 
fj^lDN, i.e. '?Ni;DQ)'', one of the names of the god of the 
Yerahme'elites.^ ©pi? should also be a god's name ; like 
WDN (i. S. xxvii. 5), pXO^ (Gen. xxvi. 20), and 'pm^^ (Ps. 
Ixxii. 4), it is a corrupt form of ^^tDN, another god of the 
same people.^ "i*n probably comes from "•ajTTT ; S is 
frequently used in connexion with the cultus. Returning 
now to V. 5 a, we apply for help first to ^. This version 
presupposes niD "^31 lS vh inntt> (so too Sam.).^ Here '•33 
for vui is a step in the right direction. ^ vh, however, is 
no improvement, vh, as often elsewhere, comes from ^n, 
and hi^ with Din (from ^rD^D) * prefixed is probably f?NDm\ 
Thus we get — 

The sons of Yerahme'el have acted corruptly towards him, 
Those who seek Ashhur and Ethbaal. 

1 T. and B. pp. 29/. 2 /^/^_ pp 23, 530. 

3 So too Steuemagel (but omitting kS as miswritten for i*?). But 
DID '33, ' die Schandlichen,' is impossible. 

♦ none, apparently 'deceit,' in Ps. xvii. 1, xliii. i, cix. 2, really comes 
from Svavrw So hotd ( i Chr. viii. i o), the name of a ' son ' of Sha- 
haraim (Shahar = Ashhur) ; and riDiD, a personal name (Ezra x. 36, etc.). 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 157 

The idea in a is that the Israelites are now no better than 

* sons of Yerahme'el.' And yet Israel's father and fashioner 
is not Yerahme'el (v. 6). In b one is reminded of Isa. ii. 6, 
which should most probably run thus ^ — 

Ip^-" m *1DI? tt>^3 O For he has forsaken his people, the 

house of Jacob, 
D'^nDD IN^D "'3 Because they are full of [Arabian] priests, 
D'^fpiriND "IDWI And give oracles like the Ethbalites, 
"IDt&D"' |C3T "^^STrm And practise sorcery in the temples of 


* Rakman ' is a corrupt, popular form of Yerahme'el ; and 

* Ethbal ' (like Ethba'al), of Ishmael. Both names may be 
applied alike to the people and to its god. 

How foolish was Israel, the poet implies. For Yerah- 
me'el (regarded as distinct from Yahweh) was only an 
inferior deity — a ben-el, or member of the larger divine 
company. But Yahweh himself is Israel's lord {v. 9), who 
is supreme over all the nations and their divine guardians ^ 
(read Sn "'3^1 with 0; v. ^ b) ; cp. iv. 19, xxix. 25 [26]. 
True, there was a time when Israel had no divine guardian, 
or none that recognised his obligations. Yahweh ' found ' 
Israel languishing in the Ishmaelite desert, friendless and 
weak. But soon he made his people ride on the heights 
of the land, i.e. take triumphal possession of the N. Arabian 
highland-country {vv. 10, 13). ptD'' hh'' irrni {v. 10 a) 
has been misunderstood ; ' in the waste of the howling of 
a desert ' (Driver) could only be defended from a supposed 
textual necessity. Steuernagel more wisely places the dots 
which symbolise ignorance. lDtD^ however, is plainly a form 
of ^Ni;DtD%^ and SS'', like h'hi^ (an image of the god Yerah- 
me'el) and hh^Ti (' Yerahme'el ben Ashhur,' Isa. xiv. 1 2), 
comes from SNOm\ Thus we get (keeping irrni*)), ' and in 
the waste of* of Ishmael ' ; for ' Yerahme'el ' (ph^) one may 
fairly regard as a variant to ' Ishmael,' and therefore to be 
omitted from the text. The lines or verses, however, are 

1 Cp. T. atid B. pp. 41, 62 (with n. i), 376 (n. i). 

2 In Clem. Recogn. (ii. 32), however, Israel's gfuardian is the greatest 
of the archangels {i.e. Michael). Lueken, Michael, pp. loi f. 

8 T. and B. p. 29. 


trimeters ; we must therefore suppose that the word which 
should follow inni*) has fallen out.^ 

After telling us of the conquest, the poet proceeds to 
enumerate the luxuries with which Israel will be fed in the 
fertile land. Various reasons lead us to question the text. 
Is such a lengthy list of delicacies likely, especially in such 
a serious context ? Surely not. Is the phraseology natural ? 
And though there are parallel passages relating to the rich 
products of the soil of Canaan, are we sure that this is more 
than appearance ? These three points need careful con- 
sideration. As to the first, it must be admitted that the 
catalogue of luxuries of food in z^. 14 reads very oddly. 
Certainly not all of them can be described as ' fruitful 
growths of the country ' (nil^n ni&), nor is the word 
irTp3"'*i, on which the designations of the foods are gram- 
matically dependent, appropriate for the * fat of lambs,' 
etc. The material, too, is superabundant for the metre. 
Gunkel has attempted ^ to remedy this by omitting jtDl ■'Dl 
D"'*7*inr"i. More plausibly, however, he might have omitted 
T\^T{ vcsh'2 lbn"Di>, where T[^T{ might perhaps be viewed as 
a corruption of a misplaced rT[N]Dn, thus leaving only 
riT'^D ibrr'Di?, an improbable phrase, which might have 
come from nilSl ibri'Di?, * with the milk of female camels.' ^ 
This, however, is equally insufficient for a line, and is not 
here proposed. 

I have called the phrase nV^D lSn"Dr improbable. Still 
more so is it if we add cjan, in spite of the fact that l^n 
T\\:iT\ occurs in Ps. Ixxxi. 17, and D"^£Dn 'n in Ps. cxlvii. 14. 
Most, indeed, take this to be ' a poetical designation of fine 
flour' (Kennedy, E. Bib. col. 1539), for which Gesenius 
{Thes., s.v. l^n) gives us a Greek and an Arabic parallel. 
But how can we accept this view when we observe how 
unsuitable the Hebrew phrases quoted are to their contexts ? 
Surely they are corrupt, and therefore beyond interpretation. 

To make further progress let us study our passage in 
connexion with Gen. xlix. 11 f. There, too, we meet with 
milk and wine in a context where we should not have 

^ Klostermann's emendation {Der Pentateuch, p. 288) giving the 
sense, ' und in Irrgangen (?) holte er ihn heim,' is wide of the mark. 
2 Sievers, Metrische Studien, i. 578. ^ See E. Bib. col. 3088. 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 159 

expected them ; most probably the true text spoke of the 
subjugation of Yerahme'el. Similarly in Ps. Ixxxi. 17 and 
cxlvii. 14 it is deliverance from the N. Arabians that is 
most probably referred to ; l^n has come from f?Dn = 
^h^om"^, nvm from non, and D"'I3n from DTiDH (the southern 
Hamath ^ is referred to) ; cp. r[^'C>T\, a place-name, Josh. 
XV. 54. May it not be so here? The original lines, which 
described the conquest of the N. Arabian border- land, 
cannot indeed be recovered. Probably they became first 
corrupted and then intermixed with names of districts or 
clans which intruded into the text, so that the scribe had 
before him a farrago of unintelligible and corrupt words, 
and had to make the best sense that he could out of it. 
Observe that ]n2 sometimes {e.g. Ps. Ixxviii. 70) represents 
pi?12 (Sibe'on = Ishmael) ; that D''~nn2? may come from 
D^nnmi? ( = D^nnt2JN, Ashhurites), nvS^ from ^DtDN,^ IDI; DT 
from ]li>n2 uxnf nn»n from n^niD\ and ion from DnT* 
(Yarham). On the whole, there is no reason to deny the 
genuineness of z^. 13 b, but we must, I fear, admit that z'. 1 4 
was inserted later. Not, however, in its present form, for 
Dn*ini>"i ]ID1 ^3n, Ti^r^-n nr^D n'pn, and ion have all the 
appearance of representing, not foods, but peoples ; i.e. the 
insertion, v. 14, originally spoke of the conquest of peoples 
and clans. 

Such being the case, Sam. and ^ may be right in 
prefixing to z;. i 5 the words 'slX!r\ npi?"" h^vC'X As Kloster- 
mann remarks, this is supported by the apparent references 
in xxxi. 20, Neh. ix. 25. The next stichus is given only 
in a mutilated form in almost all MSS. of 0. Bickell, 
however, refers^ to a Syro-hexaplar MS., which gives koX 
€\.nrdv0T] 6 TjyaTnjfjbevo'; koX airekaKTicrev. This is in accord- 
ance with the Hebrew text, which runs | iai^TI ]'ntD'' JDm'>1 
n"'to3 ivys naotn. Here we first note the two doubtful words 
^^y and TT'toa. The latter word occurs only here ; the former 
occurs also in i S. ii. 29, where, however, i5i;l is supposed to 

^ See Isa. xi. lib (a list of Arabian peoples), and cp. T. and B. 
p. 196. 

2 See T. and B. p. 247. 3 /^/^_ p_ 503. 

* ' Krit. Bearbeitung der Proverbien,' Wiener Zt. f. die Kunde des 
Morgenlandes, v. 100, 


mean ' to tread under foot,' i.e. ' despise,' a sense which does 
not suit here. Probably both words are corrupt ; one 
comes from ^i'lriN, the other from mj7^."i (' hardened himself). 
TCTlD (a curious word here) is also corrupt ; a dittographed 
f?i;inN most probably underlies it. Thus we get only one 
stichus, xtp^^ pn©": Ipip^.l. ' Yeshurun ' is an old name for 
'Israel'^ (see xxxiii. 5, 26; Isa. xliv. 2). The parallel 
stichus has dropped out, or rather been supplanted by 

Israel's great offence against their divine Benefactor, 
that by which they proved incontestably that they had 
forsaken him, was sacrificing to the 'not-gods,' who are 
called in MT. shedlin (0 haiixovLo). This word {v. ly) is 
commonly connected with the Ass. ^tdu^ and explained 
* demigods.' But the Ass. Hdu is out of place both here 
and in Ps. cvi. 2)7 '■> equally so is the sense 'demon,' 'evil 
spirit,' attaching to the Aram. nT^id. Whether "iBJ occurs 
as a divine name or title in Phoenician is highly doubtful ; 
the proper name "Tl&~ri may be read ntDll, where Ttt) may be 
a shortened form of iQJh^ or TiQjN, which we know well as a 
divine name, and which may have spread northwards in the 
Arabian migrations. Most probably D'^TtD in both the 
passages in which MT. gives it should rather be D"'")P, i.e. 
D^'l^N, ' Asshurs,' i.e. ' Asshur-images.' Similarly D"'*Tlt& in 
Hos. xii. 12, and Tit& in Ps. cvi. 20 b^ should be, respect- 
ively, D">"niUM and lll&N. Just so uh-hi^, commonly ex- 
plained ' worthless gods,' from h'hi^, ' worthlessness ' (BDB, 
p. 47), means rather (see p. 157) ' Yerahme'el images,' and 
D"''?ir7 is a partly ironical corruption of D"'^on = D"'f?NDm% 
'images of Hebel or Yerahme'el.' Cp. xxxii. 21, where 
' their hebels ' are called ' not-gods ' (^i^-vh) precisely as ' the 
shedim' are called rhvk vh {v. 17); cp. NitD "'fpin, 'useless 
hebels,' in Ps. xxxi. 7. 

This result appears to me of considerable importance. 

lit comes from [ny k, • one belonging to Asshur,' thus indicating 
the origin of the Israelites (see T. and B. pp. 24, 404). Cp. ncn nBD = 
nincK '0 {Crit. Bib. p. 251). 

2 The text of vv. 1 9 /, translated, should run, ' They made a calf at 
Horeb, | and worshipped a molten image, | and (so) exchanged their 
glory I for the likeness of Asshur-Ashkal.' | h^K and a^'V represent 
^KonT and '?nj;de'' respectively. The latter is a gloss on the former. 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) i6i 

The shedlm, as we have been wont to call them, are not 
mere demi-gods, but in the fullest sense gods. Indeed, the 
parallelism of Ex. xxxiv. 15^ sufficiently shows this. To 
say that ' the precise nature of the ideas associated with the 
shedlm is uncertain ' (Driver), is no longer possible. The 
idea is that of full divinity ; nothing less, indeed, will satisfy 
the conditions of the case. They are supernatural beings 
who pretend to be, but are not, gods. Another name for 
the so-called shedmi in MT. is selrlin (Lev. xvii. "jf 2 Chr. 
xi. 15), generally explained ' the hairy ones,' ' earth-demons ' 
(like the Arabian jinn)?" They were, however, much more 
than this ; for they are made equivalent to the divine steer- 
idols of Jeroboam, and have regular priesthoods attached to 
them (2 Chr. l.c^. To separate them from the so-called 
shedlm is impossible ; indeed, D"^-i''i;lD, like the shorlm in 
Hosea and the shedlm in the ' Song of Moses,' comes from 
D"'"i£&N.* These ' Asshur-images ' were, of course, not mere 
images ; they were inhabited by the god Asshur, who 
could, in virtue of his divinity, take up his abode whereso- 
ever he would. 

\vi V. 21 we are told that Israel's divinely sent foes are 
a ' not-people ' (ni; n^), i.e. being impious (f?lD), and not 
having true insight {v. 20), they are not worthy to be called 
a people. In v. 32 they are further compared to a vine, 
whose stock is derived from Sodom and (consequently) its 
' tender grapes ' from Gomorrah. The writer hardly knew 
that the Sodom-story originally referred to N. Arabia.^ At 
any rate, this probable result of criticism makes a reference 
to Sodom highly appropriate in this context. n*)D~rtZ> has 
not been adequately explained. Read mDl?i? D"^^nD'^ ; cp. 
^ KoiX 7) K\rj^aTL<i avTcov eK Vo/j,6ppa<;. *i"7DD can be rendered 
'tender grapes.' See E. Bid., 'Grapes,' 3, with note i, and 
cp. Ibn Ganah, in Ges. Thes. 959/ 

1 ' (Take heed to thyself) lest thou make a compact, and they go 
harlot-like after their gods, and sacrifice unto their gods, and one call 
thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice.' 

'^ ' And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto the seiriin, 
after whom they have gone harlot-like.' The parallelism with Ex. 
xxxiv. 15 (see note i) is complete. 

3 W. R. Smith, The Religion of the Semites, ed. 2, pp. 120, 441. 

^ See above, p. 27. ^ /^/^ p_ 298. 


A few gleanings remain. In v. 42 the last two stichi 
cannot be right * With the blood of the slain and of the 
captives, | with the head of * of the enemy. || ' The three 
improbable words are n"'llD"i, t&NID, and n*i2?nD. It is possible 
indeed that the poet archaises, and that he means to say 
that the captive foemen shall be devoted by destruction to 
Yahweh. This, however, is not very probable. It was 
usual to carry away the captives (cp. xxviii. 49, Isa. xx. 4, 
Hab. i. 9), and if the poet had meant a savage archaism, he 
would have expressed himself more clearly. Even in Ps. 
Ixviii., which is surely on the whole cruel enough, no mention 
is made of the slaughter of captives. On the other hand, 
we know that tDl"' is a common corruption of f?Ni;Da)"', and 
that the foe spoken of is N. Arabian. Probably, therefore, 
we should read 'oQ)"^ ''^^n DID, * with the blood of the slain 
of Ishmael.' As to tUNno, we know that tUNT is one of the 
distortions of i©n (see e.g. Ezek. xxxviii. 2), and as to 
rm;nD, on which so much useless ingenuity has been spent, 
it is simply miswritten for mSN, or (less probably) riDlS, 
both of which we know to be the names of districts in 
N. Arabia.^ That TIN may be miswritten for ni^, has been 
pointed out on Ps. iii. 8, vii. 6, etc. Thus we get, ' With 
the blood of the slain of Ishmael, | [with Asshur, Ephrath 
of Arabia]. || ' The second stichus I take to be a gloss on 
' Ishmael.' Indeed, the next verse {v. 43) also is perhaps 
not free from glosses. iD'^^in is surely wrong. Like pDirr 
in Am. iv. 3 (MT. rr^imnrr), and somewhat as p3lN and 
pi;n, it may be a scribal or popular corruption of 7NDnT, 
another scribal gloss on * Ishmael.' ya^ w^X might perhaps 
come from D^Sl "'llJ, ' nations of Aram.' At any rate, let the 
problem be here stated. The original stichus seems to have 

Here the Priestly Writer intervenes {vv. 48-52). He 
tells how Moses was commanded to ascend a high mountain 

1 See T. and B. pp. 262, 419; 62, 312. In Am. iii. \2b (original 
text) we find ' Ephrath of Hamath ' coupled with ' Ramshak (if that is 
the right form) of Asshur.' Both these compound names are glosses 
on ' Shimron.' There may, however, have been more than one 
Ephrath, or, better, Ephrath may have had (like Asshur or Ashhur) a 
larger and a narrower reference. In Num. xxiv. 17 (original text) we 
meet with * Ephrath-Moab,' parallel to ' the sons of Ashtar.' 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 163 

and enjoy the sight of the Promised Land before he died. 
What is the mountain's name ? We read in MT., 
"inrin rv(r\ D'^nn^'n nn-^N rhv,, precisely as in Num. xxvii. 1 2, 
except that there 113 ^^T is not given. D^nii^rr "^"^i? is the 
name of a station of the Israelites in Num. xxi. 1 1, xxxiii. 44. 
We know, however, that nii? is often an early corruption of 
1*1^ (Arabia); see T. and B. p. 197 (on Gen. x. 21) and 
p. 245 (on Gen. xiv. 13). Read D"'ni7n "in, 'the mountain 
of the Arabians.' 113 in is more difficult. Winckler ^ long 
ago warned against identifying 113 too confidently with the 
Babylonian god's name Nabu. In Isa. xlvi. i the original 
text probably had 113D Ipbl riD, where 113D is = Sanibu, 
the name of an Ammonite king, and is compounded of 
p = jQ) = ptD"' and 11 = 11N = [ijlli?.^ Ishmael-Arab may 
have been the original meaning of the name underlying 
Nebo. This gives a suitable alternative to Asshur-Yerah- 
me'el (see on iii. 27) ; it also accords excellently with the 
place-name * Nebo of Ashhur ' (MT. -iJiN 113 needs cor- 
rection) in Neh. vii. 33. I think that the opinion that 
' Mount Nebo ' indicates the wide spread of the cultus of 
Nabii is as doubtful as the similar opinion about ' Mount 
Sinai.' 3 

In xxxiii. 6-25 we have a second series of poetic 
descriptions of the characteristics and fortunes of the tribes 
of Israel, parallel to that in Gen. xlix. Simeon is excepted, 
but (otherwise than in Gen. xlix.) Joseph is regarded as a 
double tribe, and Zebulun and Issachar are combined in one 
saying. Levi and Joseph are treated with more fulness 
than the other tribes. The order of the tribes deviates from 
that in Gen. xlix., which is also the ordinary one. The 
composition is usually referred to the time of either Jero- 
boam I. (Dillm., Driver) or Jeroboam II. (Kuenen, Reuss, 
Stade, G. F. Moore). According to G. A. Smith, ' the 
northern origin of the poem is universally admitted, and 
indeed is very obvious ' {Expositor, March 1905, p. 236, n. 2). 

Verses 2-5 and 26-29 form a satisfactory whole in 
themselves ; we may call it a psalm. The subject is the 
deliverance of the people, which is described as due to a 

1 Gesch. Isr. i. (1896), p. 120 (n. 2). 2 Cp_ x. and B. p. 51. 

3 T. and B. p. 527. 


theophany. Henceforth Israel will dwell securely in the 
enjoyment of the divine favour. 

The combination of the psalm and the garland of 
* blessings ' may have been one of the latest acts of a re- 
dactor of Deuteronomy. The text is in much need of 
criticism. Pioneer work has been done by C. J. Ball, Proc. 
of Soc. of Bibl. Arch., 1896, pp. 1 18-137. First, as to vv. 
2-5, 26-29. The description of the theophany is historically 
important, for it shows that at the late period to which 
this poem or psalm apparently belongs there was still a 
recollection of the N. Arabian origin of the worship of 
Yahweh. It is true, we can gather this with abundant 
certainty even from the present form of the Book of Exodus. 
It was at Sinai or Horeb that the fundamental laws of 
Israel are said to have been given ; at Horeb, too, 
specially called 'the mountain of the Godhead' (i K. 
xix. 8 ; cp. Ex. iii. i), that the prophet Elijah sought his 
God ; and it was at any rate in N. Arabian sanctuaries (see 
p. 157) that common Israelites, contrary to the teaching of 
the prophets, sought priestly oracles. And now from Deut. 
xxxiii. 2, as well as from Hab. iii. 3, Ps. Ixviii. 8, cp. Ezek. 
i. 4 (theophany ' from Saphon ' = Sibe'on), we learn that poets 
and prophets, writing for the community at large, expressed 
or implied the very same view (viz. that in N. Arabia was 
the Holy Land, and that Sinai was the great divine 
sanctuary), even in the post-exilic period. * Yahweh came 
from Sinai,' says our psalmist, ' and beamed forth to his 
people ^ from Se'ir ; he shone forth from Mount Paran, he 
came from . . . Kadesh.' Here Sinai, Se'ir, Paran, and 
Kadesh are combined as in Habakkuk, Teman and Mount 
Paran ; while in the much older song of Deborah (Judg. 
V. 4) the place whence Yahweh proceeds to help his people 
is called ' the highland of Edom ' (ditn rnCDo). The 
phrase used by another poet in Ps. Ixviii. 8 is uncertain. 
pctD"*! TirSl is insufficient to form a trimeter, and the 
preposition "i unexpectedly takes the place of -p. po'^tD'', as 

1 Svh is not adequately defended by the Dn*? of Isa. xiii. 2 (Dillm., 
Driver), where the writer's object is to awaken a sense of mystery. 
idS should be iai;'? (cp. on Ps. xxviii. 8) ; so von Gall. mS (Haupt and 
Ball, after @, Onk., Pesh., Vg.) is an arbitrary alteration. 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 165 

we have seen, is a corruption of ]Dtt)'> = fpN^om*'. Probably 
we should read ;otD"' rr~rtop, ' from the highland of Ishmael,' 
corresponding to the DllM mtDD of Judg. v. 4. May we 
infer from these passages (Ps. Ixviii. 8 perhaps excepted) 
that Mount Sinai was situated in the Edomite country? 
Or shall we slightly modify this view and suppose that 
Sinai (Horeb) was in the land of which Yithro was the 
' priest/ i.e. in Midian/ or (as Smend suggests ^) not far from 
Midian, to the west (Ex. iii. i, ^^N) ? 

I think myself that the answer must be, No. Either 
there were two mountains called Se'ir, and two districts 
called Kadesh and Teman respectively, or else we must 
read ' Asshur ' for * Se'ir ' and ' Ethman ' ( = Ishmael) for 
' Teman,' while retaining ' Kadesh.' The latter course is 
preferable. That Kadesh was in very early times the centre 
of the Israelite people, appears certain. Kadesh (as the 
name — see below — may perhaps indicate) was an Asshurite 
place. As for Smend's inference from nriN in Ex. iii. i, it 
is surely incorrect. ' Behind the wilderness,' as a topo- 
graphical note, is hardly tolerable. As so often, nn« in 
Ex. iv. I comes from nntDN. As pointed out elsewhere, we 
should read iniDN nn~TD ' to the wilderness of Ashhur.' ^ It 
was to this district that Moses led his flock, and there that 
the ' mountain of the Godhead ' rose. And this is no 
isolated notice. From i K. xix. 3 f.^ after the text has been 
criticised, we learn * that in order to get to Horeb Elijah 
had to go to Ishmael (MT. itDD3"^N), or, in other words, 
towards Yaman (MT. DV "T"n). The presumption is that 
Horeb was in the Yerahme'elite country. As for ' Edom ' 
in the poetical passages referred to, it is extremely probable 
that we should, as in many other cases, rather read ' Aram,' 
and as for Teman, it is a popular corruption of ^NiJOtD"', the 
connecting link being ;Dn« or Sonw (cp. DDn, Ex. xiii. 20, 
Num. xxxiii. 6-8, and Siddn (i S. x. ii, xiv. 21). In 
Am. i. 12 Teman is clearly = Aram (so read in vv. 6, 9, 11, 
ii. i). It was therefore from Aram and from Asshur that 

1 Wellhausen, Stade, Meyer, G. F. Moore. 

- Religionsgeschichte {iZc)(j\ p. 35 (n. 2). 

3 See T. and B. p. 527. 

* Ibid. p. 429. 


the author of the psalm we are considering brought Yahweh, 
Israel's God. 

It will be noticed that ' Sinai ' and ' Se'ir ' {i.e. ' Asshur '), 

* Paran ' and ' Kadesh ' (the prefix we will consider presently), 
are parallel. It is probable that the name ' Asshur ' (or 
Ashhur, or Ashtar) attached itself to the range of mountains 
which included Sinai or Horeb (see on iii. 17) ; indeed, as we 
shall see presently, Sinai itself sometimes bore a name one 
component element of which was Asshur. As to Paran and 
Kadesh, we find it expressly stated in Num. xiii. 26 that the 

* spies ' came to Moses ' to the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh.' 
Elsewhere (Num. xx. i, xxxiii. 36) Kadesh is placed in the 
wilderness of Sin, which may be supposed to have formed 
part of the wilderness of Paran. Elsewhere ^ I have, I think, 
made it probable that the name Kadesh represents Ashhur- 
aram. The received text makes line 4 of the poem run, ' and 
came out of holy myriads ' {Wlp Dino)- Putting aside less 
suitable corrections, we may read with confidence mnp^ ninpp 
(Ewald, Dillm., Steuernagel) ; (3 at any rate recognises 

* Kadesh.' nno or ni"'"iD probably comes from '?I>T^Q 
( I Chr. ix. 40) = '^i^l-QlN, where hvi represents either Sni^dID'' 
or f?NDm\ Kadesh was, in fact, in the land of Asshur- 

A great problem still awaits consideration. Line 5 runs 
ioS D"! tDN 'lD"'n''p, which is usually rendered, ' At (or, from) 
his right hand was the fire of the law for them.' m, ' law,' 
however, only occurs in late Hebrew and in the Aramaic 
parts of the O.T., and represents the Persian ddta, '(royal) law.' 
That the text is corrupt has been seen by recent critics, but 
they have thus far offered no satisfactory explanation. How, 
indeed, could it be otherwise when the origin of the erroneous 
reading ni"7t&N or n*TB?N (iii. 17, iv. 49, Josh. x. 40, etc.) has 
been entirely missed. It is, beyond doubt, *iint&N or nntDN. 
13"'D''D and *ID7 are also corrupt. The former comes from 
pC)>o 2 _ .j«jp . ^Yie latter (like nSli? in Gen. xxi. 33)^ represents 
the fuller form fpNom'' — apparently a gloss on ^o"*. Thus we 

1 See T. and B. pp. 242, 561. 

2 Renan, i'p;p, *du cot^ du sud' {Hist. i. 194). But I'o' sometimes 
represents 19;, a regional name = Yerahme'el. 

3 See T. and B. pp. 321 /. 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 167 

get [^NorrT'] inmN ]o^d, * from Yaman-Ashtar,' or, adopting 
the gloss, * from Yerahme'el-Ashtar.' This is probably a 
gloss on Xinp nnoD, ' from Meribath-Kadesh.' Here, as 
elsewhere, the greatest pains were taken to emphasise and 
render intelligible the close N. Arabian connexion of the 
people of Israel. 

In the concluding part of the psalm (as I venture to 
call the poetical setting of the tribal benedictions) there is 
not much which calls for notice here. \nv . 26, however, a 
happy idea of Hommel calls for mention. HiDN"! prefixed to 
nnn (as if ' and who is the sword,' etc.) is certainly un- 
necessary, and according to Graf, Dillm., Steuernagel, and 
Bertholet, a prosaic gloss. But such an absolutely superfluous 
gloss is not at all probable. Hommel therefore proposes to 
point 1D?N ; ' Asher,' originally the god of the tribe named 
after him, became identified with the great God Yahweh. 
I would rather hold myself that Asher, with a plural 
' Asherim,' is a collateral form of Asshur.^ But why should 
we not point ij^n here ? ' Asshur 'or * El Asshur ' was 
probably the name of the god of some at least of the tribes 
which afterwards became united under the name ' Israel.' 
It is in itself plausible, and also favoured by metre, to read 

* [Yahweh] is the shield which is thy help, and Asshur the 
sword which is thy pride.' ^ This implies a divine duad ^ — 
Yahweh and Asshur, equivalent to Yahweh -Yerahme'el. 
Such a thing is not impossible. Some late writers would have 
shrunk from it as an infringement of monotheism. There were, 
however, different schools even in the monotheistic period, 
and archaisms like this were not impossible to all. If this 
view should seem hazardous to any one, an alternative is 
open. We may read ni^N Nirr, ' that is, Asshur,' a gloss on 
T^''^'. * thy enemies,' in the next line. In chap, xxxii. 

* Asshur' occurs in a gloss {v. 42, end) as the name of Israel's 
enemies. This indeed will be another archaism, but the 
parallels for such an archaism are more abundant than for 
the other. 

We now pass on to the blessings of the tribes. And first 
to Reuben's {v. 6). But is the saying really a benediction ? 
Hardly, if Driver translates correctly — 

1 See T. and B. p. 24. 2 y^/^/ p. 24. ^ //^/^_ p_ j5 


Let Reuben live, and not die ; 
But let his men be few. 

Driver's opinion is that no"*"^M"i was added to emphasise TT''. 
It was not enough to say ' let him live ' ; the same positive 
declaration is repeated in another form. But if the poet is 
so determined that people shall believe in the continued 
vitality of this tribe, the next line ought certainly to be in 
the same tone, and emphasise his energy or security. For 
a parallel, cp. Ps. cxviii. 17 — 

I shall not die, but live, 

And tell out the works of Yahweh. 

At the same time, we have no right to render with ^, ' and 
let him (AL, Simson) be large in numbers ' (on which see 
Hogg, E. Bib., ' Simeon,' § 3), though Bertholet shows a 
slight inclination to return to it, 'assuming the text to be 
correct.' But surely the text cannot be correct ; no plausible 
rendering of it has yet been given.^ nn^'-f^Nl equally calls 
for correction ; if the old solutions fail us, new ones must be 
tried, and the experience gained in similar circumstances 
utilised. The original word which has become hd'^'Sn"! 
should be one which gives the saying on Reuben a historical 
and geographical setting. The case is parallel to the sayings 
in Gen. xlix., of which only those on Dan, Gad, and Ben- 
jamin are without a definite historical reference. It is 
therefore more likely than not that any particular saying in 
Deut. xxxiii. should possess one, and in the case of Reuben 
the only way to make sense is to look for any traces of a 
historical reference which may still underlie the traditional 

Can we doubt what the word underlying the impossible 
nc-^N is ? Surely not ; it is fpNi'DtD''. The two closing 
letters (f?N) are often separated in MT., in cases where the 
main part of the word is corrupted ; sometimes they appear 
as Sn, sometimes as ah or t7. The form from which nD''"7N 
immediately comes is either ^NDn"* or 'jioriN (see above, p. 165). 

1 See Driver's discussion, Deui. p. 395 ; but is his own explanation 
more plausible ? 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 169 

The prefixed 1 may come from n. tx^^ however, is not a 
probable word. That a tribal saying should begin ' Let him 
live,' is contrary to all parallels. Some more definite word 
is wanted ; it should be a word out of which TV may easily 
have arisen — such a word as ^W = triN''. Thus we get, ' Let 
Reuben lay hold of Yerahme'el.' Such a saying corresponds 
excellently with the (most probably) true saying on Reuben 
in Gen. xlix. 3 yT It may also be supported by the corrected 
text of Gen. xxxv. 22,^ for the received text of that passage 
is as violently improbable as that of Gen. xlix. 3 /. For 
some of the exploits of Reuben see i Chr. v. 9 /., where ma 
(Perath) means mDN (Ephrath), and Gilead is the southern 
Gilead (as ii. 36). 

Now as to V. 6 b. We have seen that this cannot be 
right. The easiest word to correct methodically is Vno,^ 
which, almost as plainly as nn"* 7N, must come from one of 
several similar corruptions of f?Ni7tDQ)% such as pn"" or '^innr 
It is almost as clear that iddd comes from D"|DD. That idd 
is a clan-name, we know ; it is proved by idd VTMp (Josh. 
XV. 15) and mDD. The mDD "'31 are expressly reckoned 
among the ^Ni7nm"'-n"ii? "•51 ('sons of Arab-Ishmael '^), if we 
accept an unavoidable correction of the improbable "^ili^ "•^n 
rro^tt?, Neh. vii. 57. A word still remains, 'Ti'^l. As in v. 5 and 
in Gen. xxxviii. 1 4, it most probably comes from Nin or Nim, 
' that is ' {yC\T\ often introduces a gloss). The result is that 
line 2 of the saying on Reuben consists of a gloss, ' that is, 
Ishmael of the Sapherites.' It is probable that the Sapherites 
(if this conjectural pronunciation is correct) were the same 
as the Sarephites ^ or Sarephathites. It was at Sarephath, 
probably the centre of this clan (which belonged to the 
southern Sidon ^), that Elijah, according to the legend, ' found 
religious kinsmen who revered his own God Yahweh.' ^ But 
there was surely a time when neither among themselves nor 

1 T. and B. p. 421. 

2 'no would be grammatically more plausible; cp. iv. 27, Gen. 
xxxiv. 30, 

3 See E, Bib., ' Solomon's Servants.' 

* Neh. iii. 31 /, where 'goldsmith,' 'goldsmiths,' should be 
* Sarephite,' ' Sarephites.' 

5 T. and B. pp. 17, 314, 504. 

6 T. and B. p. 62 (n. 2). ' Yahweh ' = ' Yahweh- Yerahme'el.' 


with the more civilised N. Arabians were the tribes which 
afterwards became known as Israelites conscious of close 
religious kinship. 

What, then, does the Reuben-saying tell us ? It tells us 
that Reuben was destined to take a firm hold on the part of 
Yerahme'el occupied by the Sapherite clan. The second 
line of the saying has dropped out ; its place is taken by 
words produced artificially by a scribe out of the misread 

The blessing of Judah {v. 7), according to the analogy of 
Gen. xlix. 8 f.^ should be of a martial character. The 
blessing which we have now to deal with, however, is in a 
strangely subdued tone. As the text stands, Judah appears 
to be fighting outside his own territory. If so, it must be 
with the object either of extending his own land, or of 
supporting some of his allies. But where in the narrative 
books can we find evidence of such wars of Judah as might 
here be referred to ? For he is contending against dangerous 
odds, and is in urgent need of supernatural help against his 
enemies. It is a less natural theory, though very commonly 
adopted, that the passage expresses the longing of a N. 
Israelite that Judah might be reunited to the kingdom of 
Israel (so e.g. Stade, Gesch. i. 1 60 ; Wellh., Dillm., Driver, 
Steuernagel, Bertholet). But is such a longing probable, 
and would it have been thus briefly expressed ? Kennett ^ 
proposes therefore to point i;p^, and to read ISN"-!":, * will He 
bring him in.' He thinks the phrase ' his own people ' 
should mean * the people of Judah ' (in Judaea), and ' the 
voice of Judah ' ' the prayer of the Jewish exiles in Babylon 
to be restored to their kindred in the Holy Land.' The 
consequence is that we get a ' double conception of Judah 
as being both in Babylon and in Judaea at the same 
time.' This can hardly be admitted. Kennett does not see 
(though he must be on the point of seeing) that the present 
unsatisfactory text covers over something different and yet 
not altogether irrecoverable. It is in the apparently most 
hopeless part of the saying that the key to the situation 
exists, though one may frankly admit that but for experience 

^ See art. in/, of T/ieol. Stud., already referred to (p. 9, n. 5), July 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 171 

elsewhere one would be as much baffled as Stade and others 
have been. The word * baffled ' may seem inconsistent with 
the fact that Stade has offered a correction of the violently- 
improbable words 1^ IT VT^, viz. h^ T*i ^n^, ' (with) thy hands 
strive for him.' True, Stade does propose this correction, 
but the harshness of TT is intolerable, and experience shows 
that in such a case as that before us no superficial correction 
is of use. We must therefore try to look beneath the 
surface, and so doing one is struck by the analogy of lS> 1"'T 
(so Sam. reads) to other groups of words containing nS or "17, 
in which this nS or *i^ represents the final h'in in f^NDTlT, 
while the preceding part of that word exists in a separate 
and equally corrupted form. Most probably that is exactly 
the case here, "h n or l'? TT comes from ^nIIT or rather 
^Nn*" (fpi^lT*), while VT probably comes from TT'^I,^ and this 
from Nim, which so often introduces a gloss (see on TT'I, 
V. 6 b). Thus we get the gloss, * that is, Yerahme'el.' But 
to what word does this gloss relate ? To clear the way, let 
us look backward. Can the second line in the blessing be 
quite right ? It runs, ' and to his people mayest thou bring 
him in.' But what is Judah's people ? Is it not Judah ? 
Must not "iDi? be mis written ? If so, does not the gloss point 
the way to a probable correction of *idi7 ? The ethnic of 
which Yerahme'el is the equivalent is surely Aram. Aram, 
too, is the region which the other blessing of Judah represents 
as the prize of Judah's valour^ (Gen. xlix. 10). A parallel 
for the corrupt loi? may be found in Num. xxii. 5, where 
iDi? "^31 is admittedly most improbable, but where the reading 
poi? (accepted by Dillm.) is only less unlikely.^ In both cases 
we should most probably read dn ""il, i.e. d^n "'DS. The gloss, 
* that is, Yerahme'el,' was to prevent the early reader from 
supposing the northern Aram to be referred to. The sense 
therefore is — 

1 Transposition plays a great role in corruption. Here '■■ri became 
v.T, whence vt. 

2 See T. and B. p. 503. 

3 A Hebrew writer would not have brought a Yahweh-worshipper 
from the land of the benS Ammon, and even a redactor would not 
have put two plainly inconsistent accounts of the origin of Balaam side 
by side. 


Hear, O Yahweh, the voice of Judah, 
And bring him in (triumphantly) to Aram [that is, 

And be a helper against his adversaries. 

It will be noticed that the intrusive gloss-matter has sup- 
planted the original third line. 

There is also much difficulty in the blessing of Levi 
{vv. 8-1 1 ). Meyer remarks, 'The saying gives us a distinct 
picture of the position of the priestly class in the older regal 
period, about 850 B.C. It is a single, compact work.' The 
phrase 'those that hate him' {y. 11), according to Meyer, 
means ' people who do not think much of the priests and 
their oracles, offer sacrifice unwillingly, and would rather 
act according to their own judgment than consult Yahweh.' 
By the phrase iTon tD'^N is meant ' the descendants of 
Yahweh's faithful one,' i.e. of Moses. That Moses is repre- 
sented in the legend as the ' son,' i.e. descendant, of Levi, does 
not matter ; it was through Moses that ' Levi ' received his 
spiritual significance. Meyer also draws the conclusion that 
the prize which Moses hoped to gain, and actually did gain, 
in the contest with Yahweh, here,and here only, spoken of, 
was the Thummim and the Urim.^ 

I am afraid that Meyer relies here on a too conservative 
criticism. There are textual problems which he does not 
seem to have recognised. I do not observe that he questions 
either {a) T'TiN") Ton, or {b) yvcn xir\h, or {c) x\'Ciyp^-\ti. 
Before we proceed, let us consider each of these difficulties. 

{a) Against this reading is the unusual order of the 
words (see Ex. xxviii. 30, Lev. viii. 8, Ezra ii. 63 = Neh. 
vii. 65), and the obscurity caused by the absence of a verb. 
The latter objection may be removed by prefixing "'iS^ ]n (so 
Ball, Bertholet). The former by emending ^f'DD into TfnoM, 
and T'TIN ir^to iniN. nON, with reference to judicial utter- 
ances (Zech. vii. 9) ; Tin, with regard to expositions of the 
law (cp. Ps. xix. 9, cxix. 30). 

{b) "[Ton WnS. The variations of the commentators 
justify the suspicion that all is not right here. ' To the 

^ Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten., pp. 51-54. 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 173 

man of thy pious one ' ! Who is the ' pious one ' ? — Moses, 
Aaron, the tribe of Levi, or (so Stade, very strangely) 
Yahweh? Ball {PSBA, 1896, p. 123) proposes ^nprr tD^N. 
But ' the man who has received thy kindnesses ' is not the 
sense required by the context. The only remedy I can see 
is to point ID'^nS, which is in apposition to IT^on. Driver, at 
any rate, renders as if he pointed thus. The pious one will, 
of course, be the tribe of Levi personified. A tradition is 
implied that Yahweh ' tested ' Levi at Massah, and ' strove ' 
with him at the waters of Meribah. 

{c) poip'^-jD is supposed to mean ' that they rise not.' 
I cannot, however, find any parallel for it quoted by the 
grammarians, and 'p'^ is not probable after y^np. How shall 
we correct the words ? Ball proposes -jd. Too superficial ! 
Why should such a common word here, and here only, have 
become corrupted ? ]D (as in p"^nN) is probably the latter 
part of f?^<D^T or '?n27DI»\ and pDip'' (like DiJDp"^, i K. iv. 1 2, 
and D1p\ xi. 6, Gen. vii. 4, 23) is one of the many derivatives 
of SNDm\ Either ' Yerahme'el ' dittographed, or ' Ishmael, 
Yerahme'el ' (alternatives), may be regarded as a gloss, or 
glosses, on I'^MtDD. The verb which originally stood in b 
has fallen out. 

The blessing of Benjamin seems to have been much 
redacted. The original saying must have represented 
Benjamin as a warlike tribe, fighting bravely against his 
hostile neighbours. It may perhaps have said that his 
territory was D"^*inDD J"^!, ' amidst the Kaphtorim ' (see 
T. and B. pp. 191 /). VDnD pi is not natural (see Dillm,). 

The blessing of Joseph {i.e. Ephraim and Menasseh 
combined, v. 17 b) in vv. 13-17 is concerned first with the 
fertility of his land and then with his irresistible strength. 
First, Joseph's land is ' blessed of Yahweh with the most 
precious things of heaven above (^5?p, Dillm.), and with 
(those of) the ocean which coucheth beneath.' Then if we 
follow the lexicons, the poet continues thus — 

And with the precious things of the produce of the sun. 
And with the precious things of the thrusting forth of the 

Driver finds here an allusion to ' the various crops of fruits. 


vegetables, grain, etc., which ripen at different seasons of the 
year.' But how oddly expressed an ' allusion ' ! ' Produce 
(products) of the sun ' ! As if the sun were a land. 
' Thrusting forth of the months ' ! A purely imaginary 
rendering, for ©la occurs nowhere else, and the root-meaning 
' to thrust forth ' is wildly absurd here. And how can 
' months ' be parallel to ' sun ' ? Clearly the text has 
suffered, and the physician must apply remedies. tDDCD 
again and again elsewhere stands for "JNi'DtD"' (see e.g. 
xi. 30),^ and so surely it is here. Observe that in Gen. 
xlix. 25 we meet with the phrase Dm TOni, where Dm is 
not * womb ' but a shortened form of Dm\ As for mii, we 
may correct it as we have already corrected "XiXti in vii. i 3 ; 
the original is nnm^ (cp. n^mi). Lastly, xiTTS^ is, of course, 
DHT, the well-known shorter form of f?NDm\ See again 
on Gen. xlix. 2$ {T. and B. p. 511). 

The poet continues, as most agree to render — 

And from the top of the ancient mountains, 

And with the precious things of the everlasting hills. 

A few, however, explain tUNT as ' best products ' (instead of 
' top '), and Bertholet would even emend into n''C7NlD. This 
excellent scholar, at any rate, shows good judgment in 
questioning t&Ni, which, though it may mean ' best,' cannot 
mean ' best products.' But why should rr'lDNT have been 
used instead of ~riD ? Hence it is, no doubt, that Driver 
adheres to tDNl, and renders ' top.' But if the poet is under 
the influence of Gen. xlix. 26 (which Driver would be the 
last to deny), how comes he to put in a reference to the 
tops of the mountains ? What sense is there in the in- 
sertion ? Surely the blessing reads better without it. To 
this Driver may mean to reply by his brief reference to 
Ps. Ixxii. 1 6, which suggests to him the explanation, ' May 
the mountain-sides to their very tops be fertile 1 ' But it 
hardly needs a very keen sight to discover that Ps. 
Ixxii. 1 6 ^ is deeply corrupt. The truth seems to be that, 
as so often, a gloss has intruded into the original text, and 
expelled a part of it. The gloss is not indeed iDNn, but a 

1 For other instances see T. and B. p. 273. 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 175 

word underlying tDNn. What that word is, we shall see 
presently. The word which it expelled can only be restored 
by conjecture. But can we doubt what that word is? 
Parallelism imperatively demands "rlD. 

Our next step must be to criticise the phrases DTp~"'nirT 
and x^'ys mi^li. In Gen. xlix. 26 we find the same phrases, 
except that D*7p""'lirT becomes (according to most critics, 
following @) "t:? "^nnn. But how comes ^i7, 'eternity,' to 
have been altered into mp, ' antiquity ? ' The two words 
are not parallel. The explanation is that here, as often 
{e.g. Gen. xxv. 6, xxix. i ), mp has come from Dpi = Dm"^ 
(Yarham),^ and th^s from ^NDriT (Gen. xxi. 33, etc.). As 
has been pointed out elsewhere,^ the original text probably 
had Si? '^''^'\X^ = yis 'n, * mountains of Arabia,' and in the 
parallel line ^ndht n*ii;ll. That lii» and Dpi (om"') are 
synonyms, need not here be shown, i^n, miswritten as c^ni, 
is probably a gloss on these two words (see above). 

V. 16 a is troublesome. There is nothing corresponding 
to it in Gen. xlix. 26. It will be observed that the distich 
is devoid of parallelism. The first line gives a general 
reference to ' Nature at large ' (Driver, who, however, regards 
this as a climax) ; the second, a loosely connected mention 
of the favour of the covenant-God who revealed Himself to 
Moses (so at least Dillmann and Driver). Let us take the 
first line. The vagueness is intolerable. But why must 
pN mean ' earth ' ? And why accept rTN^PDI, which comes 
in so awkwardly? Surely it is a corruption of ^ndhT. 
* With the precious things of the land of Yerahme'el ' is 
probably a gloss on vv. 14, 15. Line 2 runs, in MT., 
rr3p ''DDto r^l^- That Yahweh really had such a title as 
' dweller in the thorn-bush (?),' is extremely doubtful. The 
title would, of course, be suggested by Ex. iii. 2, where 
Yahweh is, according to most, represented as the nunien of 
a thorn-bush. It has, however, as I hope, been shown else- 
where ^ that both in Exodus and in the ' Blessing of Moses ' 
n3D should be "^D-^p. With this change in the text, line 2 

1 Cp. T. and B. p. 200. 

2 Ibid. p. 512. So, too, in Hab. iii. 6 (MT. ly mn), and probably 
in Isa. xlvii. 7 (MT. ^y ma^), Ivii. i 5 (ly \2v). 

3 T. and B. p. 526. 


oi V. \6 may stand. Line i has evidently fallen out, or 
been supplanted by the gloss pointed out just now. Line 3 
also needs correction ; the impossible form ^n^»h!ln has 
probably come, not from HNlin (Konig, Ges.-Kautzsch), but 
from nN'iin, which must, it would seem, have made its way 
into the text from the margin. The true reading was 
probably y^r\r\ (Gen. xlix. 26). 

Thus we shall get — inserting a possible but purely 
conjectural first line — 

[Let the blessings of the God of Asshur,] 
And the favour of the dweller in Sinai, 
Be upon the head of Joseph, 

On the crown of the head of the prince among his 

We now come to the eulogy of Joseph's might. The 
text-reading of z;. 17, 11. i and 2, gives — 

His firstborn steer hath majesty, 
Its horns are horns of a wild ox. 

So, at least, most critics render *nilD niDl, though Ed. Meyer ^ 
ingeniously conjectures that *nitD is 'Joseph's steer-god, who 
begot Joseph as his firstborn, whence Joseph himself has 
the strength and the horns of a wild ox.' Certainly ' his 
firstborn steer' is a very odd expression for Jeroboam IL^ 
(so Graf and Reuss), and what right have we to take nhlD as 
a collective ? But is it not equally unnatural to take TilO 
for the steer-god ? ^ It is true, however, that the subject of 
lines I and 2 in z^. 17 must be Joseph. But to this it must 
be added that the text of line i is thoroughly wrong, or, 
more precisely, the original first line oi v. 17 has been 
supplanted by a gloss. This interpolation is probably niD"il 
f?NDm"'"l *i^£&N, which corresponds exactly to the gloss in 
Gen. xlix. 25 " (MT. Dmi DHID mDil). 

Zebulun and Issachar (Iskar) are coupled together 
{yv. iS/.) as in Gen. xlix. 13-15, but the descriptions of 

1 Die Israeliten, p. 284. 

2 Ephraim is excluded by the last distich of the verse. 

3 Hos. xii. 12 and Ps. cvi. 20 would not justify this. 

4 See T. and B. p. 511. 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 177 

the tribes in the two collections of sayings are different. 
The text is not free from uncertainty. ' Rejoice, Zebulun, 
in thy going out,' is strange ; we surely require either a 
synonym for, or a word antithetic to, the ' tents ' of Issachar, 
assuming, that is, that * tents ' is correct. Ball therefore 
proposes, for rfn^sa, ^""HNS^ (an assumed alternative to 
Tf ^S5, * in thy ships 'j. But is T^rTN correct ? It has been 
pointed out elsewhere that f?r7N and hyrt are liable to be 
confounded.^ I propose, therefore, to read here T^3"'n, ' thy 
palaces.' The ' palaces ' are those which, rightly or wrongly, 
an ancient Hebrew poet supposed Issachar to have con- 
quered in N. Arabia. The parallel to T^D'^H in line i is, 
probably, T^INIS, ' thy troops.' The warlike character of 
Zebulun appears from Judg. v. 18 (cp. Gen. xlix. 13, as 
restored in T. and B.). 

From the present text it would seem that these two 
tribes sacrificed in common at some mountain sanctuary, 
and hospitably invited neighbouring peoples to take part 
in the accompanying feasts. Such occasions might naturally 
be used for purposes of trade. It is strange, however, that 
the invitation of the ' peoples ' should be put first ; strange, 
too, that the sanctuary should be so vaguely referred to as a 
mountain. There is surely some textual corruption. The 
going of the allied tribes to the sanctuary ought, of course, 
to be mentioned first of all. In short, we shall do well to 
restore ^^S^ which probably fell out owing to the preceding 
letters yh. It must now be added that forms of Nnp not 
seldom (e.g. 2 K. xviii. 4 b) take the place of '^NDn'T^, and 
probably enough this is the case here.^ D"'D2? is altogether 
out of place ; probably it is a variant to D'^D"' in the next 
line but one, which crept in from the margin. Thus we get 
as lines i and 2 — 

They go to Mount Yerahme'el, 
There they offer right sacrifices. 

By Mount Yerahme'el may be meant one of the most 

^ Cheyne, Psalms (1904), i. 49, where, in the note on Ps. xv. i, 
Ps. xix. 5, xxvii. 5/"., Ixi. 5, Ixix. 26, Ixxviii. 60, Ixxxiv. 7 are referred to 
as instances. Hab. iii. 7 might probably be added. 

2 Note that @'s c^oAo^pevcrovcrtv presupposes icnn>, which, hke iKip', 
may come from "jKism'. The common text of @ is in some disorder. 


sacred of N. Arabian mountains, that on which Abraham 
would have offered up Isaac, and where too, perhaps, was the 
central sanctuary spoken of in the original Deuteronomic 
legislation (see on Dt. xii. 5). The 'right sacrifices' are 
those approved in Deuteronomy. Hogg's suggestion {E. 
Bib., ' Zebulun,' § 6) that the sacred mountain must have 
been not far from Esdraelon, and may have been called 
Baal-zebul (see 2 K. i. 2, 9) is at least a subtle attempt 
to supply the deficiencies of MT. 

Lines 3 and 4 of z^. 19 (as usually read), according to 
Driver, give ' the reason why the two tribes invite foreign 
nations to such feasts : the wealth derived by them from the 
sea enables them to do so.' In line 4, in particular, he sees 
(with most scholars) an allusion to the manufacture of glass 
from the sand about 'Akko.^ The allusion, however, is not 
obvious, and the text of line 4 (even more clearly than that 
of line 3) is highly questionable. To admit the two con- 
struct participles ("'DiDto ""^pto) side by side, cannot be right, 
especially as a verb is wanting.^ f?in, too, is often corrupt 
elsewhere, and is probably so here.^ The problem is a hard 
one, but I for my part incline to think that line 4 is a collection 
of glosses, viz. ^3D»1 = WDtt)^ Nirr, ^3*inZ3 = 'JlDn"^ = ^Nl;Dm^ 
(again ),f?in = Sm = ^NDmV and that line 3 should run,i?pb ''3 
13)?;' D"'^C)^ ' for Shema of the Yamanites they acquire.' This 
may perhaps give the reason why Zebulun and Issachar 
go together to the sacred mountain. The sacrifices are 
sacrifices of thanksgiving. If so, the parallel line has fallen 
out, or been supplanted by the glosses already referred to. 

Verses 20 and 2 1 contain the blessing of Gad. His 
lion-like courage (cp. i Chr. xii. 8) and the choiceness of 
his allotment are dwelt upon. The three stichi in v. 20 are 
of unequal length. It would seem that some pious scribe 
prefixed TmDn "'^^)N. p^ is also questionable. * He layeth 
himself to rest like a lion, and teareth the arm, yea, the 
crown of the head,' is, at any rate, not quite natural. Or 

1 Cp. Hogg, E. Bid., 'Zebulun,' § 5. 

2 For attempts at emendation see Hogg, E. Bib., I.e. 
^ @ gives kfXTTopLa, i.e. n^D-i. 

* See T. and B. p. 373, and note that o^'^an in Neh. iii. 31 comes 
from D'SKDm' (£". Bib., ' Merchant '). 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 179 

shall we render (cp. ^), ' he layeth himself to rest, having 
torn,' etc. ? Later in the passage, however, we find the 
troublesome words UXH "'D. May not this be a corruption of 
D^ia, which originally stood in the margin as a correction 
of ptt) ? * Gad is like a lion of Kusham (Kushan).' We 
might then continue, ' He teareth the arm,' etc. 

We now pass on to v. 21. It is usually supposed 
that this passage alludes to the narrative in Num. xxxii., 
according to which Gad was conditionally favoured with an 
allotment in the rich pasture-land east of the Jordan (so the 
received text). The first two lines are thus rendered by 
Driver — 

And he looked out a first part for himself, 
For there a commander's portion was reserved. 

But can n^tUNT stand by itself? A 'first part' of what? 
Bickell inserts pN, but this is arbitrary. And how can 
pDD 'p^rvCi npSn pass for good Hebrew ? pop, ' reserved,' 
is specially difficult. Indeed, any participle after 'p'pT^'C^ is 
improbable. The next line has been rendered, ' And he 
came to the heads of the people.' But how can rrnN, 'to 
come,' be construed with an accusative of the person ? It 
has therefore been suggested ^ to read (for Nn"'l ]1Dd) 
pDDNlT'l (cp. V. 5).^ Certainly an inversion of the two 
parts of a word (when corrupted) is probable enough. But 
a ' paragogic Nun' only occurs once {v. 11) in the MT. of 
these blessings, and then at the end of a clause (the usual 
position). The value of the parallel is still further reduced 
by the strong probability that the word pDIp'' is corrupt. 
Besides this, who can assert that ' and the heads of the 
people were gathered together' fits into the context? If 
these are the right words, they must have come in from the 
margin. But they are, as I think, not the right words. It 
has not been observed that pDD may be a corruption of pDS,^ 
which, as I have shown, often represents pi;l2 ( = pDtD = 
T'NroiD''), and, if so, is a gloss ; also that niT'I, if corrupt, may 

1 Hayman, Catnbridge University Reporter, May 21, 1895 ; Giese- 
brecht, ZATIV, 1887, p. 292. 

^ Cp. @, (TWT)y[j.€vwv oLfia dp)(rjyois Aaaiv. 
3 Some MSS. read jiiDs. 

12 (I 


most easily be corrected into init'I ; further, that "'tUMT in 
line 3 may very well be the short for TT'Ont ('''tD^), and that 
Di?, like *iDi; in v. 7, may represent nnw, while "h in line i 
may come from f?N, a fragment of "JNonT. If we further 
suppose that there has been some slight transposition of 
words owing to the misunderstanding of the scribe, we 
arrive at this result ^ — 

D"]N JT'tDNT NT1 He saw the choicest part of Aram, 

ppniD npSrr "INn"**) And coveted a leader's portion. 

The concluding distich appears to mean that Gad's conduct 
in the matter of his allotment (Num. xxxii.) was just and 
right, both towards Yahweh and towards Israel. 

Dan's blessing {y. 22) is a short one. Yet, from the 
prevalent point of view, it presents one difficulty. ' Dan is a 
lion's whelp | That leapeth forth from Bashan ' ; but if the 
northern Dan is referred to, how can he be likened to a 
lion of Bashan ? As Ed. Meyer ^ remarks, the name 
' Bashan ' here receives a surprisingly wide reference. That 
lions of Bashan are not elsewhere referred to is of less 
importance. What, then, shall we say to the former 
difficulty ? The answer is that though Dan did not live 
in the best known land of Bashan, he did dwell for a time 
in the original Bashan, i.e. Abshan or 'Arab-Ishmael.^ 

In the blessing of Naphtali {y. 23) there is, first of all, 
the question whether Naphtali is addressed, and directed 
to occupy his territory, or whether the poet declares that 
this favoured tribe actually possesses the land assigned to 
it. The MT. gives TWh'T',^ which is explained as a strengthened 
imperative Kal in pause. Sam., however, gives tDT^ and 
^, Onk., Pesh., Vg. all presuppose the 3rd person. A 
recent critic* leaves line 2 of the blessing untranslated, 
declaring that ntDT D"n"T1 D"" is entirely obscure. Dillmann, 
it is true, does not think so. ' Naphtali's land,' he says, 
' though chiefly a highland region in the north, is neverthe- 

1 DE* '3 has been already accounted for as a marginal correction, 

2 Die Israeliten, p. 526 (n. i). 

3 See on iii. i (Og, king of Bashan), and cp. Crit. Bib. on Josh, 
xix. 40 ff., and T. and B. p. 571, 

* Ed, Meyer, Die Israe/^/en, p. 541. 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) i8i 

less to be extended southward by the Lake of Huleh and 
the Jordan to the Lake of Gennesaret.' This does not 
seem at all obvious. DITT^l D"' most naturally means 
not ' sea and south-land ' (Dillm.), ' the lake and the south ' 
(Driver), but ' west and south.' In this perplexity, let us 
assume the text to be corrupt, and apply ordinary methods 
of correction. We know that D"" often stands for ]p;;, and 
that letters are often inserted, omitted, or transposed, so 
that D*m may easily have come from ~niD3 or "tidd. In 
Mic. V. 5 the MT. gives TnD3 pN as a parallel to n^ii^N pN, 
and it can be shown that the Asshur who is referred to in 
this passage is not Assyria, but the N. Arabian Asshur.^ 
"T"nD:i, therefore, being parallel to n'lJDN, must be also a 
N. Arabian regional name, and so, presumably, is the moD 
which underlies the DITl in the blessing of Naphtali. TnJDD 
may, or may not, have stood in the original text of the 
blessing. In case it did not stand there, it is well to 
mention that inD3 in Gen. x. 8 has probably come from 
IIDD (]om), and that the statement ' Kush begot Rahman ' 
appears to be followed by the gloss, ' That is, Yerahme'el.' ^ 
So, then, ' sea and south ' should be ' Yaman and Rahman.' 
Perhaps the poet does but seek to show his learning. Or 
perhaps there really were two separate districts known by 
equivalent names. At any rate the local reference of 
Naphtali's blessing, like that in Gen. xlix. 21 (revised text), 
is N. Arabian. 

The blessing of Asher {yv. 2/^f.) is perhaps not quite as 
questionable as that in Gen. xlix. 20, not at least till we 
come to the last line. The hyperbole in v. 24 (end) may 
be paralleled by Job xxix. 6, and the bolts of iron and 
bronze remind us of the bronze bars of city-gates in i K. 
iv. 13. At the same time the hyperbole referred to would 
be quite isolated both in this special blessing and in the 
whole collection of sayings, and the parallel passage in 
Gen. xlix. 11 (see T. and B. pp. 505/) is corrupt. One 
may also doubt whether the blessing of Asher in the 
traditional text of both the collections is quite grand enough, 

1 See T. and B. p. 182. In v. 4 note the gloss g\Sv n?, i.e. nt 
VKyDC", 'this is (means) Ishmael,' referring to the word mcK which 
follows. ' 2 J bid. p. 183. 


especially for the closing blessing, as here. The first two 
lines indeed may pass, but iSn p©! ^2101 should probably 
be ^f?ni pori Smn, and init nmn^i f?nn should be hxcm 
l"i»3 ;nB?m. To explain this I may refer to T. and B. 
p. 109, where it is pointed out that in Gen. iv. 22 ^n»n 
f?©l"TJ, underlying Snil niDna, is a pair of glosses on Tubal- 
kain, and that ;n©n stands for Ashhur-Ethan, and hxcm for 
*Arab-Ishmael. Thus we get the distich — 

Tubal in Ishmael is his district, 
Rabshal and H<^htan in Arabia. 

:i"T51, ' in Arabia,' doubtless needs explaining. This, how- 
ever, is not at all difficult ^SwD and TC^I in ^^T. also 
have to be accounted for. Let us take Tf?273D first This is 
usually explained 'thy bolts.' But should we not rather 
expect ' thy bars ' ? And what authorit>" have we for ' thy 
bolts ' ? The versions do not favour this ; ^, Pesh., Vg. 
give * thy shoes,' and such is very possibly the interpretation 
implied by the points. What, then, is the underlying word ? 
To answer this, let us take l^wo together with TQ"'^"^- 
That the latter word is corrupt, need not be argued at 
length, and \ve may (judging from our experience) natu- 
rally suppose that the name of a place or region underlies it 
It is probable that t?53D and *fTi"'D have the same original, 
and that that original is D53pr. This is one of the numerous 
derivatives, or popular corruptions, of ^Ncm"' ; it may be 
grouped with Dsep^, p5, pl5, ^py.^ That there was a 
northern Yokneam does not militate against the prior 
existence of a Yokneam in the N. Arabian border-land. 
And now as to the 2U2 underlying "INIT That something 
must be done with InIT is plain ; simply to remark with 
Ed. Meyer,* that the stichus containing the word is 
' altogether obscure,' is to confess that the old critical 
methods are here powerless. It is also, apparently, to 
assume that the rest of the blessing is free from questionable 
matter. Surely it is no unreasonable conjecture that Nm, 
like ^m in Num. xxxL 8, Josh. xiiL 21, and "in3 in i. 5 (see 
above), has come from in^, or more precisely that "iNm 
represents ii^n, the final T (d) having come from l. 

1 Cp. Crii. Bib. pp. 406, 427/ " Ibid. pp. 541/ 

CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvii.-xxxiv.) 183 

We are now face to face with the close of the whole 
book, and of the great hero's life. We are told how Moses 
went up the appointed mountain, and surveyed the land 
which had been already promised to the patriarchs, and 
which he would himself so gladly have trodden. Then, in 
that same country, he died, and in the valley over against 
Beth-peor (cp. iii. 29) he was buried, but tradition did not 
point out the sepulchre. May we not, then, suppose that, 
according to an earlier legend, he escaped death, and was 
at once taken up, like the parallel hero Elijah, into heaven ? 
This would at any rate be a fitting close to the career of 
the great ' man of God,' and is ' at least analogous to the 
early Christian belief in a spiritual assumption.' ^ From 
this point of view the site of the mountain becomes less 
important. We may place it in the land of Moab (xxxiv. 5), 
or, if we will, in the neighbourhood of Kadesh," which seems 
once to have been regarded as the centre of the primitive 
Israelites. The mountain was called Nebo, alluding, as 
Jastrow ^ thinks, to the fact that Moses was a ndbl ; perhaps, 
however, in3 is a broken form of in^D, as to which see on 
xxxii. 48-52. Whether the name Neba, which is attached 
to the top of a headland five miles S.W. of Heshbon, has 
anything to do with Mount Nebo, is doubtful, and the same 
may be very positively said of a proposed identification 
with the neighbouring headland Ras Siaghah, the slopes of 
which fall steeply on all sides to the Jordan Valley and the 
Dead Sea."* In fact, the limited view from the top of this 
mountain seems to recent scholars to put the identification 
out of the question.'^ 

It appears, however, to have been made probable that 
the original Land of Promise was in the N. Arabian border- 
land (see on xi. 24, Ex. xxiii. 31). The names of districts 
and boundaries in vv. 2 and 3 were originally applied to 
parts of that region, and some of them at least were after- 

1 E. Bib., 'Moses,' § 19 ; cp. Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. 15, quoted by 
Charles, Assumption of Moses., p. 107. 

2 E. Bib., 'Moses,' § 16. 

3 Religion of Bab. and Ass. p. 130 (n. i). 
* Conder, Heth and Moab, pp. 132/. 

5 See especially G. B. Gray, ' Mount Nebo,' Expositor, November 
1904, and cp. E. Bib., 'Nebo,' ii. 


wards carried northward. In v. 2 iinnNn DTF may have 
come from pntDN (D^ i.e. Ashhurite Yaman (see on xi. 24). 
n3!) may be a corruption of 1D»N (see T. and B. p. 380). 
irrT may, here and elsewhere, represent pm*', the name 
of a border -stream or wady (see T. and B. p. 228). 
For D"'nDn 'T'l; we should perhaps read D">nm ll^ {ibid. 
p. 448). On Soar see T. and B. p. 303. How far these 
writers really knew the geography of the border-land, I 
would not determine. But here, at any rate, was their true 
Holy Land, the region as near Paradise (with its four 
streams) as imagination could suggest — the land of their 
patriarchs, of their prophet-legislator, and of their favourite 
king, idealised by the mysterious power of a popular legend, 


Abram and Abraham, explained, xxxv 
Achish, was he a Philistine? xxi, xlii 
Adonis. See Phcenicia 
Ahab, false prophet, 79 

name explained, 72 
Ahaz, king of Judah, 79 
Altars, archaic, 105 
Amalekites, xxx, xlv 
Amarna tablets, xxix, 120 
Amon, king of Judah, 6 
Apries, king of Egypt, 80 
Arabia, Minaean inscriptions, xi («. ^), 

xiii («. ^), XV (n. '') 
Arabia, N. , Israelites in, 19 

Israelitish sanctuary in, 27, iii 

cult of Melek in, 24 

popular cults derived from, 73 
Arabian, N., theory, ix, x, xx, xlviii 
Aram, southern, xxxiv/. , 162, 165, 171 
Aramaic inscription (Pognon), xxxiii 

papyri, 23 («.'«), 24 (n.^) 

' Aristeas ' quoted, 149 

Arnon, origin of name, 113, 139 

Arpad, 40 (with n.^) 

Arphaxad (Arpakshad), problem of, xliv 

Arvad, in Phoenicia, xxxvi 

Asa's reformation, 8 

Asher, divine name, 167 

Asherah, divine name, 22 

Ashkal, 24, 93 

Ashkalath, divine name, 119 

Ashpenaz, name explained, 57 

Ashtar, 93 

Ashtart, divine name, 22, 33, 46 (moon- 
goddess?), 56 
titles of, 33, 53/., 72, 114, 118/ 
opposition to cult of, in Deut. , 119- 

Ashtereth, Og's city, 138 

Ashtor, Mount, 143 

Ashnrbanipal, Assyrian king, 7, 12, 34 

Asshur, name of two different countries, 
xiii, 37, 89, 181 

Asshur, or Ashhur, in Arabia, xi / , 
xxix, 40, 57, 85, 108, 166 

Asshur, tree of, 113 
Asshur- Yarham, 27, 115/. 
Asshurim, in Genesis, xi 

symbols of god Asshur, 27, 114, 161 
Assur, in Palestine, xiii (n. ^) 
Astley, H. J. D., xv 

Baal, 22, 46 

Babel, the Arabian, xiii, 57/!, ii9(«.^) 

Ezekiel on king of, 81 
Babylon, first dynasty of, xxviii 

cult of Marduk, 4 

cult of Nabu, 4 ; cp. 76 

cult of Nergal, 118 («. ^) 

cult of Ninib(in Palestine), xl (with n. ') 

cult of Sakkut, 119 

myth of heavenly tablets, loi (with n. ^} 

myth of Tamuz, 54, 75 

popular cults perhaps derived from, 

Balaam (Bil'am), xxxiv, 124, 171 
Ball, C. J., 164, 173, 177 
Barton, G. A., 117 (n.^), 120/, 149 
Bashan, name explained, 138, 143, 180 
Beer-lahai-roi, xii 
Beer-sheba, 28 («. ^) 
Benjamin, original seat of, 173 
Berossus, historian, 59, 68 («."^) 
Bertholet, A., 167/., 170, 172, 174 
Beth-hakkerem, xxxiv 
Beth-melek, corrupt place-name, 51 
Beth-Yerahme'el, probable place-name, 

51, 8i ; cp. xxiii 
Bethel, origin of name, 26, 28 («. ^) 
Bickell, G. , 159, 179 
Book of tor ah, \of. 

Canaan, southern, 67, 95, 146, 148, 
150. 183 
its natural gifts, 146-149 
Caphtor. See Kaphtor 
Captivities, 59, 67, 84, 89 
Captivity, results of ' Babylonian,' 84 
Carchemish. See Karkemish 
Cherethites ( Kerethites ). See David 
Clem. Recogn., cited, 157 {n."^) 



Conder, Col., 31, 183 («.•*) 

Coniah, 49, 66 

Cook, Stanley A., xxii («. ^), xxiv, xxx 

Cooke, G. A. [Inscriptions], xlii («.^), 

and elsewhere 
Cornill, C. H., 32, 51 («.■*), 52, 59 

(«.*), 92/ 
Covenant, Book of, 72, loi, 104-108 
Curtiss, S. I., 120 («.^) 

Dahler on Jer. xi, 32 («. 2) 
Dance, religious, 117, 123 
David, his origin, xxiii 

his hold on the Negeb, xxiii 

his Kerethites and Pelethites, xx-xxiii, 

130 («. 3) 
his Arabian scribe, 99 («. ^) 
Davies, Witton, x, xi, xiii («. ^), xviii/. , 

xxxvi («.*), xxxviii 
Decalogues, the, 102-104 
Delitzsch, Friedr. , 143 
Deuteronomy, negative theories of, 9/. 
based on N. Arabian Israelite law- 
book, 20 
no mere party program, 109/. 
N. Arabian atmosphere of, 131 
fine morality of, 109 
its law of the one sanctuary, no 
characteristic trees of, iizff. 
Dillmann, Aug., xxxii, 121, 145, 152 

(«.■*), 173. 175, 180/. 
Dod, divine name, 53 
Dodah, title of Ashtart, 46, 53/! 
Dog (?), technical meaning of, 120 
Driver, S. R., 33 (n.^), 121 (with n."^), 
140, 145, 154, 156/, 167/., 173/, 
175. 178/ 
Duff, Arch., lis 

Duhm, B., 32, 39 {«.2), 48 («.2), 51 
(«.■»), S3, 60, 79, 92/ 

East, sons of, the term corrected, xxxiv 

Ebal, sacrifice on Mt. , 153 

E^dmans, B. D. , xvii, los («•'), 106 

Egypt, history of, xxi, 35, 86 

Egyptian religion, 3, 31 

Eli, priestly descendants of, 24 

Elijah, 164/, 169, 183 

• Elohim, written with finger of,' 100 f. 

Ephrath, in N. Arabia, xxiv, 37, 108, 

155- 162 
Ephrem the Syrian, 120 
Erbt, W., XV, 7, 8 («. J), 9 («.='), 12 

(«.^), 129 («. ') 
Esar-haddon, inscriptions of, xxi («. ^), 

Euphrates, river. See Perath, Ephrath 
Evil-Merodach, 68 
Ewald, H., 145 
Exodus, original story of the, xli 

Ezekiel, historical use of, 70 f. 

his stress on Sabbath observance, 104. 
See also Jeremiah 

Feasts, Israelite, of Yerahme' elite origin, 

Pesah (Passover), 117 

Shabu'oth (Weeks), 117 f. 

Sukkoth (Booths), 118/ 

of Issachar and Zebulun, 177 
Finding of ' the book,' ^ff., 109 
Foundation-stone, produced by priests, 

Frazer, J. G., ss (''•') 

Gebal, northern and southern, 143 

Gedaliah, governor, 28 

Gerizzim and Ebal, 151 

Gezer, Cretan influences on, xxiii 

Giesebrecht, Friedr., 54 («.^), 179 («. ^) 

Glaser, Ed., x («. ^) 

Goat-deities? 114 

God, Divine Company, 22, 106, 167 

Gordon, A. R. , xxvii, xxxii, xxxviii, 

Gray, G. B., 183 («.«) 
Griffith, F. LI. , 35 («. *) 
Grimme, H. , 117/ 
Gunkel, H., 63 («. ^), 74, 76, 158 

Habakkuk, 63/., 78 
Ham, origin of, xviii, xxvii 
Hamaths, probably two, 44 
Hammurabi, king of Babylon, xxix, 4, 

51 («. '^), 99, lOI 
Hamutal, queen-mother, 4s 
Hananiah, prophet, 77 
Hashram, name underlying Kasdim 

(which see), 58, 63, 94 
Haupt, Paul, 58 («. i), 149 
Hayman, Dr., 179 (ti.^) 
Hebrew tribes, earliest history of, xxv 
Hermon, Mt. , 140/". 
Herodotus, 35, 36 («. ^), 80 
Hezekiah, 3, s. 8 
Hilprecht, S9 

Hincks, E. , Assyriologist, 89 
Hittites, 9S 
Hitzig, Ferd. , 50, 53 
Hogg, H. W., xlvi («. 1), 168, 178 
Hommel (Fritz), xi (n."^), xiii («. ^), 
xxi, xxviii, .xxxiv, xliv, 119 («.■*), 
120, 167 
Horeb, Mt. , 164 
Horites, 136/. 
Horses from Egypt or Misrim, 70/., 

no, 130 
Huldah, prophetess, 17 ff. 

origin of name, 17 

her residence, 19 

her oracle, 20 



Ibn Ezra, on Dt. vi. 4, 145 
Ishmael, changes of name, xxxvi/. 

chariots of, 39 

cubit of, 141 

olive-trees of, 148 
Israel, N. , scantiness of records of, 

Jabbok. See Yabbok 

Jamani, at Ashdod, xvi, xxxv 

James, William, xlviii 

Jastrow, Morris, 183 

Javan. See Yaman 

Jealousy, image of, 74 

Jebusites, 25 

Jeconiah. See Coniah, Jehoiachin 

Jehoahaz, 44 /i, 49 

Jehoash, 8, 21/. 

Jehoiachin, three months' reign, 67 

elegy on, 66 

captivity of, 66/". 

release, 67-69 

his sons, 68/". 
Jehoiakim, his earlier name, 45 (with 

how long did he reign ? 45 (with n. *) 
his early years, 56 
builds fortifications, 51/, 90 
his contest with Jeremiah, 47/. 
condemned by Jeremiah, 52 
his last scenes, according to Jeremiah, 
Jeremiah, historical value of his book, 

32. 45 
his scribe Baruch, 47 
his abhorrence of Baal-religion, 33 
his address in the temple, 48/. 
his portraits of kings of Judah, 49^ 
his imprisonment, 82 
his purchase of a family estate, 83 
and Ezekiel, their deficiency, 72 ; cp. 

Jeroboam I., 161, 163 
Jeroboam II., 176 

Jerusalem, siege of, release of Hebrew 
slaves, 73/, 82 

the city taken, 83/ 

captains of king of Babel, 57, 84 
Jeshurun. See Yeshurun 
Jethro. See Yithro 
Joktheel, origin of name, xxxiii 
Jordan, miswritten, 115, 133, 152, 184 
Joseph, original scene of story, xli 
Judah, history of, its uncertainties, 3 

Kadesh, 165/., 183 

Kadytis, city, 35 

Kamphausen, A., 90 

Kaphtor, Kaphtorim, xxiii, 138 

Karkemish, miswritten, 37, 40 («. ^) 

Kasdim, 62-64, 94 

Kemarim, explained, 23 («.*), 120 

Kennedy, A. R. S., 158 

Kennett, R. H., 9, 11, 126 («.'), 144, 

154, 170 
Kennicott, B. , 153 («.^) 
Kiriath-arba, xii 
Kittel, R. , 9, 45 («. *) 
Klostermann, Aug., 6 (n.*), 158 («.'), 

Konig, Ed., 176 
Kraetzschmar, R. , 45 («. ^) 
Kiichler, Friedr. , xvii 
Kuenen, A., 163 
Kush, N. Arabian, xlii/. , 42, 83, 88 

Law-books, production of early, 99/. 

'Mosaic,' 100 
Lebanon, southern (?), 136, 150 
Linen, symbolism of, 76 {n.^) 
Lyon, D. G. , loi («. *) 

Macalister, R. A. S., 85 

Magan (in Arabia or in Nubia?), xix 

Magic and sorcery, 124^ 

Mal'ak, divine name, \ob ff. 

Manasseh, 5, 22, 79 (with «. *) 

Marti, K., 13 («.i) 

Maspero, G. , 13 

Meinhold, Jul. , 104 

Melek. See Arabia, N. 

Meluha (W. Arabia or Ethiopia?), xiii, 

XV, xvii, xix, xxviii (origin of name), 

Meribah, origin of, 166 
Mesha, inscription of, 54 
Meyer, Ed., xi («. ^), xiv, xliv, 65 («.'), 

68(«.i), 83 
Michael, archangel, 157 [n."^) 
Minasan. See Arabia 
Misrim, xii, xiii^, xxx, xli/, 36, 88, 

129. 155 

extradition of offenders, 56 

and Misraim confounded, 37, 86, 155 
Misrite religion, incorrect representation 

■ of, 38 
Mohammed, 30/. 
Montserrat, explained, 140 
Moon-god in Hebrew names, xxxiii («. ^) 
Moore, G. F. , 113 («. •^), 24 («.''), 163 
Moses, his origin, xxiv 

his contest with Yahweh, 172 

writes the ' ten words,' loi 

parallel to Elijah, 183 

death of, 183. See Law-books 
Mourning, formulas of public, 53-55 
Miiller, W. Max, 34 {n.*), 40, 86-88, 

147 («.i) 
Musri, N. Arabian. See Misrim 

N. Syrian, xiv, xvi 

Nabft-na'id, king of Babylon, 12 
Nahum, Book of, 39-41 

origin of prophet, 41 (n."^) 

No-Amon, 39/. 


Name, his, a periphrasis for God ? xxviii 
Names, regional, doublings of, xiv 

archaistic use of regional, xliii 

naive ancient use of regional, xix 

Phoenician royal, xxix 

Babylonian royal, xxviii 

transformation of Hebrew, xxxii 
Naville, Ed., 13 («. ^) 
Nebo, Mt. , 183 
Nebuchadrezzar, name, 57 

traditions of, 58/". 

historical inscriptions of, 59 

supposed confusion of two different 
kings, 61 
Nebuzaradan, 57, 84 
Negeb, Schmidt's expeditions into the, 
XX, xxvi 

the original Holy Land, 184 
Nehushtan. See Serpent, sacred 
Nineveh, in Book of Nahum, questioned, 

No-Amon. See Nahum 

Og, king of Bashan, 138/!, 141 
Olmstead, A. T., xiv, xvii, xx, xxvi («.^), 

Paran, 166 
Passover. See Feasts 
Paton, L. B. , xiv 
Pelethites, xxi^, 19 («.'"'), 138 
Perath, N. Arabian name, 37 
Persism in Deut. , asserted, 166 
Petrie, Flinders, xv, xvi, 86/. 
Pharaoh-Hophra, 36, 80/. 

Neko, j,sff-, 61 

Neko, the Nek6s of Herodotus (?), 35 

Neko, is he mentioned on slab found 
at Sidon ? 35 

Neko, was he Josiah's opponent, or is 
there a confusion ? 35/., 61 
Philistines, name discussed, xxi/. , 19 
Phoenicia, contemporary history of, 80, 

religion of, 85 (Eshmun), 113 (Adonis) 
Phoenician inscriptions, 120 

ships? 155 
Pillars (Yakin and Bo'az), 21 
Pisgah, slopes of the, 143/. 
Pleiades, myth of the, 117/. 
Priests, the two chief, 22 

of N. Arabian affinities, 23 
Prophets, inferior class of, 78 
Prostitutes, sacred, 23, 120 

Ra'anan-Xree, meaning of, 112/. 
Rab-mag, Rab-saris, non- Babylonian 

names, 57 («. ^) 
Rab-shakeh, name explained, 89/. 
his knowledge of Yahweh-prophecies, 

Ramshah, or Ramshak, 40, 91, 162 

Rawlinson, Sir H. , 89 
Rekabites, 64^ 

Rekem, xxxiii, 37, 126. See Yarham 
Religion, heathen type of, whence came 

it? 22 
Renan, Ernest, 166 («. ^) 
Rephaim, 137, 141 (cp. xxviii, ' Rapha') 
Robertson, E. , xxxvi 

Sabbath. See Ezekiel 
Sacrifices of children, 24/., 123 
Salekah, place-name, 119, 139 
Sanctuary, the one, 114^^, 152/ 
Saphon, in N. Arabia, 20, 42, 57, 59, 


Sarephath, 169 

Sargon, inscriptions of, xvi, xxxv 

Schmidt, N., xi, xiii («. ^), xviii^ 

Schwally, Friedr. , 124 

Sennacherib, 4, 89 

Seraiah, ambassador to Babel, 79 (with 

Serpent, sacred, 4, 85/. 

of bronze, found at Gezer, 86 
Shallum, royal name, 49 
Shechem (Shakram ?), i$2f. 
Shedim, discussed, 160/. 
Shem, origin of, xxviii 
Shimron, place-name, 18, 40 

and Shomeron (Samaria) confounded, 
Shinar, explained, 62 
Shishak, king of Egypt (?), 86 

true origin of name, 87/". 
Shoshenk, king of Egypt, 86 
Sidon, southern, 169 
Sihon, name explained, 139 
Sinai, Mt. , 163-165, 175 
Sirion, explained, 141 
Smend, R., 165 
Smith, G. A., 163 

H. P., xxxi/!, xxxviii, 45, 50, 109 

W. R., 4 («.'), 74, 120 («.^), 137, 
161 («.») 
Sodom, vine of, 161 
Solomon, his Arabian scribes, 99 («. ') 

his bodyguard, 130 

his high places destroyed, 25 
Stade, B., 4 («. J), 6 («.*), 9 («. 2), 25, 

145. 163, 170/ 
Steuernagel, C. , 122, 127, 129 («.^), 145, 

151, 156 («.3), 157 
Sukkoth-benoth, explained, 119 
Sun-worship in Judah, 25, 46 

Tamuz, god of vegetation, 54, 75 

Teko'a, southern, 17 

Teraphim, 125 

Tiglath-Pileser III., inscription of, xvi 


Totemism, xxxvi (with «. *), 74 
Toy, C. H., 74 
Tyre (or Missor?), 17 

Ur-kasdim, problem of, xliv 
Urim and Thumniim, 172 

Vincent, P^re, 25 («.i), 31 («. ^), 86 

Wady el-Arlsh, xiii (n. i), xx 
Wellhausen, Jul., xlv, loi («.*), 103 
Winckler, H., xiv, xv, xvi, xix/i, xxviii, 
xxxix/:, 17 («.i), 35, 37 («.6). 45, 
49, 68, 79, 87, 117 («. ^), 118, 

Yabbok, the, 143 
Yahweh, divine name, 103 

Face of, title of Yerahme'el, 107 
the numen of the thorn-bush (?), 175 
Yahweh-Ashhur, rare divine name, 145 ; 

cp. 167 
Yahweh - Yerahme'el, fuller name of 
Israel's God, 103 {n.^), 106, 145, 
Yam-Pelishtim (?), 107/. 
Yam-Suph (?), 107 ; cp. 134 

Yaman or Yawan, meaning and origin 

of, 41, 150; cp. xvi, xxxv/., 167, 

Yarham or Yerahme'el, divine name, 46, 

85, 94, 103 
ethnic name, its wide reference, 

xxviii ff. 
Yawan. See Yaman 
Yerahme'el, Mount, 177 
Yerahme'el-images, 157, 160 
Yerahme'elite influence on Judah, xxv 

migration, ix, x.xxi 
Yeshurun, 160 
Yithro, priest of Midian, xxiv, 165 

Zarephath. See Sarephath 
Zebudah, queen-mother, 45 (with n."^) 
Zedekiah, vassal of king of Babel, 70 

his weak character, 71 

his combination against king of Babel, 

his rebellion, 80 

his embassy to king of Misrim, 81 

his regard for Jeremiah, 72 

his fate, 83 
Zerah the Kushite, 87, 91 (n.^) 
Zerubbabel, 68 
Zimmern, H., xxxvii («. ^), 76, 118 



iv. 22, pp. 85, 182 

ix. 25-27, p. xliii 

ix. 27-30, p. xxvii 

X. 2, pp. xxiii, 17 

X. 6, p. XXX 

x. 8, p. 181 

X. 10/.. p. 42 

X. II, p. 95 

X. 14, p. x.\iii 

xii. I, p. 115 (with n.*) 

xii. 10, p. 147 

xii. 16, p. 155 

xv-i. 7, p. 154 

xxi. 33, p. 175 

xxii., p. 153 

xxiv. 62, p. xii 

XXV. 3, 18, pp. xi, XXX 

XXV. 6, xxix. I, p. 175 

xxvi. I, p. XXX 

xxxv. 22, p. 169 

xxxvi. 23, p. 154 

xliii. II, p. 148 

xlviii. 22, p. 150 

xlix., p. 163 

xlix. 3/, p. 169 

xlix. 8/., p. 170 

xlix. 10, p. 171 

xlix. II, 13, pp. 155, 158 

xlix. II, p. 181 

xlix. 13, p. 177 

xlix. 13-15, p. 176 

xlix. 20/., p. 181 


iii. I, pp. 164/. 
iii. 2, p. 17s 
iii. 8, p. 148 
iv. I, p. 165 
xii. 23, p. 76 
xiii. 3^, p. 117 
xiii. 12, p. 150 
xiii. 20, p. 165 
xvi. 21, p. Ill 

XX., pp. 102/. 
XX. 22-xxiii. 33, p. 104 
XX. 23-25, p. 112 
XX. 24, pp. 105, 114 
xxi. 2, p. 72 
xxii. 8, p. 106 
xxii. 19, p. 105 
xxiii. 15, p. 107 {n. ') 
xxiii. 19 d, p. 105 
xxiii. 20-33, p. 106 
xxiii. 28, p. 107 
xxviii. 19, p. xxix 
xxxii. 20, p. 114 
xxxiii. 14, p. 107 
xxxiv. 4, 28, p. loi 
xxxiv. 15, p. 181 
xxxiv. 17-26, p. loi 


xvii. 7, p. 161 
xxiii. 42/, p. 118 


xi. 5, p. 148 

xii., p. 127 

xiii. 23, p. 147 

xiii. 27, p. 148 

XX. I, p. 116 

XX. 5, p. 147 

XX. 10, p. 128 

xxi. 9, p. 85 

xxi. II, p. 163 

xxi. 20, p. 143 

xxii. I, p. 115 

xxii. 5, p. 171 

xxiii. 7, p. xxxiv 

xxiv. 17, pp. xxvii, 162 

xxiv. 20, p. XXX 
xxvi. 38, p. xxix 
xxvii. 12, p. 163 
xxxi. 8, p. 182 
xxxii., pp. 179/; 
xxxiii. 36, p. 166 
xxxiii. 44, p. 163 



i. i-iv. 43, pp. 133^ 
i. I/, pp. 133/: 

>■ 5. PP- 13s. 182 

i. 6-8, p. 136 

ii. 10-12, pp. 136/. 

ii. 18, p. 137 

ii. 20-23, PP- 137/ 

ii. 24-iii. II, p. 138 

ii. 34, iii. 6, p. 140 

iii. 4d, pp. 139/ 

iii. 9, p. 140 

iii. 146, p. 142 

iii. 16/. pp. 143/ 

iii. 17, p. 166 

iv. 20, pp. xviii, 141, 144, 

iv. 44-xi., pp. 145^ 
iv. 49, p. 166 
v., p. 103 
V. 6-10, p. 145 
vi. 4/., pp. 145/ 
vii. 12-15, PP- 146. 149 
viii. 7-9, pp. 146/: 
ix. i/, p. 150 
xi. 6, p. 173 
xi. 10-12, pp. 146/! 
xi. 10, p. no 
xi. 24, pp. 108, 150 
xi. 30, pp. 151/., 174 
xii.-xxvi., pp. no, \\2ff., 

xii. 5, etc., pp. no, 114 
xii. II a, p. 115 («. ®) 
xiii. 6, p. 116 
xiv. 21, pp. 120/. 
XV. 12, p. 72 
xvi. 1-15, pp. WT ff. 
xvi. 21, pp. Ill, 113 
xvii. 14-20, p. 129 
xvii. 16, p. no 
xviii. 10/, pp. 123/ 
XX. I, p. 130 
xxii. 5, pp. 119-121 
xxii. 6/., p. 109 


xxii. 9-1 1, pp. 120/. 
xxiii. 2(1), pp. 126/. 
xxiii. 3 (2), p. 126 
xxiii. 4-6, p. 15 
xxiv. 9, pp. 127/; 
XXV. 4, p. 109 
XXV. 17-19, pp. 127/. 
XXV. 17, p. 127 
xxvi. 1-15, pp. 128/. 
xxvi. 5, pp. 129, 131 
xxvii. -xxxiv. , pp. 153 j^ 
xxvii. 2, 4, 8, pp. 153/ 
xxvii. 11-13, p. 151 
xxviii., pp. 154/ 
xxxi. 20, p. 159 
xxxi. 26, p. 15 
xxxii., pp. 155^ 
x.xxii. 5-10, pp. 155/ 
xxxii. 10, 13, p. 157 
xxxii. 14/., pp. 158-160 
xxxii. 17, pp. i6of. 
xxxii. 20 f., 32, p. 161 
xxxii. 42 i^, p. 155 
xxxii. 42/;, pp. 162, 167 
xxxii. 48-52, pp. 162/. 
xxxiii. 2-5, 26-29, PP- 

xxxiii. 2, pp. 134, 164-167 
xxxiii. 26, p. 167 
xxxiii. 6, pp. 167-170 
xxxiii. 7, pp. 170-172 
xxxiii. 8-1 1, pp. 172/. 
xxxiii. 12, p. 173 
xxxiii. 13-17, pp. 173-176 
xxxiii. 18/"., pp. 176-178 
xxxiii. 20/"., pp. 178-180 
xxxiii. 22, p. 180 
xxxiii. 23, pp. 180/. 
xxxiii. 24/., pp. 181/. 
xxxiv., p. 183 
xxxiv. 2, p. 184 
xxxiv. ^f., p. 183 


viii. 33, p. 151 
xi. 22, p. xxii 
xiii. 21, p. 182 
XV. 54, p. 159 


i. 16, p. 65 

V. 4, pp. 164/ 

V. 10, p. 155 

v. 18, p. 177 

X. 4, p. 139 

xiv. 3, XV. 18, p. xxii 

XV. 19, p. 85 

XX. 48, p. 142 

I Samuel 

i.-iv. , p. 24 
i. I, p. xxiv 

11. 29, p. 159 

ii. 36, pp. xliv/. , 24 (with 

vii. 14, p. xxii 

X. 27, p. xlv 

xiii. 19/., p. 67 («. ^), 149 

XV. 9, p. xlv 

xvii. 12, p. xxiii 

xxiv. 14, xxvi. 20, p. xii 

XXV. 43, p. xxiii 

xxvii. 10, XXX. 14, p. xxvii 

xxviii. 7, p. 125 

XXX. 16, p. xxi 

XXX. 26, 29, p. 28 [n. 2) 

2 Samuel 

V. 25, p. xxiii 
xvii. 25, p. xxiii 

1 Kings 

iii. 28, p. 99 

iv. 3, p. 99 («.i) 

iv. 13, p, 181 

V. 6, X. 26, p. 130 

v. 10/, p. 63 («. *) 

vii. 21, p. 21 

vii. 46, p. 149 

X. 18, p. xiv 

xi. 40, p. 87 

xiii. 2, p. 29 

xiii. 30, p. 55 

xiv. 23/!, p. 119 

xiv. 25/., p. 86 

xvii. 24 ff., p. 29 («. ^) 

xviii. 26, p. 117 

xix. 3/., p. 165 

xix. 8, p. 164 

xix. 15, p. 38 

xxi. 27, p. 125 

2 Kings 

vii. 6, p. xiv 

xi. 14, p. 21 

xii. 14-16, p. 8 

xiii. i8, p. 45 

xiv. 7, p. xxxiii 

xvii. 6, pp. 29, 88/. 

xvii. 30, pp. 58, 119 

xviii. i^b, pp. 85, 177 

xviii. 13(^-16, p. 89 

xviii. 13-xix. , p. 89 

xviii. 24, p. 90 

xviii. 25, p. 60 (//. 1), 89 

xviii. 32, pp. 113, 148 

xix. 2, p. 16 

xix. 35, pp. 5 («. 1), 17 

XX. 12, p. 58 

xxi. 3-5, p. 25 
xxii. 14, p. 18 
xxii. 15-20, p. 20 
xxiii. 1-3, p. 21 
xxiii. 8, pp. 26, 114 


10, p. 24 


11-13, p. 131 


21-23, P- 30 


24, p. 125 


25, p. 8 


29, pp. 34, 37 


30, p. 44 


I, pp. 56, 62 


2, pp. 62/, 155 


7. P- 66 


16, p. 60 

I Chronicles 

"• 25-33, P- xxii 

iii. 17/, p. 68 

iv. 8, 

p. 17 («••') 

iv. 40, p. XXX 

V. 9/., p. 169 

v. 23 

p. 140 

viii. II, p. xxix 

ix. 4c 

, p. 166 

xi. 21 

, p. 147 («.3) 

xii. 8 

p. 178 


16, p. 99 («.i) 

2 Chronicles 

xi. 15, p. 161 
xii. 3, p. 87 
xxviii. 12, p. 17 
xxxiii. II, pp. 56, 58 
xxxiv. 6/, 33, p. 26 [n.'^) 
XXXV. 21, p. 60 («. ^) 
xxxv. 24, p. 39 
XXXV. 25, p. 41 («. 1) 
xxxvi. 6, p. 62 
xxxvi. 8, p. 66 
xxxvi. 23, p. 38 


ii. , p. xxv. 

viii. 27, p. 147 («. ^) 


»• 55. P- 65 («.•■•) 

iii., p. xxvi. 

iii. 31/., pp. 95, 169 (;/.4) 

vii., p. xxv 

vii. 33, p. 163 

vii. 57, p. 65 («.3) 

viii. 14-17, p. 118 

viii. 15, p. 113 

ix. 25, p. 159 

xiii. 1-3, pp. 15, 127 

xiii. 23/., p. xxvi. 


iii. 5, p. 23 («.■*) 
ix. 13, p. 75 
xxix. 6, p. 181 
xxxix. 5-8, p. xii 



iii. 8, vii. 6, p. 162 

XV. I, xix. 5, p. 177 («. ^) 

xxviii. 8, p. 164 [n. *) 

xxxi. 7, p. 160 • 

Ixviii. , p. 162 

Ixviii. 8, p. 164 

Ixviii. 31, p. 74 

Ixxii. 8, pp. 108, 151 

Ixxii. 16, p. 174 

Ixxviii. 51, p. xviii 

Ixxviii. 70, p. 159 

Ixxxi. 17, p. 159 

civ. 15, p. 148 

cvi. 19/., 37, p. 160 

cxviii. 17, p. 168 

cxxii. , cxxv. , cxxxiii. , 

cxxxiv. , p. Ill 
cxlvii. 14, p. 159 


vii. 28, p. xi 


iii. 6, p. 95 
iv. 8, p. 140 


ii. 6, pp. 23, 157 

viii. 19, pp. 124/. 

X. 5, p. xxix 

x. 9-1 1, p. 40 

X. 27-32, p. 64 

X. 27, p. 148 

xi. II, pp. 142, 159 («.i) 

xiv. 12, p. 157 

xiv. 13, 31, p. 42 

xvii. 2, p. 137 

xvii. 10, p. 75 («.■*) 

xix., pp. 124/". 

XX., p. 88 

xxvii. I, p. 85 

xxviii. 1-4, p. 88 

xxviii. I, p. xlvii 

xxix. 4, pp. 124-126 

XXX. 6, p. 142 {«. ') 

XXXV. 7, p. 142 

xlvi. I, p. 163 

xlvii. I, p. 58 

xlvii. 7, p. 175 (n."^) 

Ivii. 5, p. 114 

Ivii. 8, p. 106 

Ivii. 15, p. 17s («.2) 

Ixvi. 20, p. 30 


i. 13-15, p. 42 
i. 15, p. 60 
ii. II, p. 135 (n.'^) 
ii. 28 b, p. 33 
iii. 18, p. 59 

iv. 5/, vi. I, p. 64 
iv. 13, p. 41 

V. 7. P- 33 

vi. 1-22, p. 42 

vi. I, p. 59 

vi. 15, p. 78 

vi. 22, p, 64 

vi. 23-26(2, pp. 41/. 

vii. 3-15, p. 48 («.2) 

vii. 3-viii. 3, p. 48 

vii. 9, 18, p. 46 

vii. 17/., pp. 34, 75, 119 

viii. 8, p. 33 

X. 22, p. 59 

xi. 1-8, p. 32 

xi- 15- P- 33 

xiii. 18-21, p. 66 

XV. 12, p. 149 

xvi. 15, P- 59 

xvii. 2, p. 47 [n. ^) 

xix. 4/., p. 25 

xxii. 1-5, 6/, p. 51 («.5) 

xxii. 10-19, xxiv, xxviii, 

XXX, pp. 49^ 
xxii. 13-19, 24-30, pp. 90_^ 
xxii. 18/., p. 66 («.2) 
xxii. 24, 25-27, p. 66 {n. *) 
xxiii. 14, p. 78 
xxiv., p. 71 
xxiv. I, xxix. 2, p. 67 

xxiv. 17/, pp. 72, 75 

XXV. 25, p. 126 (with n.*) 

XXV. 38, p. 43 («. 1) 

xxvi. , p. 48 

xxvi. 20-23, P- 5^ i"-^) 

xxvi. 23, p. 82 

xxvii. 2, p. 77 

xxvii. 3, p. 76 

xxvii. 17, p. 80 

xxviii. 1-4, pp. 77, 80 

xxix. , p. 79 

xxix. 22/;, p. 60 

xxxii. 6-15, p. 83 

xxxii. 35, p. 25 

xxxiv. , p. 72 

xxxiv. 4/!, p. 63 

XXXV. , p. 64 

xxxvi., pp. 47/". 

xxxvii. 3, 17, xxxviii. 14, p. 

xxxvii. 5, pp. 73 («. 1), 80 
xxxvii. 13, xxxviii. 6, 19, 

p. 82 
xxxix. 3, p. 84 
xxxix. 6/., p. 83 
xxxix. 11 f., p. 60 
xxxix. 13, p. 57 
xli. 5, pp. 28, III 
xliv. 17^, pp. 72, 75 
xliv. 30, p. 80 
xlvi. 6, p. 42 

xlvi. 16, p. 43 («. ^) 
1. (i) 8, p. 57 
1. 16, p. 43 («. 1) 
Ii. 41, p. 58 
Ii. 59, p. 79 
Iii. 15, p. 82 

i. 4, p. 164 
viii., ix., pp. 73^ 
viii. 16, p. 25 
ix. 2, p. 76 
xii. 13, p. 71 
xiii., p. 77 
.xiv. 5, p. 73 
xiv. 22/., p. 71 
XV. , p. 71 
xvi. 3, 29, p. 95 
xvii. 3/., pp. 67, 94 
xvii. 5-21, p. 70 
xviii. 6, p. 75 
xix. 1-4, p. 49 
xix. 5-9, p. 71 
XX. 26, p. 25 
.xxi. 24^, pp. 60/., 67 
xxii. 27, p. 72 («. ^) 
xxvi. 7, p. 59 («.•*) 
xxvii. II, p. 17 
xxvii. 13, p. 155 
xxvii. 23, p. xi 
xxix. 3, p. 85 
xxxviii. 2, p. 162 
xxxviii. -xxxix. , p. 59 
xxxviii. 6, p. 17 

i. 2, p. 62 
X. 5, p. 76 


ii. 10 (8), p. 103 
iv. II, p. xlvii 
iv. 13, p. 113 
X. 5, p. 23 («.•*) 
X. 14, p. 51 («.3) 
xi. 4, p. 125 
xi. 5, p. 130 
xii. 12, p. 160 
xiii. 15, p. 113 


ii. 20, p. 151 
iv. 6, p. 155 


'■ 9. P- 15s 

i. 12, p. 165 

ii. 6, p. xlvi 

ii. 8, pp. 121 («. ^), 140 

ii. 10, p. 150 

iii. 12 b, p. 162 (n. ^) 

iv. 3, p. 162 

v. 26, p. 40 



I. p. 29 


ii. 5, p. 19 


2, p. 40 

i. 5-10, 14-17, ii. 1-4, p. 

ii. 11/, 12-15, P- 42 


7, pp. xxiii, XXXV 

i. 12, p. xlvii 

ii. 15, iii. I, pp. 42/. 


II, pp. xlvi/. 



i. 16, p. 94 


6, p. 60 («.i) 

ii. 2, pp. xlvii, 135 («. 2) 
ii. 4, p. 63 

ii. 10. pp. 57, 59 
vi. I, p. 149 


ii. s/., pp. xlvii, 64 

vii. 2, p. 18 


12, p. 49 

iii. 3, p. 164 

vii. 9, p. 172 


5, p. 181 

iii. 6, p. 175 («. ^) 

ix. 10, pp. 108, 151 


i,b, p. 128 

iii. 7, p. 177 \nS) 

xiv. 8, p. 151 


16, pp. 99, 119, 131 

xiv. 9, p. 146 





i. 4, p. 23 («.*) 

i. 28, p. 38 («.2) 

8-11, p. 39 

i. 8, p. 123 


8, 17, p. 40 

i. 10, p. 18 

19. P- 39 

i. II, pp. 25, 94 

vi. 6,' p. 140 


Printed by R. & R. Ci.ark, Limited, Edinburgh. 






Demy Svo. Cloth. Price "IQjm net. Post Free, Price 15^-. 5^, 


" It should commend itself to all who have the interests of learning at heart. It is a 
monument of patient painstaking and comprehensive workmanship." — The Nation. 

' ' The reader of the book must be amazed at its truly encyclopaedic stores of facts. . . . 
The erudition expended in the investigation and the comparison of myths is prodigious, and 
the volume is, in this respect, a splendid feast to the reader. ... A masterpiece of 
learning. " — Homiletic Review. 

' ' All scholars ought to acknowledge the erudition, candour, and boldness which 
characterise every part of the work." — Tke Athenceum. 

' ' This volume is a masterpiece of careful and scholarly exegesis.- It will be attacked. 
It will rouse furious hatred. But in a generation's time it will be the standard text-book on 
Genesis and Exodus." — Liverpool Daily Post. 



Demy Svo. Cloth. Price 15/- ^^^' ^^^^ Free, Price x^s. ^d. 

Part I. ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH, /nV^ 2s. bd. net. 
Part II. EZEKIEL AND MINOR PROPHETS, ^r/r^ 3.?. «^/. 
Part III. THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL, //vV^ 2>s. net. 
Part IV. THE BOOKS OF KINGS, price is. net. 
Part V. JOSHUA AND JUDGES, price is. net. 

Published by 


A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by the Rev, T. K. Cheyne, D. Litt., D.D., 
and J. Sutherland Black, M.A., LL.D., assisted by many contributors in 
Great Britain, Europe, and America. Complete in four vols. Super royal 
8vo. (ii by 7f inches). Vol. I., A to D ; Vol. II., E to K ; Vol. III., L to 
P ; Vol. IV., Q to Z. 

Bound in cloth, Half leather. Full library leather, 

price 20s. net per vol. price 25s. net per vol. price 30s. net per vol. 


It has been reckoned that the *' Encyclopaedia Biblica " contains about five millions 
of words, or as much as twelve volumes of the "Dictionary of National Biography." 
Ninety-six specialists have been engaged upon it, and the work is international and 
unsectarian. Roughly, it may be said that over a third of the writers belong to England, 
nearly a third to Scotland, Ireland, or America, and exactly a third to Germany, Holland, 
or France. 

Some of the more important features of the work are : (i) The elaborate system of 
cross-references, which enables one to extract from an article more than its name seems to 
promise. (2) The maps, which have all been specially engraved for the book, and form 
a collection unequalled at the present time. The different kinds of names — Ancient, 
Modern, Biblical, Classical — are differentiated typographically, and each map bears its 
index on its back. (3) The illustrations, which have been chosen with great care to 
supplement the accounts given on such subjects as agriculture, architecture, coinage, 
music, pottery, war, weaving. 

The work is a singularly weighty contribution to the Biblical science of the time, and 
it will be impossible to understand the movement of thought on Biblical subjects during 
the next quarter of a century without taking account of the " Encyclopaedia Biblica." 


Professor Poake, in HMert Journal. — "The 'Encyclopaedia Biblica' has been recognised by those 
most competent to pronounce an opinion as one of the most valuable and stimulating works on the Bible 
ever published. Brilliantly edited, pressing into its service many of the ablest Biblical scholars of our 
time, packed with information, much of it nowhere so readily accessible, precise and finished in scholar- 
ship, beautifully produced, it has proved itself a treasured companion to the worker who keeps it in 
constant use." 

Rev. Principal A. M. Falrbaim, D.D., in the Speaker.— ^'^lo say the ' Encyclopaedia Biblica' is a 
model of laborious and careful editing, a credit alike to printers and publishers, and to all concerned in its 
production, is but to verify a truism. There is not anywhere in it a careless article, hardly even a careless 
line. The editors do Inot seem to have allowed themselves the privilege of Homer and occasionally 
nodded. Their love of accuracy may be described as almost a passion, and is sure to make this Encyclo- 
paedia pre-eminently the scholar's work of reference." 

Dr. Sanday, referring to various articles in "Encyclopaedia Biblica," said: "All these articles are 
significant ; they are significant in the history of German as well as of English theology, for I do not think 
that the views expressed had ever been stated in quite so trenchant a manner." 

Guardian. — " It is a mine of curious and out-of-the-way information, and the articles are never 
common-place. " 

Cbrlstian World. — " Whatever, however, may be the verdict of the future, there is no question that 
for the English Biblical student of to-day this work is one of unique value. It will be well for him, in the 
interests of a full conspectus of points of view, to have others on his shelves, but he cannot afford to be 
without this.," 

Published by 


UNIVERSFTV nir r-ATTr-^,,^,, . 

University of California 


305 De Neve Drive - Parlcing Lot 17 • Box 951388 


Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. 

APR I 6 2007 

DS U7. C429D ' 



_ mn 






University Research Library 





1 Z