Skip to main content

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

See other formats


7 


S^ 


THE  DECLINE  AND  FALL 
OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


THE   TRADITIONS   AND   BELIEFS 
OF   ANCIENT   ISRAEL 

A  NEW  STUDY  OF  GENESIS  AND  EXODUS 
Demy  Zvo.     Cloth.     Price  1 5S«  net. 


CRITICA   BIBLICA 

Demy  Zvo.     Cloth.     Price  1 5Sa  »et. 

OR    IN    FIVE   SEPARATE   PARTS,    VIZ. 

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. 

A.  &  C.  BLACK,  SOHO  SQUARE,  LONDON,  W. 


THE 

DECLINE   AND    FALL 

OF  THE 

KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 


BY 


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

FELLOW   OF   THE    BRITISH    ACADEMY 

LATE   ORIEL   PROFESSOR   OF    INTERPRETATION    IN   OXFORD    UNIVERSITY 

AND   CANON   OF   ROCHESTER 


LONDON 

ADAM    AND    CHARLES    BLACK 

1908 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/declinefallofkinOOcheyiala 


DS 

117 


PREFACE 


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 
great. 

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 


vi        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction ix 


PART    I 

THE  DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  THE  KINGDOM 
OF  JUDAH 

CHAPTER    I 
Introductory — From  Hezekiah  to  Josiah        ...        3 

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

CHAPTER   III 

HULDAH   THE   PROPHETESS    AND   THE    REFORMATION         .  .  1 6 

CHAPTER  IV 

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

Fear  of  the  North  Arabians 32 

CHAPTER   V 

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 

vii 


viii      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 
CHAPTER    VI 

PAGE 

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

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

PART   II 
THE  LAW-BOOKS  (EXCEPTING  THE   PRIESTLY  CODE) 

CHAPTER    I 
The  Two  Decalogues — The  Book  of  Covenant      .        .       99 

CHAPTER    II 
Deuteronomy — Introductory 109 

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

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

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

CHAPTER   VI 
Concluding  Sections  (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 153 

Index 185 


INTRODUCTION 

THE  '  JERAHMEELITE  ^  THEORY'  A  MISTAKEN  NAME  FOR 
A  GENUINE  THING,  WITH  AN  ANSWER  TO  CRITICS, 
AND    OTHER    PRELIMINARIES 

I 

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.' 


X         DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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.' 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

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). 


xii       DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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/ 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

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.^ 

II 

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. 


xiv      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

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 


xvi      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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  ? 


INTRODUCTION  '  xvii 

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, 
1908. 

b 


xviii     DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 

HI 

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, 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

'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. 


XX        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  xxi 

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. 


xxii     DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  xxiii 

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/). 


xxiv     DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


IV 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  xxv 

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. 


xxvi     DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  xxvii 

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. 


xxviii    DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  xxix 

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). 


XXX      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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). 


INTRODUCTION  xxxi 

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 
Israel. 

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 


xxxii    DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  xxxiii 

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. 


VI 

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). 

c 


xxxiv  DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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°- 


INTRODUCTION  xxxv 

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). 


xxxvi  DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 
466-508. 

*  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. 


INTRODUCTION  xxxvii 

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. 

352/ 


xxxviii  DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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


VII 

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 
prejudice. 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  xxxix 

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. 


xl        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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)- 


INTRODUCTION  xli 


VIII 

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/ 


xlii      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
difference. 

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/ 


INTRODUCTION  xliii 

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 
criticism. 

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 
overlords.' 

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. 


xliv     DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  xlv 

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 


xlvi     DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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.' 


INTRODUCTION  xlvii 

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 
border-kingdoms. 

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. 


xlviii   DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


PART    I 

THE  DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  THE  KINGDOM 
OF  JUDAH 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTORY FROM    HEZEKIAH   TO   JOSIAH 

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 

3 


4  DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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). 


INTRODUCTORY— FROM  HEZEKIAH  TO  JOSIAH        5 

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 
redactor. 


6         DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


INTROD  UCTOR  Y—FROM  HEZEKIAH  TO  JOS  I  A  H        7 

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.' 


CHAPTER    II 

THE    STORY    OF   THE    FINDING    OF    THE    BOOK 

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. 
8 


THE  STORY  OF  THE  FINDING  OF  THE  BOOK  9 

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  a.re  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. 


lo        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 


THE  STORY  OF  THE  FINDING  OF  THE  BOOK        ii 

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 


12        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


THE  STORY  OF  THE  FINDING  OF  THE  BOOK        13 

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.] 


14        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


THE  STORY  OF  THE  FINDING  OF  THE  BOOK         15 

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. 


CHAPTER    III 

HULDAH    THE    PROPHETESS   AND    THE    REFORMATION 

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 

16 


HULDAH  THE  PROPHETESS  &^  THE  REFORMATION    17 

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 
text. 

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. 

2 


1 8        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

(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 — 


HULDAH  THE  PROPHETESS  &>  THE  REFORMATION    19 

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 
Introduction. 


20        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


HULDAH  THE  PROPHETESS  &-  THE  REFORMATION    21 

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^ 


22        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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). 


HULDAH  THE  PROPHETESS  &-  THE  REFORMATION    23 

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. 


24        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


HULDAH  THE  PROPHETESS  cS-  THE  REFORMATION    25 

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. 


36        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
evidence. 

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. 


HULDAH  THE  PROPHETESS  &-  THE  REFORMATION    27 

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. 


28        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


HULDAH  THE  PROPHETESS  b-  THE  REFORMATION    29 

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  ? 


30        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


HULDAH  THE  PROPHETESS  &^  THE  REFORMATION    31 

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 
important. 


CHAPTER    IV 

JEREMIAH'S    ATTITUDE.       JOSIAH'S    DEFEAT    AND    DEATH. 
FEAR    OF    THE    NORTH    ARABIANS 

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 
religion. 

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 

32 


JEREMIAH'S  ATTITUDE— JOSI AH' S  DEATH  33 

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. 

3 


34        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
connexion. 

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. 


JEREMIAH'S  ATTITUDE— JOSIAH'S  DEATH  35 

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 
scarabs. 

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. 


36        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
Euphrates. 

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). 


JEREMIAHS  A TTITUDE—JOSIAH'S  DEA TH  yj 

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 
district.^ 

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). 


38        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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/). 


JEREMIAH'S  ATTITUDE— JOSI Airs  DEATH  39 

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.' 


40        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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  / 


JEREMIAfTS  A  TTITUDE—JOSIAITS  DBA  TH  4 1 

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 
Arabia.'^ 

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 
Zion. 

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 
Ishmael.) 

^  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. 


42        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


JEREMIAH'S  A  TTITUDE—JOSIAH'S  DEA  TH  43 

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. 


CHAPTER   V 

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. 

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-». 

44 


JEHOAHAZ—JEHOIAKIM  IN  HISTORY  &-  PROPHECY    45 

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. 


46        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


JEHOAHAZ—JEHOIAKIM  IN  HISTORY  6-  PROPHECY    47 

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/. 


48        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


JEHOAHAZ—JEHOIAKIM  IN  HISTORY  Sf'  PROPHECY    49 

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 
epitomes. 

Of  the  successor  of  Jehoahaz  Jeremiah  gives  us  a  more 

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

4 


50        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


JEHOAHAZ—JEHOIAKIM  IN  HISTORY  ^  PROPHECY    51 

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. 


52        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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). 


JEHOAHAZ—JEHOIAKIM  IN  HISTORY  &-•  PROPHECY    53 

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. 


54        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
friends. 

*   T.  and  B.  p.  377. 


JEHOAHAZ-JEHOIAKIM  IN  HISTORY  ^  PROPHECY    55 

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  ? 


CHAPTER    VI 

JEHOIAKIM     {continued^ THE     INVASION     (OR     INVASIONS) 

THE   TWO   BABELS JEHOIACHIN JEREMIAH'S  AND 

EZEKIEL'S    UTTERANCES JEHOIACHIN 'S    CAPTIVITY 

TURN    IN    HIS    FORTUNES 

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. 

56 


JEHOIAKIM— INVASION— JEHOIACHIISPS  CAPTIVITY     57 

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. 


58        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
Babylonians, 

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 
capital. 

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. 


JEHOIAKIM— INVASION— JEHOIACHIN'S  CAPTIVITY     59 

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). 


6o        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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, 


JEHOIAKIM— INVASION— JEHOIACHIN'S  CAPTIVITY    6i 

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. 


62        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


JEHOIAKIM— INVASION— JEHOIACHIN'S  CAPTIVITY    63 

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 
wisdom.^ 

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. 


64        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
Habakkuk. 

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 


JEHOIAKIM— INVASION— JEHOIACHIN'S  CAPTIVITY    65 

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. 

5 


66        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 

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

thence.* 

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., 
Yekonyahu. 

*  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. 


JEHOIAKIM— INVASION— JEHOIACHIN'S  CAPTIVITY     67 

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.' 


68        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


JEHOIAKIM— INVASION— JEHOIACHlJSnS  CAPTIVITY    69 

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 
realised. 

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. 


CHAPTER    VII 

ZEDEKIAH MORALITY    AND    RELIGION — EZEK.    VIII. 

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. 

70 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.   VIII  71 

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. 


72        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.   VIII  73 

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. 


74        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.   VIII  75 

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. 


76       DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.  VIII  77 

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 
anger. 

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  @. 


78        DECUNE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
customs. 

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


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.   VIII   79 

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. 


8o        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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). 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.  VIII  8i 

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. 

6 


82        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.   VIII  83 

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/. 


84        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

'  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. 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.   VIII  85 

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


SPECIAL    NOTES 

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 


86        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

*  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. 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.   VIII  87 

(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. 


88        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
edition). 

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). 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.   VIII  89 

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). 


90        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.   VIII   91 

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. 


92        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.   VIII  93 

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. 


94        DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 


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. 


ZEDEKIAH— MORALITY  AND  RELIGION— EZEK.   VIII  95 

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). 


PART    II 
THE  LAW-BOOKS   (excepting  the  Priestly  Code) 


CHAPTER    I 

THE   TWO   DECALOGUES — THE   BOOK   OF   COVENANT 

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. 

99 


icxj      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 


THE  TWO  DECALOGUES— THE  BOOK  OF  CO  VENANT     loi 

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. 


102      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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  TWO  DECALOGUES— THE  BOOK  OF  CO  VENANT     103 

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. 


104      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


THE  TWO  DECALOGUES— THE  BOOK  OF  COVENANT     105 

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, 


io6      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


THE  TWO  DECALOGUES— THE  BOOK  OF  CO  VENANT     107 

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. 


io8      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


CHAPTER    II 

DEUTERONOMY INTRODUCTORY 

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. 

109 


no      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
examination. 

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. 


DE  UTERONOM  Y—INTROD  UCTOR  Y  in 

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. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE    LEGISLATIVE    KERNEL   (CHAPS.  XII.-XXVI.) 

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). 

8 


114      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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

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 
critic. 

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. 


Ii6      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
Deuteronomy. 

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). 


Ii8      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
explained.^ 

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. 


I20      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
Ishmaelite.' 

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. 


122      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


124      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
spells.^ 

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 
cultus. 


126      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
goddess.' 

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 
Miriam,' 


128      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


130      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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). 


132      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   FIRST   PREAMBLE  (l.  I -IV.  43) 

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. 

133 


134      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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, 
forgotten. 

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. 


136      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

"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. 


138      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


140      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 
0  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). 


142      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

(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. 


144      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
Yerahme'el." 

^    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^. 


CHAPTER   V 

THE    SECOND    PREAMBLE   (IV.  44-XI.) 

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 


146      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


THE  SECOND  PREAMBLE  (iv.  44.XI.)  147 

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/. 


148      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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/ 


ISO      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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). 


152      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
Moreh.' 

1   T.  and  ^.  p.  273.  2  /^/^.  p.  276. 

3  Ibid.  p.  221.  •*  Dillmann  has  already  noticed  this. 


CHAPTER    VI 

CONCLUDING   SECTIONS    (XXVII.-XXXIV.) 

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). 

153 


154      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

anticipation  of  the  sacrifices  one  day  to  be  offered  on 
Asshur-Yerahme'el.^ 

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- 
Ishmael. 

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 
deliverance. 

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. 


156      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 

*  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. 


158      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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, 


i6o      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
glosses. 

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. 


i62      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
disappeared. 

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. 


i64      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


i66      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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- 
Yerahme'el. 

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 


i68      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
text. 

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.' 


170      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
glosses. 

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 
1906. 


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. 


172      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

Hear,  O  Yahweh,  the  voice  of  Judah, 
And  bring    him    in  (triumphantly)  to  Aram  [that  is, 
Yerahme'el], 

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 
months. 

Driver  finds  here  an  allusion  to  '  the  various  crops  of  fruits. 


174      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


176      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 
brethren. 

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. 


178      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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 


i8o      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


i83      DECUNE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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. 


i84      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 

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, 
David. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS   AND    NAMES 


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- 
123 

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, 

73/: 
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."^) 


18s 


1 86      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 


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  («.  ^), 

xlii 
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, 
116/ 

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, 

12 
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, 

xliii 
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 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS  AND  NAMES 


187 


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, 
xxxvii 

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, 
52/. 
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. 

31 
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  («.'), 

159 
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), 

.\lii 
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/. 


DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 


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, 

40/ 
No-Amon.     See  Nahum 

Og,  king  of  Bashan,  138/!,  141 
Olmstead,  A.  T.,  xiv,  xvii,  xx,  xxvi  («.^), 
xxxviii 

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, 
84 

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, 
89 


Ramshah,    or    Ramshak,    40,    91,    162 

(«.i) 
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, 

91 

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, 
89 
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 
(«.i) 

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 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS  AND  NAMES 


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, 
163 

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, 
167 
Yam-Pelishtim  (?),  107/. 
Yam-Suph  (?),  107  ;  cp.  134 


Yaman  or  Yawan,   meaning  and  origin 

of,  41,  150;   cp.  xvi,  xxxv/.,  167, 

184 
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, 
76 

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 


INDEX   OF    BIBLICAL   AND   COGNATE 
LITERARY   PASSAGES 


Genesis 

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 

Exodus 

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 

Leviticus 

xvii.  7,  p.  161 
xxiii.  42/,  p.  118 

Numbers 

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 

(«.i) 
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 

191 


Deuteronomy 

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, 

146 
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., 

.131 
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 


192      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 


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- 

163^ 
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 

Joshua 

viii.  33,  p.  151 
xi.  22,  p.  xxii 
xiii.  21,  p.  182 
XV.  54,  p.  159 

JUDGE.S 

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 


XXIII. 

10,  p.  24 

xxiii. 

11-13,  p.  131 

xxiii. 

21-23,  P-  30 

xxiii. 

24,  p.  125 

xxiii. 

25,  p.  8 

xxiii. 

29,  pp.  34,  37 

xxiii. 

30,  p.  44 

xxiv. 

I,  pp.  56,  62 

xxiv. 

2,  pp.  62/,  155 

xxiv. 

7.  P-  66 

xxiv. 

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 

xviii. 

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 

Ezra 

ii. ,  p.  xxv. 

viii.  27,  p.  147  («.  ^) 

Nehemiah 

»•  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. 

Job 

iii.  5,  p.  23  («.■*) 
ix.  13,  p.  75 
xxix.  6,  p.  181 
xxxix.  5-8,  p.  xii 


BIBLICAL  AND  COGNATE  LITERARY  PASSAGES     193 


Psalms 

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 

ECCLESIASTES 

vii.  28,  p.  xi 

Canticles 

iii.  6,  p.  95 
iv.  8,  p.  140 

Isaiah 

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 

Jeremiah 

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. 

72 
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 

Ezekiel 
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 

Daniel 
i.  2,  p.  62 
X.  5,  p.  76 

HOSEA 

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 

Joel 

ii.  20,  p.  151 
iv.  6,  p.  155 

Amos 

'■  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 


194      DECLINE  AND  FALL  OF  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH 


vi. 

I.  p.  29 

Habakkuk 

ii.  5,  p.  19 

vi. 

2,  p.  40 

i.   5-10,   14-17,   ii.    1-4,   p. 

ii.  11/,  12-15,  P-  42 

ix. 

7,  pp.  xxiii,  XXXV 

64 
i.  12,  p.  xlvii 

ii.  15,  iii.  I,  pp.  42/. 

ix. 

II,  pp.  xlvi/. 

Zechariah 

Jonah 

i.  16,  p.  94 

iii. 

6,  p.  60  («.i) 

ii.  2,  pp.  xlvii,  135  («.  2) 
ii.  4,  p.  63 

ii.  10.  pp.  57,  59 
vi.  I,  p.  149 

MiCAH 

ii.  s/.,  pp.  xlvii,  64 

vii.  2,  p.  18 

Hi. 

12,  p.  49 

iii.  3,  p.  164 

vii.  9,  p.  172 

V. 

5,  p.  181 

iii.  6,  p.  175  («.  ^) 

ix.  10,  pp.  108,  151 

vi. 

i,b,  p.  128 

iii.  7,  p.  177  \nS) 

xiv.  8,  p.  151 

vi. 

16,   pp.   99,    119,    131 

xiv.  9,  p.  146 

(«.i) 

Zephaniah 

I  ESDRAS 

Nahum 

i.  4,  p.  23  («.*) 

i.  28,  p.  38  («.2) 

8-11,  p.  39 

i.  8,  p.  123 

Enoch 

8,  17,  p.  40 

i.  10,  p.  18 

19.  P-  39 

i.  II,  pp.  25,  94 

vi.  6,' p.  140 

THE    END 


Printed  by  R.  &  R.  Ci.ark,  Limited,  Edinburgh. 


OTHER  WORKS  BY  PROFESSOR  CHEYNE 

THE 

TRADITIONS  AND    BELIEFS 

OF 

ANCIENT    ISRAEL 

A  NEW  STUDY  OF  GENESIS  AND  EXODUS 
Demy  Svo.     Cloth.  Price  "IQjm  net.         Post  Free,  Price  15^-.  5^, 

SOME    PRESS    OPINIONS. 

"  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. 

* 

CRITICA    BIBLICA 

Demy  Svo.     Cloth.  Price  15/-  ^^^'        ^^^^  Free,  Price  x^s.  ^d. 

MAY  BE  HAD  IN  FIVE  PARTS 
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 
ADAM  AND  CHARLES  BLACK,  SOHO  SQUARE,   LONDON,  W. 


ENCYCLOP/EDIA  BIBLICA. 

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. 

NOTE 

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." 

SOME   OPINIONS   OF  THE   WORK. 

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 
ADAM  AND  CHARLES  BLACK,  SOHO  SQUARE,  LONDON,  W. 


'i 


UNIVERSFTV  nir  r-ATTr-^,,^,,  .    

University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parlcing  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


APR  I  6  2007 


DS     U7.       C429D    ' 


t 


PLEAfiE  DO   NOT    REMOVE 

_  mn 
THIS    BOOK  CARD."^ 


^ 


^^•IIBRARYQ^ 


m 


^ 


< 


University  Research  Library 


-"Ml 


-J 


TT 


T 

1  Z 
'\ 

r 


D 

o 

r