Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of the Hebrews"

See other formats 


mmmm^^ 


iEOLOGicAL Translation  Library 


El 

K!4 


r---%',v.^V'^:>'^, 


;:iJ*'   •^•'.„.'y 


-// 


5/6^^ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Section .<...r\^. 

Number      V.'..,.(^. 


^a. 


■M'^m  .^t'rmm^i^iimi'^i^iiM  -^ 


THEOLOGICAL    TRANSLATION    LIBRARY 


Edited  by  the  Rev.  T.  K.   CHEYNE,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Oriel  Professor 
OF    Interpretation,    Oxford  ;    and    the    Eev.    A.    B.    BRUCE,    D.D., 

Professor  of  Apologetics  and  New  Testament  Exegesis,  Free  Church 
College,  Glasgow. 


VOL.  VI. 
KITTEL'S  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS.       Vol.  II. 


A    HISTORY 

OF 

THE     HEBREWS 

/ 

By    E.    KITTEL 

ORDINARY   PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY   IN   THE   UNIVERSITY   OF  BRESLAU 

IN    TWO    VOLUMES 

VOL.  II. 

SOURCES  OF  INFORMATION  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE 

PERIOD  DOWN  TO  THE  BABYLONIAN  EXILE 

TRANSLATED  BY 

HOPE  W.  HOGG,  B.D.,  and  E.  B.  SPEIBS,  B.D. 


WILLIAMS    AND    NOBGATE 

14  HENRIETTA  STREET,  COVENT  GARDEN,  LONDON 

20  SOUTH  FREDERICK  STREET,  EDINBURGH 

AND  7  BROAD  STREET,  OXFORD 

1896 


Edinburgh  :  T.  and  A.  Constable,  Printers  to  Her  Majesty 


FEOM  THE  PREFACE  TO   THE   GERMAN 
EDITION. 

I  HAVE  often  been  asked  as  to  the  historical  limits  of  my  book. 
My  theme  has  been  the  history  of  the  Hebrews.  But  this 
terminates  amid  the  ruins  of  ancient  Jerusalem,  under  which 
we  may  say  that  the  ancient  Hebrew  people  found  its  grave. 
The  history  of  Israel,  it  is  true,  goes  farther ;  it  is  continued  in 
the  history  of  the  Jews,  and  has  not  yet  reached  its  end.  Perhaps 
I  may  some  day  find  time  and  opportunity  to  follow  up  the 
History  of  the  Hebrews  with  a  history  of  the  Jews,  at  least  in 
its  earlier  portion. 

The  analysis  of  the  text  of  the  Book  of  Kings  has  been  carried 
out  on  the  presuppositions  gained  from  the  analysis  of  the  Books 
of  Judges  and  Samuel,  of  which  I  have  given  the  results  in  the 
Translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  edited  by  Kautzsch  (1894). 
It  was  a  satisfaction  to  me  to  see  that,  starting  from  these  prin- 
ciples, I  reached  conclusions  quite  similar  to  those  reached  by  the 
translator  of  the  Book  of  Kings  in  Kautzsch's  work,  in  which  it 
should  be  noticed  that  the  symbol '  Sa '  (in  1  Kings)  corresponds 
to  my  own  symbol  '  So.' 

THE   AUTHOR 

Breslau,  May  1892. 

*^*  The  quotations  from  the  prophetical  books  in  this  volume  are 
in  accordance  with  the  Ptevised  Version.  Where  necessary, 
to  harmonise  the  version  with  Professor  Kittel's  German 
translation,  the  marginal  rendering  has  been  substituted 


vi  FKOM  THE  PREFACE  TO  THE  GERMAN  EDITION 

for  that  in  the  text  of  K.  V.  The  Editor  desires  to  acknow- 
ledge the  kind  assistance  of  Professor  Kittel  in  adding  to 
the  notes  the  most  necessary  references  to  recent  critical 
literature.  Some  slight  but  interesting  changes  of  opinion 
on  the  part  of  the  author  will  also  be  found  indicated 
among  those  additions.  In  constantly  growing  subjects 
like  the  historical  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,  such 
evidence  of  a  writer's  progressiveness  will  be  welcomed  by 
all  candid  readers. 


FURTHEK  ABBREVIATIONS 

(Continued  from  Vol.  i.  p.  x.) 


Baethgen,  Beitr.    . 
Bu(dde),  RiSa.       . 
Corp.  Inscr.  Sem.  [GIS. ) 
Corn(ill),  Grundr. 

Driver,  Introd. 

Notes     . 

Kautzsch 

KgSt 

Klost.  SaKo. 

Kuen(en)    . 

Mey(er),  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  . 

—  ^gypf,  • 

Pietschm.  Phon.    . 
Schrad(er),  KBibl. 


Beitrage  zur  semitisclien  Religionsgeschichte.     1888. 

Die  Biicher  Richter  und  Samuel.     1890. 

Corpus  Inscriptionura  Semiticarum. 

Grundriss  der  theol.  Wissenschaften.  Einleitung  ins 
Alte  Testament.     1891. 

Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament. 
First  Edition,  1891. 

Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Books  of  Samuel. 
With  an  Introduction.     1890. 

Die  heilige  Schrift  des  Alten  Testaments,  in  Verbin- 
dung  mit  Baethgen,  Guthe,  Kittel  u.  s.  w.,  hrsgb. 
von  E.  Kautzsch,  1894. 

Konigsberger  Studien. 

Die  Bucher  Samuelis  und  der  Kiinige,  von  A.  Kloster- 
mann,  1887. 

Historisch-kritische  Einleitung  (  =  Ond.-)  zum  AT. 
2nd  ed.  The  figures  following  the  number  of  the 
section  indicate  the  notes. 

Geschichte     des    Altertums.      Vol    I.      Ed.    Meyer, 

1884. 

Geschichte  des  alten  Agyptens.     Ed.  Meyer,  1887. 

Geschichte  der  Phunizier.     R.  Pietschmann,  1889. 

Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek.  Edited  by  Eberhard 
Schrader.     1889  :  still  in  progress. 


vm 

Sta(de),  Gesch. 

Stade2   . 
Tiele,  Gesch.  . 

Wellh.  Comp.^ 

Nachtr. 

TBS.     . 


FURTHER  ABBREVIATIONS 

.     Geschichte    des  Volkes  Israel.      B,    Stade.      Vol.  I. 

1887. 

.     The  second  impression  of  the  same  work. 

.  Babylonisch-assyrische  Geschichte.  Part  I.,  1886; 
Part  II.,  1888. 

.  Die  Composition  des  Hexateuchs  und  der  histori- 
schen  Biicher  des  AT. ,  von  J.  Wellhausen.  2nd  ed. , 
1889. 

Nachtrjige,  appended  to  the  above. 

.     Der  Text  der  Biicher  Samuelis.     1872. 


CONTENTS 


BOOK   II 

THE  PEE-MONAECHIC   AGE  AND   THE   FIEST  EEPEE- 
SENTATIVES  OF  THE  MONAECHY 


A.—SOUBCES  FOR    THIS  PERIOD. 
§  30.  The  Book  of  Judges     .  .  .  . 

I.   The  Stones  of  the  Judges. 

1.  The  so-called  Framework 

2.  The  Chronology  and  the  Minor  Judges 

3.  The  Hero-stories 


1 


2 

8 

14 


n.   The  Ap;pendices. 

1.  Chapters  xvii.  and  xviii. 

2.  Chapters  xix.-xxi. 

§31.  The  Books  of  Samuel  .... 

1.  Samuel  and  Saul:  1  Sam.  i.-xv. 

2.  Saul  and  David :  1  Sam.  xvi.-xxxi. 

3.  David  in  Hebron  and  Jerusalem:  2  Sam.  ii.-xx 

4.  The  Appendix  :  2  Sam.  xxi.-xxiv. 

§  32.   1  Kings  i.-xi.    ..... 

1.  The  Text  .... 

2.  Unity  and  Age  .... 


19 
21 

22 
23 
35 
45 
48 

49 
49 
53 


X  CONTENTS 

\).— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD. 
CHAPTEIi    I. 

THK  80-CALLED  AGE  OF  THE  JUDGES. 

PAGE 

§  33.  The  General  Situation.     Israel's  Task  .  .         60 

§  34.  Further  Wars  of  Conquest  .  .  .68 

§  35.  Inroads    from    without.      The    Tribal   Monarchy    of 

Ophrah  .  .77 

§  3G.  Continuation.       The    Tribal    Monarchy  of   Ophrah. 

Abimelech  in  Shechem       .             .  .             .83 

s$  37.  Jephthah.     Samson      .                          .  .             .89 

§  38.  Civilisation  and  lieligion  in  this  Age  .  .             .93 

CHAPTEII    11. 

SAMUEL   AND   SAUL. 

§  30.  The  Philistine  Domination.     Samuel  .  .103 

§40.  Saul HI 

§41.  Continuation.     Saul  and  David  .  .  .119 

§  42.  Continuation.     Saul's  End       ....        131 

CHAPTER    111. 


D.WII),  KING. 

§  43.  David  and  Eshba'al      .... 
§44.  David  in  Jerusalem.     The  Philistines 
§  45.  Further  Wars.     David's  Army.     Saul's  House 
§  4G.  Family  History  of  David.     Absal 


138 
150 

160 


oni  .  .  .168 


CONTENTS  XI 

CHAPTER    IV. 

SOLOMON. 

PAGK 

§47.  Solomon's  Accession    .  .  .  .  .177 

§48.  Solomon,  King  .  .  .  .  .183 

§  49.  Solomon's  Temple  and  Palace  .  .  .189 

§50.  Civilisation  and  Religion  of  the  First  Period  of  the 

Monarchy  .  .  .  .  .196 

1.  Mode  of  Life.    Political  Organisation.     Litera- 

ture   .  .  .  .  .  .196 

2.  Morals  ......       199 

3.  Religion  and  Belief       .  .  .  .200 

BOOK    III 

THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  AND  THE  ADVANCE 

OF  RELIGION 

A.— THE  SOURCES  FOR  THIS  PERIOD. 


§51.  The  Book  of  Kings  :  1  Kings  xii.  and  onwards 

1.  The  Text 

2.  The  Framework 

3.  The  Annals  of  the  Kings 

4.  The  Separate  Narrative-pieces  as  far  as  2 

5.  2  Kings  xxi.-xxv.  and  the  Redaction 


§  52.  The  Book  of  Chronicles 

§53.  Information  from  Foreign  Sources 

1.  Palestinian-Phoenician 

2.  Egyptian 

3.  Assyrio-Babylonian 

§  53a.  Supplement.     Chronology  of  the  Hebrew  Kings 


205 
205 
207 
208 


Kings  XX.   211 


223 

224 

230 
230 
231 
232 

234 


xu  CONTENTS 

\\.—  THK  HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD. 
CHAPTEK   I. 

UElIOnOAM    AND   .lEKOr.OAM   AND   THEIR   IMMEDIATE    SUCCESSORS. 

PAGE 

§  54.  The  J)ivisioii  of  the  Kingdom  .  .  .       241 

§  55.  Rehoboam.     Abijah.     Asa      .  .  .246 

§  56.  Jeroboam,  Nadab,  Baasha,  Elah,  Omri  .  250 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE   DYNASTY   OF   OMRI. 

§57.  The  Assyrians.     Omri  .  .  .  .257 

§  58.  Elijah  and  the  Prophecy  of  his  time    .  .  .262 

§  59.  Ahab's  Wars  with  Damascus  and  Assyria  .  .       270 

§  60.  Ahaziah  ben  Ahab.     Jehoram  ben  Aliab  .  .274 

CHAPTER   III. 

JEIIU   AND   IIIS   DYNASTY.      THE   KINGDOM   OF   JUDAH. 


§61.  Jehu's  Revolution        .... 
§  62.  Jehoshaphat  of  Judah  and  his  sons.     Athaliah 
§  63.  Jehu  and  his  successors  until  Jeroboam  11. 
§  64.  Culture  and  Religion  in  the  period  after  Solomon 

1.  Mode  of  Life  and  Customs 

2.  Constitution  and  Social  Organisation    . 

3.  Literature  .  .  , 

4.  Relif^ous  Life    . 


278 

282 

289 

296 
296 
299 
302 
304 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTEE  IV. 


THE  INTERVENTION  OF  PROPHECY. 

§65.  Prophecy  from  the  Eighth  Century 

^  QQ.  Amos.     Hosea  ..... 

CHAPTEE   V. 

THE   END    OF   THE   NORTHERN    KINGDOM. 

§  67.  Azariah-Uzziah.     Menahem     .... 

^68.  The  Syro-Ephraimitish  War.     Isaiah's  first  appear- 
ances ...... 

^69.  Samaria's  End  ..... 


PAGE 

312 
320 


329 

337 

348 


CHAPTEE   VI. 


THE   ASSYRIANS   IN   JUDAH.      JUDAH  S   END. 


§70.  Hezekiah 

§71.  Sennacherib  in  Palestine 

§72.  Manasseh.     Amon 

§73.  Josiah  . 

§  74.  Jeremiah ;  Judah's  End 


355 
360 
370 
379 
385 


Index 


397 


BOOK    II 

THE  PRE-MONARGHIC  AGE  AND  THE  FIRST  REPRE- 
SENTATIVES OF  THE  MONARGHY. 

A.  SOURCES  FOR  THIS  PERIOD. 

§  30.   The  Booh  of  Judges. 

For  the  time  immediately  following  the  entrance  of  Israel  into 
Canaan  the  most  important,  and  almost  the  only,  source  of  in- 
formation is  the  so-called  Book  of  Judges.^  As  it  now  lies  before 
us  it  reaches  back  in  its  first  section  even  into  the  time  of  the 
Conquest,  but  it  has  already  been  shown  that  on  this  very  ground 
the  section  referred  to  cannot  originally  have  belonged  to  the 
Book.2 

In  its  present  form  the  Book  of  Judges  falls  into  three  unequal 
main  divisions :  the  section  just  mentioned,  which  forms  the 
introduction  to  the  present  book,  i.  1 — ii.  5;  a  long  narrative  section 
containing  the  Stories  of  the  Judges,  ii.  6 — xvi.  31 ;  and  lastly,  a 
narrative  section  serving  as  appendix  to  the  Stories  of  the  Judges, 
and  treating  of  two  independent  events  of  the  pre-monarchical 

1  Of.  in  general:  Studer,  Das  B.  d.  Riclit."  (1842);  Bertheau,  Die  BB.  RichL 
II.  Ruth-  (1883);  Wcllh.  BL^  181  ff.  Prol.''  238  ft.  [Eng.  Trans.  228  ff.];  Van 
Doorninck,  Bijdrage  tot  de  tekst-kritieh  van  Richt,  i.-xvi.  (1879);  Kuen.  Oiid.- 
§17-20,  27;  Budde,  RiSa ;  Cornill,  Grundr.  90  flF.  ;  Driver,  Introd.  151  ff.  ; 
[Ottli,  Deut.  Jos.  u.  Richt.  1893;  Kmiig,  Einhit.  ins  A.T.  §51;  Wildeboer, 
Letferkunde  des  Oud.  Verb.  1893,  §  9.  14.]  For  text,  translation,  and  analysis 
of  sources  (apart  from  minor  differences)  see  also  my  edition  of  the  book  in 
Kautzsch's  translation  of  the  O.T.  (1890  ff. ). 

2  On  this  see  above,  vol.  i.  p.  239  ff.  [Eng.  Transl.  i.  264  ff.]. 

VOL.  II.  A 


2  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

period,  chaps,  xvii.  f.,  and  xix.-xxi.  As  we  have  already  made  an 
independent  examination  of  the  first  section,  we  have  here  to  deal 
only  with  the  other  two. 

I.   THE   BOOK   OF   THE   STORIES    OF   THE   JUDGES,  ii.  6 — xvi.  31. 

When  this  section  is  viewed  as  a  whole,  it  is  at  once  seen  to 
have  no  immediate  connection  either  with  what  precedes  or  with 
what  follows.  It  forms  the  kernel  of  the  present  Book  of  Judges, 
but  was  manifestly  once  an  independent  work.  The  only  question 
that  can  arise  is  whether  it  still  has  its  original  beginning  and  its 
natural  conclusion.  The  first  is  likely,  since  the  section  connects 
itself  directly  with  the  Book  of  Joshua  :^  the  latter,  most  unlikely. 
It  is  beyond  question,  however,  that  the  entire  section  had 
originally  nothing  to  do  with  that  which  immediately  precedes  it, 
viz.  i.  1 — ii.  5,  or  that  which  follows  it,  viz.  the  two  appendices  to 
the  Stories  of  the  Judges.^ 

1.  The  so-called  Framework.  Even  a  superficial  glance  shows, 
moreover,  that  the  great  middle  division  of  the  present  Book  of 
Judges  (Ju.  ii.  6 — xvi.  31,  which  contains  the  Stories  of  the 
Judges),  is  not  a  complete  literary  unity,  but  breaks  up  into  diverse 
constituent  parts.  The  individual  Stories  of  the  Judges  are  not 
narrated  by  one  and  the  same  person ;  ^  and  none  of  the  principal 
narrators  can  be  identified  with  the  author  of  the  Stories  of  the 
Judges  as  a  whole,  the  writer  who  gathered  them  for  us  into  their 
present,  or  some  approximately  equivalent  form.*  The  relation  of 
this  author  to  the  stories  is  rather  this,  that  he  supplied  a  framework 

^  Cf.  Ju.  ii.  6  with  Josh.  xxiv.  28. 

2  Cf.  Ju.  ii.  6  fF.  with  i.  la.,  ii.  16.  if.  Whoever  wrote  ii.  6  fF.  cannot  at  the 
same  time  have  written  i.  la  and  ii.  16  flf.  It  is  just  as  clear  that  Ju.  xvii.  ff.  were 
not  compiled  by  the  author  of  ii.  6— xvi.  31.  Cf.  xvii.  6 ;  xviii.  la ;  xix.  la ; 
xxi.  25,  with  viii.  23  ;  and  thereon  Kuen.  Ond."  §  xx.  11. 

3  Cf.  Ju.  iv.  and  v.  ;  vi.  f.  and  viii.  3  fif. 

^  The  individual  narratives  often  stand  in  very  loose  connection  with  the 
introdvictions  that  unite  them.  The  introductions  and  transitions  are  marked 
oflf  from  the  substance  of  the  narratives  by  a  spirit  peculiar  to  them,  and  by 
independent  linguistic  marks  ;  in  particular,  by  a  series  of  similar,  often  re- 
curring formulae. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  3 

exhibiting  uuder  general  aspects  the  several  pictures  which  lay 
practically  ready-made  before  him.  It  is  with  perfect  justice 
therefore  that  his  contribution  has  been  called  the  framework 
of  the  Book  of  Judges ;  better,  of  the  Stories  of  the  Judges.  It 
will  appear,  however,  that  this  designation  is  valid  only  a  potiorij 
for  there  are  several  cases  where  the  compiler  has  had  a  share  in 
the  business  of  the  narrator  himself.^  I  designate  the  author  of 
the  framework  '  Ei/  as  being  the  editor  of  an  independent  book, 
the  Stories  of  the  '  Judges '  [Kichter],  out  of  which  the  present 
Book  of  Judges  did  not  grow  till  later.^ 

For  the  editor  of  the  present  Book  of  Judges,  the  customary 
designation  E,  or  (in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  belongs,  at  all  events, 
to  Deuteronomist  circles)  E^,  may  be  retained.^ 

The  structure  and  age  of  this  framework,  and  of  the  im- 
mediately related  sections  of  Ei,  must  now  be  more  closely  defined. 
Here  we  must  start  from  the  introduction,  ii.  6 — iii.  6,  prefixed  to 
the  Book  of  Stories  of  the  Judges.  It  comes,  as  its  contents 
show,  from  the  author  of  the  book  himself,  for  it  contains  a  pre- 
liminary systematic  survey  of  the  events  afterwards  to  be  described. 
It  is,  in  other  words,  the  programme  of  the  historian  of  the  age 
following  Joshua.  Apart  from  small  additions,'^  it  is  generally 
regarded  as  a  unity.^  Still,  Budde  may  be  right  when  he  points  to 
the  fact  that  at  the  end  of  chap.  ii.  new  points  of  view  prevail,  so 
that  from  here  onwards  E  seems  to  have  interposed.^     Strictly 

^  In  Ju.  iii.  7  ff.  at  all  events,  and  most  probably  also  in  vi.  25-32 ;  vii.  2-8  ; 
viii.  22  f.,  33-35.  He  proba])ly  appears  also  in  vi.  2-7  ;  vii.  15-22;  xi.  1-11,  as  a 
reviser  of  older  fragments,  although  it  is  not  possible  to  indicate  definite  additions 
from  his  hand. 

2  To  Ri  I  assign  Ju.  ii.  6-12,  14-16,  18  f.  ;  iii.  7-11,  12-15fta;  iv.  1-3,  23  f.  ; 
V.  31?j ;  vi.  1,  2a,  6^,  25-32,  35  ;  vii.  2-8,  12  ;  viii.  22  f.,  276,  28,  33-35  ;  x.  6  f.,  86, 
lOa  (?),  17  f.  ;  xiii.  1  ;  xiv.  46  ;  xvi.  316. 

^  In  chaps,  i-xvi.  there  belong  to  R,  according  to  my  analysis,  Ju.  i.  la,  4a,  8  f. ; 
ii.  16-5a,  13,  17,  20-22;  iii.  4-6,  31  ;  vi.  7-10;  x.  9-16  (exc.  perh.  10a). 

•*  vv.  13  and  17  belong  to  R. 

•^  So  espec.  by  Kuen.  §  xviii.  2. 

•^  See  Budde,  RiSa,  156.  His  assumption,  however,  that  v.  20  flF.  are  from  E, 
is  hardly  correct.  The  verses  do  not  appear  to  me  to  be  old.  They  contain  the 
same  matter  as  iii.  1  ff. ,  and  are  probably  derived  thence.  In  chap.  ii.  I  regard 
only  V.  23  (perh.  J)  as  old  ;  in  iii.  1-6,  only  vv.  1-3  (which  belong  rather  to  J  than 


4  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

speaking  then,  the  introduction  included  only  ii.  G-19  (witli  the 
omission  of  vv.  13  and  17  V 

It  is  specially  worthy  of  note  that  this  programme  is  governed 
by  a  very  definite  point  of  view.  It  gives  us  nothing  less  than 
tlie  general  scheme  according  to  which  the  events  of  the  period 
disposed  themselves,  in  conformity  with  the  prophetic-theocratic 
conceptions  of  the  editor.  The  apostasy  of  the  people  immediately 
after  the  death  of  Joshua,  is  followed  by  the  judgment  of  Yahv^ ; 
the  punishment  of  Yahve  leads  to  amendment ;  the  people's  amend- 
ment is  followed  by  deliverance  through  a  Judge ;  and  then,  after  a 
longer  or  shorter  interval,  apostasy  and  amendment  appear  again. 

It  is  a  characteristic  feature  of  the  author  of  this  introduction, 
that  he  entertains  an  idea  of  the  Judges  that  cannot  be  regarded 
as  strictly  historical.  For  him,  they  are  rulers  of  Israel  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  term,  and  in  fact  rulers  of  the  whole  people, — 
who  even  in  times  of  peace  exercise  over  Israel  theocratic  sway. 
These  features  of  his  work  show  that  the  author  we  have  to  do 
with  was  less  concerned  about  the  strictly  historical  establishment 
of  facts,  than  he  was  to  turn  to  account  the  theocratic  and 
pragmatic  materials  furnished  him  by  tradition,  and  to  illustrate 
their  religious  and  moral  significance. 

In  closest  connection  with  this  introduction  to  the  Book  of 
Stories  of  the  Judges  stand  certain  sections  of  the  book  itself. 
They  consist  in  the  main,  though  not  exclusively,  of  the  connective 
passages  by  which  the  stories  of  Othniel,  Ehud,  Barak,  Gideon, 
Jephthah,  and  Samson  are  bound  together,  and  united  to  the  rest 
of  the  narrative  material  that  was  perhaps  even  then  received 
into  the  book.  In  respect  of  language  '^  and  range  of  ideas,  they 
are  a  work  of  the  same  Ki  to  whom  the  introduction  belongs. 

to  E :  so  in  the  main  Meyer,  ZA  W.  i.  145  ;  cf.  the  text  in  my  transl. ,  where, 
however,  the  analysis  is  somewhat  different).  Vv.  5  f.  also  belong  rather  to  R 
than  to  E  (against  Eudde  ;  cf.  the  nations  mentioned  in  v.  5,  which  are  to  be 
found  also  in  Jos.  xxiv.  lib,  and  there  belong  to  R). 

^  The  section  ii.  20 — iii.  6  has  been  inserted  ])y  R  to  bring  into  prominence  a 
point  of  view  arising  from  the  history  of  the  Conquest  in  Ju.  i. 

2  On  this  see  Kuen.  §  xviii.  3.  For  the  passages  themselv^es  see  above,  p.  3,  notes 
1  and  2. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  5 

111  particular,  they  are  based  on  the  same  conception  of  the 
Judges  and  their  time,  and  of  the  liistory  of  Israel  generally. 
Here  also  the  Judges  are  magistrates  permanently  governing 
Israel,  ruling  over  the  whole  people.  Here  also  the  religious- 
moral  way  of  looking  at  things  comes  into  the  foreground.  Sin  is 
regarded  as  the  first  and  chief  ground  of  disaster  to  the  people — 
the  whole  people ;  and  the  interference  of  Yahve  on  the  ground  of 
Israel's  amendment,  as  the  first  cause  of  relief.  Here  again,  we 
recognise  everywhere  not  so  much  immediate  records  approximately 
contemporary  with  the  events,  as  a  historical  view,  of  the  highest 
moral  worth  and  interest  indeed,  but  such  as  was  reached  only  by 
religious-moral  reflection  on  the  events,  which  it  partly  developed 
and  enlarged  upon  in  an  imaginative  and  independent  way.  We 
recognise  here  the  historical  standards  of  men  who  had  absorbed 
the  ideas  of  the  prophets,  and  who  regarded  the  national  past  from 
a  purified  point  of  view  in  consequence  of  Israel's  calamity.  It  is 
not  so  much  history  as  a  philosophy  of  history.  It  is  elucidation, 
estimation,  adjustment  of  facts  from  the  standpoint  of  subsequent 
knowledge  of  the  consequences  and  goal  of  the  historical  develop- 
ment, rather  than  simple  narration  of  the  course  of  the  events 
themselves;  a  history  that  is  more  satisfactory  as  a  means  of 
religious  and  moral  improvement,  than  as  supplying  historical 
knowledge  about  the  original  course  of  events.  In  short,  there 
appear  here  the  same,  or  very  nearly  the  same,  phenomena  as  those 
met  with  above  in  the  historical  sections  of  Deuteronomy,  assigned 
by  us  to  D^,  and  in  the  Deuteronomistic  parts  of  the  Book  of 
Joshua. 

Wellhausen^  and  Kuenen-  accordingly  regard  the  sections, 
assigned  by  us  to  the  hand  of  Ei,  as  the  work  of  a  Deuteronomist 
redactor,  and  so  assign  them  to  the  time  of  the  exile  or  the  last 
decades  preceding  it.  Stade  ^  and  Budde  *  also  regard  the  frame- 
work as  belonging  to  E"^.  At  the  same  time,  however,  most  of  the 
scholars  mentioned  believe  themselves  able,  although  neither  on 

1  Bleek,^  p.  186.  -  Ond.-  §  xviii.  1,  8. 

3  ZA  W.  i.  p.  839  ff.  '  BiSa,  p.  94. 


6  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

the  same  lines,  nor  to  the  same  extent,  to  detect  the  traces  of  older 
documents  that  Ri  followed. 

But,  valuable  as  it  must  ever  be  to  detect  the  earliest  traces  of 
a  historical  phenomenon,  and  welcome  as  an  older  forerunner  of 
the  Deuteronomist  Ei  would  be  to  us  here,  such  traces  are  in  the 
present  case,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  see,  not  discoverable  even  after 
diligent  search,  except  in  so  far  as  they  go  back  to  the  narrators 
themselves.^  What  have  been  represented  as  such  traces  have,  for 
the  most  part,  nothing  to  do  with  the  framework  of  the  Stories  of 
the  Judges,  but  belong  to  E,  the  redactor  of  the  present  Book  of 
Judges.  The  latter  seems,  indeed,  in  part  to  have  followed  in  his 
language  other  models  than  Ei,  and  in  particular  to  have  come 
one  step  nearer  than  Ei  does  to  the  expressions  of  E  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. In  this  we  have  the  explanation  of  the  fact,  emphasised 
by  Kuenen,  that  certain  sections  of  the  framework — as  a  matter 
of  fact  they  belong  entirely  to  E — exhibit  signs  of  a  peculiar 
linguistic  usage  not  of  the  Deuteronomist  type.^  We  have  no 
need  to  make  the  assumption,  nowhere  supported  by  palpable 
facts,  that  a  special  recension  in  the  shape  of  a  pre-Deuteronomic 
edition  was  used  by  Ei."     Thus  disappears  also  the  ground  of 

^  This  applies  especially  to  Wellh.  who  finds  intimations  of  this  pragmatism 
in  vi.  2-6,  11,  fiF.  ;  viii.  28  (Bleek,'^  §  92).  Here,  however,  whatever  has  not  been 
added  by  Ri,  must  have  already  existed  in  the  narrative.  To  suppose  still 
another  hand,  seems  to  me  arbitrar}^  as  the  reference  to  Israel  is  to  be  found 
even  in  ix,  22.  If  this  verse  must  come  from  some  other  source,  we  should  at  all 
events  have  to  assign  it,  not  to  the  pre-Deuteronom.  redactor,  but  to  R  (c/also 
iii.  27  ;  vii.  23).  The  crying  to  Yahve  also,  and  the  humiliation  of  the  enemy 
(p.  187),  in  so  far  as  they  are  not  due  to  Ri,  may  likewise  belong  to  the  original 
narrative  (Cornill,  ZA  l\\  x.  107  E-).  On  this,  and  what  follows,  cf.  my  article  : 
Uber  die  pent.  Urkunden  in  den  BB.  Richt.  u.  Sam.  in  IStKr.,  1892,  44  fF.  (In  the 
translation  in  Kautzsch  the  analysis  is  still  in  parts  somewhat  different.) 

2  Cf.  §  xviii.  2,3;  xix.  11.  Kuenen  cites  as  examples,  ii.  20  ff .  ;  vi.  7-10; 
X.  6-16.  From  these  is  inferred  a  written  work— not  simple  individual  narratives 
—used  by  Ri.  On  ii.  20  ft",  see  above  ;  vi,  7-10  belongs,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  to  R. 
It  recalls  ii.  \h  ff.  rather  than  ii.  G  ft".  To  suppose  that  it  belongs  to  E  (Budde, 
107  f.,  Cornill,  ZA  W.  1890,  p.  105),  on  account  of  single  expressions  that  are  also  to 
be  found  in  E,  will  not  do  in  the  case  of  so  late  a  passage  {cf.  5<"'n3  ^^^)-  More- 
over nnX-^V  is  proved  to  occur  in  later  passages  by  Josh.  xiv.  6,  and  Jei\  iii.  8. 
The  passage  is  distinctly  Deuteronomistic.  It  is  to  1)C  compared  with  such 
passages  as  1  Sam.  ii.  27  ff".     On  x.  6  ff.,  see  note  ^  on  j).  7. 

^  Cf.  also  the  concessions  of  Kuenen  in  §  xix.  11  at  the  beginning,  and  xix.  12. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  7 

Stade's  difficulty — viz.  the  presence  of  an  introduction  in  the 
middle  of  the  Book  of  Judges — and  at  the  same  time  the  some- 
what fantastic  hypothesis  built  on  it,  that  Ju.  x.  G-IG  originally 
formed  the  continuation  in  E  of  Ju.  iii.  13  ff.^  The  only  ground 
that  can  be  urged  in  support  of  the  view  that  we  have  here  an 
independent  source,  or  that  at  least  the  redactor  employed  in- 
dependent accounts,  lies  in  the  mention  of  the  heathen  peoples 
out  of  whose  hands,  according  to  Ju.  x.  11,  Yahve  had  delivered 
Israel.  Besides  the  Egyptians  and  Amorites,  mention  is  made 
of  the  Ammonites,  Philistines,  Sidonians,  Amalek,  and  Maon 
(Midian?-).  It  might  be  argued  that  the  writer  of  this  sentence 
had,  in  the  copy  that  lay  before  him — i.e.  E  according  to  Stade 
and  Budde — an  account  of  wars  between  Israel  and  these  nations. 
On  historical  grounds,  however,  it  is  most  improbable  that  such 
a  narrative  ever  existed,  and  the  hypothesis  gains  nothing  in 
credibility  from  literary  considerations.  For  if  an  editor  had 
omitted  the  account  of  the  wars  themselves,  one  cannot  see  why 
he  did  not  also  omit  the  allusion  to  them  in  Ju.  x.  11,  but  pre- 
served precisely  this  trace  of  E.  The  enigmatical  reference  to 
such  wars  is  explicable  simply  as  a  misunderstanding  on  the  part 
of  a  late  editor,  whether  the  anachronism  be  ascribed  to  E  him- 
self, or  be  due,  at  least  in  part,  to  a  gloss  from  some  later  hand. 

1  See  Stade,  ZA  W.  i.  340  fif.  Budde,  JiiSa  128.  In  point  of  fact  only  x.  6  f. 
Sh  (excluding  'by  the  hand  of  the  Philistines  and,'  which  is  a  gloss,  or  an 
addition,  made  by  R)  are  of  the  nature  of  an  introduction.  It  comes  from  Ri 
and  presents  nothing  remarkable.  I^  8a  I  assign  to  the  source  (cf.  the  verbs)  ; 
86  is  an  addition  from  the  hand  of  Ri.  V.  9  is  inserted  by  R  to  describe  the  dis- 
tress as  affecting  all  Israel.  10a  could,  if  necessary,  be  a  further  fragment  of  the 
introduction  of  Ri.  All  the  rest,  however,  belongs  to  R,  who  has  here  introduced  a 
speech  quite  in  the  manner  of  ii.  l/>  ff.  ;  vi.  7  tf.  The  presence,  in  x.  6- 10,  of 
single  touches  in  the  style  of  E  cannot  claim  for  that  writer  an  independent 
share  in  its  production.  T''.  6  does  not  point  immediately  to  Josh,  xxiv.,  but  in 
the  first  place  to  Ju.  iii.  7  f.  The  nations  were  peril aps  only  added  by  R,  or 
inserted  as  a  gloss  still  later.  In  the  same  way  the  following  verses  are  drawn 
not  directly,  but  indirectly  from  E — I.e.  R  took  E's  book  as  his  model.  In  point 
of  fact,  with  the  exception  of  the  clause  166  (  =  Num.  xxi.  46)  every  single  ex- 
pression that  can  be  claimed  for  E,  appears  also  in  Deuteronomistic  passages. 
Even  for  that  clause,  cf.  Job  xxi.  4,  Zech.  xi.  8,  Mic.  ii.  7. 

^  Cf.  however,  the  frequent  mention  of  the  Mcunim  in  Chronicles. 


8  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  11. 

2.  Tlie  Chronology  and  the  Minor  Judges. — What  value  the 
statements  of  our  author  possess  for  the  historical  treatment 
of  the  period,  is  clear  from  what  has  been  already  said.  It 
lies  in  the  pragmatism  of  his  view  of  history,  not  in  the 
positive  contribution  that  he  offers  to  our  knowledge  of  the 
events.  In  view  of  the  relatively  late  origin  of  the  additions 
of  Ei,  we  cannot  in  general  expect  from  him  any  considerable 
extension  of  our  knowledge  of  the  individual  occurrences  of 
the  old  time.  AVhere  such  a  claim  is  still  made,  there  must  be 
special  grounds  for  believing  that  the  author  had  older  accounts 
at  his  command. 

It  is  certainly  in  favour  of  our  author  that  he  aims  much  less 
at  such  an  enlargement  of  our  stock  of  knowledge  of  the  events, 
than  at  giving  an  estimate  of  their  ethical-religious  value.  It  is 
therefore  only  occasionally  that  we  are  able  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  historical  character  of  his  contributions.  There  is 
one  case,  it  must  be  granted,  where  this  question  will  arouse  a 
special  interest  on  our  part — viz.  the  case  of  the  chronology  con- 
tributed by  him.i  The  investigation  of  its  literary  character  must 
be  combined  with  the  investigation  of  the  origin  of  the  accounts 
that  we  possess  of  the  so-called  minor  Judges. 

The  part  of  the  present  Book  of  Judges  that  exhibits  the 
characteristics  of  Ei  contains  a  continuous  chronology,  giving  in- 
formation about  the  length  of  the  rule  of  each  Judge,  or  of  the 
period  of  rest  that  followed  his  victory  over  the  enemy,  and  also  of 
the  length  of  the  period  of  foreign  domination  that  preceded. 
Many  of  these  figures — viz.  those  relating  to  the  so-called  major 
Judges,  with  the  exception  of  Jephthah,  i.e,  Othniel,  Ehud,  Barak, 
Gideon  and  Samson,^  and  to  the  foreign  domination  preceding 
Jephthah's  appearance — belong  obviously  to  Ei.^     Moreover,  it  is 

1  On  this  cf.  generally:  Nuldeke  in  Unterss.  z.  Krit.  d.  A7\,  p.  173  ff.  ; 
Kohler,  Bibl.  Gesch.  ii.,  p.  35  ff.  Wellhausen  in  Bleeh*  p.  184  f.  ;  ProL"^  p.  239  f ; 
Reuss,  GcHch.  d.  AT.  §  96,  277;  Bertheau,  Hkht.^,  p.  xi.  ff".  Riehm,  HWB., 
p.  1291  f.,  1801  f.  ;  Budde,  BiSa,  p.  134  ff. 

-  Judges  iii.  8,  11,  14,  30;  iv.  3;  v.  316;  vi.  1  ;  viii.  28;  xiii.  1;  xvi.  3lb. 
On  XV.  20  see  below  :  as  also  on  xii.  7.  ^  Judges  x.  86. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  9 

in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  the  ligures  were  inserted  by  Ei 
himself  when  he  combined  the  stories  of  the  Judges  into  a  whole, 
and  set  them  in  the  framework  of  his  pragmatic  observations, 
although  he  may  have  found  some  of  them  in  the  narrative  before 
him.  It  is  a  decided  argument  in  favour  of  this  view,  that  in  the 
case  of  these  Judges  the  continuous  chronology  is  to  be  found 
most  frequently,  not  in  the  text  of  the  narrative,  but  in  the  course 
of  the  observations  that  are  characteristic  of  Ei,^  and  even  here 
often  in  peculiar,  formal  turns  of  expression.^  In  one  case,  the 
state  of  the  text  still  shows  clearly  enough  that  the  chronological 
notice  is  only  a  later  addition  to  the  text  of  the  original  narrative.^ 

The  question  of  the  meaning  and  origin  of  this  chronology 
becomes  peculiarly  difficult  and  involved  when  we  observe  that 
notes  of  time,  pointing  to  a  continuous  chronology,  are  to  be  found 
not  only  in  the  framework  and  the  parts  immediately  connected 
therewith,  but  also  in  the  sections  referring  to  the  so-called  minor 
Judges}  ^y  this  term  are  meant  those  Judges,  regarding  whom 
all  that  we  find  in  the  Book  of  Judges  is  their  names  and  perhaps 
a  few  scanty  notices — viz.  Tola,  Jair,  Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon.  In 
spite  of  all  his  summary  brevity,  the  narrator  finds  room  to  assign 
a  number  of  years  to  each  of  these  five  heroes,  allowing  them 
altogether  seventy  years  of  activity  as  Judges. 

We  seem  to  have  found  the  key  to  the  whole  chronology  lying 
ready  to  hand,  when  we  discover  that  in  1  Kings  vi.  1,  the  time 
from  the  Exodus  to  the  fourth  year  of  Solomon's  reign,  in  which 
he  began  the  building  of  the  temple,  is  fixed  at  480  years.  As  the 
480  years  are  made  up  of  twelve  generations  of  forty  years,  what 
is  more  natural  than  to  expect  the  chronology  of  the  period  of 
the  Judges  to  agree  with  them,  when  extended  proportionately 
forwards  and  backwards  ?      The  agreement  is   the   more   to   be 

^  See  the  passages  cited  above,  exc.  iii.  8,  11,  where  Ri  himself  is  clearly  the 
narrator.  -  See  iii.  11,  30;  v.  .SI  ;  vi.  1  ;  viii.  28  ;  xiii.  1. 

^  Judges  X.  8  :  •  They  oppressed  the  children  of  Israel  in  that  year  for 
eighteen  years  all  the  children  of  Israel.  .   .  .  ' 

■»  Judges  X.  1-4;  xii.  7-15.  On  Shamgar,  wlio  is  often  reckoned  among  the 
'minor'  Judges,  r.  p.  LS,  note  2. 


10  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IL 

expected,  as  1  Kings  vi.  1  comes  from  a  Deuteronomist  hand,  and 
as  obviously  the  number  forty  ah^eady  plays  in  the  Book  of  Judges 
a  part  not  to  be  overlooked.^ 

The  hope  of  thus  reaching  a  solution  threatens  to  melt  away  at 
once,  when  we  attempt  to  reckon  up  the  figures  occurring  in  the  Book 
of  Stories  of  the  Judges.  These  yield  a  sum-total  of  410  ;2  so  that 
only  seventy  years  remain  for  the  journey  through  the  wilderness, 
and  the  time  of  Joshua  and  his  generation,  at  the  one  end,  and  for 
Eli,  Samuel,  Saul,  and  David,  together  with  the  first  four  years  of 
Solomon,  at  the  other.  And  yet  the  first,  third,  and  sixth  of  these 
items  alone  have  each  again  forty  years  secured  them.^ 

AVellhausen  has  hit  upon  an  expedient  of  special  interest  to  us 
here,  since  it  promises  at  the  same  time  some  help  in  regard  to 
the  literary  difficulty.  He  believes  it  can  be  computed  that  the 
twelve  generations  of  forty  years  each,  manifestly  intended  in 
1  Kings  vi.,  are  obtained  when  we  leave  out  of  count  the  seventy 
years  of  the  minor  Judges.  According  to  him  the  chronology  is 
complete  without  any  reference  to  these  minor  Judges.  They  are, 
as  the  special  schematic  form  of  the  narrative  shows,  described  by 
a  narrator  of  their  own,  and  indeed  only  introduced  into  the  Book 
of  Judges  by  way  of  addition.  The  writer  who  added  them  did 
not  include  in  his  calculation  the  periods  of  foreign  domination, 
but  only  the  periods  of  rest  under  the  rule  of  a  Judge.'* 

This  proposal  is  fascinating ;  but  it  is  found  on  closer  inspection 
to  be  encumbered  by  so  many  difficulties,  that  we  can  easily 
understand  how  its  own  author  has  come  to  be  in  doubt  about  it. 
Is  it  likely  that  two  hands  were  at  work  on  the  chronology  of  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  the  second  of  wdiom  had  no  idea  that  he  was 

1  Cj\  iii.  11,  30  ;  V.  .31  ;  viii.  28  ;  xiii.  1.  Moreover,  iu  iv.  3  ;  (xv.  liO)  xvi.  31, 
the  number  20.     Also,  the  forty  years  of  Moses,  Eli,  and  David.     (See  below.) 

-  Vide  the  individual  items  in  Berth.-  p.  xi,  xii.  The  twenty  years  in  xv.  20 
and  xvi,  31  must  of  course  be  only  once  reckoned. 

'^  Cf.  1  Sam.  iv.  18  (l\x.  20  ;  yet  see  Field,  Iltxapl.  i.  484)  ;  2  Sam.  v.  4. 

^  Blttli,"^  184  f.  Somewhat  differently,  Prol.-  239  f.  [Eng.  Transl.  229  f.]  In 
the  NacUrafje  to  the  Composit.  d.  Htxat,  etc.  (1889),  p.  356,  Wellhausen 
himself  admits  the  uncertainty  of  this  computation.  On  the  other  hand,  Budde 
(RiSa,  136)  has  adopted  it  anew. 


A,  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  11 

completely  subverting  the  work  of  the  first,  although  the  first  was 
supported  by  1  Kiugs  vi.  ?  Further:  if  we  must  suppose  that  the 
chronology  can  be  understood  only  on  the  presupposition  that  it 
requires  the  reader  to  allow  for  the  periods  of  foreign  domination 
within  the  periods  of  rest,  why  should  this  demand  be  made  only 
by  a  later  writer,  and  not  by  the  real  originator  of  the  system  ? 
Does  it  thus  become  at  all  less  strange,  more  easily  intelligible  to 
the  reader  ?  Or  is  it  not  the  case  that  the  reader  needed  to  know 
how  such  chronological  data  are  to  be  fitted  into  each  other  ?  ^  If 
he  needed  to  know  this  in  the  case  of  a  later  writer,  he  would  also 
need  to  know  it  in  the  case  of  Hi.  If,  however,  this  later  writer 
wished  to  'displace'  the  years  of  foreign  domination  by  the 
insertion  of  these  merely  enumerated  Judges,"  why  did  he  not 
rather  choose  as  his  way  of  dealing  with  those  years  the  expedient, 
elsewhere  not  unknown  to  him,  of  striking  them  out?^ 

Besides,  there  are  important  literary  considerations  with  regard 
to  the  accounts  of  the  minor  Judges  themselves.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  these  have  a  scheme  of  their  own.  But  this  very  feature 
turns  against  Wellhausen,  and  in  the  following  way.  In  the  case 
of  Samson,  who  belongs  to  the  major  Judges,  we  possess  a  certain 
chronological  datum  given  twice  over.*  Only  the  second  can  be 
from  Ei,  closing  as  it  does  the  story  of  the  Judge  after  the  manner 
of  that  writer.^  The  first,  thrust  into  the  middle  of  the  story, 
neither  occupies  its  right  place  there,  nor  is  it  in  any  sense  a 
conclusion  in  the  manner  of  Ri.^  Were  it  the  latter,  it  would  not 
need  to  tell  the  reader  that  Samson  judged  in  the  days  of  the 
Philistines.  This  added  phrase  shows  that  the  notice  originally 
did  not  conclude,  but  rather  supplied  the  place  of,  an  account  of 

^  On  this  see  Nuldeke,  Unters.  p.  194.  It  is  incorrect,  however,  to  regard  .as 
Noldeke  does  the  periods  of  foreign  domination  as  included  in  those  of  the 
Judges.  The  eighteen  years  of  x.  8  could  not  possibly  be  included  in  Jephthah's 
six,  nor  the  forty  of  xiii.  1  in  Samson's  twenty.  Tliey  appear,  however,  alongside 
of  the  scheme,  without  any  definite  way  of  working  them  in.  For  the  rest,  cf. 
the  computation  of  the  480  years,  Wellh.  loc.  cif.,  and  N(ildeke,  p.  192. 

'  So  Budde,  BiSa,  p.  136.  ^  Cf.  Budde,  134  f. 

^  Ju.  XV.  20,  and  xvi.  316.  ^  (y_  ^vi.  316  with  iii.  10,  etc. 

*^  This  against  Budde's  attempted  explanation,  BiSa,  133. 


12  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

Samson.  It  comes  from  a  special  source,  that  told  of  Samsou 
only  in  a  summary  way. 

Compare  now  with  this  the  formula,  agreeing  with  it  word  for 
word,  used  in  the  case  of  each  of  the  minor  Judges.  It  runs  thus  : 
*  and  he  judged  Israel  .  .  .  years,'  and  is  followed  by  a  few  words 
giving  a  brief  survey  of  the  history  of  the  Judge  in  question.^  It 
can  hardly  admit  of  doubt  that  these  surveys  once  existed,  not  only 
for  the  minor  Judges  but  also  for  all  or  several  of  the  major.  But 
if  this  is  so,  the  possibility  is  excluded  of  these  summary  notices 
having  been  first  introduced  into  the  book  after  the  time  of  Ei,  by 
a  later  supplementer,  possibly  to  complete  the  number  twelve. 
For,  in  the  case  of  Samson,  there  was  no  gap  to  be  filled.  We 
must  rather  suppose  a  number  of  already  existing  notices,  which 
Pii  was  unwilling  to  see  perish.- 

Thus,  what  was  a  'priori  not  probable,  is  refuted  by  the  facts 
themselves.  The  proof  is,  how^ever,  considerably  strengthened  by 
another  argument.  Wellhausen  excises  seventy  years  for  the 
minor  Judges,  regarding  them  as  requiring  to  be  treated  indepen- 
dently on  the  ground  of  their  own  peculiar  scheme.  Kuenen'^ 
has  quite  justly  maintained  against  him,  that  in  view  of  this 
scheme  the  chronological  data  for  Jephthah  would  also  need  to  be 
set  aside.*  The  seventy  years  thus  become  seventy-six,  and  so 
Wellhausen's  four  hundred  and  eighty  years  are  reduced  by  six, 
and  the  resemblance  between  the  seventy  years  of  the  minor 
Judges  and  the  seventy-one  of  oppression  disappears.^     Kuenen's 

^  Ju.  X.  2,  o;  xii.  9/>,  11-13,  and  especially  xii.  11^,  1-46.  In  Ri  onlyiniii,  10. 
For  obvious  reasons  xv.  20  contains  only  the  middle  part  of  the  scheme  :  the 
clause,  '  And  after  him  arose,'  is  rendered  superfluous  by  the  preceding  history  ; 
and  the  clause,  '  And  he  died,  etc.,'  by  that  which  follows. 

-  According  to  Budde  {RiSa  94),  the  scheme  of  the  minor  Judges  betrays  its 
younger  origin  by  its  briefer  form,  as  compared  with  Ri.  Kuenen,  §  xix.  11,  and 
Cornill,  ZA  W.  1890,  p.  107  f.,  come  to  the  opposite  conclusion.  In  any  case,  the 
comparison  yields  no  conclusive  result.  ^  Ond."^  §  xviii.  7. 

■^  Ju.  xii.  7  ;  cf.  V.  8  ff.,  X.  2  f.  For  the  same  reason  as  in  the  case  of  Samson, 
tlie  introductory  expressions  are  curtailed,  and  the  conclusion  omitted. 

^  In  Wellhausen's  calculation  of  these,  indeed,  the  forty  years  of  xiii.  1  are 
also  ignored  without  reason.  This  would  be  legitimate  only  if  we  merged  the 
times  of  oppression  in  those  of  rest. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  13 

proposition  finds  support  in  tlie  fact  that  the  seventy-six  years 
thus  obtained,  supplemented  by  the  four  years  of  Solomon's  reign 
before  the  building  of  the  temple,  once  more  yield  the  unit  of 
forty  which  controls  the  whole  computation.  In  this  way,  if  the 
numbers  for  the  foreign  domination  are  set  aside,  the  reckoning 
proceeds  simply  by  generations,  or  half  or  double  generations 
(forty,  twenty,  or  eighty  years).^ 

Our  result  is  this.  The  five  minor  Judges,  Tola,  Jair,  Ibzan, 
Elon,  and  Abdon,^  do  not  form  a  group  by  themselves.  The  short 
account  of  them  is  connected  with  corresponding  notices  of 
Samson  and  Jephthah,  as  well  as  of  Abimelech."  These  sketches 
were  neither  written  by  the  narrators  of  the  present  histories,  nor 
by  Ei  himself,  nor  yet,  as  the  chronology  shows,  inserted  by  a 
later  hand,  but  worked  in  by  Ri.  They  formed  a  distinct  little 
document,  a  brief  sketch  of  the  period  of  the  Judges,  without 
the  pragmatism  of  Ri,  but  probably  already  containing  the 
characteristic  idea  of  '  Judge/  If  we  search  for  material  that  Ri 
could  make  use  of  in  addition  to  the  Stories  of  the  Judges  them- 
selves, we  can  find  it  most  plausibly  in  this  Little  Book  of  Judges. 
To  distinguish  it  from  Ri,  we  may  call  it  'ri.' 

Our  inquiry  as  to  the  sources  for  the  history  of  the  period  of 
the  Judges  and  their  literary  structure,  has  thus  led  to  a  result 
not  altogether  unimportant.  It  appears  that  Ri  worked  on  certain 
materials  which  most  probably  already  contained,  in  addition  to 
the  traditional  history,  also  a  few  chronological  data.  In  view, 
indeed,  of  the  system  elsewhere  apparent,  it  can  hardly  be 
accidental  that  the  five  minor  Judges,  with  Jeplithah  and 
Solomon,  have  a  total  of  eighty  years  assigned  to  them.  But 
some,  and  even  the  majority  of  the  numbers,  are  not  involved 
in   this   charge   of  artificial   structure.     On    tlie    contrary,   their 

^  See  Noldeke,  Unters.  192. 

-  Shamgar  (iii.  31)  does  not  belong  here.  He  remains  outside  of  the  scheme, 
and  is  perhaps  loosely  inserted  here  from  v.  6,  by  R.  Of.  J^IH  D3.  The  phrase 
HT!  V"inS"l  is  due  to  imitation. 

^  Cf.  X.  1.  What  was  said  of  him  has  been  cancelled  by  Ri.  Abimelech  is 
not  regarded  by  him  as  a  Judge.  Hence  he  also  reckons  his  three  years  as  part  of 
the  period  of  foreign  domination  in  Gideon's  time. 


14  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

irregularity  as  compared  with  the  systematic  structure  of  the 
numbers  assigned  to  the  major  Judges,  points  much  rather  to  old 
tradition.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  intervals  of  oppression, 
which  lii  may  very  well  have  found  ready  to  hand,  since  they 
stand  outside  of  the  scheme.  And  even  the  figures  for  the  major 
Jud<Tes,  closely  interwoven  as  they  now  are  with  the  schematic 
elements  of  the  narrative,  cannot,  in  view  of  this  result,  be 
absolutely  surrendered.^  If  David's  forty  years  are  most  probably 
historical,  the  numbers  may  also  elsewhere,  in  one  case  or  another, 
rest  on  good  tradition,  although  we  may  not  be  able  to  substantiate 
it  in  individual  cases. 

3.  The  HcTO-stories. — When  the  parts  of  the  Book  of  Stories  of 
the  Judges  with  which  we  have  dealt  are  set  aside,  what  remains 
consists  of  a  number  of  narratives  concerning  heroes  of  the  pre- 
monarchic  time.  To  this  belongs  nearly  all  the  material  of  the 
accounts  of  the  so-called  major  Judges — that  is,  besides  Othniel, 
Ehud,  Barak-Deborah,  Gideon,  Jephthah,  and  Samson. 

For  the  historian  all  the  questions  hitherto  discussed  cul- 
minate in  this  one  :  What  can  Ave  learn  of  the  time  and  place  of 
origin  of  these  accounts  ? 

That  they  do  not  represent  any  simple  unity  is  obvious.  The 
song  of  Deborah  marks  itself  off  from  the  narrative  as  a  deposit  of 
much  greater  age.  In  the  story  of  Gideon,  and  probably  here  and 
there  elsewhere,  we  easily  discern  a  severance  and  a  reconnection 
of  the  thread  of  the  narrative. 

Such  observations,  however,  are  of  minor  importance  as  com- 
pared with  the  cardinal  question,  whether  we  can  trace  through- 
out the  whole  book  certain  main  threads,  or  whether  we  must 
assume  that  each  narrative  stands  alone,  and  is  to  be  judged  by  itself. 

It  would  be  the  simplest  and  most  satisfactory  solution  of  this 
question  if  we  could  show  that  the  narrative  books  J  and  E, 
known  to  us  from  the  Hexateuch,  are  continued  in  the  Book  of 
Judges.-     We  should  then  enjoy  the  advantage  of  being  able  to 

1  See  besides,  Matthes  in  Theol.  Tijd.  xv.  605  f.,  and  Kuenen,  §  xviii.  4;  also 
some  additional  particulars  below.  ~  Cf.  my  article  in  StKr. ,  44  fiF. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PKE-MONARCHIC  AGE  15 

take  for  granted  here,  the  results  already  obtained  there,  as  to  the 
time,  place,  and  character  of  these  writings.  Moreover,  nothing  is 
in  itself  more  natural  than  to  expect  to  find  a  continuation  of 
those  books  on  the  history  of  the  Oi'igins  of  Israel,  carrying  the 
narrative  through  the  Conquest  of  Caanan.  If  their  authors 
described  the  preliminary  history  of  the  chosen  people  and  its 
fortunes  in  the  desert,  why  should  they  not  have  given  posterity 
also  an  account  of  its  further  course  ?  No  one  will  regard  it  as  a 
serious  objection  to  this  view,  that  the  Priestly  Writing  P  was  not 
continued  through  the  time  of  Joshua.  It  has,  as  a  law-book, 
a  quite  special  interest  in  the  time  down  to  Joshua,  and  can  thus 
quite  well  occupy  a  place  by  itself.  On  the  other  hand,  we  must 
admit  that  the  bare  possibility  of  the  existence  of  a  continuation  of 
E  and  J  does  not  free  us  from  the  duty  of  finding  proof.  For  over 
against  it  there  stands  a  whole  series  of  other  possibilities,  that  in 
themselves  possess  the  same  degree  of  probability.  Is  it  the  ordinary 
course  of  things  for  a  people  to  describe  first  of  all  the  history  of 
its  own  beginnings,  or  its  recollections  of  the  events  lying  nearer 
at  hand  ?  E  and  J  belono-  to  a  time  when  Israel  must  have  longj 
been  accustomed  to  the  practice  of  writing,  and  do  not  represent 
the  beginnings  of  their  literature.  A  series  of  old  songs,  also  the 
Book  of  Wars,  and  the  Book  of  the  Upright,  were  already  in 
existence.  Who  can  tell  whether  other  attempts  at  literary  pro- 
duction, in  the  form  of  popular  historical  narratives,  may  not  also 
have  preceded  those  comprehensive  representations  of  the  early 
history  ?  This  is,  at  all  events,  highly  probable.  And  if  that  is 
so,  on  what  materials  would  the  annalists  and  chroniclers  in 
Israel  have  first  of  all  tried  their  hand,  before  they  went 
back  to  the  hoary  distance  of  the  primeval  and  patriarchal  time  ? 
Surely  it  would  be  on  the  history  of  the  hero-king  and  his  wars, 
his  unfortunate  predecessor,  and  the  glorious  days  of  Midian 
under  Jerubbaal,  and  of  Moab,  Caanan,  and  Amnion,  under  Ehud, 
Barak,  and  Jephthah.  An  old  song,^  considerably  older  than  E 
and  J,  enumerates  for  us  the  tribes  of  Israel  in  order,  according  to 

^  CJen.  xlix. 


16  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

their  character  and  fortunes,  as  they  had  appeared  in  the  old 
heroic  age.  The  next  step  in  literary  work  was  probably  the 
filling  in  of  sketches  of  this  sort  with  flesh  and  blood,  the  forma- 
tion of  concrete  pictures  of  the  wars  and  experiences  of  the  tribes, 
and  groups  of  tribes,  in  the  heroic  age. 

We  do  not  by  these  considerations  reach  a  decision  on  the 
question  in  hand;  but  we  have  justified  our  demand  for  conclusive 
proof,  in  confirmation  of  the  assertion  that  E  and  J  had  a 
prominent  share  in  the  history  of  the  time  after  Joshua,  and  our 
dissatisfaction  with  indefinite  possibilities.  At  the  same  time  we 
have  indicated  the  principles  according  to  which  we  must  judge 
such  possibilities. 

In  point  of  fact  the  theory  we  have  been  considering  has  been 
maintained  lately ^  with  great  energy.  After  Stade^  thought  he 
had  discovered  evident  traces  of  E,  and  Bohme^  of  J,  in  the  part 
of  the  Book  of  Judges  under  consideration,  Budde  made  the 
attempt  to  apportion  nearly  the  whole  narrative  between  these 
two  main  Hexateuch  sources. 

With  reference  to  the  results  of  Bohme,  and  especially  of  Stade, 
Kuenen*  expressed  his  doubts.  After  fully  acknowledging  that 
a  very  close  relationship  exists  between  J  and  the  two  sections 
that  were  claimed  for  it  by  Bohme,  Kuenen  still  demands  con- 
vincing proof  of  the  identity  of  the  authors.  Neither  can  I  divest 
myself  of  certain  doubts.  It  is  true  the  accord  with  J  is  so 
obvious  that  if  the  sections  stood  in  the  Hexateuch  we  could  not 
hesitate  to  claim  at  least  one  of  them^  for  J.     But  the  case  is 

^  On  eai'lier  attempts  based  on  presuppositions  no  longer  tenable,  cf.  StKr. 
1892,  45  f. 

-  See  above,  p.  8.  Cf.  also  E.  Meyer,  ZA  W.  i.  143  ff.  Yet  in  Ju.  i.  l--ii.  5 
and  iii.  1  fF.  we  have  fragments  of  J  and  E  that  have  made  their  way  here  from 
the  Hexateuch. 

2  ZA  W.  V.  p.  251  fF.  on  the  oldest  representation  in  Ju.  vi.  11-24,  and  xiii.  2-24. 

^  Ond.^%xix.  13.     Cf.  also  before  that,  Bertheau,  Bicht.^ -p.  xxiii. 

•^  Ju.  vi.  11  fF.  In  the  case  of  the  other,  xiii.  2  fF.,  even  in  the  Hexateuch 
the  question  would  not  be  quite  easy  to  settle.  I  hold  Bohme's  analysis  as  in 
part  not  sufficiently  established.  Moreover,  the  assumption  of  a  subsequent  inser- 
tion of  Elohim  for  Yahve  in  vv.  6,  9,  14,  has  its  difficulties.  The  Jahvistic  origin  of 
the  section  is  thus,  in  spite  of  all  agreement  with  J,  seriously  called  in  question. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PKE-MONAECHIC  AGE  17 

quite  different  when  it  is  the  very  presence  of  J  at  all  in  the  Book 
of  Judges,  that  is  itself  to  be  established  on  this  ground.  For 
this,  the  proof  is  not  sufficient  in  the  case  of  chap.  vi. ;  still  less  in 
that  of  chap.  xiii.  The  affinity  with  J,  marked  as  it  may  be,  does 
not  exclude  non- Jahvistic  features,^  so  that  we  have  as  much  right 
to  think  of  some  other  narrator,  for  reasons  unknown  to  us  closely 
related  to  J,  as  of  J  himself.  The  writer  might  quite  as  well  be 
a  man  of  the  same  circle  and  linguistic  usage.  We  might  have 
before  us  a  case  of  imitation  of  the  narrative  style  of  J,  or  a 
predecessor  whom  J  copied,  if  not  of  both  of  these  at  the  same 
time. 

Without  then  absolutely  rejecting  Bohme's  results,  we  need  not 
leave  out  of  sight  the  necessary  reservations.  And  this  is  true  to 
an  even  greater  degree,  of  the  inferences  that  Budde^  has  drawn 
from  them.  He  attributes  a  whole  series  of  sections  to  J,  in  many 
cases  not  on  the  ground  of  independent  criteria,  but  simply  be- 
cause of  their  coherence  with  J.^  But  the  special  signs  of  a 
section's  belonging  to  J,  that  he  urges,  are  not  conclusive  ;  while  in 
so  far  as  he  appeals  to  general  coherence,*  his  reasoning  lacks,  as 
we  have  said,  a  sufficiently  sure  basis.  On  the  other  hand,  this 
argument  loses  in  strength  when  we  consider  how  seldom  the 
Jahvistic  features  are  to  be  found  with  this  clearness,  even  in  the 
two  sections  in  chaps,  vi.  and  xiii. ;  and  if  we  grant  that  J  is  to  be 
found  in  them,  where  are  such  features  in  the  others  ? 

The  question  now  is,  whether  the  case  is  any  better  for  E. 
Stade  has  contented  himself  with  ascribing  a  single  section  ^  to  E 
in  addition  to  those  spoken  of  before.^  Budde,  on  the  contrary, 
claims  for  this  source  the  whole  of  the  narrative  material  not 
attributed  by  him  to  J.^     Here  also  the  argument  seems  to  me 

1  Cf.  on  vi.  11  ff.,  the  fuller  proof  in  StKr.  1892,  57  f. 

'  Cf.  KlSa,  pp.  100,  106  flf.,  122  f.,  130  flF. 

^  Thus  vi.  2b-Qa;  vii.  1-8,  iii.  29  conjecturally ;  further,  chaps,  xiv.-xvi., 
although  here  also  not  quite  decisively. 

4  Thus  iii.  15  fF. ,  '  according  to  the  impression  made ' ;  and  chap.  iv. ,  on  account 
of  its  supposed  close  relation  to  chap.  i.  ^  iii.  15  ff.     See  ZA  W.  i.  343. 

6  ii.  6— iii.  6  (more  exactly,  ii.  20  ff.),  and  x.  6-16.  On  this,  see  above, 
p.  3  ff.,  6  f.  7  Of.  liiSa,  pp.  107,  109  f.,  118  f.,  122,  127. 

VOL.  II.  K 


18  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

not  conclusive.  Weighty  reasons  could  certainly  be  urged  for  the 
derivation  of  some  of  these  sections  from  E,i  in  the  event  of  its 
having  been  otherwise  established  that  E  had  a  share  in  the  com- 
position of  the  stories  of  the  Judges ;  but  they  are  not  sufficient  to 
establish  this  latter  point,  if  it  is  in  any  way  in  question.  A 
number  of  the  reasons  urged  by  Budde  in  support  of  E's  author- 
ship admit  of  another  explanation ;  ^  while,  on  the  other  hand,  a 
number  of  features  in  the  sections  in  question  may  be  employed 
directly  against  Budde's  view.^  Amongst  the  latter  I  include 
especially  the  aversion  to  the  Monarchy,  adduced  by  Budde,  as  it 
appears  in  certain  passages.*  As  a  matter  of  fact,  no  analogous 
expression  can  be  pointed  to  anywhere  in  what  has  any  fair  claim 
to  be  regarded  as  the  text  of  E ;  indeed  E's  book  gives  undisguised 
expression  to  the  proud  joy  over  the  Monarchy  in  Israel.^ 

This  being  the  case,  it  must  recommend  itself  to  us  as  the 
safer  way,  in  seeking  the  historical  value  of  the  Judge-stories  for 
the  time  of  their  origin,  not  to  trust  to  the  results  already  won  for 
E  and  J,  but  to  try  to  arrive  at  an  independent  decision  in  the 
case  of  each  individual  narrative.^ 

^  Especially  the  circumstance  that  the  majority  of  these  narratives  point  to 
the  kingdom  of  Ephraim,  and  to  a  time  near  that  of  E. 

-  This  applies  to  vi.  25-32  (p.  110).  Of.  StKr.  1892,  59.  Similarly,  the 
possible  reference  to  the  golden  calf  in  viii.  22  f . ,  does  not  lead  to  srny  conclusion 
in  favour  of  E  (p.  122).     J  also  tells  of  this. 

3  In  view  of  Josh.  xxiv. ,  the  history  of  Abimelech  cannot  be  from  E.  There 
Shechem  is  Israelitish.  If  E  inserted  the  fable  of  Jotham  (Bu.  119),  he  is 
certainly  also  the  author  of  Ju.  ix. — but  this  he  cannot  be,  on  account  of  Shechem. 
Individual  expressions,  to  which  others  can  easily  be  opposed  {StKr.  1892,  60),  are 
no  proof.  lu  vi.  36  ff.,  cf.  v.  39a,  with  Gen.  xviii.  32  J,  In  view  of  Gen.  xxii., 
the  history  of  Jephthah  can  hardly  be  from  E  ;  cf.  also  ^PVl  in  xi.  1. 

**  Esp.  viii.  22  f.  ;  ace.  to  Budde  also  in  the  fable  of  Jotham. 

5  Cf.  Nu.  xxiii.  9  ff.,  esp.  v.  21  {cf  Vrh^  ^^  and  Bu.  110  thereon),  Dt.  xxxiii. 
5,  17.  The  case  is  even  clearer  if  Nu.  xxiv,  7  is  to  be  assigned  to  E  (Kue. ). 
See  in  general  Cornill,  ZK  \VL.  1885,  p.  135.  In  spite  of  this,  Cornill  assigns  Ju. 
viii.  to  E.  He  derives  the  present  form  of  v.  23  however  from  E  -  {ZA  W.  x.  105) ; 
on  which,  see  below. 

6  On  this,  see  below,  §§  34-37- 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PEE-MONARCHIC  AGE  19 

II.   THE   APPENDICES. 

The  kernel  of  the  Book  of  Judges  is  followed  by  two  appendices, 
independent  of  the  Judge-stories  proper,  and  attached  to  them 
only  by  a  reference  to  tlie  time  when  '  there  was  as  yet  no  king  in 
Israel.'  Each  of  these  brings  into  view  an  episode  of  that  time. 
They  were  placed  together  and  incorporated  in  the  Book  of  Judges 
by  E,  but  differ  much  in  literary  structure  and  historical  value. 

1.  Chaps,  xvii.  a7id  xviii. — The  first  of  these  appendices  relates 
the  origin  of  the  sanctuary  of  Dan.  The  Danites,  numbering  600 
men,  and  as  yet  without  fixed  abode,  win  their  later  settlement  by 
an  attack  on  the  town  of  Laish  in  the  far  north.  On  their  way 
thither  they  carry  off  an  image  from  Mount  Ephraim,  and  found 
with  it  their  sanctuary,  afterwards  to  become  so  famous. 

The  narrative  is  not  a  unity.  Vatke  remarked  this,  and  there- 
fore sought  for  two  independent  documents.^  After  this  had  been 
opposed  by  Oort,^  Wellhausen,^  and  Kuenen,^  who  thought  they 
could  get  rid  of  the  obvious  inequalities  of  the  narrative  by 
supposing  a  revision,  Budde  has  again — following  in  part  in  the 
footsteps  of  Bertheau^ — attempted^  to  prove  the  existence  of  two 
sources.  His  results  with  regard  to  the  separation  of  the  parts,  I 
can  accept  in  the  main  points.'^  According  to  this  view  there  has 
been  worked  into  the  main  narrative  a  second,  having  various 
features  of  a  somewhat  different  type.     In  view,  however,  of  the 

1  Belig.  d.  AT.,  p.  268,  note.  2  ffji^^i  Tijdschr.  i.  285  ff. 

*  Bleek,^  198  f.  ^  Ond.^  §  xx.  4,  especially  with  reference  to  Bertheau. 

5  Cf.  RichL^-  239  flf.  6  ^iSa,  138  fF. 

^  To  the  main  narrative — called  N  in  the  translation  in  Kautzsch — of  this 
appendix  I  assign:  xvii.  1-5  (from  )?  onwards)  .  .  .  8-lla,  12aa,  13;  xviii. 
16,  2aa  (exc.  DJllVpO),  2b,  36,  (from  nDJ^*'!)— 7%  8-lOaa,  106-14*,  15*,  16^ 
17*,  18a*,  186-29  (31  ?).  The  second  narrative  (N^)  exhibits  several  independent 
features  (the  priest  is  a  IVD),  but  on  the  whole  contents  itself  with  giving  to  N,  by 
minor  additions,  a  new  and  unfavourable  sense.  By  the  addition  of  HDDJDl  ?DD, 
the  sanctuary  is  characterised  as  objectionable  ;  and  according  to  xvii.  2-4  it  is, 
even  to  begin  with,  of  disreputable  origin.  This  narrative  would  have  us  regard 
the  attack  on  Laish,  as  well  as  that  on  Micah's  farm,  as  less  harmless  than  the 
other  narrative  suggests.  N^  is  to  be  seen  in  :  xvii.  2-4,  6  f.  116,  12a^6 ;  xviii. 
la  (2a^?),  3a  (as  far  as  DK^),  7*,  lOa/S,  parts  of  14-18  and  20  (^D2),  (30?)  On  the 
text  cf.  the  above-named  Translation  :  the  sources  are  there  somewhat  diflcrently 
given. 


20  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

tendency  apparent  in  most,  if  not  alP  of  the  interpolated  elements, 
it  must  remain  doubtful  whether  the  second  rests  on  an  in- 
dependent document,  or  whether  its  compiler  was  not  rather  at 
the  same  time  the  reviser  of  the  whole. 

For  the  purpose  of  the  historian,  at  all  events,  the  first 
narrative,  which  is  manifestly  the  older,  demands  special  atten- 
tion. Budde  believes  he  can  recognise  in  it  E,  and  is  not  in- 
disposed to  ascribe  the  second  to  J.  In  view  of  the  results  we 
have  already  reached,  neither  of  these  conjectures  commends  itself 
very  strongly.^  The  greater  age  of  J  as  compared  with  E  ought, 
in  Budde's  case,  to  weigh  against  this  identification. 

We  may  unconditionally  regard  the  main  account  as  one  of 
our  oldest  fragments  of  narrative.  Its  great  age  is  proved  not 
only  by  the  knowledge  that  the  author  has  at  his  command,  of 
the  highly  primitive  state  of  things^  which  we  otherwise  know 
actually  prevailed  in  that  pre-monarchic  age,  but  even  more  by 
the  completely  artless  way  in  which  he  reports  it.  Indeed,  the 
original  narrative  is  so  far  from  finding  any  impropriety  in  the 
conduct  of  the  Danites,  that  the  naive  delight  at  the  success  of 
the  clever  enterprise  favoured  by  Yahve  is  rather  allowed  to 
appear.  Possibly  the  narrative  even  originated  directly  in  Dan 
itself.  Perhaps  many  of  the  expressions,'*  differing  from  the 
usage  of  south  and  middle  Palestine  otherwise  known  to  us,  may 
be  explained  in  the  same  way.  For  all  that,  the  narrative  is 
neither  contemporaneous  with  the  events,  nor  of  a  time  im- 
mediately following  them.^ 

1  Even  the  youth  in  N^  could  be  accounted  for  by  the  desire  to  make  the 
outrage  seem  greater. 

-  Cf.  loc.  cit.  p.  144  f.  Teraphwi  is  no  proof.  If  Teraphim  were  at  all  in 
use  in  ancient  times,  they  might  be  mentioned  in  any  ancient  narrative  whatever. 
The  inofifensiveness  of  the  mention  in  N  stands  in  the  way  of  ascribing  it  to  E  ; 
cf.  further  D^n  '^IV  xvii.  10 ;  ''^'nn  DIB^,  xviii.  1  {cf.  11) ;  "13^,  xviii.  4  (Gen.  xxx. 
16  J) ;  "'^  nni,  xviii.  6 ;  h)iV,  xviii.  9 ;  p^Ti,  xviii.  22  f;  tTDJ  nO,  xviii.  25. 

3  Cf  Wellh.  Bleel;^  198  ;  Kuen.  §  xx.  3. 

■*  See  above,  note  2.  Moreover,  xviii.  126  seems  to  have  been  written  at 
some  distance  from  Judah. 

•5  Cf  xviii.  12,  and  Kuen.  §  xx.  3 ;  also  xviii.  31,  yet  notice  PDD ;  the  verse  is 
generally  doubtful  (see  Wellh,  Nachtr.  357). 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  21 

In  view  of  the  opposition  to  the  sanctuary  of  Dan  that  the 
elements  worked  into  the  main  account  betray,  we  may  with 
certainty  ascribe  them  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah  and  to  the  time 
after  Jeroboam  I.  With  this,  as  well  as  with  the  general  tone  of 
these  passages,  agrees  the  reference  to  the  time  preceding  the 
Monarchy.^  The  lower  limit  is  the  year  722  B.C.,  since  after  the 
transportation  of  Israel  such  a  polemic  had  no  longer  any  object. 
Yet  we  are  not  compelled  to  go  so  far  down.- 

2.  Chaps,  xix.-xxi.^  This  second  appendix  to  the  Book 
of  Judges  differs  considerably  from  the  first.  It  contains  the 
narrative  of  an  outrage  perpetrated  at  Gibeah  of  Benjamin  and 
the  consequent  extermination  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  by  the 
whole  community. 

Neither  are  these  chapters  strictly  homogeneous.  Yet  the 
question  arises  again  whether  we  have  a  right  to  distinguish  two 
originally  independent  narratives.*  It  appears  to  me  the  most 
probable  view  that  we  have  to  do  simply  with  a  revision,  certainly 
very  radical,  of  an  older  account.^ 

This  older  narrative  appears  at  all  events  in  chap,  xix.,  but  is 
probably  continued  in  some  measure  in  chaps,  xx.  and  xxi.  In 
the  present  form  of  the  narrative,  however,  the  reviser  comes  very 
markedly  into  the  foreground  in  the  last  two  chapters,  so  that, 
with  a  few  exceptions,  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  separate  the 
older  passages.  Decidedly  old  touches,  due  to  authentic  tradition,^' 
as   well   as    a   certain    affinity   with   chap.   xvii.  f.   in   tone   and 

^  xvii.  6  ;  xviii.  1.     Even  this  contains  an  element  of  reproach. 

"  xviii.  30  is,  at  all  events  as  regards  its  last  words,  but  perhaps  generally, 
a  gloss.     Still  it  is  historically  of  value. 

3  Cf.  in  addition  to  the  commentaries  :  Wellh.  in  Bleek,'^  p.  199  ff.  ;  Graetz, 
Gesch.  d.  Jud.  i.  p.  351  fF.  ;  Giidemann,  in  Graetz's  MonatsKclirift,  1869,  p.  357  ff.  ; 
Smend,  ZA  W.  ii.  p.  110  ff.  ;  Buhme,  ZA  W.  v.  p.  30  ff.  ;  Kuenen,  Ond.''  §  20; 
Budde,  RiSa,  p.  146  ff. 

^  So  Bertheau,  p.  260  ff.,  and  in  chap  xxi.  BiJhme  loc.  cif.,  Budde  he.  cit.  On 
the  other  hand,  Kuen.  §  xx.  10. 

^  To  this  older  account  I  assign,  in  addition  to  chap,  xix.,  the  basis  of  chap. 
XX.,  and  in  cliap.  xxi.  the  orginal  stratum  of  verses  13-23. 

^  Cf.  Jebus  xix.  10  f.  ;  further,  the  procedure  known  to  us  from  1  Sam.  xi.,  in 
xix.  29  f.  '  The  days  of  Gibeah  '  also  in  Hosea  (ix.  9  ;  x.  9)  can,  in  view  of  x.  0, 
have  hardly  any  other  reference  (partly  ag.  Wellh.  Bleek,^  203  ;  Kuen.  §  xx.  6). 


22  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

language,^  lead  us  to  assign  this  one  account  to  a  relatively  ^  early 
age.  To  it  belonged,  beside  the  story  of  the  outrage  in  chap,  xvii., 
perhaps  the  account  of  the  hostile  procedure  against  Gibeah, 
and  the  narrative,  also  manifestly  old,  of  the  rape  at  Shiloh,  xxi. 
15  ff.3 

The  age  to  which  the  reviser  belongs,  and  the  method  of  his 
work,  are  clear  from  his  close  correspondence  in  language*  and 
thought  ^  with  P  and  with  Chronicles,  as  well  as  from  his  aversion 
to  Saul  and  everything  connected  with  him.  We  have  here  to  do 
with  a  Juda3an  of  exilic  or  post-exilic  tinie;^  a  conclusion 
with  which  agrees  the  discrepancy  between  what  he  relates,  and 
the  picture  of  the  ancient  times  with  which  we  are  otherwise 
familiar.'^ 

§  31.  The  Boohs  of  Samuel. 

The  contents  of  these  books,^  which  in  subject  at  all  events 
are   closely   connected,   are   divisible   into   several    sub-sections : 

1  Sam.  i.-xv.,  Samuel  and  Saul ;  1  Sam.  xvi.-xxxi.,  Saul  and  David; 

2  Sam.  i.-v.  5,  David  in  Hebron;  2  Sam.  v.  6— chap,  xx.,  David 
in  Jerusalem ;  2  Sam.  xxi.-xxiv.,  detached  appendices. 

^  So  already  Studer,  Richt.  p.  455.  With  this  in  view  1  have  in  the  TransL 
marked  this  account  likewise  N.  Cf.  also  such  expressions  as  those  in  xviii.  7 
(read 'T^J^  IIDriD  pSI),  10,  and  xix.  19,  20.  See  other  points  of  contact  with 
older  passages  in  Budde,  149  f. 

-  More  I  cannot  say  on  account  of  Wellh.  Bleek,*  p.  201  end. 

^  See  Kuen.  §  xx.  9.  ^  See  on  this  Wellh.  in  Bleek,^  202. 

^  Cf.  Wellh.  loc.  ciL,  p.  199  f. 

^  The  reference  to  the  monarchy  (xix.  1  ;  xxi.  25)  is  here  hardly  from  the  same 
hand  as  in  chap.  xvii.  f.  In  this  second  appendix  it  is  not  at  all  in  its  right 
place,  since  the  punishment  of  the  misdeed  certainly  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired. 
It  is  here  therefore  probably  an  interpolation  by  R  after  the  example  of  xvii.  6  ; 
xviii.  1.     Kuen.  (§  xx.  9)  takes  a  different  view. 

7  Cf.  the  compact  unity  of  Israel,  the  enormous  numbers,  etc. 

8  Cf  in  gen.  Thenius,  Die  BB.  Sam.-  (1864);  Keil,  Die  BB.  Sam.- {1815)  ; 
Wellh.  TBS.,  BL*  p.  206  fif.,  ProL-  256  ff.  ;  Kuen.  Ond.''  §§  17,  21-23,  27 ;  Klost, 
Sa  Ko  ;  Driver,  Notes,  and  Introd.  162  ff.  ;  Budde,  RiSa  ;  CornilL  Grundr.,  p.  104 
ff.  Special  investigations  :  Gaupp,  Zur  Gesch.  des  Konigs  David  [Progr.  1886) ; 
Bonk,  De  Davide  rege  (1891) ;  [Konig,  Einleit,  §  52  ;  Wildeboer,  Letterlc.  §  9,  14]. 
On  text,  translation,  and  analysis  of  sources,  see  also  my  treatment  of  the  books 
in  Kautzsch's  AT.  [and  now,  on  the  text  and  analysis:  Budde,  The  Boohs  of 
Samuel,  in  P.  Haupt's  Sacred  Books  ofO.  T.,  1894]. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  23 

1.  Samuel  and  Saul :  1  Sam.  i.-xv.  The  early  history  of 
Samuel  (chaps,  i.-iii.)  is  followed  by  a  description  of  the  fall  of 
the  house  of  Eli  (chaps,  iv.-vi.).  Samuel  becomes  Judge  in  place  of 
Eli  (chap.  vii.).  The  people,  however,  are  determined  to  have  a 
king  at  their  head  instead  of  Samuel  and  his  degenerate  sons. 
Samuel,  although  against  his  will,  gives  them  a  king  in  the  person 
of  Saul  (chaps,  viii.-x.).  Saul  defeats  the  Ammonites  and 
Philistines;  but  is,  after  his  victory  over  Amalek,  rejected  by 
Samuel  (chaps,  xi.-xv.). 

We  can  without  difficulty  distinguish,  within  this  mass  of 
narrative,  certain  more  closely  connected  groups  of  passages  that 
are  clearly  marked  off  from  the  rest.  The  discussion  of  these  will 
begin  best  with  SauVs  election  as  king. 

A.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  we  possess  two  parallel  narratives 
of  this  event.  In  the  one,  Samuel  is  the  head  of  the  people  and 
holds  sway  in  God's  stead  over  the  whole  of  Israel.  The  Monarchy 
is  a  heathenish  institution.  Samuel  recognises  in  the  people's 
demand  for  a  king,  a  sinful  pretension  infringing  Yahvd's  rights 
as  king.  It  is  only  with  reluctance,  and  not  without  depicting 
before  the  eyes  of  the  people  the  consequences  of  their  action,  that 
he  yields  to  their  importunity. ^  According  to  the  other  source,  on 
the  other  hand,  Samuel  is  a  seer,  and  probably  also  a  priest,  if  not 
of  a  single  place,  yet  of  a  relatively  narrow  district  in  mid-Israel. 
The  distress  of  his  people  weighs  on  his  heart ;  but  in  the  sure 
consciousness  that  in  so  doing  he  is  effecting  the  will  of  Yahv^  he 
voluntarily  looks  for  some  one  to  wear  the  crown  as  king  in  Israel. 
He  believes  he  has  found  the  right  man  for  them  in  Saul,  the 
son  of  Kish,  with  whom  he  accidentally  becomes  acquainted.^ 

The  fact  that  we  have  here  two  distinct  representations  of  one 
and  the  same  event,  is  palpable.^  The  only  question,  therefore, 
that  can  arise,  is  whether — and  if  so,  where — each  of  them  is  con- 
nected with  what  precedes  or  what  follows  ;  and  then,  whether  it 

^  viii.  1-22;  x.  17-24.  2  jx.  1-27  (exc.  v.  9)  ;  x.  1-16  (exc.  v.  8). 

3  On  this  see  Wellh.   BU  §104;  Cornill,  ZKWL.    1885,  p.   114  fiF.     Kuen. 
§  xxi.  7 ;  Budde,  RiSa,  p.  169  ff. 


24  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

is  possible  to  assign  to  each  narrative,  and  whatever  may  be  con- 
nected with  it,  a  definite  origin  and  date. 

Here  we  begin  with  chap.  xi.  Manifestly  the  second  of  the 
narratives  just  described  has  this  chapter  in  view  when  it  repre- 
sents Samuel  as  pointing  Saul  to  an  opportunity  of  public  action 
that  would  offer  itself.^  In  the  present  text  of  the  chapter, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  victory  over  Ammon  is  made  an 
occasion  for  the  people  expressing  their  allegiance  to  Saul,  in  a 
way  that  presupposes  the  events  described  in  the  first-mentioned 
source,  especially  the  election  of  Saul,  not  by  Samuel's  prophetic 
vision,  but  by  the  sacred  lot.^  Hence  the  two  sources  seem  again 
to  be  fused  together,  and  it  is  here  we  can  best  observe  their 
artificial  combination.^  On  the  other  hand,  the  second  of  the 
above-mentioned  accounts  cannot  possibly  find  its  continuation, 
or  its  attachment  to  what  goes  before,  in  chap.  xii.  or  chap.  vii.  re- 
spectively. In  both  chapters  it  is  a  Judge  over  all  Israel,  and 
not  the  Seer  Samuel,  that  we  have  to  deal  with.  In  chap.  xii.  he 
formally  retires,  having  through  the  people's  wish  for  a  king  be- 
come superfluous;  in  chap,  vii.*  Samuel  establishes  his  sway  as 
Judge  by  a  brilliant  victory  over  the  Philistines,  which  brings 
about  a  condition  of  affairs  of  which  the  account  in  chap.  ix. 
knows  nothing.^  The  only  question,  therefore,  to  be  considered 
with  reference  to  these  two  chapters,  is  whether  they  belong  to 
the  account  in  chap.  viii. 

If,  however,  we  look  closer,  it  becomes  evident  that  these  two 
chapters  have,  in  respect  of  language  and  contents,  a  character  of 
their  own,  so  that  they  cannot  without  further  proof  be  assigned 
to  the  same  source  as  chaps,  vii.,  x.  17  ff.     In  chap.  vii.  Samuel 

^  X.  7.  Cf.  also  the  connection  of  xi.  1  with  x.  16,  according  to  the  emended 
text  of  xi.  1  (see  on  the  reading  Wellh.  TBS.,  and  my  translation). 

-  See  xi.  14.  The  *  renewing '  of  the  kingdom  agrees  only  with  the  previous 
proclamation  in  x.  17  ff. 

=  This  appears  in  x.  25-27  ;  xi.  12-14.  On  this  see  esp.  Budde,  RiSa,  174  ff., 
where  likewise  proof  is  produced  of  the  independence  of  the  two  narratives.  See 
there  also  against  Cornill,  ZA  W.  1890,  97  ff.  Likewise  Stade,^  212.  Cf.  also 
below,  p.  29,  note  1. 

^  Exc.  V.  1,  which  belongs  to  what  goes  before.       ■'  Cf.  vii.  11  ff.,  with  ix.  16. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONAKCHIC  AGE  25 

is  a  Judge  in  the  technical  sense  of  the  Book  of  Judges :  in  chap, 
viii.  he  is  not.^  In  chap.  vii.  the  chronology  is  carried  through 
quite  in  the  manner  of  the  Book  of  Judges.'-^  Elsewhere  also,  here 
and  in  chap,  xii.,  there  appear  remarkable  points  of  contact  with 
the  framework  of  the  Book  of  Judges  and  the  passages  most 
nearly  allied  to  it.^  We  shall  therefore  not  go  wrong  in  assuming 
that  the  thread  of  the  old  Book  of  '  Stories  of  the  Judges,'  some- 
what abruptly  broken  off  in  our  present  Book  of  Judges,  was  once 
continued  here.^  The  age  of  these  fragments  agrees  with  this 
view.  Cornill  has  made  it  probable,  against  Wellhausen  and 
Kuenen,  that  Jeremiah  knew  the  contents  of  chap,  vii.^  We  have 
already^  arrived  at  a  relatively  late  date  for  Ei,  near  that  of 
Deuteronomy :  we  can  now  say  more  exactly  that  the  writer  of 
these  passages  was  a  contemporary  of  Jeremiah's,  who  wrote  be- 
tween 622  and  588.  Apparently,  however,  as  many  traces  seem 
to  suggest,^  the  two  chapters  under  consideration  underwent  a 
further  Deuteronomistic  editing  at  the  time  of  their  transference 
from  the  Book  of  Stories  of  tlie  Judges  to  their  present  position. 

If  there  is  thus  clearly  a  certain  dissimilarity  between  the 
pieces,  chaps,  vii.  and  xii.  on  the  one  hand,  and  chaps  viii.,  x.  17  ff 

^  vii.  6-15  ff. — D'^OSD'  has  a  more  general  sense  in  viii.  1  f.,  rf.  viii.  5,  6. 
Were  this  not  the  case,  we  should  have  to  assume  with  Corn,  that  viii.  1-3  be- 
long to  chap.  vii.  According  to  Budde,  p.  208,  Samuel  is  in  M  [i.e.  1  Sam.  viii., 
X.  17  ff.,  etc.,  Tr.]  a  God-ordained  priest,  prophet,  and  Judge.  This  is  too  much 
for  any  one  writer.     No  Judge  is  elsewhere  a  priest. 

-  vii.  2,     The  beginning  of  r.  I  belongs  to  R. 

3  vii.  8,  13  {pVh  yC'in,  y:33) ;  xii.  8  tt".  ipVh  ''  n^^r,  "13D)-  See  furtlier,  Graf, 
Gesch.  BB.  9  If.  ;  Kuen.  §  xix.  10  ;  xxii.  6.  The  expressions  urged  in  favour  of 
E  by  Budde,  RiSa,  180  f.,  182  f.,  are  not  to  be  relied  on,  since  dependence  on 
the  language  of  E  is  quite  common  in  Deuteronomist  writers.  One  would  have 
as  much  right  to  claim  Dt.  i.-iv,,  or  similar  passages,  for  E.  On  Ju,  vi.  7  fl.,  and 
X.  6  ff.,  see  above,  p.  5  ff.  To  say  without  more  ado  that  chaps,  vii.  and  xii. 
belong  to  the  same  whole  as  viii.,  x.  17  ff.,  is,  in  spite  of  Budde  (p.  179),  not 
correct.  Cf.  inter  alia,  xii.  2  (no  knowledge  of  the  wickedness  of  Samuel's  sons)  ; 
xii.  3,  4  ("in^t^D)  ?  also  above,  note  1. 

^  Cf.  Graf,  Gesch.  BB.,^.  97  f.  ;  Kuen.  §  xix.  10  ;  Cornill,  ZA  W.  1890,  p.  106  f. 

^  ZKWL.  1885,  138  f.  "  See  above,  p.  5  f. 

'  See  the  unevenness  in  vii.  2  [v.  2a  Rd.)  ;  cf.  vii.  3  ff.,  with  Ju.  x.  10  ff.  ; 
moreover,  the  lack  of  acquaintance  with  the  age  of  the  Judges  in  xii.  9  ff.  (pK'OC^ 
in  V.  11  is  an  unjustifiable  correction;  see  Wellh.  TBS.  ;  Driver,  Notes).  For 
the  rest  cf.  Budde,  lUSa,  18G. 


20  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

on  the  other,  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen  appear  to  be  wrong  in 
supposing  that  they  all  belong  together.  These  critics  assign 
them  all  to  an  exilic  or  post-exilic  Deuteronomist.^  But  chaps, 
viii.,  X.  1 7  ff.,  are  hardly  so  late.  Forms  of  expression  belonging 
to  Deuteronomy  are  to  be  found  in  them  only  exceptionally,^  and 
the  attitude  of  Samuel  towards  the  people  hardly  presupposes  the 
existence  of  the  law  about  the  king  in  Dt.  xvii.^  Were  this  the 
case  Samuel  must  have  appealed  to  it.  It  rather  appears  that, 
conversely,  the  law  resulted  from  this  passage. 

In  chap.  XV.  the  case  stands  somewhat  differently.  The 
estrangement  of  Samuel  from  Saul  there  described  must  have  been 
related,  in  one  form  or  another,  also  in  the  continuation  of  chap,  ix., 
for  it  is  to  be  received  unconditionally  as  historical.  But  the 
present  chap,  xv.,  with  its  formal  rejection  of  Saul  through  the 
prophet  Samuel,  can  hardly  have  been  inserted  here  otherwise 
than  as  a  continuation  of  chaps,  vii.,  viii.,  x.  17  ff.,  xii.  Never- 
theless, there  rings  through  it  a  different  tone  from  that  of  the 
other  members  of  this  group.  It  stands,  as  Wellhausen  rightly 
saw,  one  step  nearer  than  they  to  the  narrative  of  chap,  ix.^ 

B.  Before  attempting  to  trace  the  narrative  further,  the 
question  of  the  sources  requires  yet  more  detailed  discussion. 
Cornill  has  the  merit  of  having  emphatically  called  attention 
anew^  to  some  remarkable  relations  between  one  of  these  series 
of  narratives — viz.  chaps,  vii.,  viii.,  x.  17  ff. ;  xii.,  xv. ;  and  the 
Hexateuch  source  E.  He  believes  he  can  draw  the  conclusion 
that  E  was  their  author.^  Since,  however,  in  their  present  form 
there  is — as  Cornill  rightly  recognises — much  in  them  that  con- 
flicts with  the  recognised  character  of  E,  Cornill  supposes  that  the 
aversion  of  Samuel  to  the  Monarchy,  and  other  individual  features 
of  the  narrative  in  chaps,  viii.,  x.   17  ff.,  as  well   as   chaps,    vii. 

^  BL-^%  104 ;  Kuen.  §  xxii.  6.  -  Cf.  the  list  in  Kuen.  §  xxii.  6. 

3  See  Budde,  BiSa,  183  f. 

■*  Bleek,""  215.  Cf.  also  Cornill,  ZKWL.  1885,  p.  120  ff.,  123.  Budde,  BiSa, 
189.  Whether  we  are  entitled  to  conclude  from  xv.  1,  that  the  anointing  was 
here  related  (Corn.  Bu.),  is  to  my  mind  not  certain. 

°  On  earlier  emphasising  of  the  same  point,  see  StKr.  1892,  45  f.,  and  also 
Wellh.  Bl.'^  216.  ••  ZKWL.  1885,  134  ff. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  27 

and  xii.,  were  first  added  to  the  origiual  text  of  E  by  a  later  editor.^ 
Yet  even  this  later  editor  must,  according  to  Cornill's  present  view;- 
belong  to  the  school  of  E.  He  therefore  calls  him  E^ — '  a  secondary 
Elohistic  editing '  of  the  work  of  the  Hexateuchal  E. 

Budde  followed  him,  or  rather  developed  Cornill's  earlier  re- 
presentations, according  to  which  the  secondary  editing  of  E  had 
been  ascribed  to  a  Deuteronomist  writer,  so  that  now  Cornill 
allots  these  passages  also  to  E,  as  E^.  On  the  other  hand,  Budde 
decidedly  rejected  both  Cornill's  separation  of  older  and  younger 
parts  in  chaps,  viii.,  x.  17  ff.,  and  his  separation  of  these  passages 
from  chaps,  vii.  and  xii. — in  the  former  case  with  justice,  in  the 
latter  wrongly. ^  When  he,  nevertheless,  accepts  Cornill's  separa- 
tion of  E(i)  and  E^,  it  is  not  in  the  same  sense  as  Cornill.  Budde's 
theory  •*  is,  that  chap.  xv.  belongs  to  E\  and  that  this  passage  is 
independent  of  the  whole  remaining  series  of  narratives.  These 
form  a  complete  uniform  whole,  which  Budde  thinks  himself  en- 
titled to  call  E2.  He  regards  E^  as  the  Hexateuch  writer  himself, 
and  E^  as  an  isolated  forerunner  ^  of  E^,  who  is  however,  now  and 
tlien,  merged  again  in  the  genuine  E. 

In  considering  this  hypothesis,  I  may  first  of  all  refer  to  the 
general  considerations  for  and  against,  already  adduced  on  this 
point,  as  also  to  what  was  said  of  Bohme's  assumption  of  the 
presence  of  the  Hexateuch  J  in  the  Book  of  Judges.^  In  fact, 
there  is  here  in  some  passages,  especially  in  chap,  xv.,  an  affinity" 
with  the  Hexateuch  E,  of  about  the  same  degree  of  clearness  as 
that  between  J  and  Ju.  vi.  and  xiii.  We  saw  in  that  case  that 
there  was  a  possibility — nay,  a  preponderating  probability — that 
that  connection  is  to  be  explained  by  ascribing  the  work  to  a 
writer  akin  in  spirit  to  J,  but  not  by  ascribing  it  to  J  himself. 
The  case  may  be  similar  here. 

'  ZKWL.  1885,  126  ff.,  138. 
-  ZA  W.  X.  104  f.     (7/.  now  also  Grundr.  109. 

^  ZA  W.    viii.  223  ff.  ;   RiSa,  177  ff.     Occupying  an  intermediate  position, 
Cornill,  ZA  W.  x.  96  ff.  *  RiSa,  189.  ^  BiSa,  190. 

^  See  above,  p.  15  ff.     See  further  my  discussions  in  StKr.  1892,  61  ff. 
^  See  the  proof  in  Corn.  ZKWL.  1885,  134,  and  Budde,  BiSa,  181  f.,  190. 


28  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

Cornill's  separation  of  two  layers  within  chap.  viii.  can  hardly 
be  maintained :  the  violence,  objected  to  by  Budde,  of  the  sub- 
sidiary hypotheses  needed  to  support  this  assumption,  will,  I 
imagine,  have  long  ago  raised  doubts  in  the  minds  of  others 
besides  myself.^  We  can  all  the  more  heartily  accept  what 
Cornill  says^  of  E's  relation  to  the  Monarchy.  Here  Budde  is 
wrong.^     Hence  follows  our  own  view  of  the  main  question  itself. 

We  could  very  well  agree  with  Cornill  if,  from  the  undeniable 
presence  in  the  passages  in  question  of  points  of  contact  with  E, 
he  simply  drew  the  conclusion  that  their  author,  although  diverging 
from  E  in  some  essential  points — as  e.g.  in  his  representation  of  the 
Monarchy — w^as  a  man  nearly  related  to  E,  a  continuer  of  the  book 
of  E,  of  like  mind  and  like  views,  who  might  therefore  be  called 
E^  But  this  is  not  his  idea ;  for,  according  to  him,  E'  is  only  the 
secondary  editor  (who,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  has  really  in  this  sense 
no  existence  at  all),  while  the  kernel  of  the  section,  according  to 
his  view,  comes  from  E  himself.  I  can  only  regard  this  as  a 
somewhat  hasty  assumption  of  identity  where  there  is  really  only 
affinity.  To  prove  a  writer  to  be  somewhat  nearly  related  to  E 
in  language  and  thought,  is  one  thing,  and  to  prove  him  to  be  E 
himself  is  another.  To  assume  the  former  of  these  is  the  furthest 
we  can  go  consistently  with  the  duty  of  scientific  caution. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  Budde's  view.  If  his  E^  had  been  a 
kindred  spirit  to  the  Hexateuch  E,  and  his  E^  an  otherwise 
unknown  man  of  the  same  circle,  his  scheme  might  with  a  few 
modifications  be  accepted.  But  his  E^  and  E^  continually  tend'^ 
to  become  simply  identified  with  E.  To  avoid  this  misunder- 
standing, I  give  up  altogether  the  use  of  E  as  a  designation  of 

1  See  Budde,  RiSa,  178. 

-  ZK IV L.  1885,  135.  See  also  the  details  above,  p.  17  f.  That  Cornill's 
correct  perception  of  this  is  of  no  use  to  him,  is  recognised  by  Budde,  JRiSa,  178 
below.  The  aversion  to  the  Monarchy— and  with  it  a  main  argument  against  E 
—is  left  in  viii.  11-20. 

2  RiSa,  184.  It  is  remarkable  that  here  also  {cf.  loc.  cii.  p.  119),  Budde  does 
not  so  much  as  make  the  attempt  to  prove  E's  aversion  to  the  Monarchy. 

^  See  Cornill,  ZKWL.  1885,  134:  'the  same  pen,'  and  the  reference  to  it  in 
liudde,  RiSa,  190,  180. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONAECHIC  AGE  29 

this  source,  and  call  it,  as  a  book  treating  with  equal  interest  of 
Samuel  and  Saul,  tlie  Samuel-Saul  History  (SS).  T  do  not 
question  that  its  author,  even  if  not  E  himself,  yet  stands  in  close 
relationship  to  him.  If  it  were  desired  to  add  a  new  name  to 
the  critical  apparatus,  already  unwieldy  enough,  we  should  have 
to  call  him  an  *  Elohistic'  We  must,  however,  keep  in  mind  that 
the  two  main  portions  of  SS  with  which  we  have  so  far  become 
acquainted — viz.:  chaps,  viii.,  x.  17  ff.,  and  chap.  xv. — are  not 
exactly  of  the  same  character.  The  conclusion  may  be  drawn 
from  this  that  the  writincp  SS  has  resulted  from  the  unitinGf  of 

o  o 

various  sources. 

C.  Eeturning  now  to  that  other  representation  of  the  rise  of 
Saul,  which  is  to  be  found  in  ix.  1 — x.  16,  we  find  that,  as  was 
shown  above,  it  has  its  immediate  continuation  in  chap,  xi.i  But 
we  can  trace  it  also  beyond  chap.  xi.  The  description  following, 
in  chaps,  xiii.  and  xiv.,  of  Saul's  victorious  wars  with  the  Philistines, 
is  at  all  events  not  in  agreement  with  SS,  as  a  comparison  with 
chaps,  viii.,  x.  17  ff.,  xv.,  clearly  shows.  All  probability  there- 
fore is  in  favour  of  these  chapters  having  stood  in  the  source  we 
are  now  dealing  with.^  But  a  relation  of  parts  must  be  granted 
here  similar  to  that  within  SS.  For  the  same  writer  that  in 
chap.  ix.  represents  Saul  as  an  obviously  youthful  son  of  Kish, 
still  living  in  his  father's  house,  cannot  well  have  ascribed  to  him 
here,  in  chaps,  xiii.  f.,  a  grown-up  son  of  martial  age.^ 

Importance  attaches  to  the  question  as  to  the  conclusion  of 
chap.  xiv.  We  seem  to  have  here  clearly  the  conclusion  of  a  life 
of  Saul,  for  it  tells  in  a  compendious  way  of  his  deeds.*  Many 
have  accordingly  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  history  of  Saul 
lying  before  us  in  ix.  1 — x.  16,  xi.,  xiii.  f. — for  brevity  I  call  it 
S — is  here  concluded.^     But  two  cogent  objections  may  be  urged 

^  It  is  to  be  siippoi-ed  that  there  stood  in  88  an  account  of  tlie  Ammonite  war 
analogous  to  chap,  xi.,  which  was  suppressed  in  favour  of  the  present  chap.  xi. 
when  the  two  sources  were  united.  "  Wellh.  BL*  213;    Budde,  JiiSa,  204  f. 

••  Wellh.  BL'  213  ;  Budde,  BiSa,  205. 

■*  xiv.  47-51.      F.  52  begins  something  new  :  see  below. 

^  Wellh.  Bl.''  214;  Cornill,  ZKIVL.  1885,  117,  and  KgSt.  i.  52;  probably 
also  Kuen.  §  xxi.  I. 


30  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IL 

against  this  view.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  certainly  not  probable 
that  a  history  of  Saul  that  begins  with  so  much  detail  as  S,  can 
have  suddenly  broken  off  so  shortly  and  summarily.  If,  therefore, 
in  the  further  course  of  the  Book  of  Samuel,  passages  should 
appear  that  seem  in  other  respects  to  belong  to  S,  the  existence 
of  this  '  conclusion  '  could  be  no  objection  to  our  assigning  them 
to  S.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  such  passages  should  not  be  found, 
that  would  not  prove  that  the  source  reached  here  its  real  con- 
clusion. But  then,  in  the  second  place,  S  is  a  source  of  high 
historical  value.  The  piece  xiv.  47-51,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
indeed  hardly  characterised  aright  by  a  charge  of  unjustifiable 
partiality  for  Saul.  It  may  rather  be  regarded  as  coming  from  a 
writer  who  either  did  not  know,  or  did  not  care  much  about, 
the  facts  of  his  history.  We  might  think  of  R  But  he  had  no 
inducement  to  make  the  history  of  Saul  end  here,  since  he  im- 
mediately continues  it ;  and  to  ascribe  the  piece  to  him  would  not 
agree  with  the  circumstance  that  most  probably  v.  52  represents 
a  transition  to  the  further  history  of  Saul  from  his  hand.^  But 
V.  52  excludes  the  preceding  verses.  I  conjecture  therefore  that 
xiv.  47-51  was  found  by  R  in  an  independent,  though  late  source, 
and  inserted  here.^ 

A  further  difficulty  is  presented  by  the  section  in  S  on  Saul's 
rejection:  xiii.  7^-1 5^  Although  prepared  for,  as  it  seems,  by  an 
earlier  notice,^  this  piece  has  something  perplexing  about  its  form 
and  contents.  In  its  present  position  it  interrupts  the  con- 
nection, and  is  even  in  itself  hardly  intelligible.^  As  it  now  reads 
it  can  hardly  be  original.  Since  the  rejection  of  Saul  is  accounted 
for  in  detail  in  chap,  xv.,  although  on  different  grounds,  we  have 
here  a  parallel  account.  It  is  certain  that  S,  as  well  as  SS,  must 
somewhere  or  other  have  given  reasons  for  Saul's  early  fall  and 

^  See  below,  p,  44. 

2  Similarly  Budde,  208,  210.  On  the  ground  of  individual  words  in  v.  47  f. 
(y^K^1\  for  which  read,  V'K'V,  inDK')  one  might  think  of  Ri ;  cf.  also  Budde,  206. 
But  the  idea  of  a  history  of  Saul  in  Ri  (so  still  in  Kautzsch)  is  too  unnatural. 

^  X.  8.     This  verse  also  belongs  probably  to  R. 

4  On  this  see  Wellh.  BL*  215 ;  Cornill,  ZKWL.  1885,  117  f.  ;  Kuen.  §  xxi.  8  ; 
Budde,  BiSa,  191  f. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  31 

his  rupture  with  Samuel.  But  we  can  hardly  hope  ever  to  know 
what  it  contained. 

Our  source  S  is  regarded  by  Budde,^  though  certainly  'with  all 
reserve,'  as  a  continuation  of  J  analogous  to  E.  Few  positive 
grounds  can  be  urged  for  this  view.  If  the  further  course  of  our 
source  does  not  in  some  way  justify  the  identification,  we  may  be 
allowed  to  abandon  it. 

D.  After  what  we  have  ascertained,  there  still  remain,  as  a 
constituent  part  of  the  wliole  section  with  which  we  are  dealing, 
chaps,  i-vi.,  to  which  vii.  1  belongs.  Here,  in  the  first  place,  it  is 
beyond  doubt  that  the  piece,  chaps,  i.-iii.,^  has  been  written  with 
its  continuation  iv.-vi.  in  view.  For  the  sudden  fall  of  Eli  and 
his  sons  is  narrated  in  chap.  iv.  and  prepared  for  in  i.-iii.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  less  clear  whether  the  other  section,  chaps,  iv.-vi., 
has  likewise  been  written  with  reference  to  what  now  precedes  it.^ 
It  is  in  the  highest  degree  remarkable  that  in  the  whole  section 
iv.-vi.,  Samuel,  who  up  to  this  point  has  been  the  chief  figure,  is 
not  once  mentioned.* 

If  we  look  now  at  the  relation  of  chaps,  i-vi.  to  chaps,  vii.-xv., 
it  is  clear  at  once  that  the  story  of  Samuel's  youth  in  i.-iii.  cannot 
possibly  stand  alone,  but  must  have  been  written  as  an  intro- 
duction to  the  subsequent  history  of  that  hero.  It  has  therefore 
the  double  object  of  preparing  for  Samuel's  rise  and  for  Eli's  fall. 
This  amounts  to  saying  that  its  continuation  must  be  sought,  not 
only  in  iv.-vi.,  but  also  in  vii.-xv.  In  deciding  the  question,  which 
of  the  series  in  vii.-xv.  is  introduced  by  i.-iii.,  we  have  our  choice 
between  S  and  SS.  Here  we  shall  decide  unconditionally  in 
favour  of  SS.  For  the  Samuel  of  chaps,  i.-iii.,  tlie  divinely  or- 
dained priest  and  prophet,  stands  decidedly  nearer  to  the  Samuel 

>  mSa,  203.     See  now  also  Corn.  Grundr.  109  f.  (yet  cf.  above,  p.  16  f. ), 
-  As  later  additions  are  to  be  distinguished  :  ii.   1-10,  a  Psalm  of  unknown 
origin,  and  ii,  27-36,  a  Deuteronomistic,  but  still  pre-exilic,  interpolation.     See 
Wellh.  BI^  207  ;  Kuen.  §xxii.  5  ;  Oort,  Theol.  Tijdschr.  xviii.  .309  tf.  ;  Baudissin, 
(lesch.  d.  AT.  Prestert.  195  fif.     Budde  {RiSa,  199)  thinks  of  E  along  with  Rd. 

3  Wellh.  BL*  208  ;  Kuen.  §  xxii.  11. 

4  iv.  186  is  at  all  events  an  addition,  either  of  Ri,  or  perhaps  rather  of  R. 
For  Eli  is  not  elsewhere  a  Judge  in  the  sense  in  which  that  term  is  used  by  Ri. 


32  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

of  SS  than  to  the  Seer  of  S.  If  we  ask,  conversely,  whether  S  or 
SS  refers  back  to  i.-iii.,  the  answer  will  again  be  in  favour  of  SS. 
For  chap.  viii.  introduces  Samuel  as  an  old  man  in  a  way  that 
leads  one  to  expect,  at  least,  the  necessary  information  about  his 
past  to  be  supplied.  Chap,  ix.,  on  the  other  hand,  presupposes 
indeed  the  unhappy  situation  of  Israel,^  but  introduces  Samuel  in 
a  way  that  leads  one  to  conclude  positively  that  hitherto  nothing- 
has  been  said  of  him.  This  does  not  preclude  the  possibility  that 
i.-iii.  was  nevertheless  written  as  an  introduction  to  S  by  an 
editor  or  sub-editor  ;2  but  the  probability  is  decidedly  in  favour 
of  its  belonging  to  SS,  since  otherwise  a  second  introductory 
history  of  Samuel  must  be  presupposed,  preceding  viii.  1  f{'. 

If  this  be  so,  then  iv.-vi.,  vii.  1  must  also  have  stood  in  SS, 
since  i.-iii.  presupposes  it.  Against  this  no  objection  can  be 
raised  if  we  suppose  that  the  rest  of  chap,  vii.,  as  has  elsewhere 
appeared,  does  not  belong  to  this  source,  but  was  interpolated  at  a 
later  date  :^  iv.-vi.,  vii.  1  is  therefore  not  from  the  same  hand 
as  i.-iii. 

Very  naturally  Cornill  and  Budde,  in  accordance  with  their 
previous  assumption,  are  inclined*  to  ascribe  this  section  also  to 
E.  On  this  point,  considering  the  close  connection  of  i.-iii.  with 
viii.,  X.  17  ff.,  we  must  pass  the  same  judgment  as  on  the  relation 
of  those  parts  of  SS  to  E.  There  is  affinity  with  E,  but  no  proof 
of  identity.  Since  iv.-vi.,  vii.  1  belongs  to  another  and  older 
autlior,  Budde  resorts  to  E^  as  against  E-.  iv.-vii.  1  would  thus 
be  brought  into  connection  with  chap,  xv.,  for  which  there  is  no 
ground,  iv.-vi.  is  so  independent  of  the  other  sections  that  vre 
must  assume  that  it  has  been  inserted  by  the  author  of  SS  from 

1  It  is  to  be  assumed  that  there  once  stood  in  S  an  account  of  the  fight  at 
Eljenezer  and  its  consequences,  analogous  to  chaps.  iv\-vi.,  but  its  place  is  now 
taken  by  chap.  vii.     See  Wellh.  />V.-t  210  ;  ef.  also  Stade,^  202  f. 

2  So  Stade,2  199. 

^  With  his  assumption  of  a  close  connection  between  chaps,  vii.  and  viii., 
Budde  falls  into  the  difficulty  of  having  to  admit  the  battle  of  Ebenezer  twice 
into  one  and  the  same  source.  This  is  impossible,  and  the  difficulty  is  not 
removed  by  assuming  an  E^  and  E^.  There  is  hardly  any  ground,  however,  for 
assuming  the  work  of  R  (Budde,  187).  ^  ZKWL.  1885,  136  ;  RiSa,  198  f. 


I 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  33 

au  Ephvainiite  source,  of  which  we  otherwise  know  nothing.^  Every 
consideration  therefore  recommends  our  contenting  ourselves  here 
also  with  the  I'esult,  certainly  less  complete  but  safer,  that  SS — i.e. 
the  sections  i.-iii. ;  iv.-vii.  1  ;  viii. ;  x.  17  ff.  .  .  .  xv. —  represented 
a  book  resulting  from  the  fusing  of  several  elements  of  tradition 
more  or  less  nearly  related  to  E.  In  the  blank  space  tliere  must 
have  stood  a  version  of  what  is  related  in  chap,  xi.,  as  well  as 
probably  a  short  description  of  Saul's  Philistine  wars,  which  can- 
not have  been  altogether  passed  over.  One  might  most  plausibly 
assume  that  the  compiler  of  the  book  was  at  the  same  time  the 
writer  of  i.-iii.  and  viii.,  x. ;  while  iv.-vi.  and  xv.  appear  to  be  in- 
serted from  older  sources. 

U.  We  have  still  to  determine  the  age  and  place  of  origin  of 
the  individual  sections. 

Nearest  to  the  events  in  point  of  time  stand  the  narratives  in 
S  ;  first  of  all,  chaps,  xi.,  xiii.  f.,  then  ix.  1 — x.  16.  But  even  the 
former  is  not  contemporaneous  with  the  events,  though  it  appears 
to  be  not  far  removed  from  them.  In  coming  to  this  conclusion,  I 
am  influenced  not  so  much  by  some  traces  of  later  style  in  the 
section  in  its  present  form,  which  might  very  easily  be  inter- 
polations of  a  different  hand,^  nor  yet  by  the  grounds  adduced  by 
AVellhausen  and  Kuenen,^  but  rather  by  the  lack  of  complete 
perspicuity  in  the  narrative,  which,  in  spite  of  all  its  faithfulness 
of  reproduction,  gives  rise  to  many  questions.*  Somewhat  younger 
than  this  section  is  the  other,  ix.  1 — x.  16.  Here  the  figure  of 
Saul  no  longer  stands  quite  in  the  light  of  history.^  Hence,  even 
if  we  might  assume  that  xi.,  xiii.  f.  were  written  while  Saul  or 

^  The  remarkable  interchange  of  divine  names, — Yalive  in  i.-iii.,  Elohim  in 
iv.-vi. — does  not  argue  strongly  for  the  ascription  of  both  sections  to  E,  however 
far  we  are  from  being  justified  in  drawing  from  it  otlierwisc  any  positive  con- 
clusions.    Cf.  Wellh.  209. 

-  Here  belong  xi.  8h  (cf.  xiii.  2,  15);  xiii.  1  (R) ;  xiii.  19-22  {v.  BL'').  On 
xiii.  76-1'Ta  see  above,  p.  30  ;  on  xi.  12-14  see  p.  24,  note  3. 

2  §  xxii.  10. 

"*  Cf.  esp.  xiii.  2  ff.,  where,  apart  from  the  condition  of  the  text,  much  is 
obscure.     See  fuller  details  below,  in  §  40. 

•^  Cf.  esp.  ix.  1  fF.,  where  one  gets  an  impression  of  Saul  as  an  '  iiiimaturc  lad  ' 
(Wellh.),  with  chap,  xiii.,  where  he  himself  has  a  grown-up  son. 

VOL.  II.  C 


:u  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

David  was  still  alive,  the  source  S  as  a  whole,  would  demand  a 
somewhat  later  date.  If  we  might  conclude  from  the  great 
partiality  for  Saul  that  appears  in  chap,  ix.,  that  the  northern 
kingdom  was  the  native  soil  of  S,  the  conjecture  that  this  source 
is  to  be  attributed  to  Saul's  own  tribe  of  Benjamin,i  would  be 
attractive.  We  should  then  have  to  assume  for  S,  in  view  of  the 
point  just  touched  on,  a  date  somewhere  about  the  time  of 
Jeroboam  I. 

Within  SS  the  priority  is  to  be  given  to  the  section  on  the 
loss  and  the  return  of  the  ark.  The  remark  of  Kuenen^  is  certainly 
correct,  that  the  conception  of  the  ark  represented  by  the  narra- 
tive, as  actually  identified  with  Yalive  himself,  can  hardly  date 
from  any  time  later  than  the  eighth  century,  though  it  may  belong 
to  a  considerably  earlier  time,  all  the  more  that  the  expression 
'ark  of  the  Covenant'  is  foreign  to  the  original  text.^  In  other 
respects  also  the  account  has  the  colouring  of  naive  antiquity.* 
There  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  assign  it  to  the  ninth  century. 

The  second  place  is  occupied  by  chap.  xv.  It  cannot  be  older 
than  E.  With  this  agrees  the  position  of  Samuel,  who  stands 
midway  between  prophets  like  Elijah  and  Elislia,  and  such  as  Amos 
and  Hosea.^  This  points  to  the  time  between  Elijah  and  Hosea,  yet 
nearer  to  the  latter  than  to  the  former.^  We  may  perhaps  think 
of  the  beginning  or  middle  of  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II. 

We  are  thus  left  with  a  somewhat  later  date  for  the  author 
of  i.-iii.,  viii.,  x.  ff.,  who  is  apparently  the  same  person  as  the 
author  of  SS  in  general.  His  conception  of  Samuel,  as  well  as  of 
the  Monarchy,  agrees  with  this  view.  The  latter  consideration 
points  to  a  contemporary  or  imitator  of  Hosea,^  and  there  is  much 

1  So  Stade,  Gesch.  209.  2  §  ^xii.  11.     Of.  also  Wellh.  Bl.'^  208. 

■^   V.  Wellh.  TBS.  ;  Driver,  Notes,  ad  lor. 

^  Cf.  the  numbers,  at  least  in  iv.  2. 

•'  Wellh.  Bl."^  215.     On  the  relation  to  the  Hexateuch  E,  r.  StKr.  1892,  67  f. 

'^  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  come  down  later  than  Hosea  on  account  of  xv.  2ii 
{cf.  Hos.  iii.  4)  :  the  idea  that  Hosea  approves  of  Ephod  and  Teraphim  is  a 
myth.      CJ.  iii.  4a  with  xiii.  10. 

7  V.  esp.  Hos.  xiii.  10  f.  On  the  other  hand,  on  viii.  4  and  ix.  9,  v.  below 
§  68  towards  the  end. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  35 

else  in  favour  of  this  tiiue.^  Perhaps  Kuenen  is  right  when  he 
refers  ns  somewhat  more  definitely  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  after 
the  year  722.^  The  distinctly  pre-Deuteronomic  conception  of  the 
cultus  and  priesthood,^  shows  that  we  cannot  come  down  any 
further. 

2.  Saul  and  David  :  1  Sam.  xvi.-xxxi. — Our  first  care  must  be 
to  answer  the  question  whether  S  and  SS,  the  main  writings  we 
have  so  far  discovered,  are  continued  here.  The  sections  put 
together  in  this  division  do  not,  as  will  immediately  appear,  come 
from  one  and  the  same  hand :  on  the  contrary,  two  parallel  series 
of  narratives  are  clearly  marked  off  from  each  other.  We  easily 
recognise  that  one  of  these  carries  on  the  thread  of  SS,  and  indeed 
in  a  way  that  seems  to  point  to  the  same  writer.  With  reference 
to  the  other,  the  case  is  not  so  clear. 

A.  The  double  thread  of  narrative  appears  at  once  from  the 
way  in  which  David,  who  now  comes  forward,  is  introduced  to 
Saul.  In  ch.  xvi.  14-23  Saul's  men  seek  for  some  one  able  to  dispel 
the  king's  melancholy,  and  find  him  in  David,  who  is  known  to 
them  at  the  same  time  as  a  valiant  warrior.*  This  narrative  has 
not  the  same  author  as  xvii.  1-xviii.  5.  In  the  latter  place  David 
is  a  youth,  still  unknown  to  the  king,  not  yet  intrusted  with  the 
bearing  of  arms,  who  comes  to  the  army  on  his  father's  errands, 
and  there  slays  the  Philistine  Goliath.  It  is  only  in  consequence 
of  this  deed  that  he  becomes  known  to  the  king  and  is  introduced 
by  him  to  the  court.  The  latter  narrative  will  prove  to  be  a 
continuation  of  SS ;  the  other,  as  the  beginning  of  a  history  of 
David,  I  provisionally  designate  '  Da.' 

The  disagreement  between  the  two  narratives  seems  certainly 
less  harsh,  although  it  is  not  removed,^  if  instead  of  the  Massoretic 

1  Gf.  in  general,  Wellh.  Bl."^  213.     Cornill,  KgSt.  i.  25.     Budde,  BiSa,  184  f. 

-  Ond.^  §  xxii.  11  ;  Kueuen's  argument  applies  only  to  i.-iii. 

■'  Samuel  not  a  Levite ;  sleeps  beside  the  ark ;  the  feast  and  offering ;  the 
priestly  dues. 

^  Yet  he  is  still  (y.  19)  under  the  potestas  patria,  whence  the  possibility  of  his 
being  his  father's  shepherd.  So,  with  Kamphausen  in  Theol.  Arh.  aus  d.  rhein. 
J'red.-Ver.  vii.  10,  against  Stade  224,  Budde  211. 

5  Cf.  xvi.  18  and  xvii.  .38  ff.  lxx. 


36  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

text  of  xvii.  I-xviii.  5,  we  take  that  of  the  Cod.  Vatic,  of  the  LXX. 
as  basis.^  Hence  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  LXX.  has  here 
made  use  of  '  harmonistic  criticism '  and  removed  the  worst  dis- 
crepancies. Certainly  it  would  have  to  be  admitted,  at  the  same 
time,  that  it  has  only  imperfectly  attained  this  object.  Hence  the 
possibility  must  remain  open,  that  the  additional  matter  of  the 
Hebrew  text  is  due  to  an  independent  recension  of  the  history. 
Still  I  regard  this  as  less  probable.^  The  same  kind  of  thing 
is  seen  in  the  course  of  chap,  xviii.  Budde  finds  here  also 
liarmonistic  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  LXX.,  on  the  score  that  both 
cases  must  be  judged  alike.  If  this  is  really  so,  this  passage 
would  determine  our  view  of  the  other  passage  also,  in  spite  of 
what  has  been  said  above.  For  here  we  have  plainly  an  in- 
dependent recension  alongside  of  the  LXX.^  But  it  is  in  my 
opinion  not  impossible  that  both  things  are  present  at  the  same 
time.  In  fact,  certain  traces  seem  even  to  indicate  that  in  chap, 
xviii.  itself  both  are  to  be  found  side  by  side.^ 

If  the  view  here  represented  is  correct,  we  have  to  take  the 
Massoretic  text  for  basis  in  chap.  xvii.  I-xviii.  5,  and  the  LXX.,  for 
the  most  part,^  in  xviii.  6  ff.  However,  this  need  not  involve  a 
later  origin  for  the  Hebrew  text  of  chap,  xviii.  6  ff.  than  for  the 
Greek.     At  any  rate,  the  portions  which  the  Hebrew  text  has, 

^  On  this  question,  v.  Wellh.  TBS.  ad  loc.  ;  Bleek,^  §  106  f.  ;  Kamph.  Rhein. 
Arh.  vii.  1  flf.  ;  Gaupp,  David,  7  ff.  ;  Kuen.  §  xxiii.  7 ;  Cornill,  KgSt.  i.  25  ff . ; 
Klost.  SaKij,  ad  loc.  ;  Stade,^  226  f.  ;  Budde,  RiSa,  212  ff.  ;  Dillmann  in  Sitz.-Ber. 
d.  Berl.  AJcad.  1890,  1372 ;  [W.  R.  Smith,  OTJC,-  p.  431  ff.  ;  F.  H.  Woods, 
Studia  Bihlica,  i.  99J. 

-  The  chief  ground  with  me  is  that  chap.  xvii.  (lxx.  )  provides  no  satisfactory- 
connection  (against  Cornill,  32  f.)  with  chap.  xv.  It  is  thus  probably  not  an  in- 
dependent conception.     See  also  later,  p.  37  f. 

2  Cf.  Wellh.  Bl.'^  218.  Chap,  xviii.  (lxx.  )  is  a  connected  unity,  and  v.  12a  is  not 
likely  to  have  been  left  by  a  harmoniser.  The  proof  would  be  still  clearer  if  Corn. 
(27  f.)  were  justified  in  declaring  that  there  is  an  uninterrupted  connection  in 
the  additional  matter  of  the  Hebrew  text.  But  cf.  on  the  other  hand  r.  6a,  and 
especially  216. 

^  xviii.  1-5  I  do  not  regard  as  original  (see  against  Corn,  p.  26,  below  on 
p.  38) ;  but  probably  vv.  9-11,  216,  and  the  additional  matter  in  v.  26  ff.  On  the 
other  hand,  vv.  6a,  Saa  seem  to  have  been  purposely  omitted.  With  regard  to 
17-19  this  is,  at  all  events,  very  possible. 

^  V.  the  preceding  note. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  37 

but  not  the  Lxx.,  need  not  be  regarded  as  additions  introduced 
into  the  text  subsequently  to  the  date  of  that  version.^  The 
Greek  translator  may  have  had  before  him  simply  another  and 
shorter  recension  of  the  story  of  David.  This  would  indicate  that 
the  shorter  recension  was  that  which  first  obtained  recognition, 
whereas  the  more  elaborate  form  did  not  make  its  way  into  the 
Canon  till  later.  Upon  this  theory  the  Hebrew  text  would  have 
to  be  regarded  as  younger  than  the  lxx.,  not  in  respect  of  its 
formation,  but  only  in  respect  of  its  recognition  as  canonical. 

If  now  we  compare  chap,  xviii.  LXX.  with  the  preceding,  it  is 
clear  that  xviii.  12a,  'Saul  was  afraid  of  David,'  forms  the  con- 
clusion of  a  narrative  accounting  for  this  fear.  The  narrative 
itself  tells  of  the  song  of  the  women  that  disparaged  Saul  in 
favour  of  David.  The  contents,  as  well  as  the  express  connection 
with  what  precedes,  appear  to  mark  this  section  as  a  continuation 
of  the  Goliath  story.  But  its  suitability  for  this  purpose,  whether 
in  point  of  contents  or  of  connection,  is  only  apparent.  '  If  David 
has  slain  his  tens  of  thousands,  he  is  not  the  unknown  shepherd 
lad,  but  the  leader  of  Israel  alongside  of  Saul.'  ^  Moreover,  v.  6 
is  crowded  at  the  beginning,  and  thus  betrays  its  artificial  attach- 
ment to  the  Goliath  story.^  Vv.  6-8  thus  belongs  to  xvi.  14  ff., 
yet  do  not  form  its  direct  continuation,  but  presuppose  certain 
military  exploits  through  which  David  distinguished  himself.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  section  once  stood  at  some 
other  point  in  Da.* 

In  obvious  agreement  with  this  section,  is  the  love  of  Michal 
for  David,  which  provided  a  still  stronger  ground  for  Saul's  fear, 
and  which,  contrary  to  Saul's  wish,  led  to  marriage  (xviii.  20-29'^). 
This  account  knows  nothing  of  an  obligation  on  tlie  part  of  Saul 
to  give  David  his  daughter,  on  the  ground  of  a  previously  given 
promise.  On  the  contrary,  the  love  of  his  daugliter  for  David  has 
first  to  be  reported  to  Saul.     Only  v.  2V\  whicli  is  lacking  in  the 

1  Against  Budde,  213.  -  Wellh.  BL^  218. 

='   V.  Budde,  218.     For  the  rest,  it  is  most  probable  that  the  first  two  words  of 
r.  6  stood  in  Da ;  the  rest  to  Tlti'/'Sn-nSj  and  also  v.  Saa,  in  R. 
^  So  Corn.  KgSt.  35. 


38  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

LXX.,  refers  to  that  promise,  as  also  the  last  words  of  v.  26.^  Here 
also  we  have  Da.  Between  these  two  passages  from  Da,  there 
now  stands  in  the  LXX.  the  account  in  v.  13-16  of  the  conferring 
of  a  military  office  on  David.  This  passage  does  not  suit  Da,  less 
for  the  reason  given  by  Cornill,^  than  because,  in  that  source 
{v.  6  ff.),  David  already  has  a  command.  It  agrees  well  however 
with  SS,  at  least  in  xvii.  1-xviii.  5  lxx.  It  was  perhaps  a 
'doublet'  in  SS,  and  one  of  the  grounds  for  the  omission  of  xviii. 
1-5  in  the  Lxx.^ 

If  we  look  now  at  the  extra  matter  in  the  M.  T.  of  the  section 
under  consideration  (xviii.  6  ff.),  the  two  passages  vv.  9-11  and  17- 
19  also  claim  our  notice.  The  former  is  the  direct  continuation 
of  vv.  6  ff.  in  Da.  Whether  it  did  not  make  its  way  into  Da  till 
later,  or  was  for  some  unknown  reasons  lacking  in  the  recension 
used  by  the  LXX.  translator,  we  cannot  say.  Even  xix.  9  f.  was 
no  reason  for  omitting  it.  The  second  passage,  17-19,  clearly 
belongs  to  SS,  from  whose  premises  it  starts,  while  on  the  other 
hand  it  cannot  belong  to  v.  20  ff.  In  this  case  we  may  see  in  the 
hiatus  between  v.  1^  and  20  ff.,  a  ground  for  the  omission. 

Before  leaving  chaps,  xvi.-xviii.,  however,  we  must  mention 
another  account  of  the  circumstances  of  David's  appearance  on 
the  stage  of  history,  which  we  have  as  yet  passed  over.  This  is 
to  be  found  in  xvi.  1-13.  That  it  does  not  belong  to  Da  is 
evident  at  once,  for  in  this  new  narrative  David  is  a  shepherd-lad 
and  Jesse's  youngest  son.  One  might  be  tempted,  simply  for  this 
reason,  to  connect  it  with  chap.  xvii.  and  so  with  SS.  In  reality, 
however,  neither  is  this  admissible.^  "We  have  here  a  later  passage 
interpolated  by  E. 

B.  Chaps,  xix.  and  xx.  form  a  second  section  by  themselves. 
Saul's  suspicion  of  David  has  become  open  hate,  which  he  reveals 
to  Jonathan.  The  latter,  by  reminding  Saul  of  David's  exploit, 
succeeds  in  pacifying  him.    David  is  even  able  to  return  once  more 

1  On  i^^h  Dlxi'O^I  in  V.  27,  v.  Corn.  KySt.  27.  "  KgSt.  35  f. 

'  The  ascription  of  it  to  this  source  is  confirmed  by  xix.  1  ff. 
4  V.  Wellh.  Bl.^  217  ;  also  Corn.  Kg  St.  52  j  Bu.  216. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  3l> 

to  Saul's  presence  (xix.  1-7).  Hardly,  however,  has  David  achieved 
new  successes  in  the  Philistine  war,  than  one  day  Saul  hurls  his 
spear  at  him,  so  that  it  is  with  the  greatest  difficulty  that  David 
escapes  (8-10).  By  night  Saul  has  David's  house  watched  to 
have  him  slain  next  day.  Through  Michal's  clever  management 
David  is  enabled  to  escape  (11-17).  Here  1-7^  belongs  to  SS ; 
only  V.  3  is  to  be  excluded  as  an  addition  -  from  the  hand  of  K.  To 
the  same  source  belong  also  vv.  8-10,  since  they  quite  naturally 
connect  themselves  with  it,  and  moreover  have  already  their 
counterpart  in  Da,  in  xviii.  10  f.  On  the  other  hand,  the  passage 
11-17  presents  difficulty.^  It  is  generally  regarded  as  an  indepen- 
dent piece  :  so  still  by  Cornill,  who  takes  objection  to  the  teraphim 
in  vv.  13,  16,  on  account  of  xv.  23.  It  is  true  that  the  teraphim 
can  have  been  mentioned  here  by  the  author  of  xv.  23,  only  if  he 
had  the  additional  object  of  casting  blame  on  Michal,  as  the 
daughter  of  Saul.  If  one  may  read  this  between  the  lines,  the 
passage  may  belong  to  SS ;  otherwise  it  is  (with  Wellhauseu, 
Stade,  and  Cornill)  to  be  regarded  as  a  fragment  from  some  other 
source  unknown  to  us.*  The  close  of  the  chapter,  on  the  other 
hand,  which  narrates  David's  flight  to  Kamah,  xix.  18-24  (also 
XX.  l'^),  is  hardly  original.  It  belongs  to  the  same  category  as  xvi. 
1  ff.5 

If  there  is  thus  no  trace  of  the  source  Da  to  be  found  in  chap, 
xix.,  on  the  other  hand  almost  the  whole  of  chap.  xx.  belongs  to  it. 
There  is  here  no  knowledge  of  David's  flight.  He  is  still  in 
Gibeah,  in  the  company  of  Saul,  along  with  the  crown  prince  and 
the  leader  of  the  forces — i.e.  in  the  position  in  which  we  found  him 
(xvi.  U  K),  and  left  him  (chap,  xviii.)  in  Da.^^     His  flight  is  only 

^  Cf.  esp.  r.  4  with  chap  xvii.,  and  r.  7  with  xviii.  13. 

2  V.  Budde,  221.     Corn.  (37  ff.,  47)  wishes  to  omit  cv.  2  and  3. 

•*  On  the  text  in  v.  11  v.  my  translation. 

■*  The  other  reasons  I  regard  (with  Budde)  as  not  decisive— at  all  events  not 
for  the  literary  view  of  the  question.  Even  xviii.  17  ff.  will  hardly  exclude  our 
passage. 

5  V.  Wellh.  BL^  219  ;  Corn.  KgSl.  53  ;  Budde,  223.  Perhaps  we  are  to  think 
(Corn.)  of  an  insertion  from  the  hand  of  D-  (Dt.  Rd.). 

•5   V.  Corn.  51. 


40  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

now  explained.      The   passage  is,  however,  considerably  worked 
over,  or  supplied  with  extraneous  additions.^ 

C.  In  chaps,  xxi.  and  xxii.  we  have  a  continuation  of  the 
narrative  of  SS.  David  has  tied  from  Gibeah  after  Saul's  attempt 
at  his  life.^  We  learn  that  he  went  first  to  Nob,  and  are  told 
what  befell  him  there.^  Then  we  learn  that  for  a  time  he  found 
shelter  in  the  stronghold  of  Adullam,  and  there  gathered  around 
himself  a  band  of  adventurers.  On  the  other  hand,  Saul's  fury 
raged  against  the  priesthood  of  Nob,  because  their  head  had 
assisted  David  in  his  flight.  The  connection  with  SS  is  un- 
deniable :  '  everything  here  hangs  upon  the  sword  of  Goliath.'* 
We  have  a  later  addition  to  this  section  in  xxi.  11-16,  the 
narrative  of  David's  stay  with  Achish  at  Gath.  This  is  hardly 
to  be  regarded  as  an  independent  source,  as  Cornill  supposes.^  On 
the  other  hand,  it  may  be  questioned  whether  Wellhausen  is  right 
in  separating  also  vv.  8-10  from  the  context.  I  see  no  serious 
discrepancy  between  these  verses  and  xxii.  9.^  It  is  thus  also 
shown  to  be  unnecessary  to  assign  xxii.  6-23  to  another  source.'^ 
Nor  is  there  any  sufficient  reason  for  excising  xxii.  3,  4,^  or 
xxiii.  5.^ 

D.  Chaps,  xxiii.-xxvii.  There  follows  now  a  longer  section 
taken  from  Da,  chaps.  xxiiL-xxvii.  We  left  David,  in  this  source, 
as  he  was  betaking  himself  to  flight.  He  is  now  fled  from  Gibeah 
(although  the  account  of  this  has  not  been  preserved  for  us  in  Da), 
and  is  fighting  for  Keilah  against  the  Philistines,  obviously  at 
the  head  of  his  band.  Saul  prepares  to  attack  him  in  Keilah, 
whereupon  he  leaves  the  town.  But  Saul  pursues  him  into  the 
territory  of  the  Ziphites,  and  it  is  only  by  a  sudden  attack  of  the 
riiilistines  that  he  is  rescued  from  destruction ;  wherefore  he  goes 

1   V.  below,  §  40.  -  xix.  10  or  xix.  17. 

^  xxi.  2-10  [vv.  1-9  in  E.V.]  (y.  1  [Heb.  text]  belongs  to  the  preceding,  thus 
to  Da.)  ■*  Cornill,  /vf/.SY.  31. 

5  V.   Cornill,  KgSt.  54 ;  Kuen.  §  xxii.  13.     Klosterm.  wrongly  alters  the  text 
in  V.  12. 

6  V.  Cornill,  KgSt.  30  f.  ;  cf.  Kamphausen,  Rh.  Arh.  vii.  9. 

7  So  Budde,  RiSa,  226. 

8  V.  Budde,  227  ;  Kamph.  ZA  W.  vi.  67.  ^  V.  Cornill,  KgSt.  4L 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  41 

in  the  direction  of  Engedi(xxiii.  1-13  ;  xxiii.  19  ;  xxiv.  1).  between 
the  first  and  the  second  of  these  statements  there  has  been 
inserted  a  passage  taken  from  SS.  Cornill  rightly  ascribes  it  to 
the  source  E,  whereas  Wellhausen  and  Stade  suppose  a  redactional 
addition.^  xxiii.  G,  on  the  other  hand,  belongs  to  R,  provided  that 
it  is  not  simply  a  gloss.^ 

Chap.  xxiv.  is  a  continuation  of  tlie  same  narrative.  Saul 
follows  David  to  the  wilderness  of  Engedi,  and  the  latter  has  here 
an  opportunity  of  showing  his  magnanimity.  He  betakes  himself 
hence  to  the  steppe  of  Maon  where,  according  to  chap,  xxv.,  he  falls 
in  with  Xabal  of  Carmel,  and  this  leads  to  his  marriage  with 
Abigail.^  In  these  two  chapters  only  individual  verses  can  be  cut 
out  as  later  additions.*  All  tlie  rest  forms  a  well-connected  whole. 
In  immediate  connection  with  this  there  stands,  in  chap,  xxvi.,  a 
second  proof  of  David's  magnanimity.  This  is  obviously  parallel 
to  xxiii.  19  ff.,  xxiv.  2  ff.,  and  nmst  therefore  belong  to  the  other 
source,  SS.  With  this  statement  Budde  would  agree,^  for  he 
believes  he  has  established  the  traces  of  E  in  chap,  xxv.,  and  of  J 
in  chap,  xxiv.;  while  Cornill,  on  the  contrary,  assigns  xxiii.  19  ff. 
chap.  xxiv.  to  E.  Cornill 's  chief  reason  seems  to  be  that  chap, 
xxvi.  manifestly  contains  the  older  form  of  the  anecdote.^  Yet 
this  reason  is  not  conclusive.  More  important  for  our  purpose 
than  the  decision  of  this  point,  is  the  observation  that  within  Da 
chap.  xxv.  merits  a  decidedly  higher  rank,  in  respect  of  originality 

1  r.  Wellh.  TBS.  128  ;  also  Stade,  245  (15-18  later,  14  in  part);  on  the  other 
hand,  Corn.  45.  It  is  possible  that  v.  14a  belongs  to  v.  19.  So  Budde,  230.  The 
analysis  in  the  trans,  in  Kautzsch  is  different. 

-    V.  Cornill,  KgSt.  45. 

^  For  the  rest,  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  original  text  of  Da  liad  chap.  xxv. 
he/ore  xxiv.  So  Budde,  280  f.  The  affair  at  Carmel  would  then  fall  in  the  time  of 
Saul's  expedition  against  the  Philistines,  r.  xxiv.  2. 

■*  xxiv.  14  is  a  gloss.  In  the  ease  of  xxiv.  21-23  there  is  no  more  need  of 
this  assumption  than  in  that  of  xxv.  28-31  (on  this  v.  Budde,  231).  xxv.  la  is 
clearly  from  R  (c/.  xxviii.  3a).  xxv.  44  is  original :  see  against  Wellh.  and 
Stade,  Corn.  48  f.  On  the  correct  order  of  the  portions  in  xxiv.  5-8,  see  Caupp, 
Zur  Gesch.  Dav.  17  and  Corn.  47.  ^  liiSa,  228  f. 

«  Wellh.  TBS.  137  ;  Corn.  KgSt.  43  ff.  At  all  events,  to  found  a  claim  in 
favour  of  a  definite  source  on  the  phrase  V^JITIS  IDH  (Corn.  4S)  is  more  than 
darinir. 


42  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

of  narrative  than  its  immediate  context,  whether  that  is  to  be 
.souglit  ill  chap.  xxiv.  or  xxvi. 

Chap,  xxvii.  forms  a  natural  continuation  both  for  chap.  xxiv. 
and  t'liap.  xxvi.  David,  tired  of  the  continued  persecution,  goes 
over  to  IMiilistine  soil.  In  itself  this  incident  may  well  have 
stood  in  either  of  tlie  sources.  Yet  we  must  decide  here  for  Da, 
since,  as  we  have  hitherto  found,  the  redactor  favours  this  source 
more  than  the  other.  Wellhausen  is  not  justified  in  proposing  to 
cancel  verses  7-1 2.^ 

E.  The  crisis :  1  Sam.  xxviii. — 2  Sam.  i.  Here  it  is  at  once 
apparent,  and  it  is  therefore  undisputed,  that  xxviii.  1,  2  forms  the 
immediate  continuation  of  chap,  xxvii.  The  going  over  to  Achish  is 
followed  at  once  by  the  dangerous  consequences  of  this  step.  Chaps, 
xxix.-xxxi.,  which  carry  on  the  course  of  events,  belong  likewise 
to  xxvii. ;  xxviii.  1,  2.-  Here,  therefore,  at  all  events  we  have  Da. 
Willi  regard  to  xxviii.  3  ff.,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  so  easy  to 
decide.  It  is  commonly  assumed  that  the  source  of  chap,  xv.,  in 
our  view  SS,  has  here  left  the  surest  trace  of  its  continuation.  So 
especially  Wellliausen.  Cornill  accordingly  ascribes  the  section 
to  E,  and  agrees  with  Wellhausen  in  the  view  that  the  natural 
continuation  of  xxviii.  1,  2  is  not  to  be  found  till  xxix.-xxxi.^  The 
chief  reason  urged  is  the  relation  of  the  positions  assigned  to  the 
Philistine  army  in  the  two  passages,*  as  also  the  affinity  of 
xxviii.  3  ff  witli  chap.  xv. 

This  whole  view  of  xxviii.  3  ff.  has  been  contested  by  Budde.^ 
We  must  admit  that  there  is  no  trace  here  of  the  specific  features 
of  the  figure  of  Samuel  as  portrayed  in  SS,  and  that  Samuel  may 
just  as  well  represent  tlie  Seer  of  S,  to  whom  Saul  would  once 
more,  and  for  the  last  time,  apply  for  advice.  If  we  suppose  with 
liudde  that  the  passage  is  out  of  its  place,  and  stood  originally 

^  V.  Hkek,*  220.  On  tlie  other  side,  especially  Kamph.  ZA  W.  vi.  85  ff.  ;  also 
Corn.  4H,  Budde,  232. 

"  On  xxix.  5  V.  Corn.  49 ;  on  xxx.  10  v.  Stade,  256. 

^  Cf.  Wellh.  BIJ  220;  Prol."  271  ff.  ;  Corn.  KgSt.  42  f.  ;  also  Stade,  254  f.  ; 
Kuen.  §  xxii.  7. 

'  Cf.  xxviii.  4  with  xxix.  1,  11  ;  xxxi.  1.  ^   V.  RiSa,  233  ff. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  43 

after  chap,  xxx.,  and  also  that  it  has  received  certain  additions  ^ 
from  the  hand  of  E,  a  strong  case  would  be  made  out  for  his 
hypothesis,  and  we  should  in  that  case  have  to  assign  xxviii.  4-1 G, 
19*^-25  likewise  to  Da.  What  makes  one  doubtful,  however,  is 
not  only  that  Budde  is  unable  to  assign  a  reason  for  this  trans- 
position,^  but  still  more,  that  on  the  other  supposition  the  insertion 
of  the  passage  at  an  unsuitable  place  is  easily  explained.  If,  in 
editing  the  Book  of  Samuel,  R  found  this  passage  in  another  source 
(SS)  than  that  which,  on  the  whole,  controls  the  narrative  here, 
the  otherwise  unimportant  misplacement  is  easily  understood.  If 
he  drew  from  one  and  the  same  source  (Da),  it  is  inexplicable. 

With  the  concluding  chapters  of  the  first  Book,  2  Sam.  i. 
stands  in  the  closest  connection.  The  whole  of  the  first  chapter 
is  often  regarded  as  their  continuation.^  We  should  in  this  case 
have  to  assign  that  chapter  to  Da.  But  Wellhausen  called  attention 
to  certain  doubts  raised  by  the  narrative  of  the  Amalekite.*  The 
assumption  that  he  told  an  untruth  is  not  sufficient,  since,  according 
to  iv.  10,  David  himself  knew  nothing  of  the  actual  or  supposed 
death  of  Saul  at  his  hand.^  Budde  ^^  therefore  rightly  assigns 
i.  6-16  to  the  other  source,  our  SS,  whereas  i.  1-4  may  very  well 
belong  to  Da.  With  i.  17  the  chief  narrator,  Da,  once  more 
appears,  in  order  to  introduce  the  song  taken  from  the  Sepher  ha- 
Ydshdr? 

Before  proceeding  further  we  must  determine  how  we  are  to 
conceive  the  relation  of  the  sources  SS  and  Da  in  1  Sam.  xvi.  ff.  to 
SS  and  S  in  i.-xv.  As  the  nomenclature  itself  indicates,  I  suppose 
SS  to  be  the  direct  continuation  of  the   history  of  Samuel  and 

^  To  R  would  belong,  in  this  case,  xxviii.  3  and  17-19aa,— the  latter  as  a  link 
of  connection  with  chap.  xv.  So  in  the  main,  still  in  my  trans.  ;  cf.  further, 
Wellh.  in  TBS.  on  v.  19. 

-  So  already  Stade,-  255  ;  cf.  on  the  other  hand  Budde,  236,  note  3. 

^  So  Cornill,  A'^^^  54  f.  ;  at  all  events  for  1-lG.     Klosterm.  ad  loc. 

^  Bleek,-^  221  ;  v.  also  Kuen.  §  xxi.  9. 

^  If  iv.  10  presupposed  i.  7  fF.  the  antithesis  in  the  former  passage  would  be 
not  between  harmless  bearing  of  tidings  and  slaying,  but  between  slaying  by 
request  and  assassination.  ^  RiSa,  237  f. 

^  r.  5  is  probably  from  R.  We  njust  suppose  a  continuation  of  tlie  narrative 
of  Da  in  harmony  with  iv.  10. 


44  IIISTOliY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IL 

Saul,  beyun  in  i.-xv.  Even  if  it  may  be  disputed  whether  indi- 
vidual pieces  belong  to  this  source,  we  must  recognise,  in  the 
nanatives  assigned  to  SS,  a  distinctly  coherent  group.  The  first 
piece  in  SS,  chap,  xvii.,  connects  itself  with  chap.  xv.  without  any 
forcing.  On  the  rejection  of  Saul,  it  introduces  his  successor,  and  it 
introduces  liini  just  as  in  the  case  of  Samuel  (1  Sam.  i.  ff.),  not  as  a 
man  ready  for  his  work,  but  as  in  the  making,  gradually  coming  to 
the  front  over  the  head  of  his  divinely  rejected  predecessor.  But 
with  chap,  xvii.,  and  the  Goliath  story,  most  of  the  parts  of  SS  in 
chaps,  xvi.  ff.  are  directly  or  indirectly  connected.  Besides,  the 
affinity  with  E  in  several  sections,  remarked  by  Cornill  and  Budde,^ 
confirms  the  impression  that  we  have  here  the  continuation  of 
that  source.  This  view  is  also  supported  by  the  fact  that,  from 
Saul's  death  onwards,  as  we  shall  see,  there  is  nothinc]^  to  sutrorest 
the  }»resence  of  SS.  With  Saul's  disappearance  from  the  scene, 
this  source  has  run  its  course.  We  have  a  right  to  call  it  after 
])Oth  Samuel  and  Saul,  because  it  is  most  probably  this  source 
that,  after  Samuel  has  long  been  dead,  makes  him  rise  up  once 
more  before  the  reader. 

The  other  source  I  have  provisionally  called  Da,  because  at 
all  events  it  has  David  as  its  central  figure.  This  becomes  clear 
from  its  being  continued,  in  contrast  with  SS,  beyond  the  death  of 
Saul.  Tliere  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  stands  in  close  relation  with 
S  in  1  Sam.  ix.  ff.  Budde  pronounces  it  actually  the  continuation  - 
of  S.  In  fact,  xiv.  52  seems  to  justify  this.  Eor  the  verse  has 
the  evident  object  of  making  the  transition  from  the  history  of 
Saul  to  that  of  David.^^  This  conclusion,  however,  is  decisive  only 
if  xiv.  52  is  original.^  But,  from  its  immediate  context,  it  is 
rather  to  be  conjectured  that  the  verse  is  from  E.  In  this  case, 
though  effecting  the  transition,  it  will  not  at  all  prove  the  identity 
of  the  writers  who  compiled  the  histories  of  Saul  and  David  that 
li  combined.  Hence  I  prefer  to  designate  the  two  by  independent 
.symbols.     In  view,  however,  of  the  close  affinity  of  S  and  Da,  I  do 

'    r.  Corn.  A>SV.  :^0  tl".  ;  Budde,  JiiSa,  21.-),  228,  230,  238. 

-•  JUSa,  215.  -   r.  Wellh.  H/J  214,  220.       '        '    ^  So  Budde,  208. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  45 

not  exclude  the  possibility  that  their  author  was  one  and  the  same 
man,  resuming  with  xvi.  14  the  thread  he  had  dropped  at  xiv.  46, 
either  directly,  or  at  a  later  stage  in  the  history.^ 

On  the  equation  SS  =  E,  as  supported  by  Cornill  and  Budde, 
and  Da=J,  also  supported  by  Budde,  no  elaborate  statement  is 
needed  after  what  we  have  already  ascertained.  The  grounds  for 
E — the  identity  of  S  and  Da  not  having  been  established,  J  is 
even  more  doubtful  here  than  in  1  Sam.  ix.  ff. — are  in  this  section  in 
no  respect  new  and  conclusive.  Whether  we  decide  for  or  against 
the  above  identification,  we  have  to  do  simply  with  the  application 
of  the  results  already  attained,  to  the  continuation  of  the  earlier 
sections  in  this  division.  The  affinity  of  SS  and  E,  which  we 
have  not  disputed,  may  even  occasionally  be  of  use  in  distin- 
guishing the  sources. 

What  we  can  gather  from  this  section  before  us  with  regard 
to  the  age  of  SS,  agrees  with  our  former  results.  In  general  this 
source  exhibits  here,  just  as  in  i.-xv.,  the  younger  layer  of  narrative. 
Yet  even  it  contains  elements  relatively  old  and  good.  To  these 
must  be  reckoned  especially  xxviii.  3  ff.,  which  we  can  best  take 
with  chap.  xv.  But  the  Goliath  story  also  (chap,  xvii.),  and  what 
is  directly  connected  with  it,  is  at  all  events  pre-exilic.^  These 
sections  suit  best  the  time  of  1  Sam.  i.-iii.  {y.  above,  p.  34  f,). 

Da  also,  so  far  as  we  now  know  this  source,  agrees  in  general 
with  the  date  assigned  to  S.  To  the  best  and  oldest  sections 
belong  1  Sam.  xxvii.  If.,  xxv.,  xx.  Even  these  were  written,  at  the 
earliest,  in  the  last  days  of  David,  or  under  Solomon.^  The  younger 
elements,  to  which  c/j.  xxiii.  1 9  ff. ;  xxiv.  belong,  need  scarcely  be 
assigned  to  a  later  date  than  Eehoboam  or  his  successor. 

3.  David  in  Hebron  and  Jerusalem:  2  Sam.  ii.-xx. — The  narra- 
tive of  Da  finds  here  its  immediate  continuation :  the  consequence 
of  Saul's  fall  is  David's  rise  as  king  in  Hebron,  2  Sam.  ii.  1-7.^     We 

^  Still  it  should  be  considered  {v.   above,   p.    34)  whether  S   is  not   North- 
Israelitish,  or  Benjamitish  ;  whereas  Da,  at  all  events,  is  of  Judaan  origin. 
-   V.  Kamph.  Jx'h.  Arb.  vii.  9. 

='   V.  e.{/.  xxv.  28,  30;  xx.  31  (c/.  2  Sam.  i.  10,  iii.  0  11'.,  v.  2 ;  1  Sam.  xxvi.  25). 
••  There  is  at  least  no  literary  ground  for  removing  rv.  46-7  (Mey. ). 


46  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IL 

expect  likewise  information  about  Saul's  house  (ii.  8-12).  Only 
the  clironology  betrays  here  another  hand.^  To  v.  12  is  attached 
easily  and  naturally,  instead  of  a  formal  account  of  the  war,  the 
narrative  of  a  leading  episode  in  it  (ii.  13-32).  Budde  finds  at 
the  beginning  an  addition  from  elsewhere.-  Yet  this  supposition 
is  not  absolutely  necessary.  We  may  also  reckon  chaps,  iii.  and 
iv.  to  Da.  Only  iii.  2-5  breaks  the  connection,  and  must  belong 
elsewhere.-'^  So  also  iv.  4  :  whereas  iv.  2^  3  may  very  well  belong 
to  the  text.'^ 

Chaps.  V.  and  vi.  are  to  be  examined  together.  The  former  re- 
counts the  choice  of  David  as  king  over  all  Israel,  the  conquest  of 
Jebus,  and  David's  wars  with  the  Philistines;  the  latter, the  transfer- 
ence of  the  ark  to  Zion.  Even  this  summary  of  contents  shows  that 
chap.  vi.  is  most  akin  to  the  middle  portion  of  chap.  v.  Well- 
hausen  perceived  ^  that  these  two  sections  do  not  belong  to  the 
preceding  context  (Da),  and  that  chap.  vi.  is  to  be  connected  with 
chap.  ix.  ff.  It  is  very  natural  to  infer  that  the  conquest  of 
Jerusalem  belongs  to  the  same  connection.  To  Da  belong,  at  all 
events,  the  choice  of  David  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  and 
the  Philistine  war  (vv.  17-25),  which  was  immediately  connected 
therewitli.  Since  however  v.  3,  alongside  of  vv.  1  f.,  is  a  doublet, 
only  /".  3  is  to  be  reckoned  to  Da.  Wellhausen  rightly  removes 
4-16^;  but  only  the  chronological  notices  in  vv.  4  f.,  belong  to  E; 
the  rest  belongs  at  all  events  to  an  old  source.  The  verses  6-16'^ 
are  most  naturally  regarded  as  the  continuation — even  if  not  the 
direct  continuation — of  vv,  1  f.,  and  as  continued  in  turn  by  chap, 
vi.  The  source,  the  beginning  of  which  we  here  recognise,  I 
designate  '  Je,'  as  the  history  of  David  in  Jerusalem. 

Chap.  vii.  seems  also  to  have  belonged  to  this  source.  For  the 
natural  sequence  of  subjects  is  :  Jerusalem,  ark,  temple.     But  the 

1    Vv.  lOa  and  11  have  been  inserted  by  R  ;  v.  Wellh.  BL"^  222. 

-  In  1.36-17.      V.  RiSa,  240. 

-  So  Wellh.,  Cornill,  and  Budde.      V.   30  also  will  be  better  assigned,  with 
Wellh.,  to  R.  •«  On  this  see  Budde,  241. 

•'•  Bleek,*  222.  «  Disputed  by  Cornill,  Kf/S(.  55. 

"  Or  perhaps  more  accurately  simply  6-12,  as  Budde  (p.  243)  supposes.      Vv. 
1:M6,  like  iii.  2-5,  agree  better  with  chap.  viii.     See  next  two  pages. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PKE-MONARCHIC  AGE  4*7 

chapter  as  it  now  reads  is  the  result  of  a  thorough  revision. 
AVellhaiisen  and  Kuenen  regard  the  whole  chapter  as  Deuterono- 
mistic.  Budde  supposes  a  precursor  of  Deuteronomy.  This  might 
hold  as  regards  the  reviser ;  but  the  kernel  of  the  passage  seems 
to  me  to  be  older.^ 

The  continuation  of  Je  is  to  be  found  in  David's  family  history, 
2  Sam.  ix.-xx.,  to  which  1  Kings  i.  ii.  belong.^  As  Wellhausen  has 
shown  (against  Thenius),  this  forms  a  coherent  whole,^  with  only 
unimportant  later  additions.^  The  section  is  at  the  same  time  a 
historical  source  of  the  first  rank:  'with  all  its  partiality  for 
David  and  Solomon  it  recounts  the  course  of  events  with  obvious 
objectivity  and  with  great  interest  in  the  details  of  the  story.' ^ 
The  only  question  here  is  whether  the  section  is  composed  of 
contemporary  records,  or  whether  we  must  ascribe  its  contents 
to  a  date  later  than  the  reign  of  David.  The  latter  alternative 
is  not  only  demanded  by  1  Kings  i.  ii.,  but  also  suggested  by  the 
general  contents.^  It  almost  seems  that  the  narrator  knows  the 
secession  of  Israel  from  the  house  of  David,  and  the  conditions 
of  the  time  of  Eehoboam  generally,  from  personal  observation.* 
However,  we  are  on  no  account  to  descend  later  than  the  reiiin 
of  Eehoboam,  for  there  is  no  trace  as  yet  of  any  idealising  of  the 
figure  of  David. 

Finally,  chap.  viii.  offers  special  difficulty.  As  the  section  is 
connected  externally  by  v.  1  with  r.  25,  we  might  be  inclined  ta 
assign  it  to  the  source  Da.     By  its  contents,  on  the  other  hand^ 

1  Sec  below,  §  44,  end.  2  qy;  ^iso  StKr.  1892,  68  f. 

-  V.  Bleek,^  224:  f.  ;  Kuen.  §  xxii.  9.     Budde,  247  ff. 

^  The  only  larger  addition  is  to  be  found  in  xii.  10-12  (Wellh. );  lesser 
additions,  e.g.  in  xiv.  26 ;  xv.  24,  27  (read  t^SIH)  and  xviii.  18  {v.  18a/3  is  a  gloss  ; 
'/.  xiv.  27).     For  the  rest  cf.  Wellh.  226  f.  ;  Kuen.  §  xxii.  9. 

■^  Wellh.  Bl.-^  227. 

^  That  the  narrator  stood  at  a  certain  distance  from  the  events,  may  be 
inferred  from  the  free  use  of  direct  sjDeech  {e.g.  in  xi,  21);  also  from  xiii.  18 
read  (DPiyp) ;  xviii.  18  ('unto  this  day  ') ;  xii.  20  ('  house  of  Yahve'). 

''  V.  Wellh.  227  f . ;  and,  moreover,  xii.  8  (Israel  and  Judah).  It  is  not  so  much 
the  individual  points  themselves  that  are  decisive,  as  the  coincidence  of  many 
points  of  this  kind. 


48  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

tlie  chapter  shows  itself  to  be  an  extract  from  the  continuation  of 
the  history  of  David,  whence  it  cannot  belong  to  Je.  Since 
fragments  of  this  sort,  obviously  related  to  chap,  viii.,  are  found 
interspersed  elsewhere^  in  the  text  of  Da,  it  appears  to  me  the 
most  natural  thing  to  suppose  that  chap.  viii.  belongs,  in  fact,  to 
Da.  This  writer  would  in  that  case  have  had  as  his  object  to 
describe  the  history  of  David  only  as  far  as  his  ascension  of  the 
tlirone  of  all  Israel.  After  having  given  his  narrative  in  detail, 
he  only  cursorily  alludes,  in  r.  3,  to  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem, 
recounts  further  in  r.  17  ff.,  the  Philistine  victory,  and  then 
concludes  his  book,  in  chap,  viii.,  with  a  survey  of  David's  further 
deeds,  partly  extracted  from  Je.-  Our  former  conclusion  that  Da 
is  somewliat,  though  not  much,  younger  than  Je,  is  thus  con- 
firmed. 

4.  The  Appendix :  2  Sam.  xxi.-xxiv.^ — Here  we  find  brought  to- 
gether, at  the  end  of  the  Book  of  Samuel,  a  number  of  heterogeneous 
fragments,  the  relation  of  which  to  the  rest  of  the  Book  it  is  not 
very  easy  to  determine.^  Since  the  first  piece,  xxi.  1-14,  still 
treats  of  Saul,  we  might  at  first  be  tempted  to  assign  it  at  once  to 
the  book  SS,  if  we  look  for  traces  of  the  sources  already  known  to 
us.  CornilH  accordingly  points  to  E.  But  against  this  is  its 
close  affinity^  with  the  last  piece,  chap,  xxiv.,  which  would  not 
suit  SS.  The  question,  therefore,  to  which  source  the  two  pieces 
belonged,  must  remain  unanswered.  Judged  by  their  contents, 
they  are  old;  still,  younger^  than  Je :  they  stand  on  about  the 
same  level  as  Da. 

One  can  with  more  confidence  count  on  general  assent  in  the 
attempt  to  connect  the  second  piece,  xxi.  15-22,  with  the  sources 

1  iii.  2-.");  V.  13-16.  (The  analysis  given  in  my  translation  is  still  somewhat 
different. ) 

'  V.  another  solution  of  the  difficulty  in  Budde,  249  ff.  ;  v.  11  f.  is  a  later 
addition  (r.  Budde,  246).  ^  On  this  see  esp.  Budde,  RiSa,  2o5  ff. 

■*  See  an  interesting  attempt  in  Budde,  255  f. 

^  KfjSt.  57  f.  Budde,  on  the  other  hand,  points  to  J.  Moreover,  xxi.  2 
jtrobably  belongs  to  R. 

•^  Cf.  esp.  xxiv.  1  with  xxi.  1  ;  xxiv.  25  with  xxi.  14,  and  Kuen.  §  xxii.13. 

"  On  the  distinction  see  the  valuable  observations  of  Wellh.  BIJ  228 


.4.  Sources.]  THE  PEE-MONAECHIC  AGE  49 

known  to  us.  As  ifc  is  not  only  connected  with  v.  25/  but  also 
agrees  in  its  contents  and  its  whole  character  with  chap,  viii.,  it 
probably  stood  originally  in  the  same  source — i.e.  Da.  In  that  case 
xxiii.  8  ff.,  the  piece  about  David's  heroes,  would  probably  belong 
to  it  also.- 

None  of  the  sources  hitherto  identified  by  us  can  be  recognised 
in  the  two  songs,  chap.  xxii.  and  xxiii.  1-7.  We  cannot  say 
whence  the  redactor  took  them,  if  it  was  he  himself  that  inserted 
them  here.  Nay,  the  fact  that  they  separate  the  two  passages,  xxi. 
15  ff.  and  xxiii.  8  ff.,  taken  from  Da,  suggests  a  doubt  whether  it 
was  E  himself  that  introduced  them.  A  similar  separation,  indeed, 
is  found  in  xxi.  1  ff.  and  xxiv;  but  those  pieces  are  at  least  not 
inseparably  connected  by  the  nature  of  their  contents.  There  has 
been  much  discussion  on  the  question  of  the  Davidic  origin  of  the 
two  songs.  It  can  hardly  be  proved  in  the  case  of  xxiii.  1-7  ;  and 
hardly  conclusively  in  the  case  of  chap,  xxii.,  at  least  in  its  present 
form.  If  an  older  kernel  can  be  proved  to  exist  in  chap,  vii., 
there  would  thus  be  created  at  least  a  prejudice  in  favour  of  the 
age  of  xxiii.  1-7.^ 

§  32.   1  Kings  i.-xi. 

Only  this  first  section  of  the  Book  of  Kings  ^  belongs  to  our 
period.     It  deals  with  the  history  of  Solomon. 

1.  In  investigating  the  character  and  date  of  the  accounts 
contained  in  these  chapters,  we  must  first  of  all  examine  a 
remarkable  divergence  in  the  traditional  texts,  if  we  wish  to  get  to 
the  bottom  of  the  matter.^  The  Alexandrine  recension  varies  from 
our  Hebrew  ^^  ^soretic  text  to  no  slight  extent,  without  its  being 

'  C^  and  V.  22. 

uransl.  in  Kautzsch.  "   T'.  xxiii.  5. 

^  V  «ne  Book  of  Kings  in  general :  Thenius,  Die  BE.  der  Konije"  (1873)  ; 

Keil,  CIO.  -  (1876) ;  Wellh.  Bl.'^  231  ff.  ;  Prol."  285  ff.  ;  Kuen.  Ond.-  §  xvii.  24-27  : 
Klost.  SaKii.  ;  Cornill,  Grundr.  120  ff  -  ;  Driver,  Introd.  175  ff.  ;  [Konig,  Einl. 
i  53;  Wildeboer,  Letterk.  §  14  ;  now  also,  Farrar,  The  First  Book  of  Kings,  1894. 
On  the  text  of  the  lxx.  cf.  the  excellent  article  of  Silberstein  in  ZA  W.  1893, 
1  ff.,  1894,  1  ff.] 

^  Cf.  in  general,  Wellh.  Bl.^  231  ff.,  and  Klost.  ad  loc.  ;  also  Kiien.  §  xxvi.  10. 

VOL.  11.  D 


50  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

possible  to  say  at  once  that  the  one  or  the  other  is  throughout  in 
the  right. 

For  chaps,  vi.  and  vii.  I  refer  to  Stade's  thorough  discussion,^ 
for  which  I  can,  for  the  present  at  least,  substitute  nothing  better. 
Moreover,  I  shall  pass  over  a  great  number  of  minor  differences 
between  the  two  texts,  since  for  our  purpose  they  have  no 
importance,  and  shall  confine  myself  to  the  main  points  of 
divergence. 

The  section  that  forms  chap.  ii.  of  our  present  Hebrew  text  has 
in  the  Greek  text  of  the  Lxx.  a  considerably  different  form.  Verse 
35  of  the  ]\r.T.  is  immediately  followed  in  the  lxx.  by  a  section 
composed  of  elements  of  the  M.T.  to  be  found  at  other  points  of 
the  history  of  Solomon.  This  is  followed  by  a  longer  section  on 
Solomon's  works,  buildings,  and  offerings.  To  this  succeeds  a 
repetition  of  the  verses  ii.  8-9,  with  a  new  introductory  formula. 
Thus  is  effected  the  transition  back  to  the  M.T.,  the  continuation 
of  which  (ii.  36  ff.)  agrees  in  the  main  with  the  further  narrative 
of  the  LXX.  up  to  the  end  of  the  chapter  in  the  M.T.  (ii.  46).^ 
Then,  however,  it  is  only  after  supplying  a  lengthy  passage  on  the 
mi<:fht  and  wealth  of  Solomon,  and  on  his  chief  officers,^  that  the 
text  of  the  lxx.  again  joins  the  M.T.  Yet  while  this  is  so,  the 
latter  contains  in  iii.  1  a  short  passage  that  is  not,  at  least  in  this 
form  and  at  this  point,  to  be  found  in  the  lxx. — although  it  may 
be  noted  here  at  once  that  this  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  a  case  of 
an  addition  on  the  part  of  the  M.T.*  Not  till  iii.  2  do  the  two 
narratives  again  run  parallel. 

The  question  arises  whether  the  additional  matter  of  the  lxx. 
is  to  be  traced  to  an  old  narrator,  and  may  thus  as  valuable 
material  deserve  to  be  received  into  the  text.  This  is  not,  how- 
ever we  look  at  it,  very  likely.  The  tangled  confusion  that 
prevails  in   the   narrative   of  the   lxx.    shows   that  the   original 

^  ZA  ^Y.  iii.  129  flf.  ;  The  text  of  the,  accounts  of  Solomon's  buildings. 
-  ii.  46&  is  to  be  found  in  the  lxx.  at  v.  35. 
^  Cf.  on  the  latter  subject  the  doublet  in  iv,  2  ff. 

•*  The  main  substance  of  the  verse  is  to  be  found  in  the  lxx.  several  times  : 
after  ii.  35  ;  ix.  9  ;  v.  14  (M.T.).     At  this  last  place  it  seems  to  be  relevant. 


I 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PKE-MONARCHIC  AGE  51 

narrator  could  not  possibly  liave  narrated  things  in  this  order. 
The  additions  of  the  LXX.  relating  to  Solomon's  wisdom,  might, 
and  greatness,  are  manifestly  out  of  place  in  the  account  of  his 
ascending  the  throne.  Moreover,  in  respect  of  their  contents, 
they  contribute  little  or  nothing  that  was  not  known  from  the 
M.T.  What  does  vary  from  the  text  otherwise  known,  as  e.f/. 
some  names  in  the  list  of  officers,  has  no  claim  to  originality.^ 
We  have  rather,  according  to  all  appearances,  very  late  additions 
to  the  older  text  that  have,  moreover,  been  inserted  in  most  un- 
suitable places.  The  original  position  of  the  first  of  the  above 
additions  I  am  not  prepared  to  indicate  :  the  second  probably  once 
stood  before  chap.  iv. 

We  may  perhaps  gain  one  advantage,  however,  from  this 
amplification  of  the  text.  The  doublet  to  ii.  8  f.,  at  the  end  of 
the  first  additional  section,  sounds  as  if  it  were  the  original 
reading,  and  had  stood  at  this  point.  With  this  agrees  the 
position  that  ii.  46^  of  the  M.T.  occupies  in  the  LXX.  It  is  there- 
fore probable  that  chap.  ii.  originally  observed  the  following  order  : 
vv.  1-35,  46^  of  the  M.T. ;  [the  second  form  of]  8,  9,  of  the  LXX. ; 
36-46  [of  the  M.T.].^ 

A  second  case  of  important  divergence  between  the  two  re- 
censions is  to  be  found  in  chaps,  iv.  v.  Ignoring  minor  variations 
(among  which  is  the  changed  position  oi  v.  17  of  the  M.T.='y.  19 
of  the  LXX.),  chap.  iv.  of  the  M.T.  runs  parallel  with  the  LXX.  as 
far  as  v.  19.  On  the  other  hand,  r.  20  is  wanting  in  the  LXX.  in 
this  connection:  so  also  v.  1.^  But  even  after  removal  of  this 
additional  matter  the  LXX.  does  not,  as  one  might  expect,  go  on  with 
v.  2,  but  connects  v.  7  f.  immediately  with  iv.  19.  Then  follow 
V.  2-4,  9-14  of  the  M.T.,  and  these  are  succeeded  by  iii.  1 ;  ix.  16 
M.T.     Not  till  this  point  do  the  two  recensions  again  meet,  with 

^  See  on  this  below,  §  48. 

-  [This  no  longer  appears  to  me  quite  certain.  It  is  at  least  a  doubtful 
proceeding  to  detach  and  insert  here  a  fragment  of  Theod.  Perhaps  also  ; .  405 
suits  better  in   iii.  1.] 

^  [Note  that  in  Eng.  Ver.  eh.  iv.  includes  also  the  first  14  verses  of  ch.  v.  of 
the  Heb.  Text :  hence  v.  1  M.T.  =  iv.  21  Eng.  Ver.,  and  so  on.  — T^)-.] 


52  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

V.  15  M.T.  =  v.  1  LXX. ;  while  v.  5,  6  M.T.  again  are  wanting  in 
the  original  LXX. 

Here  the  LXX.  seems  to  be  decidedly  in  the  right.  The  enumera- 
tion of  the  overseers  of  Solomon,  common  to  both  texts,  is  not  so 
appropriately  followed  by  a  digression  on  Solomon's  greatness  and 
glory,  as  by  a  notice  of  the  work  of  those  overseers.  When  there 
is  appended  to  this  an  account  of  the  supplies  for  Solomon's  table, 
and  this  is  followed  (v.  9  If.  M.T.)  by  a  section  on  Solomon's 
wisdom,  we  are  supplied  with  the  key  to  the  growth  of  such  later 
accretions  of  the  same  kind  as  lie  before  us  in  iv.  20 ;  v.  1  f.,  5  f. 
M.T.^  Even  this  is  certainly  not  a  perfectly  appropriate  place 
for  iii.  1^;  ix.  16  M.T.  But  the  fact  that  they  stand  together  here 
in  the  LXX.,  and  have  a  better  position  than  in  the  M.T.,  shows  that 
they  are  in  a  relatively  correct  position  as  a  part  of  the  section  we 
are  dealing  with. 

Chapter  viii.  again  has  been  treated  in  a  most  interesting  way 
by  Wellhausen,2  who  shows  that  at  several  points  in  its  first  section 
(vv,  1-10)  the  text  of  the  LXX.  is  not  only  shorter,  but  also  better. 
Even  more  instructive  is  the  comparison  instituted  by  the  same 
scholar  between  the  two  texts  in  viii.  11  ff.  The  prayer  of 
Solomon  in  viii.  12  f.  is  mutilated  in  the  M.T.,  whereas  the  LXX. 
has  preserved  it  intact,  though  at  a  quite  different  place — after 
viii.  53.  The  reason  of  this  displacement,  although  not  difficult 
to  guess,  is  a  secondary  matter  as  compared  with  the  vital  impor- 
tance of  the  fact  that  we  are  able  to  recover  the  exact  words  of 
the  utterance.     The  gain  here  accruing  from  the  LXX.  is  obvious. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  pronounce  judgment  on  the  relation  of 
the  two  texts  in  ix.  15-25  (M.T.)  and  x.  22  ff.  (lxx.).  In  the  LXX. 
of  chap,  ix.,  V.  14  is  immediately  followed  by  r.  26.  On  this  point 
it  seems  to  be  in  the  right,  as  against  the  M.T.  Tor  by  the 
insertion  of  vv.  15-25  where  they  stand  in  the  M.T.,  the  details 
concerning  Hiram  are  disconnected  in  a  confusing  manner.  The 
way  in  wliich  the  lxx.  provide  a  place  for  these  verses,  certainly 
does  not  at  all  convey  the  impression  of  originality.    Still  the  LXX. 

^  V.  6  might  also  have  been  lost  through  pure  accident.        -  Loc.  cit.  p.  234  ff. 


.4.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  53 

is  to  be  preferred  to  the  M.T.,  were  it  only  for  the  reason  that  it 
has  not,  like  the  M.T.,  admitted  the  whole  section  15-25  with  its 
confused  medley  of  statements,  but  only  vv.  15,  17  ff.,  20-22. 
Some  of  the  specially  disturbing  features  are  thus  removed.  But 
the  state  of  affairs  is  not  much  cleared  up.  Still,  the  form  and 
position  of  this  passage  as  it  stands  in  the  Lxx.  is  preferable.^ 

Of  little  consequence  are  several  transpositions  at  the  beginning 
of  chap,  xi.,  as  well  as  the  omission  of  v.  3S^  and  39  in  the  LXX. 
But  several  verses  in  the  middle  of  the  chapter  merit  considera- 
tion.2  The  narrative  about  Hadad  breaks  off  abruptly  in  the  M.T. 
with  verse  22,  while  the  lxx.  completes  it.  On  the  other  hand, 
almost  as  a  compensation  for  this  curtailment,  the  M.T.  offers  us, 
in  23-25,  the  story  of  Eezon,  which  is  foreign  to  the  LXX.  Can 
this  have  fallen  out  of  the  LXX.  by  pure  accident  ?  Considering 
it  on  its  own  merits,  one  would  not  be  disinclined  to  regard  it  as 
a  genuine  old  fragment.  But  the  circumstance  that  v.  25^  is  in 
fact  the  missing  end  of  the  story  of  Hadad,^  and  thus  coincides 
with  the  LXX.,  bids  us  hesitate.  It  seems  almost  as  if  the  whole 
story  had  grown  out  of  a  lapsus  calami :  Aram  for  Edom.  "Were 
the  error  once  committed,  the  names  Damascus  and  Eezon  are  not 
hard  to  account  for. 

2.  If  the  text  is  thus  settled,  at  least  in  general  outline,  the 
further  question  arises  here  also  as  to  the  unity  and  age  of  the 
text  thus  won. 

Looking  first  of  all  at  the  section  1  Kings  i.-xi.  as  a  whole,  we 
are  struck  in  the  first  place  with  the  peculiar  relation  of  chaps,  i. 
and  ii.  to  what  follows.  The  chapters  are  indispensable  in  the 
story  of  Solomon,  for  they  describe  the  circumstances  of  his 
accession,  and  what  immediately  succeeded  it.  And  yet  by  their 
characteristic  features  they  belong  rather  to  the  preceding  group 
of  narratives.     If  we  ignore  some  Deuteronomist  additions,"*  they 

^  On  ix.  16  M.T.  see  above,  p.  51  f.  ;  on  ix.  24  M.T.  cf.  iii.  1  M.T.  ;  vii.  8 ;  ix. 
9  LXX.,  and  above,  p.  50,  note  4. 

'  On  the  conclusion  of  the  chapter  see  below,  §  51. 

^  Read  n^-in  DKTI^'ii''''?  V  naKia. 

*■  ii.  2-4,  27  ;  perhaps  also  10-12.  On  ii.  5-9  see  below,  §  47  ;  on  the  place  of 
I",  8  f.,  see  above,  p.  51. 


54  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

belong,  from  a  literary  point  of  view,  to  Da  of  the  books  of 
Samuel.^  Moreover,  they  narrate  not  simply  the  beginning  of 
Solomon's  career,  but,  at  the  same  time,  the  end  of  David's.  This 
shows  that  they  occupy  a  double  place.  They  refer  just  as  much 
forwards  as  backwards,  and  thus  form  the  link  of  connection 
between  the  history  of  David  and  that  of  Solomon.  This  is  an 
important  result.  It  shows  us  either  that  both  the  histories — that 
of  David  and  that  of  Solomon — come  from  the  same  author,  or  else 
that  the  arrangement  of  these  stories  in  their  later  form,  and 
therefore  the  editing  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  in  their 
present  form,  belongs  to  one  and  the  same  hand.  Which  of  these 
alternatives  we  are  to  choose  will  appear  immediately. 

What  remains,  chaps,  iii.-xi.,  describes  the  history  of  Solomon 
after  his  accession.  The  arrangement  of  the  material  is  evidently 
controlled  by  the  thought  of  Solomon's  wisdom,  might,  and 
greatness.  As  a  most  striking  proof  of  this,  Solomon's  building  of 
the  temple  and  the  edifices  connected  therewith,  is  set  in  the 
centre  of  the  account.  Not  till  the  close  of  the  whole  history  of 
Solomon,  are  some  points  unfavourable  to  him  gathered  together, 
so  as  to  'add  a  little  shade'-  to  the  picture — but  certainly  not 
such  alone  as  belonged  chronologically  to  the  end  of  his  life. 

Here  clearly  is  method.  Ill  arranged  as  the  material  may  be 
in  its  details,  even  after  our  attempted  restoration  of  the  text,  the 
grouping  of  the  larger  sections  is  undertaken  with  a  sure  hand 
and  perfectly  clear  points  of  view.  Nor  is  it  simply  the  course  of 
the  history  that  is  the  determinative  principle,  individual  points 
being  simply  added  at  the  end  in  the  form  of  appendices,  if  for 
some  reason  they  could  not  be  dealt  with  chronologically.  That 
was  the  method  of  the  Books  of  Judges  and  Samuel.  But  here 
the  material  is  arranged  from  definite  points  of  view  not  im- 
mediately dependent  on  the  historical  course  of  events,  and  thus 
in  accordance  with  an  independent  literary  plan.  If  I  am  not 
mistaken,  we  have  here  the  first  cxam])h  in  the  Old  Testament  of 
the  writing  of  history,  in  distinction  from  bare  annalistic  records  of 

»  See  esp.  Wellh.  BL^  225  f.  ;  Budde,  RiSa,  261  ff.  ^  WeHh.  Bl'^  239. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  55 

facts.  And  so  it  is  not  accidental  that  it  is  here,  in  the  history  of 
Solomon,  that  the  collector  of  our  information  for  the  first  time 
finds  occasion  to  refer  to  a  book  of  history  lying  before  him,  a 
*  history  of  Solomon.'  ^  That  these  two  facts  coincided  is  far  from 
being  accidental.  They  are  two  analogous  symptoms  of  the 
awakening  of  the  historical  sense. 

To  what  date  may  we  assign  this  '  History  of  Solomon  '  ?  That 
its  pragmatism  does  not  belong  to  the  Deuteronomistic  redaction, 
has  hitherto  indeed  been  assumed,  but  not  yet  proved.  I  go  back 
to  the  dilemma  propounded  a  short  time  ago  with  regard  to  the 
relation  of  the  history  of  David  to  that  of  Solomon.  Granted  that 
the  second  alternative  is  actual  fact,  that  therefore  the  Books  of 
Samuel  and  Kings  were  drawn  up  by  the  same  hand,  this 
assumption  is  intelligible  only  if  1  Kings  iii.-xi.  was  already  in 
existence  in  its  present  arrangement.  For  it  would  not  be  con- 
ceivable why  the  editor  should,  in  the  case  of  Solomon,  have 
deviated  so  essentially  from  his  usual  custom  of  letting  the  facts 
tell  their  own  story,  and  only  supplying  them  with  his  own 
characteristic  additions.  The  history  of  David,  at  least,  was  not 
lacking  in  phases  that  would  readily  lend  themselves  to  pragmatic 
treatment.  Conversely  :  if  the  arrangement  of  1  Kings  iii.-xi.  is 
relatively  old,  the  redaction  of  the  present  Books  of  Samuel  and 
Kings  may  come  from  the  same  hand ;  otherwise  it  is  impossible. 
But  this  is  in  itself  in  the  highest  degree  probable,  and  so  Kuenen 
(§  27)  for  other  reasons,  arrives  at  the  same  conclusion.  Two 
important  results  are  thus  gained:  the  establishment  of  the 
relative  antiquity  of  the  view  of  history  in  1  Kings  iii.-xi.,  and  the 
corroboration  of  the  decision  sought  above,  on  the  question  of  the 
present  narrator's  independence  with  respect  to  the  narrator  of  the 
history  of  David. 

This,  it  is  true,  does  not  yet  give  us  the  absolute  age  of  the 
history  of  Solomon.     But  we  have  come  one  step  nearer  it. 

Here  also  what  we  are  in  search  of  would  be  reached  at  once, 

1  1  Kings  xi.  41.     Older  references  to  books  of  songs  are  not  to  be  compared 
with  this. 


66  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

could  we  succeed  in  showing  that  what  we  have  is  only  a  con- 
stituent part  of  the  documents  of  the  Hexatcucli.  As  was  to  be 
expected,  Corniil  has  lately  attempted  the  proof  of  this  also. 
Apart  from  the  additions  of  Ed,  he  cuts  out  two  layers  in  our 
history  of  Solomon :  an  older,  which  he  is  inclined  to  identify 
with  J,  and  a  younger,  which  supplies  legendary  additions  to  it.^ 

In  the  light  of  what  we  have  found  with  regard  to  the  whole 
plan  of  the  pre-Deuteronomic  history  of  Solomon,  this  supposition 
seems  to  have  many  considerations  against  it.  Above  all :  the 
real  author  of  this  history  of  Solomon  is  not  the  first  but  the 
second  writer.  If  one  of  the  two  is  to  be  identified  with  J,  it 
must,  in  view  of  our  results,  be  the  second. 

In  point  of  fact,  what  we  have  is  not  a  case  of  later  additions 
to  an  earlier  narrative,  but  of  a  combining  of  elements  of  earlier 
narratives  by  a  later  hand.  The  earlier  elements  have  throughout 
the  character  of  annals.  The  stringing  together  of  events  by  a 
clumsy  *  then,'  which  seems  to  me  more  frequent  here  than  else- 
where, itself  points  to  this.^  Affinity  of  any  importance  with  the 
Yahvist  will  here  be  looked  for  in  vain.  Even  tlie  tracing  back 
of  the  words  of  Solomon  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple  to  the 
Se;pheT  ha-  Ydshdr,  were  it  certain,  and  not  merely  quite  possible, 
would  make  no  difference.  It  is  much  more  natural  to  suppose 
old  records,  quite  or  nearly  contemporaneous  with  what  they 
relate,  at  all  events  considerably  pre-Yahvistic.  If  the  office  of 
court  annalist  is  once  proved  to  be  historical,  and  we  possess  here 
annals  or  fragments  of  narrative,  of  the  oldest  type,  we  see  really 
no  reason  why  these  notices  might  not  be  traced  directly,  or  at 
least  indirectly,  back  to  that  Sopher? 

The  only  question  is,  how  much  of  our  history  of  Solomon  we 
may   in  this  way   trace  back  to  his    Court-annals,   the  work  of 

1  Grundr.  120  ff.  2  cf.  viii.  I,  12;  ix.  11  ;  xi.  7. 

^  [lu  the  German  text  1  wrote  Mazktr  instead  of  Sopher.  But  it  is  more 
probable  (cf.  also  below,  pp.  198,  208)  that  the  MazMr,  '  he  who  brings  to  remem- 
brance,' was  not  an  officer  for  carrying  out  literary  works,  but  a  counsellor  by 
word  of  mouth— the  grand  vizier.  Cf.  also  Kautzsch,  Die  Heil.  Schr.  dts  A  T, 
Beilagen,  p.  171.] 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PEE-MONARCHIC  AGE  57 

his  Sopher — I  call  it  A.  Perhaps  the  fresh  start  of  the  narrative  in 
iv.  1  may  serve  as  a  guide.  Here  a  narrator  begins  who  is  not  ac- 
quainted with  the  preceding  narratives.  There  follows  an  enumera- 
tion of  Solomon's  chief  officers,  quite  after  the  supposed  manner  of 
A.  This  continues  as  far  as  iv.  6,  and  is  then  in  vv.  7-1 9  ^  succeeded 
in  turn  by  a  similar  list  which  mentions  Solomon's  overseers.^ 
It  is  unintelligible  to  me  how  any  one  can  here  think  of  J :  clearly 
we  have  A.  The  same  is  true  of  the  continuation  in  chap.  v.  of 
the  M.T.^  in  the  order  v.  7  f.,  2  f.*  V.  6  may  also  perhaps  belong 
here,  as  well  as  the  statements  in  iii.  1  and  ix.  16  of  the  M.T., 
the  original  position  of  which  we  have  considered  above,  and  iii.  4, 
to  which  belong  perhaps  the  main  contents  of  iii.  5  ff.  From 
this  point  A  proceeded  to  the  description  of  Solomon's  buildings, 
especially  his  temple.  This  is  preceded  by  some  statements 
regarding  the  negotiations  with  Hiram.  Perhaps  the  pronuncia- 
tion Hirum  gives  us  here  the  clew.  At  least  v.  24  f.,  31  f.  belong 
to  A.  To  this  was  added  the  oldest  ac(jount  in  chap.  vi.  f.,  as 
Stade  (certainly  in  the  main  rightly)  saw,  as  also  the  substance  of 
chap.  viii.  after  removal  of  the  additions  of  Ptd  and  the  Lxx.,  and 
incorporating  v.  53  f.  of  the  LXX.  The  conclusion  consisted  of 
statements  such  as  ix.  11  ;  x.  16-20  (22  ?) ;  ix.  17  f.  (19?)  24,  25 
(?)  26-28,  perhaps  also  xi.  7.  The  substance  of  x.  1-10  may  also 
belong  to  A :  still  it  is  safer  to  relegate  the  Queen  of  Sheba  to  the 
next  layer  of  tradition.  I  conjecture  that  we  have  before  us  in 
A  the  oldest  historical  records  to  a  certain  extent  connected,  to  be 
found  in  the  Old  Testament. 

A  further  stage  in  the  development  is  represented  by  the 
History  of  Solomon  described  above.  I  designate  it '  So.'  To  it 
belongs  iii.  5-13,  in  which  at  most  some  additions  by  D'-  are  to  be 
found,   but  which  rests  in  the  main  on  old  tradition.^     This  is 

^  Ou  V.  20  see  above,  p.  51  f. 

-  On  these  cf.  Kuen.  §  xxv.  '2,  3  ;  aud  below,  §  48. 

3  V.  1  ff.  of  the  Heb.  represent  iv.  21  ff.  of  Eng.  Ver.  [7V.]. 

*  On  this  see  above,  p.  51  f.  f.  4  is  a  later  addition,  cf.  Kuen.  §  xxv.  2  ; 
xxvi.  4. 

^  D-  first  appears  at  c.  14  :  notice,  in  particular,  tD2*^'b  (r.  11),  in  the  judicial, 
not  the  legal  sense  {cf.  v,  9  LDSiJ'  and  the  narrative  in  iii.  16  ft".,  esp.  v.  28). 


58  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

followed  by  the  narrative  of  Solomon's  judicial  sentence  in  iii. 
16-28.  Both  sections  illustrate  the  king's  accession  to  the  throne. 
To  the  history  of  his  buildings  So  adds  v.  15  f.,  20-23,  27  f.,  if  the 
last  two  verses  do  not  already  belong  to  A.  The  conclusion  then 
consists  of  some  pieces  of  So  in  chaps,  ix.  ff.,  especially  xi.  12  f. ; 
X.  1  ff.,  11  f.;  xi.  14-22,  23-25,i  26-32,  37-40. 

The  standpoint  of  this  writer  has  much  in  common  with  Je 
and  Da  of  the  history  of  David.  That  he  did  not  stand  in 
immediate  proximity  to  the  events,  appears  from  many  indica- 
tions,2  not  least  from  direct  references  to  the  past.^  It  is  not 
necessary  to  determine  whether  we  must  assign  him  a  date 
appreciably  later  than  that  of  those  books,  because  of  his  more 
artistic  arrangement.  This  may  have  been  due  to  personal  pre- 
ferences on  the  part  of  the  writer.  It  must  be  noted  that  the 
impulse  to  historical  writing  was  awakened  in  Israel,  as  elsewhere, 
not  so  much  by  the  lapse  of  time,  as  by  the  greatness  of  events. 
If  we  are  asked  to  find  traces  of  affinity  with  J  or  E,  my  view  of 
the  nature  of  So  does  not  present  any  serious  obstacle,  although 
such  traces  do  not  present  themselves  to  me  sufficiently  clearly."^ 
Perhaps  So  was  that  very  history  of  Solomon  that  our  compiler 
mentions  among  his  sources  (xi.  41).  Still  he  might  have  in  view 
a  later  and  considerably  enlarged  edition  of  So,  much  of  which  he 
found  occasion  to  omit. 

If  A  and  So  are  taken  out  of  1  Kings  iii.-xi.  all  that  remains 
will  be  seen  pretty  plainly  to  belong  to  the  Deuteronomistic 
editing  (D^ ;  in  Kautzsch,  Dt ;  Kuenen,  Ed).  Proof  of  this  can 
without  difficulty  be  found  in  the  language  and  conceptions 
characteristic  of  these  sections.^     Yet  even  here  many  features 

^  Provided  that  these  verses  are  original ;  v.  above,  p.  53. 

'  On  these  see  espec.  Kuen.  §  xxv^.  .3.  "  Cf.  1  Kings  ix.  13;  x.  12. 

■*  In  iii.  5  ff.  some  points  accord  with  E,  whereas  in  iii.  IG  ff.  mc  rather  detect 
the  tone  of  J.  Yet  little  can  be  built  on  this.  On  the  other  hand,  (/.  expressions 
like  ^n  11311  xi.  28  (never  in  the  Hexateuch,  but  here  and  there  from  Judges 
vi.  12  ;  xi.  1  onwards). 

5  To  this  group  belong  iii.  2,  3,  14,  15  {cf.  r.  15  with  4);  v.  9-14,  18  f.,  26, 
29  f.  (on  iv.  20,  v.  1-8,  see  above,  p.  51  f.) ;  considerable  parts  of  chap.  vi.  f.  cf. 
ZAW.  iii.  129  f.  ;  the  revising  of  viii.  1-11  ;  viii.  14-66;  ix.  1-9;  parts  of  ix. 
15-25  M.T.  ;  and  some  things  in  chap.  x.  ;  xi.  1-6,  8-13,  33-36,  38  f.,  41-43.  Cf. 
Wellh.,  and  Kuen.  §  xxv.  2. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  PRE-MONARCHIC  AGE  59 

show  that  the  first  editing  of  the  royal  history  beginiiiiig  with 
Solomon's  time  (Kuen.  Ed^)  was  followed  by  a  second,  the  later 
editor  being  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings  in  its  present  form 
(R;  Kuen.  Rd^).^  The  former  belonged  to  the  pre-exilic  age,- 
whereas  the  latter  presupposes  the  Babylonian-Persian  age.^ 
That  many  other  influences  in  addition  to  these  have  had  a  share 
in  the  development  of  the  text,  has  appeared  from  the  criticism  of 
the  text  prefixed  to  this  paragraph.  It  has  also  appeared, 
however,  how  fluctuating  is  the  boundary  between  criticism  of  the 
text  and  of  the  sources. 

^  He  is  nearly  related  to  the  author  or  authors  of  the  Books  of  Judges  and 
Samuel.  Most  probably  all  three  books  are,  in  their  present  form,  his  work  (on 
this  cf.  also  above,  p.  55). 

'^   Vide  viii.  8  ;  ix.  21  ('  unto  this  day  '). 

'  See  espec.  v.  4  ('beyond  the  river '). 


B.  HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD. 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  So-called  Age  of  the  Judges. 
§  33.   The  general  sititation.     hraeVs  task. 

To  how  small  an  extent  Palestine  was  really  in  the  possession 
of  the  people  of  Israel  in  the  period  that  we  call  the  age  of  the 
Judges — i.e.  after  Joshua  had  died  and  about  a  generation  had 
elapsed  since  the  beginning  of  the  real  war  of  conquest — appears 
from  the  history  of  the  Judges  we  are  about  to  trace,  as  well  as 
from  the  details  given  about  the  conquest.  In  reality,  little  more 
was  achieved  towards  the  conquest  and  occupation  of  the  land 
than  the  first  beginnings,  although  these  were  full  of  promise. 
The  people  had  set  a  firm  foot  in  the  land,  and  that  at  several 
points,  and  were  doubtless  determined  not  to  suffer  themselves 
to  be  forced  without  good  reason  from  the  positions  they  had  won. 
Everything  else,  however,  was  left  to  the  future. 

As  matters  stood,  it  was  a  slow  work  that  devolved  on  Israel, 
a  work  involving  even  centuries  of  effort,  though  there  was  not 
lacking  the  prospect  of  final  success.  This  appears  from  a  glance 
at  the  situation  in  Palestine,  as  described  in  the  Book  of  Judges, 
and  presupposed  in  the  history  of  the  monarchy.^  The  light  shed 
by  the  history  of  the  neighbouring  peoples,  and  especially  by  the 
recently  found  Tell-el-Amarna  tablets,  will  afford  us  some  help. 
The   descriptions   which   the  latter  give   us  of   the   relations  in 

^  On  this  cf.  Meyer,  Ge-icli.  d.  Alt.  i.  p.  349  ff.     Pietschmann,  Gesch.  d.  Phon., 
p.  264  ff. 


Chaf.  L]  jS.— history  of  THE  PERIOD  61 

Palestine,^  refer  indeed  to  a  considerably  earlier  time,  that  of  the 
close  of  the  15th  century  B.C.  Eut  there  is  no  doubt  that  those 
descriptions  are  in  many  points  applicable  also  to  our  period. 
Only  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  supremacy  of  Egypt,  under 
which  at  that  time  the  whole  of  Syria  unquestionably  lay,  had 
now,  with  the  progressive  decline  of  the  empire  of  the  Pharaohs, 
ceased  to  be  maintained.-  Neither  at  the  actual  time  of  conquest, 
nor  in  the  period  before  us,  can  the  slightest  traces  of  Egyptian 
supremacy  over  Palestine  be  detected  in  our  documents.  Not 
even  the  remembrance  of  it  seems  to  have  remained  to  later 
times. 

The  Canaanites  from  early  times  formed  a  series  of  inde- 
pendent communities.  Indeed,  a  certain  tendency  to  separatism 
seems  to  have  been  inherent  in  the  blood  of  this  branch  of  the 
Semitic  stock.^  Accordingly  they  do  not,  in  ordinary  times,  seem 
to  have  formed  a  real  confederacy  of  states  or  cities.  Commonly 
their  relation  to  each  other  was  rather  that  of  isolated  city- 
republics  or  city -kingdoms,  often  in  a  state  of  conflict.^  But  they 
well  knew  how  to  bind  themselves  more  closely  together  for 
special  ends,  and  where  they  succeeded  in  working  together  they 
were  a  source  of  danger  to  Israel. 

They  had  long  since  taken  to  agriculture,  and,  to  a  large  extent, 
to  city  life.  They  practised  the  former  in  the  fruitful  plains  and 
the  fields  of  the  low  country,  while  through  their  cities  lay  the 
most  important  trade  routes.''     They  had  thus  reached  a  relatively 

1  On  this  see  espec.  Zimmern  iu  ZDPV.  1891,  133  ff.  ;  Z.  f.  Assyr.  vi.  245  ff. 
[further  :  Jastrow  on  Palestine  and  Assyr.  in  the  days  of  Josh,  in  Z.  Assyr.  1892, 
1  If.  ;  Halevy,  Uetat  de  Paled,  acant  VExode,  in  the  Verhh.  d.  Stockh.  Orient. 
Conrjr.  ii.  141  fF.  ;  also  Aubert,  in  Rev.  de  theol  et  phi/.  1894,  326  fF.]. 

-  Of.  Pietschmann,  loc.  rif.  p.  260  ff.,  and  espec.  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  alien  Aegy2>t. 
278  ff.,  304  ff.  The  question  might  be  raised  whether  Ramses  in.  did  not 
exaggerate  his  achievements. 

■'  See  Pietschmann,  loc.  cit.  p.  96.  This  may  be  connected  with  the  deep 
ravines  dissecting  the  country. 

^  The  Hittites  alone  form  an  exception  (according  to  Amenhotep  iv. ).  On  the 
relations  already  existing  under  Thothmes  iii.,cf.  Meyer,  Oesch.  d.  All.  235. 
Quite  similar  relations  are  presupposed  by  the  wars  of  Ramses  ii.  and  Ramses  iii. 

■'  See  Meyer,  Ge>ich.  Agypt.  228  f. 


62  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IL 

high  degree  of  civilisation ;  ^  but  in  their  cities  voluptuousness 
and  dissolute  morals  prevailed.- 

In  the  art  of  war  they  were  more  than  a  match  for  the  still 
nomadic  Hebrews.  They  were  in  possession  of  war- chariot s,^ 
never  alluded  to  by  the  Hebrews  without  horror,  as  well  as  of 
strong  walled  cities,^  the  special  mention  of  which  leads  one  to 
surmise  that  they  were  quite  familiar  with  the  art  of  fortification, 
Israel  had  little  military  art  to  bring  against  them,  though  it  had 
indeed  the  unbroken  vigour  of  a  primitive  people  still  in  its  youth, 
and  the  unsubdued  temper  of  the  fresh,  defiant  son  of  the  desert. 
The  Canaanite,  on  the  other  hand,  had,  through  centuries  of  sub- 
jection to  Egypt,  long  become  disused  to  freedom. 

What  Israel  had  reached  up  to  this  point  can  be  determined 
better  negatively  than  positively.  We  possess  lists,  probably 
substantially  complete,  of  the  districts  that  were  not  conquered 
and  occupied  in  the  first  period.^  These  were,  in  the  first  place, 
the  strong  maritime  cities  of  the  Philistines  ^  and  the  Phoenicians.^ 
On  the  latter,  so  far  as  we  know,  no  attack  was  ever  ventured ; 
while  if,  in  individual  cases,  attacks  were  undertaken  against  the 
former,  they  were  at  all  events  not  subdued.  Israel  met  with  the 
same  experience  also  in  regard  to  the  strong  cities  of  the  interior. 
If  those  maritime  cities  served  to  preserve  the  shores  of  the 
Mediterranean,  especially  the  fruitful  maritime  plain,  in  the 
possession   of   their   former   lords,   the  cities  of  inner  Palestine 

^  Cf.  the  utensils  and  garments  on  the  well-known  tablet  of  Hui  at  Thebes, 
which  presuppose  a  high  degree  of  skill  in  art  (in  Meyer,  Agyjjt.,  opposite 
p.  242). 

-  Cf.  espec.  the  description  in  Gen.  xviii.  f. 

^  Ju.  i.  19.     Cf.  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  Hist,  de  VArt,  iii.  716  f. 

■*  Num.  xiii.  28,  Josh,  vi.,  and  elsewhere.  For  a  Hittite  city  of  the  time  of 
Ramses  ii.  (Dapur),  see  Meyer,  Agypt ;  opposite  p.  290. 

5  Ju.  i.  espec.  v.  27  ff.  and  the  parallel  passages  ;  on  which  see  vol.  i.  p.  243  f. 
[Eng.  Trans,  i.  269  f.]     Also  Ju.  iii.  1  If.  (on  which  see  above,  p.  3,  note  6). 

•5  Ju.  iii.  3.  It  is  possible  that  even  these  were  originally  in  the  possession  of 
the  Canaanite-Phoenicians,  and  only  passed  to  the  Philistines  by  conquest  in  our 
period  (Meyer,  Qesch.  d.  Alt.  319  f.). 

-^  Ju.  i.  31.  Canaanite  and  Phoenician  are  here  for  brevity  treated  as  equi- 
valent ;  by  the  latter  therefore  being  understood  simply  the  Canaanites  that 
settled  on  the  coast.     On  the  more  exact  relationship  cf.  Pietschm.,  Phiin.  87  ff. 


CiiAP.  L]  iJ.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  63 

served  to  secure  to  tliem  their  most  important  trade  route,  and 
the  inland  plain  richest  in  corn,  the  valley  of  the  Kishon.  The 
route  referred  to  led  through  this  plain,  and  in  it,  encircling  the 
plain  like  an  iron  girdle,  lay  a  number  of  strongholds,  impregnable 
for  the  present — e.g.  Taanach,  Megiddo,  Beth-shean.^  Moreover, 
the  extensive  plain  afforded  the  Canaanite  war-chariots  the  space 
they  needed.  Thus  the  Canaanites  were  for  the  present  the 
unquestioned  masters  of  the  plain. 

The  position  of  Israel  was  still  further  threatened  by  the  fact 
that  this  plain,  inaccessible  to  its  hosts,  separated  Mount  Ephraim 
and  the  chief  tribes  of  the  central  district,  from  the  tribes  settled 
farther  north — viz.  Asher,  Naphtali,  Zebulon,  and  Issachar.  These 
tribes  themselves,  again,  were  not  in  unquestioned  possession  of 
the  northern  districts  on  the  slopes  of  Lebanon  and  Hermon. 
They  shared  them  with  the  Phoenicians,  the  other  Canaanites, 
and  the  Hittites.^ 

While  the  chief  tribes  of  the  central  land  were  thus  divided 
from  their  brother  tribes  towards  the  north  by  a  deep  indentation, 
that  we  may  suppose  to  have  reached  from  Carmel  to  the  Jordan, 
it  was  the  same  towards  the  south.  Here  also  the  Canaanitish 
territory  penetrated  far  into  the  interior  of  Israel.  The  cities  of 
Shaalbim,  Aijalon,  Gezer,  Har-Heres,^  and  Jebus,  with  which 
according  to  others  also  Gibeon*  with  its  district  would  be  in- 
cluded, mark  out  the  line.^  Of  this  group  of  cities,  Jebus,  which 
was  considered  impregnable,^  would  form  the  central  point.  Judali- 
Simeon  were  in  this  way  almost  completely  cut  off  from  the  other 
tribes.  They  went  their  own  way,  and,  unless  we  have  lost  impor- 
tant constituent  parts  of  our  narratives,  were  for  some  time  as 
good  as  lost,  so  far  as  the  history  of  Israel  was  concerned. 

We  thus  see  that  if  much  was  done,  even  under  Joshua  and  in 

1  Ju.  i.  27. 

-  Ju.  i.  31  ti.,  iii.  3.     (Read  ^nnn  Meyer,  ZA  W.  i.  126.) 
•^  On  this  see  Budde,  RiSa,  17. 
•*  See  above,  Eng.  Trans,  vol.  i.  p.  300  f. 

•''  Ju.    i.    34  + Josh.    xiv.    47  lxx.  (see   above,   i.    244  [Eng.  Trans,  p.   270]). 
Further,  i.  21,  29,  35  ;  and  above,  i.  241  f.,  271  f.  [Eng.  Trans,  p.  266  f.,  p.  300  f.]. 
«  2  Sam.  V.  6. 


64  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBEEWS  [Book  II. 

his  generation,  towards  gaining  possession  of  the  land,  much  also 
remained  for  the  following  generations  to  achieve.  What  was  won, 
in  addition  to  the  first  conquered  district  east  of  the  Jordan,  was 
substantially  the  Jordan  valley  and  the  wooded  hill  country  of 
the  central  district,  as  far  as  the  border  of  the  maritime  plain  in 
the  west.  Besides  this,  Israel  possessed  two  strips  of  land,  ever 
indeed  becoming  narrower,  to  the  north  and  south  respectively  of 
the  two  groups  of  Canaanite  cities  that  lay  on  the  Kishon  and  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Jebus.  One  of  these  strips  reached  up  to 
the  district  of  the  sea  of  Merom,  while  the  other  sent  out  its  last 
spurs  into  the  wilderness.  As  Israel's  most  important  points  of 
support,  are  mentioned  the  cities  of  Jericho,  Ai,  Bethel,  and  Hebron 
— few  enough  for  the  task  that  lay  before  them. 

The  policy  of  Israel  was,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  not 
uniform  in  the  various  districts  where  it  succeeded,  in  whole  or 
in  part,  in  gaining  a  firm  footing.  In  not  a  few  cases  complete 
extermination  seems  to  have  been  resorted  to.^  Keligious  con- 
siderations rather  encouraged  than  checked  such  a  course.  Ee- 
volting  as  the  barbarity  of  this  policy  of  massacre  may  seem  to 
our  feelings,  there  is  something  that  commands  respect  in  its 
pitiless  thoroughness  at  the  bidding  of  religion,  and  its  unselfish- 
ness as  compared  with  the  common  raid  of  depredation.-  Yet  the 
extermination  was  not  consistently  carried  through.  There  often 
appears  in  its  stead  simple  subjugation,  or  even  amicable  alliance 
by  covenant  and  intermarriage.  Probably  the  case  was  something 
like  this.  Where  means  and  strength  were  forthcoming,  the 
enemy,  after  being  decisively  subdued  beyond  the  possibility  of 
further  resistance,  were  pitilessly  '  banned,'  exterminated  '  with  the 
edge  of  the  sword.'  Any  one  who  would  live  must  seek  safety  in 
flight.  Cases,  however,  would  not  be  rare,  where  neither  side  had 
decidedly  gained  the  upper  hand,  but  both  maintained  an  equal 
right  of  possession.  It  was  necessary  in  such  circumstances  to 
come  to  terms.     Both  parties  settled  down  side  by  side,  and  this 

1  e.g.  in  Ju.  i.  17,  25;  Josh.  xix.  47  lxx.  ;  Ju.  xviii.  27,  28  ;  Heb.  D"in  ;  on 
which  see  Driver,  Notts,  100  f.  =  gee  Cornill,  ZKWL.  1885,  p.  121  f. 


Chap.  I.]  L\— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  65 

state  of  things  continued  until  in  some  way  in  the  course  of  time 
one  of  the  parties  gained  the  upper  liand,  and  as  soon  as  it  felt 
itself  in  a  position  to  do  so,  displaced  the  other  or  enslaved  it. 
Such  a  proceeding  is  related  of  Israel  several  times  in  the  words : 
*  when  Israel  was  waxen  strong  they  put  the  Canaanites  to  task- 
work;'^ but  the  same  thing  could  also  happen  to  them  at  the 
hands  of  their  adversaries.-  If  finally  this  process  failed  to  lead 
to  subjugation,  or  if  from  the  first  it  seemed  hopeless,  they  could 
at  an  early  stage  enter  into  friendly  alliance.  Here  and  there  also, 
especially  in  the  hill  country,  the  Canaanites  would  easily  make 
up  their  minds  to  a  surrender  of  land,  so  as  to  set  at  rest  the 
intruders,  and  free  themselves  from  what  was  a  burdensome 
menace  to  their  right  of  possession.  Even  in  the  plain  and  the 
cities,  Israelitish  colonies  early  found  it  possible  to  settle  down 
beside  the  ancient  inhabitants.  The  relations  in  Shechem  during 
the  period  under  consideration ^  are  a  typical  example  of  this. 
From  peaceable  residence  in  the  same  place  there  followed,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  intermarriage  and  a  gradual  general  blending.-^ 
Hence  the  historians  of  a  later  age  find  fault  with  this  very 
procedure,  and  not  unjustly ;  for  there  lay  in  it  an  unmistakable 
danger  for  Israel's  religion  and  national  individuality.  Besides 
being  found  in  Shechem,  and  probably  also  in  Jebus,  this  kind  of 
relation  seems  gradually  to  have  established  itself,  especially  in 
the  northern  tribes  which  occupied  the  hinterland  of  the  great 
Phoenician  cities.  Active  relations  of  trade  were  here  doubt- 
less soon  developed,  and  the  two  peoples  learned  to  live  side  by 
side  in  peace.^ 

The  whole  period  between  the  death  of  Joshua  and  the  rise  of 
the  monarchy  under  Saul,  we  call,  according  to  a  traditionary 
conception,  the   age  of  the  'Judges.'     Whether   our   documents 

1  Especially  Ju.  i.  27  ff. 

-  So  in  Ju.  i.  35.  This  is  clearly  the  meaning  also  of  the  words  about 
Issachar  in  Gen.  xlix.  14  f.  :  '  and  he  bowed  the  shoulder  and  became  a  servant 
under  task-work.'  3  qy  Qcn.  xxxiv.  ;  Ju.  ix. 

•^  Ju.   iii.  6  (probably  a  redactional  sentence,  but  resting  on  reminiscences  of 
fact) ;  Gen.  xxxiv.  9,  21.  ^  See  Stade,  Gesch.  L^raeh,  i.  141  f. 

VOL.  11.  E 


66  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

already  used  the  term  '  Judge '  to  indicate  the  leading  agents  of 
this  heroic  age  of  Israel,  need  not  be  determined  here.^  It  is  at 
least  not  till  we  reach  the  later  strata  of  the  material  supplied  by 
tradition,  that  we  find  associated  with  it  the  idea  of  men  who 
exercised  a  magisterial  sway  over  the  whole  of  Israel,  and  even,  as 
a  rule,  for  some  length  of  time.  This  representation  of  the 
so-called  Judges,  as  theocratic  precursors  of  the  monarchy,  life- 
long rulers  over  all  Israel,  is  quite  opposed  to  the  old  tradition. 
So  is  the  other  representation,  closely  connected  with  it,  that  they 
formed  a  continuous  series,  beginning  with  Othniel  and  Ehud,  and 
closing  with  Eli  and  Samuel,  each  delivering  over  to  his  successor 
in  unbroken  line,  authority  and  supreme  dominion  over  Israel.  The 
fact  is,  that  these  leaders  of  the  age  of  the  Judges  are  war-captains, 
that  advance  at  the  head  of  their  tribes — sometimes  here,  sometimes 
there,  wherever  need  calls  them  and  danger  makes  them  heroes. 
Each  tribe  or  clan,  for  the  most  part,  goes  its  own  way,  caring 
little  for  the  weal  or  woe  of  the  others,  content  to  defend  itself 
against  the  foe.  And  so  the  Judges  were  ordinarily  nothing  but 
petty  princes,  heads  of  tribes,  generally  of  noble  blood,  who 
gathered  the  warriors  of  the  tribe  and  marched  with  them  against 
any  foe  that  might  break  into  the  land  for  plunder  or  war.  Only 
more  rarely,  when  perhaps  the  need  was  specially  great,  or  the  chief 
succeeded  in  awakening  in  his  own  and  the  adjoining  districts  a 
feeling  of  community  of  interest,  did  other  tribes  unite  themselves 
with  the  one  first  affected,  and  the  '  people '  gathered  together  for 
common  action.  This  occurred  but  rarely,  and  was  soon  over. 
We  see  it  at  its  best  in  the  incident  of  Deborah. 

What  the  task  was  that  awaited  the  tribes  of  Israel  during 
the  first  period  after  their  entrance  into  Canaan  may  easily  be 
inferred  from  what  has  been  said.  It  was  necessary,  above  all, 
to  secure  permanent  possession  of  those  districts  in  which  Israel 

^  See  above,  p.  18,  p.  3  f.  Perhaps  an  example  of  the  older  designation  has 
been  preserved  for  us  still  in  p^*p  (Ju.  xi.  6  [Isa.  i.  10]).  With  the  Hebrew 
D''tjDt5^  is  to  be  compared  the  Carthaginian  suffetae  and  the  Pha?nician  DSC^. 
Gf.  Corp.  Inscr.  Sem.,  47,  118,  143.  Here  the  word  means,  governor  of  the  city. 
On  the  Assyrian  shiptu-shdpifu  =  \ea.der  of  a  band,  see  Jensen,  Z.f.  Assyr.  iv.  279  f. 


Chap.  L]  /:?.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  67 

had  already  gained  a  firm  footing — a  task  often  enough  by  no 
means  light,  in  face  of  the  ever-renewed  onward  pressure  of  foes ; 
a  task  in  which  Israel  was,  in  fact,  here  and  there  defeated.  But 
it  was  also  necessary  to  strengthen  the  position  once  won,  and  at 
the  same  time  meet  the  need  of  room  to  spread  out  in  the  land, 
by  striving  to  push  on  and  eftect  a  settlement  where  this  had  not 
as  yet  been  accomplished.  If  the  maritime  districts  of  Philistia 
and  Phosnicia  were  entirely,  or  for  the  most  part,  out  of  reach, 
Israel  had  to  regard  as  the  ultimate  goal  of  its  aims  at  least 
the  whole  interior,  from  the  slopes  of  Lebanon  to  the  Judsean 
south-country.  The  strong  Canaanite  cities  in  the  midst  of  Israel 
must  have  been  a  thorn  in  the  flesh.  The  fruitful  plains,  so  long 
as  they  remained  in  the  possession  of  strangers,  must  have  been 
an  eyesore.  The  barriers  between  the  tribes  and  groups  of  tribes 
had  to  be  broken  through,  and  the  possibility  of  a  combination,  at 
least  for  definite  ends,  to  be  striven  for.  Finally,  as  the  realisation 
of  these  aims  necessarily  involved  a  coming  to  terms  with  the 
original  inhabitants  of  the  land,  it  was  needful,  even  if  this  were 
brought  about  by  warlike  means,  but  still  more  if  by  peaceable 
means,  to  give  heed  that  Israel's  nationality  and  religious 
individuality  suffered  no  loss — a  task  that  was  much  more  difficult 
to  achieve  than  the  gradual  appropriation  of  land  and  people. 

In  facing  these  tasks  Israel  was  certainly  not  unhampered  by 
hindrances.  Thus  we  understand  why  at  the  beginning  Israel  did 
not  get  beyond  the  effort  to  achieve  them,  and  for  a  long  time  met 
with,  in  general,  only  partial  success  in  the  attempt.  Two  powerful 
and  dangerous  enemies  of  every  normal  development  of  a  feeling 
of  common  interest,  stood  in  Israel's  way,  retarding  it  at  every 
step — internal  want  of  union,  and  attacks  from  without.  As  is  so 
often  the  case,  the  two  went  hand  in  hand.  Internal  strife  on  the 
part  of  the  tribes,  and  the  tendency  to  break  up  into  small 
parties,  under  the  scattering  force  of  private  interests,  provided 
occasion  for  hostile  attacks,  and  made  them  more  dangerous. 
In  this  respect  also  Israel  showed  itself  akin  to  the  Canaanites. 
At  last  there  remained  for  the  Israelitish  tribes  only  one  way  of 


68  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

securing  undisturbed  possession  of  land  and  nationality.  The 
appearance  here  and  there  of  individual  lieroic  figures  no  longer 
sufficed.  These  might  give  some  temporary  help,  but  they  could 
not  keep  what  had  been  gained.  A  unification  of  the  tribes  must 
take  place  through  the  rise  of  some  strong  central  power.  Only 
then  could  Moses'  legacy  to  his  nation  seem  attainable  in  politics 
and  in  religion.  For  not  till  then  could  the  idea,  that  he  had 
bequeathed  to  the  Israelitish  tribes,  of  a  real  and  independent 
national  existence  and  individuality,  be  realised.  And  not  till 
then  could  the  unity  of  the  nation  find  its  con^plement,  and  at  the 
same  time  its  support,  in  the  unity  of  God.  For  in  Israel,  if  any- 
where, the  soul  of  the  nation  was  its  religion,  its  God. 

Thus,  even  amid  division  and  separatism,  everything  made  for 
unity.  And  whoever  in  this  epoch  was  able  to  get  at  all  at  the 
soul  of  the  nation  and  surmise  its  destiny,  must  have  perceived 
this  tendency.  In  reality,  what  we  call  the  age  of  the  Judges  was 
a  period  of  conflict  and  opposing  elements.  Even  the  few 
fragments  of  narratives  that  remain  to  us,  enable  us  to  see  clearly 
that  we  stand  in  a  time  of  struggle  with  great  tasks,  which  were 
recognised  by  only  a  few  individuals,  and  to  which  even  they 
were  not  equal.  But  it  was  enough  at  the  outset  to  be  conscious 
of  the  task.  After  a  series  of  fruitless  efforts,  after  going  astray 
more  than  once  in  the  sphere  of  politics  and  religion,  a  people  of 
such  original  strength  and  so  lofty  a  destiny  must  eventually  find 
its  way  to  its  high  goal. 

§  34.  Further  Wars  of  Conquest. 

We  are  not  able  to  offer  a  coherent  account  of  the  progress  of 
the  wars  of  conquest  any  more  than  of  the  other  events  of  the 
period  of  the  Judges.  This  is  due  to  the  fragmentariness  of  the 
material  supplied  us  by  tradition,  and  the  entire  absence  of  any 
continuous  chronological  reckoning.  Several  attempts  have,  it  is 
true,  been  made  to  attain  the  latter.  Indeed,  the  present  Book  of 
Judges   is   even   set   in   a   complete   and   rounded   chronological 


Chap.  I.]  £.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  69 

scheme.  But  this  belongs,  in  its  present  form,  to  the  latest  of  the 
constituent  parts  of  the  book.  The  attempt  has,  however,  been 
made  above  ^  to  show  that  it  does  not  rest,  as  has  often  been 
supposed,  on  the  pure  invention  of  later  times.  It  is  rather, 
according  to  all  appearances,  to  be  traced  to  older  chronological 
notes  belonging  to  the  documents  themselves.  Especially  do  the 
numbers  for  the  so-called  minor  Judges,  and  those  for  Jephthah  and 
the  times  of  oppression,  appear  in  part  to  rest  on  older  tradition. 
But  even  if  they  have  in  individual  cases  a  certain  value,  they  do 
not  suffice  to  lead  us  to  a  continuous  chronology.  It  remains,  there- 
fore, necessary  to  determine  in  every  case  the  chronological  order 
of  events  by  the  help  of  internal  marks.  In  this  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  Judge-narratives  will  give  us  a  certain  amount  of  help. 

It  is  self-evident,  on  a  consideration  of  the  general  situation, 
that  the  wars  of  conquest  continued  even  when  the  Israelitish 
tribes  had  planted  themselves  firmly  in  the  land,  individual 
tribes  going  forth  here  and  there,  sword  in  hand,  to  extend  their 
possessions.  Our  information,  little  though  it  be,  is  enough  to 
enable  us  to  discover,  from  certain  typical  cases,  how  we  must 
conceive  the  course  of  these  wars.  Many  other  such  struggles 
doubtless  occurred,  although  no  record  of  them  has  been  preserved 
for  us. 

At  a  time  when  an  Israelitish  colony,  though  small  in  numbers, 
had  got  a  footing  in  Shechem,^  the  attempt  to  gain  possession  of 
this  important  city  by  force  of  arms,  doubtless  with  a  view  to 
settling  in  its  territory,  was  made  by  the  tribes  of  Simeon  and 
Levi.  The  latter,  the  tribe  of  Moses,  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
earlier  wars  of  conquest,  and  so  it  had  probably  not  yet  won  for 
itself  any  territory.^  Simeon  on  the  other  hand  may,  like  Dan, 
not  have  been  able  to  maintain  itself  in  its  territory,  which 
bordered  on  that  of  Judah  on  the  south. 

'  Cf.  p.  13  f. 

-  Shechem  ben  Hamur  had  an  intrigue  with  Jacob's  daughter  Dinah — i.e.  a 
branch  of  Israel  settled  in  Shechem. 

•'  According  to  Wellh.  Comp.'^  Nachtr.,  p.  354,  it  had  with  Simeon  joined  itself 
to  Judah. 


70  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

The  attack  of  these  two  tribes,  which  perhaps  thought  they 
could  rely  on  the  help  of  the  Israelitish  minority  in  Shechem,  was 
felt  by  the  other  Israelitish  tribes  to  be  base  treachery.  It 
disturbed  the  compact  between  Israel  and  the  Canaanites,  and 
provoked  the  latter  to  retaliation  in  other  places.  So  Simeon  and 
Levi,  though  hard  pressed  by  the  Canaanites,  were  not  aided  by 
Israel.  The  result  was  their  complete  extirpation.^  Henceforth 
Simeon  disappears  from  history.  At  most,  some  traces  of  its 
former  stay  in  the  south  have  been  preserved  in  that  district."^ 
Levi  is  scattered  among  the  several  tribes,  so  that  from  this  time 
onwards  only  single  families  were  to  be  found  here  and  there  in 
the  territories  of  the  other  tribes.  But  these  did  not  forget  their 
tribal  connection  with  Levi.  As  Moses'  tribe,  it  betook  itself 
from  this  time  onwards  more  to  priestly  duties^ — either  follow- 
ing ancient  custom,  or  inventing  in  its  need  a  new  usage. 

The  land  east  of  the  Jordan,  too,  although  in  its  southern  parts 
it  was  Israel's  first-won  possession,  was  still  for  long,  probably 
beyond  the  times  of  the  Judges,  a  scene  of  violent  feuds.  The 
tribe  of  Eeuben  was  not  able  to  maintain  its  territory.  This  is 
proved  not  only  by  the  success  of  Eglon  of  Moab,  but  also  by  the 
circumstance  that  the  heroic  song  preserved  to  us  from  that  old 
time,  uses  every  occasion  to  throw  contempt  on  Eeuben.*  Gad 
succeeded  much  better  in  maintaining  itself  against  the  pressure 
of  the  neighbouring  peoples.^  It  seems  in  time  to  have  actually 
taken  the  place  and  played  the  part  of  Eeuben. 

A  specially  interesting  example,  however,  of  such  wars  of 
conquest  has  been  preserv^ed  for  us  in  the  story  of  the  tribe  of 
Dan.  Dan  had  originally  established  itself  on  the  western 
slopes   of  Mount   Ephraim.      It   was   soon,    however,  driven   by 

^  The  representation  is  taken  from  Gen.  xxxiv.,  with  which  (Jen.  xlix.  5,  7,  is 
to  be  compared.  On  Gen.  xxxiv.  see  above,  vol.  i.  p.  141  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  156  f.] 
and  recently,  Wellh.  Comp\  Nacktr.  353  f.,  and  Cornill,  ZA  W.  xi.  1  fF. 

-  See  Graf,  Der  Stamm  Simeon  (Meissen,  1866). 

^  See  Graf,  Ztir  Gesch.  des  Stammes  Levi,  in  Merx's  Archiv.  i.  ;  Kautzsch  in 
Ersch  and  G  ruber's  Encykl.,  Art.  Levi ;  Baudissin,  Gesch.  des  isr.  Ptiestert.,  67  ff. 

^  Ju.  v.  16 ;  Gen.  xlix.  3  f.  ;  c/.  Dt.  xxxiii.  6. 

^  Gen,  xlix.  19  ;  Dt.  xxxiii.  21. 


CiiAP.  L]  ^.—HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  71 

the  Amorite^  inhabitants  of  this  region  back  towards  the  east, 
and  finally  so  weakened  that  nothing  remained  for  it  but  to 
yield  to  superior  force  and  seek  for  itself  a  home  elsewhere.- 
We  have  in  Ju.  xvii.  f.  an  account  of  the  way  in  which  the  tribe 
came  into  possession  of  its  new  home,  which  is  equally  important 
from  tlie  point  of  view  of  ordinary  history  and  of  the  special 
history  of  civilisation.^  According  to  this  account  the  Danites, 
after  gathering  information  about  the  condition  of  affairs  through 
spies,  set  out  from  their  strong  cantonment  at  Kiriath-jearim,  to  th<', 
number  of  six  hundred  men  capable  of  bearing  arms,  along  with 
their  wives  and  children,  and  wend  their  way  northwards.  In  the 
region  of  the  sources  of  the  Jordan,  they  come  upon  a  city  called 
Laish,  inhabited  by  a  small  peaceable  community.  The  people  live 
a  life  of  quiet  security,  far  removed  from  the  Phoenicians  to  whom 
they  belong,  and  without  any  dealings  with  the  Aramaeans^ — 
hence  alike  unprotected  and  unmolested.  After  seizing  an  idol 
on  their  way,  in  ]\Iount  Ephraim,  and  carrying  off  its  priest  also,  the 
Danites  fall  on  this  city,  burning  it  and  pitilessly  slaying  its 
inliabitants.  In  its  stead  they  build  a  new  city,  called  by  their 
own  name — the  Dan  that  was  afterwards  so  well  known.  In 
consequence  of  this  daring  coicp  de  main,  the  tribe  of  Dan  long  led 
an  independent  existence,  respected  by  all,  here  at  the  northern 
boundary  of  Israel.^  In  the  time  of  David  it  still  passed  for  a 
genuine  model  of  an  Israelitish  tribe — nay,  a  storehouse  for  good 
old  customs.*^ 

It  was,  however,  hardly  the  whole  tribe  of  Dan  that  was 
concerned  in  this  episode.  The  song  of  Deborah,^  and,  even 
more,   the   story   of  Samson,   points   to   the   probability   that    a 

'  It  should  be  noticed  that  the  Philistines  are  not  (yet?)  mentioned  as 
adversaries. 

-  See  Ju.  i.  3-4  f.  ;  Josh.  xix.  47  lxx.  ;  on  the  latter  passage,  Dillm.  in  his 
Comment.  '  On  this  see  above,  p.  19  ff. 

■*  So  according  to  lxx.,  xviii.  7,  28.     Sec  my  transl.  in  Kautzsch.  (^ 

^  Cf.  Gen.  xlix.  16  ff.  ;  Dt.  xxxiii.  22. 

«  2  Sam.  XX.  18  lxx.  (Wellh.  TBS.  207  f.). 

'^  In  Ju.  v.  17,  nVJN  is  doubtful,  since  it  is  not  probable  that  Dan,  even  if 
Ju.  V.  refers  to  the  southern  Dan,  was  a  seafaring  tri])e. 


72  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

part  of  the  old  tribe,  perhaps  relying  on  the  *  camp  of  Dan,' 
succeeded  after  all  in  maintaining  itself  in  the  old  home.  The 
narrative  we  are  discussing  seems  itself  to  point  to  this.^  At 
least  we  cannot  infer  from  it  the  contrary,  as  this  narrative, 
though  of  the  greatest  value  in  regard  to  its  general  features, 
is  not  so  accurately  informed  in  regard  to  the  details.- 

But  the  last  decisive  battle  with  the  old  occupiers  of  the  land 
was  still  to  come.  It  brought  about  the  glorious  union  of  the 
tribes  of  Israel  under  Barak  and  Deborah,  for  the  repulse  of  the 
Canaanites  under  Sisera. 

Two  accounts  of  the  event  are  at  our  command,  a  poem  and  a 
narrative  in  prose.^  Wherever  they  may  not  agree,  the  former  is 
entitled  to  the  preference.  This  is  the  song  of  Deborah,  hardly  to 
be  attributed  to  that  heroine  herself/  yet  at  all  events  to  a  con- 
temporary of  the  events  sung  about — a  gem  of  old  Hebrew  litera- 
ture, a  pearl  among  the  poetry  of  all  ages.^  The  song  is  a  genuine 
heroic  lay,  whose  poetry  consists  not  simply  in  word,  but  in  deed 
and  force — a  fire  kindled  at  the  holy  flame  of  ardent  enthusiasm 
for  Israel,  and  purest,  most  fervent  love  for  Yahve  and  his  people. 

Sisera,  the  king  of  the  northern  Canaanites  (Haroseth),  had 
done  violence  to  the  Israelitish  tribes  of  the  middle  and  north  of 
the  land.  In  league  with  the  still  Canaanite  cities  of  the  valley 
of  the  Kishon,  it  could  not  be  a  difficult  undertaking  for  him,  if 
the  tribes  of  Israel  to  the  north  and  south  of  that  valley  did  not 
hold  fast  together,  to  subdue  them  one  by  one  or  in  small  groups, 
and  thus  to  keep  them  all  in  check.  What  had  failed  in  the  days 
of  Joshua  he  might  expect  to  bring  to  a  happier  issue  now. 
United,  and  with  the  help  of  superior  military  skill  and  strong 

^  Ju.  xviii.  II :  six  hundred  men  of  the  tribe  of  the  Danites. 

-  Of.  Ju.  xviii.  16  with  i.  34  + Josh.  xix.  47  ;  also  xviii,  12. 

^  Ju.  IV.  4-22,  and  v.  2-30  (31a?).  On  the  share  of  Ri  in  the  two  chaps,  see 
above,  page  3,  note  2.  On  the  relation  of  the  two  accounts  see  Wellh.  Bl.^ 
187  ff.  ;  Kuen.  §  xix.  3 ;  Budde,  FdSa,  101  ff.  In  the  song,  Sisera  himself  is  the 
hostile  king,  whereas  the  prose  narrative  mistakenly  makes  him  simply  the 
general  of  Jabin  the  King  of  Hazor  (Josh.  xi. ).  Deborah  appears,  according  to 
V.  15,  to  have  belonged  like  Barak  to  the  tribe  of  Issachar,  not  to  Ephraim. 

4  On  TlOp  V.  7  f.  see  Wellh.  Bl.^  190 ;  Nachtr.  256  ;  also  Budde,  RiSa,  103. 

^  On  the  song  see  my  transl.  and  A.  Miiller  in  KijSt.  i.  1  ff.  ;  Budde,  loc.  cit. 


CiiAP.  I]  ^.—HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  73 

fortresses,  tlie  Canaanites  hoped  even  now  to  become  masters  of 
the  intruders. 

The  chief  part  of  the  work  seemed  already  done.  Severe 
oppression,  long  continued,  had  already  succeeded  in  making  the 
Tsraelitish  peasant  tired  of  resistance,  and  bringing  him  to 
lay  aside  his  arms  in  despondency.  'There  was  neither  shield 
nor  spear  to  be  seen  amongst  40,000  in  Israel.'  And  if  the 
courage  of  Israel  showed  signs  of  reviving,  threatening  attacks, 
undertaken  now  here  and  now  there,  were  sufficient  quickly  to  lay 
it  low  again.  Trade  and  communication  was  menaced,  roads 
were  no  longer  sure,  and  the  point  was  not  far  off  when  the  tribes 
of  Israel,  weary  of  the  burden,  would  prefer  to  retreat  or  to 
become  tributory. 

'  In  the  days  of  Shamgar  ben  Anatli,'  ^ 
SO  says  the  song, 

'  In  the  days  of  Jael,  the  paths  rested, 
And  they  that  went  by  the  ways,  went  by  crooked  paths. 
The  peasants  (?)  of  Israel  were  idle,  they  were  idle 
Till  thou  stoodest  up,  Deborah, 
Stoodest  up,  a  mother  in  Israel  ! ' 

Deborah  came  on  the  scene,  and  with  her,  deliverance.  A 
prophetic  woman,^  a  Seer  somewhat  like  what  Samuel  was  in  later 
times,  not  content  to  give  direction  to  the  people  for  pay,  she 
carried  in  her  breast  faith  in  Yahve  and  his  helping  hand.  The 
distress  of  the  people  went  to  her  heart.  It  was  at  the  same  time 
a  dishonour  to  Yahv^.  Therefore  help  must  be  given,  and  deliver- 
ance must  be  at  hand.  The  thought  that  the  tribes  belonged  to  one 
another,  that  they  were  Yahve's  tribes— yea,  that  they  must  become 
Yahve's  nation— lived  in  her.  Though  to  a  great  extent  dead  among 
a  multitude  which  was  disheartened,  and  by  this  time  tired  of  the 
obligation  of  nationality,  it  still  certainly  lived  here  and  there  in 

^  Shamgar  is  thus  proved  to  be  a  historical  person  belonging  to  the  time 
shortly  before  Deborah,  and  playing  a  certain  part  in  it.  As  the  context  shows, 
he  was  not  a  deliverer  of  Israel.  Ju.  iii.  31  is  from  R.  See  above,  page  3. 
note  3  ;  13,  note  2. 

-  This  item  is  taken  from  chap.  iv. 


74  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

individuals.  They  flock  together  round  this  God-inspired  woman. 
The  watchword :  *  Israel  and  Yahve  belong  to  each  other ;  Israel's 
tribes  are  Yahve's  tribes,  a  nation,  a  unity,*  stirs  them  up  to 
common  action.  *  My  heart  is  toward  the  leaders  of  Israel,  you 
that  showed  yourselves  willing  among  the  people :  praise  Yahve  ! ' 
The  chiefs  of  the  tribes  follow  the  impulse,  carrying  their  tribes 
along  with  them.  Enthusiasm  fires  the  masses.  The  victory  is 
theirs. 

Ephraim,  Benjamin,  Machir-Manasseh,  Zebulon,  l^aphtali, 
Issachar,  send  forth  their  troops,  the  tribal  chiefs  at  their  head. 
The  whole  host  of  Israel  is  commanded  by  Barak  ben  Abinoam. 
Personal  injury  that  he  had  suffered,  whets  his  sword.^  Only  a  few 
tribes  hold  back.  Wrathful  scorn  is  the  reward  of  Keuben's 
indolent  irresolution,  Gilead's  lazy  indifference,  Dan  and  Asher's 
base  avarice ;  wild  curses  are  the  reward  of  the  cowardly  selfish- 
ness of  the  neighbouring  Meroz.  By  the  Kishon,  in  the  plain 
where  the  war-chariots  could  deploy  and  the  cities  afford  shelter, 
Sisera  gathers  his  host. 

'  Kings  came  and  fought. 
There  fought  the  kings  of  Canaan, 
At  Taanach  by  the  waters  of  Megiddo  : 
Booty  of  silver  took  they  none. 
From  the  heavens  fought  the  stars, 
From  their  courses  fought  they  with  Sisera, 
The  stream  Kishon  swept  them  away, 
A  stream  of  battles  is  the  stream  Kishon.' 

Even  wilder  and  more  passionate  than  its  beginning  is  the  end 
of  the  drama.  The  enemies  are  scattered  before  the  hosts  of 
Israel.  Sisera  flees.  A  woman's  hand  deals  the  dread  one  his 
death-blow. 

'  Praised  above  women  be  Jael, 
The  wife  of  Heber  the  Kenite, 
Above  women  in  the  tent  be  she  praised. 
For  water  he  asked,  milk  did  she  give. 
In  a  lordly  dish  presented  she  cream. 

^  Translate  in  v.  12,  with  Luther,  *  lead  thy  captors  captive  '  (T'lB^)  Wellh. 


Chap.  I.]  ^.—HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  75 

Her  hand  stretched  she  forth  after  the  peg, 

And  her  right  hand  after  the  workman's  liammer, 

And  with  the  hammer  .struck  she  Siscva,  battered  his  head, 

Shattered  and  pierced  his  temples. 

At  her  feet  he  gave  way,  he  fell  down  : 

Where  he  gave  way,  there  did  he  lie,  stricken  dead.' 

It  is  hardly  possible  to  estimate  too  highly  the  value  of 
Deborah's  feat.  In  this  time  of  Israel's  sorest  dismemberment, 
at  the  moment  of  greatest  danger  to  the  national  sentiment,  the 
knowledge  of  Israel  as  One  and  as  Yahve's  People,  that  lived  in 
the  heart  of  this  woman,  stirred  the  soul  of  the  masses.^  The 
dying  spark  burst  forth,  at  least  once  in  this  time  of  trouble  and 
gloom,  into  bright  flame.  The  spirit  of  Moses  appears  to  have 
revived.  And  even  if  the  darkness  closes  again  after  Deborah, 
the  fire  that  she  kindled  must  long  have  been  reflected  in  the 
memory  and  heart  of  the  tribes.  Even  those  who  basely  held  back- 
must  have  been  touched  in  heart  and  conscience  by  Deborah's 
deed  and  song. 

At  the  same  time,  the  process  of  the  amalgamation  of  the 
Canaanites  with  the  newly  strengthened  Israel,  certainly  now 
received  a  fresh  impulse.  The  last  attempt  at  united  action  that 
we  hear  of,  on  the  part  of  the  former  lords  of  the  land,  had  now 
been  made.  Its  failure,  brought  about  by  Israel's  strength  and 
united  action,  must  have  had  far-reaching  consequences.  The 
power  of  Canaan  was  finally  broken.  One  fragment  crumbled 
away  after  another,  and  was  absorbed  by  Israel.  Even  the  strong- 
holds of  the  plain  of  Jezreel  maintained  themselves  no  longer. 
For,  when  at  a  later  date,  the  Philistines  made  themselves  masters 
of  the  land,  although  the  Canaanites  had  not  indeed  disappeared — 
Jebus,  Gibeon,  and  Gezer  still  belonged  to  them — they  had  no 
longer  sufficient  strength  and  footing  to  work  into  tlie  hands  of 
the  Philistines.  It  would  have  required  little,  in  league  with  the 
Philistines,  to  annihilate  Israel;  but  that  little  was  wauting.  Tlie 
truth  is,  they  had  become  merged  in  Israel. 

^  The  words  of  the  song  do  not  indeed  expressly  say  this,  yet  certainly  the 
spirit  of  them  implies  it.     fSee  Bacthgen,  Beitr.  z.  sem.  lieligionsgesch.  204  f. 


76  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBKEWS  [Book  II. 

Accordingly,  after  the  days  of  Barak  and  Deborah,  there  can 
have  taken  place  at  the  most,  only  isolated  battles  with  the  former 
lords  of  the  land.  Tlie  chief  thincj  was  that  individual  tribes  were 
encouraged  by  the  signal  success  of  the  Israelitish  arms  to  press 
farther  forward  into  regions  till  now  closed  against  Israel.  This 
is  probably  the  explanation  of  the  fact  that  our  Book  of  Judges,  in 
the  further  course  of  its  narrative,^  adds  several  supplementary 
names  of  heroes,  who  apparently  had  their  part  in  the  wars  of 
conquest — the  so-called  '  minor  Judges.'  They  are  generally  re- 
garded as  simply  heroes  eponymi  of  their  tribes,  and  so  quite 
unhistorical.2  But  the  fact  that  only  their  names  and  a  lew 
meagre  notices  of  them  have  reached  us,  does  not  prove  this. 
Indeed,  Jephthah  once  belonged  to  their  number,  and  the  numbers 
of  years  assigned  to  them  are  older  than  the  rest  of  the 
chronology  of  the  Book  of  Judges,^'  facts  which  rather  favour 
another  view,  viz.  that  they  were  historical  tribal  heroes,  who  at 
different  times,  perhaps  also  some  of  them  contemporaneously, 
made  themselves  a  name  in  the  war  of  conquest.  But  Elon,  as 
being  epony 7710s  of  Aijalon,  and  Tola  (since  this  is  also  a  clan 
name  ^)  may  be  in  part,  yet  cannot  be  altogether  fabulous  figures. 
There  is  no  ground  for  a  similar  assumption  in  the  case  of  Jair, 
Ibzan,  or  Abdon. 

We  have  information  elsewhere  of  one  of  these — viz.  Jair — in 
connection  with  matters  that  likewise  point  to  the  time  under 
consideration.  He  would  appear  to  have  gone  across  the  Jordan, 
in  common  with  the  Manassite  families  of  Machir  and  Nobah,  and 
to  have  taken  parts  of  Gilead  from  the  Amorites  who  were  settled 
there.-^     Since  the  enterprise  originated  west  of  the  Jordan,  it  can 

1  Ju.  X.  1-4  ;  xii.  8  flf. 

2  So  Ndldeke,  Unterss.  181  ff.  ;  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  359  ;  Budde,  RiSa,  96  f. 
=5  See  above,  pp.  8  flf.,  13  f. 

•^  See  Gen.  xlvi.  13 ;  Num.  xxvi.  23  ;  Gen.  xlvi.  14 ;  Num.  xxvi.  26.  Yet  it 
is  also  possible  that  these  passages  only  reflect  the  later  conception  of  P.  See 
also  Budde,  p.  100,  on  Ehud  and  Shimei ;  and  cf.  Shamgar  ben  Anat,  who, 
although  his  father  bears  the  name  of  a  god  (Baethgen,  Beitr.  52,  141),  is  a 
historical  person. 

^  Num.  xxxii.  39  fF.     On  Dt.  iii.  14,  see  Stade,  Gesch.  150. 


CiiAP.  I.]  5.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  77 

have  taken  place  only  after  the  time  of  Joshua.^  Jair  became  the 
founder  of  the  Havvoth  Jair — i.e.  the  villages  of  Jair — a  designa- 
tion that  offers  no  occasion  to  stamp  the  bearer  of  the  original 
name  as  an  unhistorical  cjyom/mos. 


§  35.  Inroads  from  without.     The  Tribal  Monarchy  of  Oinhrah. 

The  victory  of  Deborah  brought  to  an  end  the  natural  resist- 
ance of  the  Canaanites,  attacked  and  driven  from  their  inherited 
land  by  the  Israelitish  invaders.  Tlie  time,  however,  was  not  yet 
come  for  Israel  to  enjoy  unenvied  and  undisturbed  possession  of 
its  newly-won  land.  It  is  the  ancient  custom  of  the  restless,  wan- 
dering Bedouin  tribes  of  the  desert,  to  look  with  jealousy  from 
time  to  time  on  the  comfortable  life  of  their  neighbours,  settled 
within  the  boundary  of  the  cultivated  land.  The  pride  of  the 
nomad  is  in  his  free,  unimpeded  right  to  roam  in  boundless  space. 
He  looks  down  with  pity  and  disdain  on  the  peasantry  bound  to 
the  soil.  But  ever  and  anon  the  charm  of  the  comfortable,  secure, 
and  at  the  same  time  richer,  life  in  the  cultivated  land  succeeds 
in  throwing  its  spell  even  on  him,  in  spite  of  his  old  instinct  for 
freedom.  This  was  for  centuries  the  experience  of  Egypt.  Time 
and  again  did  the  Semitic  nomads  from  the  north  seek  to  gain 
admission  and  possession,  sometimes  peaceably,  sometimes  by 
force.  The  Israelitish  tribes  themselves,  as  nomads,  before  their 
entrance  into  Canaan,  were  under  the  influence  of  this  impulse. 
Xow  it  turned  against  them.  Hardly  had  Israel  got  some  relief 
from  the  powerful  resistance  of  Canaan,  than  from  all  sides  nomadic 
neighbours  came  forward  to  contest  its  newly-won  possession.  Some 
of  these  were  tribes  nearly  related  to  Israel.  What  Israel  had 
achieved,  they  thought  themselves  entitled  to  imitate. 

Perhaps  this  struggle  had  begun  before  the  last  decisive  battle 
with  Canaan  took  place.  Already  in  those  days,  Othuiel,  the  son 
of  Kenaz,  a  Judcean  hero  of  the  time  of  Joshua,  is  said  to  have 

^  8ee  also  Wellh.  Abriss.  p.  17. 


78  HISTOllY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

waged  victorious  warfare  with  hostile  intruders.^  The  bold  exploit 
of  the  Benjamite  Ehud  ben  Gera,  although  likewise  resting  on 
notices  of  later  date,  stands  much  clearer  in  the  light  of  history. 
Treacherously  he  slays  the  Moabite  king  Eglon,  who  had  broken 
into  the  territory  of  Israel,  perhaps  in  league  with  Amnion  and 
Amalek,-  conquered  Jericho,  and  for  twelve  years  laid  the  tribes 
adjoining  Moab,  perhaps  especially  Benjamin,  under  heavy 
tribute.  Ehud  calls  out  the  army  of  Israel  from  Mount  Ephraim, 
and  delivers  part  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  from  unworthy  bondage.-^ 
It  is  historically  quite  probable  that  after  Moab  recovered  from 
the  hardships  of  the  time  of  Moses,  it  bethought  itself  of  recover- 
ing its  old  position.  The  weakness  and  early  decline  of  Eeuben, 
which  in  the  time  of  Moses  had  taken  Moab's  place,  would  only 
stand  it  in  good  stead. 

Special  danger,  however,  threatened  the  central  district,  east 
and  west  of  the  Jordan,  from  the  populous  eastern  desert  tribe  of 
Midian,  This  tribe,  which  was  closely  related  to  the  Kenites,  was 
in  the  time  of  Moses  settled  wholly  or  in  part  in  the  region  of 
Sinai.  Doubtless  under  the  influence  of  the  migration  of  Israel, 
it  seems,  either  at  the  same  time  or  shortly  afterwards,  to  have 
made  its  way  to  the  north.  It  probably  availed  itself  of  the  old 
friendship  to  win  by  the  side  of  Israel,  somewhere  in  Gilead,  a 
share  of  the  fruitful  cultivated  soil.     Still  this  conjecture  is  not 

^  Ju.  iii.  7-11.  I  cannot  regard  the  figure  of  Othniel  as  unhistorical.  But 
nothing  beyond  his  name,  and  the  fact  of  battles,  is  to  be  learned  from  the  late 
narrative  which  has  been  preserved  for  us  only  by  Ri.  In  particular,  we  can 
hardly  now  discover  from  the  words  D"'"in3  D"lt<  'yP'O  DTiyt^l  jK^D  who  his 
adversary  was.  I  regard  it  as  probable  that  we  have,  in  this  incident,  a  faint 
leminiscence  of  the  wars  that  disturbed  Palestine  under  Ramses  iii.  of  Egypt  and 
Tiglath  Pileser  i.  of  Assyria.  Jewish  families  might  very  well  ascribe  to  them- 
selves some  sort  of  share  in  these  wars.  See  Meyer,  Gesch.  Agypt.  314  fF.  • 
Hommel,  Gesch.  Ass.  531  f. 

-  So  V.  13  ;  but  not  certainly  belonging  to  the  sources. 

2  Ju.  iii.  12-30.  This  narrative  is  in  its  present  form  likewise  young  (Ri). 
Apart  from  this,  however,  there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  against  accepting  it 
as  historical.  Indeed,  its  contents  are  altogether  in  favour  of  it.  We  have  here 
therefore  probably  old  tradition  in  a  younger  form.  Most  recent  scholars 
accordingly  assume  that  the  compiler  iised  an  older  document,  and  that  this 
would  have  to  begin  with  v.  I5b  or  15a/3.  See,  moreover,  Budde,  liiSa,  99.  With 
regard  to  its  age  I  do  not  venture  to  pass  any  judgment. 


CiiAr.  I.]  ^.—HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  79 

necessary ;  for  the  Arab  never  needs  to  await  an  excuse  for  a  raid 
on  fruitful  land.  Our  document^  tells  how,  suddenly,  in  dense 
crowds,  like  swarms  of  locusts,  the  Midianites,  along  with  Amalek 
and  the  (other)  children  of  the  east,  overflowed  the  land.  Year 
after  year,  shortly  before  harvest,  they  swept  in  on  their  camels, 
destroying  the  harvest,  and  driving  off  the  cattle.^ 

It  is  impossible  to  say  how  long  may  have  been  the  time 
between  these  events  and  the  days  of  Barak  and  Deborah,  but  we 
must  not  assume  too  short  an  interval.  For  there  is  little  trace  to 
be  found  of  such  a  spirit  of  lofty  sentiment  and  national  unity  as 
then  animated  the  tribes.  Though  that  elevation  of  sentiment 
may  for  a  while  have  continued  to  work — and  as  long  as  it  did  so 
ifc  would  certainly  preserve  Israel  from  threatening  attacks — the 
lofty  thoughts  of  a  better  time  were  lost  in  the  ease  that  comes 
from  possession,  and  in  care  for  tribal  interests.  The  loose 
cohesion  among  the  tribes,  along  with  the  lack  of  strong  person- 
alities to  take  the  lead,  begat  the  feeling  of  weakness,  and  a 
condition  of  lethargy.  Manasseh  and  Ephraim,  along  with  the 
neighbouring  tribes,  though  they  had  done  many  a  daring  deed, 
could  not  muster  the  courage  to  make  a  stand  against  the  Bedouin 
hordes.  On  occasion  of  such  an  incursion  they  could  do  nothing 
better  than  abandon  the  open  country  to  the  marauders,  and  with- 
draw the  population  for  safety  to  the  mountains.      Thither  the 

^  Ju.  vi.  2Am.  The  mention  of  the  allies  in  H  (see  below)  is  indeed  only  from 
the  redactor,  but  appears  to  be  derived  from  H^  (viii.  10). 

2  The  story  of  Gideon  is  to  be  found  in  Ju.  vi.  -viii.  For  analj^sis  of  sources  sec 
above,  pp.  3  f.,  6,  14  fF.  ;  also  Studer,  Bichter,  212  ff.  ;  Wellh.  Bl."^  190  ff. ;  Stade, 
Gesch.  Isy\  181  ff.  ;  Budde,  JRiSa,  107  ff.  The  narrative  runs  in  two  clearly  dis- 
tinguishable accounts,  which  have  been  united  by  the  hand  of  a  redactor  (Ri ; 
according  to  Budde,  JE).  The  combination  can  be  seen  most  clearly  in  vii.  25h, 
and  in  viii.  10,  from  D"'"iniJn~p3  onwards.  There  are  also  additions  by  R.  The 
chief  accounts  can  hardly  have  existed  independently  ;  at  least  one  of  them  was 
connected  witli  other  older  hero-stories.  If  we  call  them  H  and  H^,  there  will 
belong  to  H,  vi.  2-6a  (excluding  'and  the  Amalekites  and  the  children  of  the 
east'),  11-24,  33  f.,  36-40  ;  vii.  1,  9-11,  13-25  (15-22  worked  over)  ;  viii.  1-3,  24-27a 
(29-32  ?) ;  to  H^,  viii.  4-21.  H^  has  throughout  the  indications  of  age  and 
originality,  and  stands  at  least  on  a  level  with  chap.  ix.  H,  inserted  here  in 
place  of  the  lost  beginning  of  H^  shows  easily  recognisable  traces  of  later  style, 
but  still  stands  in  close  relationship  with  sucli  sections  as  chaps,  ix.,  xvii. 


80  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

bands  of  horsemeu  could  not  penetrate;  and  if  it  came  to  the 
worst,  fast  rock  strongholds,  or  barricaded  caverns,  could  provide 
shelter.^ 

A  Manassite  family-chief  of  the  clan  of  Abiezer,  Jerubbaal  or 
Gideon  by  name,  of  Ophrah,-  ventured  finally  to  oppose  the 
insolent  brigands.  A  renewed  attack  of  the  Midianites,  in  which 
they  pressed  onwards,  plundering  and  slaughtering,  as  far  as  Mount 
Tabor  in  the  north  of  Palestine,  furnished  him  the  occasion." 
Amoug  the  slain  were  Gideon's  brothers.  The  sacred  duty  of 
blood-revenge,  combined  in  his  case  with  the  indignation  of  the 
patriot.  Gideon  called  out  the  fighting  force  of  his  family  of 
Abiezer,  three  hundred  armed  men  in  number.  The  bands  of  the 
enemy,  returning  from  Tabor,  pitched  in  the  plain  of  Jezreel ; 
Gideon  with  his  men,  not  far  off  by  the  spring  Harod."*  Eeliance 
on  the  help  of  Yahve,  and  the  ominous  dream  of  one  of  the  enemy 
which,  on  stealing  by  night  into  the  enemy's  camp,  he  overheard, 
inspired  him  with  courage  for  his  little  band.  A  daring  stratagem, 
undertaken  forthwith  under  shelter  of  the  night,  was  successful. 
The  enemy's  host,  startled  by  the  sudden  glare  of  torchlight  and 
the  wild  battle-cry,  fell  into  confusion  and  disorganised  flight.^ 
As  they  fled  eastwards  they  had  to  cross  the  Jordan.  But  the 
hastily  summoned  army  of  Ephraim  barred  the  way  of  the 
fugitives  to  the  fords  and  slew  two  hostile  chiefs,  Oreb  and  Zeeb, 
while,  at  the  same  time,  the  tribes  of  Naphtali,  Asher,  and 
Manasseh,  opposed  the  enemy  in  their  way  farther  north.^ 

1  Ju.  vi.  2.     Cf.  1  Sam.  xiii.  6. 

-  Its  site  is  not  yet  certainly  ascertained,  but  is  probably  to  be  sought  not  far 
from  Shechem  :  most  plausibly,  with  Fischer  and  Guthe,  Handk.,  Far'ata. 

^  See  viii.  18.  Budde  (p.  114)  supposes  another  Tabor,  but  without  sufficient 
ground. 

^  Ju.  vi.  33  f.  ;  vii.  1.  vi.  35  and  vii.  2-8  (which  is  connected  with  it)  are  later 
additions.  That  the  valley  of  Kishon  was  still  in  Canaanitish  occupation  cannot 
be  assumed  (Stade,  p.  190)  without  proof. 

^  Ju.  vii.  9-22  (excluding  v.  12).  V.  15  fF.  shows  traces  of  revision  (see  Berth. , 
Kuen.,  Budde)  but  is  not  therefore  to  be  rejected. 

6  Ju.  vii.  23-25a  (256  is  due  to  an  editorial  attempt  at  harmonising).  Whether 
H  originally  intended  here  a  final  conquest  and  destruction  of  the  enemy,  depends 
on  the  answers  to  the  questions  raised  on  p.  81,  note  1.  I  regard  viii.  1-3  as  an 
imitation  of  xii.  1  ff. 


I 


Chap.  L]  5.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  81 

A  part  of  the  fugitives  had  already  won  the  Jordan  before 
Ephraim's  interposition  in  the  contest.  These  are  pursued  farther 
by  Gideon  himself  with  his  band.  The  cities  of  Succoth  and 
Penuel,  lying  east  of  the  Jordan,  intimidated  by  the  many  surprises 
they  had  suffered,  and  long  unaccustomed  to  hold  together  with 
Israel,  refuse  bread  to  his  exhausted  bands.  Left  in  the  lurch  by 
them,  Gideon  hurries  farther  eastwards  on  the  caravan  road.  He 
overtakes  the  enemy  and  captures  their  two  chieftains,  Zebah  and 
Zalmunnah.  The  haughty  sons  of  the  desert  confess  to  their 
murder  of  Gideon's  brothers.  Haughty  and  bold  even  in  bonds, 
they  disdain  to  meet  their  destined  death  at  the  hands  of  boys. 
The  hero  himself,  and  no  other,  must  strike  the  death-blow,  for  *  as 
the  man  is,  so  is  his  strength.'  Eeturning  home,  Gideon  takes 
severe  vengeance  on  Succoth  and  Penuel.  The  cowardice  and 
insult  that  they  had  shown  towards  their  countrymen,  they 
expiated  at  terrible  cost.^ 

Crowned  with  victory  and  laden  wath  rich  booty,  Gideon 
returns  at  the  head  of  his  followers  to  Ophrah.  Although  he  was 
at  the  head  of  but  a  small  band,  it  was  not  for  himself  and  his 
family  alone  that  Gideon  had  taken  the  field.  What  he  accom- 
plished benefited  the  equally  suffering  tribes,  and  was  certainly  also 
undertaken  with  a  reference  to  them.  The  peaceable  peasant  was 
protected  from  the  marauding  nomad  :  Israel  became  again  master 
of  its  own  land.  It  was  once  more  proved  how  much  could  be 
achieved,  not  by  Israel  as  a  whole,  but  by  even  a  small  portion  of 
that   vigorous   nation,  if  it  would  only  arouse  itself  to  earnest 

^  lu  the  text  above,  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  combine  H  and  H^,  not 
with  the  idea  that  the  combination  offers  the  only  possible  solution,  but  only  in 
opposition  to  the  one-sided  preference  for  H^  favoured  by  some  (Wellh.,  Stade). 
H  too  contains  certainly  historical  traits,  as  even  Isa.  x.  26  shows.  (On  this,  see 
now  also  Budde,  JiiSa,  115.)  I  had  much  rather  suppose  that  there  was  a  second, 
perhaps  an  earlier,  event  alongside  of  that  of  H^  so  that  Gideon  would  really 
appear  twice  as  a  hero,  than  attribute  a  purely  legendary  character  to  H.  If  H' 
contained  the  second  feat  of  Gideon,  this  would  explain  the  designation  'children 
of  a  king'  in  viii.  19.  Or  shall  we  suppose  that  Gideon  and  Jerubbaal  were  once 
two  persons  answering  to  the  two  narratives  ?  Since  the  two  accounts  have  too 
much  in  common,  I  prefer  to  regard  them  as  parts  of  two  narratives  of  the  same 
event  {cf.  also  HTl  viii.  4  fi".  ;  Kuen.  §  xix.  4). 

VOL.  II.  F 


82  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

purpose  and  become  conscious  of  its  strength.  And  the  man  who 
taught  his  own  family  and  the  house  of  Josepli  this  lesson  was,  for 
that  reason  alone,  a  hero,  worthy  of  honour  in  his  own  and 
after  ages. 

It  is  intelligible  enough  that  Gideon  was  rewarded  with 
honour  and  power,  that  the  people  took  care  to  enjoy  also  in  the 
future  the  strong  arm  and  protection  of  the  victorious  deliverer. 
Manasseh,  and  probably  Ephraim,  offered  him  the  kiugship ;  and, 
though  he  may  perhaps  have  hesitated  a  while  in  view  of  Yahve's 
kingship  over  Israel,  he  certainly  did  not  finally  refuse  it.^  So, 
not  indeed  all  Israel,  but  certainly  the  house  of  Joseph,  the  centre 
of  the  older  Israel,  had  now  a  king.  With  the  rich  share  of  booty 
that  fell  to  his  lot,  he  erected,  like  other  kings  after  him,  a  royal 
sanctuary  for  himself  at  Ophrah.^  The  object  of  worship  in  it  was 
certainly  Yahve:  but  not  the  Yahve  of  Moses.  In  this  matter 
also  the  age  of  the  Judges  went  its  own  way.  The  place  of  the 
invisible,  imageless  one  was  taken  by  an  image  of  Yahve,  in  the 
shape  of  an  ephod  ^  covered  with  gold.  No  wonder,  therefore,  that 
the  later  editor  of  our  narrative  sees  in  this  a  grievous  defection 
on  the  part  of  Gideon  and  his  contemporaries.*  In  fact,  whether 
those  concerned  in  it  were  conscious  of  it  or  not^  it  was  a  dangerous 
relapse  in  the  direction  of  the  Canaanitish  nature-worship. 

^  In  the  present  form  of  the  passage,  verses  viii.  22  f.,  at  all  events,  are  later 
(Ri),  as  ix.  2  and  even  the  name  Abimelech  (  =  my  father  is  king)  show.  But 
some  sentence  in  H  must  have  served  as  foundation.  Whether  the  same  source 
contained  also  the  original  refusal,  cannot  from  the  context  be  either  proved  or 
disproved.  The  decision  depends  on  general  considerations  regarding  the  age  of 
the  theocratic  conception.  Yet  cj.  the  judgment  on  the  kingdom  in  ix.  8  ff. 
and  Kuen.  §  xix.  5. 

"  It  is  noteworthy  that  in  Porphyry  mention  is  made  of  a  priest  of  the  god 
'leuw,  named 'Iep6/i/3a\oj.  This  doubtless  refers  to  our  Jerubbaal ;  but  from  this 
no  conclusion  can  be  di'awn  as  to  the  historical  value  of  the  passage.  See  Ewald, 
PhOnik.  AnsicJd.  v.  d.   Weltschopf.,  p.  52;  Baudissin,  Stiidien,  i.  25, 

3  On  this  see  Siegfried  and  Stade  in  their  Lexicon.  DifiFerently,  Berth.^  164 
(there  further  reff.).  Konig,  Hmqitprohl.  59  fF.  Characteristically,  Lagarde, 
Gm.  Gel.  Nachr.  1890,  15  f. 

^  viii.  21b  (from  "IJT*')  onwards). 


Chap.  L]  ^.—HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  83 

§36.  Continuation.     The  Tribal  Monarchy  of  Ophr ah. 
Ahimelech  in  Shechem. 

The  family  of  Gideon,  however,  was  not  long  to  enjoy  its 
newly- won  dominion.  After  his  death  it  came  quickly  to  ruin. 
We  possess  an  account  of  its  fall  that  is  one  of  the  most  precious 
historical  documents  in  the  Old  Testament.^  The  ruin  of  Gideon's 
dominion  is  to  be  traced  to  his  harem.  Among  his  wives,  who 
were  so  many  that  he  is  said  to  have  had  seventy  sons,^  he  had  a 
distinguished  Canaanite  woman  of  Shechem.  In  this  town  the  old 
Canaanite  noble  family  of  the  bene  Hamor^  lived  in  peaceful 
association  with  Israelite  intruders.*  Their  god,  who  had  his 
temple  amongst  them,  was  El  berith,  also  called  Ba'al  berith,  the 
Lord  of  the  Covenant — perhaps  the  protector  of  this  very  compact 
between  Canaanites  and  Israelites.  The  reception  of  the 
Canaanitess  into  Gideon's  harem  was  doubtless  intended  to  bind 
the  only  half-Israelite  Shechem  to  his  kingdom. 

On  Gideon's  death  it  appeared  that  his  rule  was  regarded  as  a 
legitimate  kingship,  at  all  events  over  Manasseh  and  Ephraim. 
There  happened  here  what  appears  in  the  case  of  none  of  the  other 
'Judges.'  Every  one  took  it  for  granted  that  Gideon's  crown 
would  pass  to  his  family  as  hereditary  right.  It  was  probably 
destined  for  the  first-born;  though  possibly  nothing  had  been 
settled,  and  so  a  contest  for  the  inheritance  on  the  part  of  the 
brothers  was  to  be  feared. 

It  is  in  this  light  at  least  that  Abimelech  plans  the  death  of 
Jerubbaal.  This  man,  the  hero  of  the  important  historical 
fragment  relating  to  the  time  we  are  now  considering,  preserved 
for  us  in  Judges  ix.,  was  the  son  of  the  already-mentioned 
Shechemite  in  Gideon's  harem.  His  overtures  to  the  Cauaanitish 
Shechemites  made  a  decided  impression.      'Which  is  better  for 

^  Ju.  ix.  CJ.  esp.  Wellh.  BIJ  194 ;  Kuen.  §  xix.  5.  The  narrative  may  date 
from  the  earliest  days  of  the  monarchy  (ix.  2). 

"  Ju.  viii.  29  ;  ix.  2.  Compare,  however,  ix.  5  ;  where  seventy  sons  are 
mentioned  in  addition  to  Abimelech  and  Jothani. 

^  Called  also  ha'ale  Shechem,  as  the  lawful  possessors  of  Shechem. 

^  On  this  see  at  the  same  time  above,  p.  65  {cf.  p.  69  f . ). 


84  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

you/  he  said,  '  that  seventy  men,  aU  the  sons  of  Jerubba'al,  should 
bear  rule  over  you,  or  one  man  ?  Moreover,  consider  that  I  am 
your  flesh  and  bone.'  ^  They  prefer  a  ruler  of  Canaauitish  blood 
to  the  legitimate  sons  of  Gideon,  and  deliver  the  city  to  Abimelech. 
With  the  treasure  out  of  the  temple  of  Ba'al  berith,  he  hires  a 
troop,  goes  with  them  to  Ophrah,  and  murders  his  seventy  brothers 
'upon  one  stone.' ^  Abimelech  is  thus  lord  not  only  of  Shechem, 
but  of  the  whole  dominion  which  Gideon  had  united  under  his 
hand.  The  narrator  even  calls  him,  in  so  many  words,  ruler  '  over 
Israel.'^  Hence,  from  this  time  onwards,  he  does  not  regard 
Shechem  as  the  main  point.  On  the  contrary,  turning  his  back 
on  it,  he  resides  at  another  place,  and  contents  himself  with  leaving 
Shechem  to  its  civic  chief,  Zebul,  who,  without  doubt,  plays  the 
part  of  an  adherent  of  Abimelech.* 

We  can  hardly  be  wrong  in  assuming  that  this  and  nothing 
else  was  the  cause  of  the  rupture  between  Shechem  and  Abimelech. 
Shechem,  as  Abimelech's  home,  had  a  claim  to  special  favour. 
Instead  of  this,  although  he  was  of  Canaanitish  blood  on  one  side, 
Abimelech  left  the  half- Canaanitish  city  during  all  the  three  years 
of  his  rule,  and  sought  an  Israelitish  residence.  So  Shechem,  the 
very  place  where  Abimelech,  had  he  been  prudent  and  mindful  of 
his  own  interests,  might  have  had  the  firmest  support,  became  the 
centre  of  an  evidently  deep-seated  movement  against  him,  to 
which  he  eventually  succumbed. 

Various  circumstances  combined  further  to  foster  the  dis- 
satisfaction, the  germ  of  which  was  thus  laid  through  Abimelech's 
lack  of  discernment. 

Jotham,  Gideon's  youngest  son,  escaped  the  massacre  at 
Ophrah.  Probably  soon  after  the  installation  of  Abimelech,  yet 
not  before  the  latter  had  left  Shechem  to  take  possession  of  the 

^  Ju.  ix.  2. 

2  Can  it  be  that  a  sacrifice  is  intended?  !l"in  (ix.  5)  does  not  favour  this. 

3  Yet  Beer,  e.g.  seems  to  be  excepted  (ix.  21),  although  we  do  not  elsewhere 
find  it  mentioned  as  a  non-Israelitish  town.  Tlie  narrator  is  thus  conscious  of 
the  inaccuracy. 

•*  This  governor  of  Shechem  (T'yn  'lb'  v.  30)  need  not  have  been  Abimelech's 
steward  in  the  strict  sense  {v.  28).     Wellh.  Nachtr.  353  f. 


Chap.  I.]  i>\— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  85 

rest  of  his  father's  kingdom,  Jothaiii  gathered  the  citizens  on 
Mount  Gerizim.^  There,  standing  on  the  brow  of  a  cliff,  he  re- 
proached them  for  their  outrage  on  the  house  of  Gideon,  making 
use  of  an  ingeniously  constructed  fable.  For  their  ingratitude 
toward  Jerubba'al,  who  had  delivered  them  also  from  Midian,  and 
for  the  murder  of  his  sons  in  which  they  had  taken  part  with 
Abimelech,  tlie  vengeance  of  Yahve  is  declared  against  Shechem 
:is  well  as  against  Abimelech.  Their  anger  at  his  daring  words 
Jotham  evades  by  speedy  flight,  but  the  sting  had  gone  to  their 
hearts.  It  would  be  felt  all  the  more  keenly,  the  harsher  Jotham's 
words  sounded.  For,  indeed,  he  added  to  reproach  and  threatening 
the  taunt  that  in  accepting  Abimelech  they  had  made  the  son  of  a 
maid,  a  despised  concubine,  their  king,  simply  because  he  was  near 
of  kin.  Nay,  the  taunt  of  Abimelech's  origin  formed  the  key-note 
of  the  whole  fable. 

These  words  might  sound  strange  if  regarded  as  flung  in  the 
face  of  the  Canaanite  Shechemites."  They  lose  this  character 
when  one  considers  that  there  lived  in  Shechem,  alongside  of  the 
Canaanites,  a  considerable  number  of  Israelites.  If  directed  at 
these,  Jotham's  speech  is  a  well-conceived  attempt  to  drive  a 
wedge  into  the  unity  of  the  two  parties.  The  Israelitish  party  in 
Shechem  could  certainly  not  be  wholly  inaccessible  to  such  reflec- 
tions as  Jotham's  speech  gave  rise  to.  They  lay  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  especially  if  Abimelech  was  neglecting  Shechem  itself. 

Thus  both  parties,  which  were  probably  originally  at  one  in 
adhering  to  Abimelech,  had  reason  enough  to  be  discontented  with 
him.  Hardly  had  three  years  elapsed  since  Abimelech's  usurpation, 
when  the  alienation  of  Shechem  reached  so  high  a  point  that  it 
led  to  a  breach  hardly  any  longer  concealed,  if  not  at  once  to 
declared   desertion.      'There   came   an   evil   spirit   from   Elohim 

^  On  the  locality  cf.  Furrer,  B.  Lex.  ii.  330,  and  Wanderimgen,  244  f. 

-  This  is  probably  tlie  chief  ground  that  can  be  urged  against  Jotham's  action 
being  historical.  It  it  is  given  up,  the  others  have  little  convincing  power.  The 
author  does  not  say,  nor  even  imply,  that  Jotham  shouted  to  the  city  from  the 
summit  of  the  hill  eight  hundred  feet  in  height  (Kuen.  §  xix.  5),  but  only  that  he 
called  a  meeting  there.  For  the  rest,  see  on  the  fable,  Reuss,  Gtsch.  d. 
ATr-^.  131. 


86  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

between  Abimelech  and  the  Shechemites,  so  that  they  deserted 
Abimelech.'  Without  troubling  themselves  about  Abimelech  and 
the  rest  of  his  dominion,  they  began  to  plunder  and  waylay,  and 
attacked  the  passing  caravans  from  the  heights  around  Shechem, 
as  much  to  their  own  profit  as  to  the  injury  of  Abimelech's  rule. 
Abimelech  would  have  reason  to  exercise  special  forbearance 
towards  his  native  place  ;  he  had  nothing  to  gain  by  further 
alienating  this  kindred  people. 

There  was  now  only  one  step  more  to  open  revolt.  Up  to  this 
point  the  alienation  and  partial  withdrawal  of  Shechem  from 
Abimelech  was  certainly  in  great  measure  the  work  of  the 
Israelitish  half  of  the  population.  They  were  doubtless  in  league 
with  the  rest  of  the  house  of  Joseph.  Jothani  also  would  hardly 
be  idle  in  this  matter.  What  he  proclaimed  from  the  mountain  at 
Shechem,  he  may  have  preached  from  the  housetops  at  Thebez, 
Beer,  and  other  places.  Thus  a  general  reaction  was  preparing 
against  the  half-Canaanite  usurper,  which  it  was  cleverly  devised 
should  first  sh'"W  itself  at  Shechem.  Were  Abimelech  deprived  of 
all  further  support  there,  that  would  be  the  end  of  his  tyranny. 

It  was  therefore  well  planned  that  now,  after  the  Canaanitish 
Ba'ale  Shechem  had  been  prejudiced  against  Abimelech,  the  party 
hostile  to  him  should  be  suddenly  strengthened  by  a  powerful 
reinforcement  from  without.  The  governor  Zebul  being  still  at 
least  in  name  attached  to  Abimelech,  and  ready  with  his  followers 
to  defend  his  cause,  some  counterpoise  had  yet  to  be  found  against 
him  in  Shechem  itself  So  it  was  skilfully  arranged,  though  it 
bore  the  appearance  of  chance,  that  an  Israelitish  band  consisting 
of  Ga'al  ben  Joba'al  ^  *  and  his  brethren,'  gaining  the  confidence  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Shechem,  were  received  into  the  town. 

^  i.e.  *  Yahve  is  lord.'  So  according  to  theLXX.,  instead  of  ben  'ebedy  which 
is  an  intentional  alteration.  Yet  see  Hollenberg  in  Thtol.  LZtg.  1891,  col.  371. 
[Also  Nestle,  Israel.  Eigennamen,  p,  122.  I  am  myself  not  so  sure  about  this 
name  as  I  was  when  I  wrote  the  German  text ;  yet  it  is  still  quite  possible  that 
'Iw^rjX  (Cod.   Alex.    'A/3e5)  originated  from  12)3  simply  by  a  slip  of  the  pen— 

although  the  prefixing  of  the  Iota  is  still,  in  spite  of  what  Nestle  has  said  loc.  cU., 
to  be  noted.] 


Chap.  L]  5.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  87 

It  must  soon  appear  for  what  purpose  Ga'al  has  come.  At  the 
festival  of  the  vintage,  the  Shechemites  are  seated  in  the  temple  of 
their  '  Baal  of  the  Covenant '  in  merry  feasting  and  revelry.  As 
they  had  doubtless  done  on  many  previous  occasions,  they  curse 
Abimelech.  Losing  their  usual  reserve  under  the  influence  of  the 
wine,  they  give  free  vent  to  their  displeasure  against  the  faithless 
usurper.  Ga'al  seizes  the  opportunity  to  fan  the  fire  already 
breaking  into  flame,  and  by  taunts  to  force  Zebul  to  a  decision. 
*  Who  is  Abimelech,'  he  calls  out,  '  and  who  is  the  son  of  Jerubba'al, 
that  we  should  serve  him  ?  Is  he  not  a  Shechemite,  and  Zebul 
his  agent  ?  If  he,  and  with  him  all  the  company  of  Hamor  the 
father  of  Shechem,  serve  Abimelech,  why  should  we  be  his 
slaves?'^  The 'we 'was  certainly  spoken  with  emphasis.  Ga*al 
speaks  as  an  Israelite,  with  the  applause  of  the  Israelitish  party  who 
formed  the  majority.  He  could  not  otherwise  have  allowed  him- 
self to  use  such  words.  They  seem,  however,  to  have  made  a 
profound  impression.  Zebul,  the  governor  of  Shechem  representing 
Abimelech,  seems,  throughout  the  whole  affair,  to  have  played  a 
very  ambiguous  part,  now  even  more  than  at  first.  The  temper  of 
the  town  having  visibly  turned  against  Abimelech,  Zebul  seems 
to  have  made  the  best  of  a  bad  case,  and  to  have  joined  Ga'al  as  a 
friend,  when  the  latter  arrived  and  took  in  hand  the  movement 
against  Abimelech.  At  the  festival  of  Hillulim,  when  every  one 
was  cursing  the  king,  Zebul  appears  to  have  heartily  joined  the 
rest.2  Subsequently,  however,  playing  a  double  game,  he  secretly  ^ 
sent  word  to  Abimelech,  summoning  him  to  make  a  sudden  attack 
on  the  city. 

On  receipt  of  this  news,  Abimelech  marched  by  night  against 
Shechem,  and  lay  in  ambush.     Zebul,  even  yet  playing  the  part  of 

1  [ix.  28.]  On  this  verse  see  Wellh.  TBS.  xiii.  ;  Rob.  Smith,  Theol.  Tijd. 
XX.  195  flf.  ;  Kautzsch,  ZA  W.  x.  299  f. 

2  It  is  only  thus  we  can  explain  his  remaining  unmolested  in  the  city  at  all, 
still  more  the  friendly  understanding  between  him  and  Ga'al ;  and,  above  all,  the 
fact  that  he  afterwards  proceeded  with  Ga'al  to  the  gate  of  the  city.  He  played 
the  part  of  friend  till  Ga'al  returned  defeated. 

3  Only  so  is  nD")n3  (ix.  31)  to  be  understood. 


88  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IL 

friend  of  Ga'al  and  his  party,  informs  Ga'al  of  what  has  happened.^ 
Both  march  with  their  bands  to  the  city  gate  to  repulse  the 
attack.  Abimelech  appears  on  the  horizon  with  his  troops.  Zebul 
artfully  induces  Ga'al  to  make  a  sally.  Ga'al's  anxiety  on  account 
of  the  size  of  the  enemy's  force  he  dissipates  by  ironically  referring 
to  the  latter's  speech  at  the  Hillul  feast.  No  doubt  he  makes  as 
if  he  would  himself  defend  the  city  and  protect  the  rear.  So  Ga'al 
makes  a  sally  at  the  head  of  the  citizens,  while  Zebul  remains 
behind  in  the  town.  Ga'al  is  routed  by  Abimelech,  and  returns 
conquered  and  enfeebled  into  the  city.  Zebul  now  throws  away 
the  mask,  shows  himself  as  Abimelech's  partisan,  and  drives  Ga'al 
out  of  the  city.  Abimelech,  however,  not  trusting  the  friendship 
of  Zebul,  does  not  venture  to  make  any  attack.  But  Zebul  himself 
now  falls  a  victim  to  the  vengeance  of  the  citizens.  They  will 
have  nothing  to  do  with  Abimelech,  and  put  an  end  to  Zebul's 
double  play.-  Not  till  the  following  day,  after  Zebul,  who  knows 
his  plan,  has  been  put  out  of  the  way,  does  Abimelech  succeed  in 
taking  the  city.^  It  is  destroyed,  not  to  be  built  again  for  some 
time.* 

This  being  once  accomplished,  it  was  an  easy  matter  for  him  to 
become  complete  master  of  the  citadel.  It  seems  to  have  lain 
outside  of  the  city.  On  learning  that  the  city  had  surrendered,  its 
inhabitants  fled  to  the  upper  story  of  the  temple  of  their  '  God  of 
the  Covenant.'  Without  consideration  for  the  holy  place,  to  which 
he  owed  the  basis  on  which  his  dominion  rested,  Abimelech  set 
fire  to  the  temple,  and  a  thousand  men  and  women  met  their  death 
in  the  flames. 

The  rising  was  now  suppressed  in  Shechem  itself,  but  it  was 

'  Thus  alone  can  we  understand  how  Ga'al  marched  out  even  before  Abimelech 
appeared  {v.  3u). 

-  Zebul  cannot  have  been  surprised  by  Abimelech  on  the  occasion  of  the 
pursuit  of  Ga'al,  since  according  to  v.  32  f.  it  was  Zebul  himself  that  occasioned 
Abimelech's  manoeuvre.  (Against  Wellh.  Nachtr.  354.)  He  did  not  fall  in 
battle  against  Abimelech,  ))ut  perished  at  the  hands  of  the  populace.  Hence  in 
r.  42  simply  DVn>  without  Zebul. 

'  This  is  the  explanation  of  vv.  42-45.     (Against  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  357.) 

^  See  1  Kings  xii. 


Chap.  I.]  if.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  89 

not  thereby  put  an  end  to :  on  the  contrary,  it  spread  further. 
Before  the  next  city  which  Abimelech  sought  to  chastise  in  a 
similar  way,  however,  his  rule  reached  its  end.  Thebez,  a  place 
distant  several  leagues  from  Shechem,  which  he  attacked  immedi- 
ately after  the  fall  of  Shechem,  fell,  indeed,  like  it  into  his  hands, 
but  here  also  the  citadel  stood  out.  Men  and  women  fled  thither. 
Abimelech  adopted  the  plan  which  had  succeeded  in  the  case  of 
Shechem,  of  taking  the  tower  by  fire.  As  he  stood  before  the 
barricaded  door,  he  was  hit  by  a  millstone  which  a  woman  flung 
on  his  head  from  above.  He  made  his  armour-bearer  put  him  to 
death,  that  he  might  not  be  said  to  have  died  at  the  baud  of  a 
woman. 

§  37.  Jephtliali.     Samson. 

The  Manassite  tribal  kingdom  of  Gideon,  and  with  it  the  first 
attempt  at  the  establishment  to  kingly  rule  in  Israel  of  which  we 
have  any  knowledge,  thus  reached  a  sudden  end.  At  least  we  do 
not  know  who  the  heir  to  the  kingly  power  of  Abimelech  was,  and 
it  is  to  be  presumed  that  Jotham,  or  whoever  else  may  have  sur- 
vived of  the  house  of  Gideon,  did  not  step  into  his  place.  We 
should  otherwise  surely  have  had  some  account  of  it.  But  the 
fact  is,  the  fate  of  Israel  from  the  death  of  Abimelech  to  the  days 
of  Eli  and  Samuel,  is  almost  completely  enveloped  in  darkness — a 
clear  proof  that  the  history  of  Israel  from  this  time  onwards  breaks 
up  once  more  into  inglorious  and  inactive  tribal  life. 

Only  two  figures  stand  out  with  some  distinctness  in  the  hazy 
twilight  that  envelops  the  time  following  Gideon  and  Abimelech — 
viz.  Jephthah  and  Samson.  But  neither  of  them  comes  so 
distinctly  and  fully  into  the  light  of  history  as  to  shed  a  clear  and 
decided  ray  on  his  surroundings.  This  is  specially  true  of 
Samson. 

The  personality  of  Jephthah  is,  in  our  present  records,  clearly 
encompassed  with  legend.  The  narrator  of  the  history  has  no 
certain  knowledge  of  his  origin   and  his  fortunes.^      It  is  easy 

1  See  Ju.  xi.  1  f.  He  is  represented  as  a  son  of  Gilead  :  cf.  the  late  word 
1?V1.     Besides,  it  is  remarkable  that  xi.  12-29  interrupts  the  connection,  and  with 


90  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IL 

enough,  therefore,  to  understand  how  the  figure  of  Jephthah  has 
been  relegated  to  the  sphere  of  inventive  legend,^  or  even  of 
absolute  myth.^  The  offering  of  his  daughter  made  such  a  treat- 
ment of  the  story  natural.  But  we  find  in  Jephthah  some  traits 
that  so  clearly  suit  the  character  of  his  age,  and  what  actually 
happened  in  it,  that  we  must  consider  seriously  before  we  reject 
them  as  unhistorical,  simply  because  of  the  later  literary  dress  in 
which  they  are  clad.  Such  are  his  victory  over  Ammon  who  so 
often  figures  as  the  enemy  of  Israel ;  and,  at  an  earlier  stage,  his 
compulsory  flight,  his  wandering  life  in  the  steppe  which  reminds 
us  of  the  freebooter's  life  of  David,  and  the  way  in  which  at  the 
moment  of  danger  he  was  summoned  by  his  tribesmen  as  their  only 
helper  in  distress. 

Even  Jephthah's  affray  with  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  which  from 
envy  at  his  success  tried  to  pick  a  quarrel  with  him,  has  so  much 
in  it  that  is  characteristic,  and  it  is,  especially  by  the  Shibboleth 
incident  (imitated  in  the  '  Sicilian  Vespers '),  so  ensured  against 
the  suspicion  of  being  an  invention  under  the  influence  of  a 
'  tendency,'  that  even  the  exorbitant  number  of  forty-two  thousand 
Ephraimites,  who  are  made  to  fall  victims  to  the  Shibboleth,  is  not 
sufficient  to  discredit  it.  Still  less  is  any  discredit  thrown  upon 
it  by  the  parallel  in  the  history  of  Gideon.  If  either  of  the 
episodes  has  a  legendary  origin,  it  is  rather  that  of  Gideon  than 
that  here  recorded  of  Jephtliah.^ 

Least  of  all,  however,  should  we  be  inclined  to  give  up  the 
claim  of  Jephthah's  strange  vow  and  offering  to  historical  character. 
The  Persephone  myth  was,  as  far  as  our  knowledge  goes,  quite  un- 
known to  Israel.     Barbarous  customs  and  rough  manners  are,  on 

respect  to  its  contents  seems  to  be  a  compilation  from  the  Pentateuch,  that  is 
rather  irrelevant.  Moreover,  xii.  1-6  is  not  in  its  right  place  :  cf.  xi.  3i,  39.  xii.  7 
makes  a  fresh  beginning  (ri);  see  above,  p.  12  ff.  Jephthah's  home  in  xi.  34  is 
also  remarkable  as  compared  with  xi.  3.  Cf.  in  general,  Wellh.  Bl."^  194  f.  ; 
Kuen.  §  xix.  6  ;  Budde,  RiSa,  125  fF.  There  is  also,  m  the  last-mentioned  work, 
an  attempt  to  restore  the  original  setting  of  xi.  1  ff. 

1  So  Wellh.  loc.  cit.  ;  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  356. 

^  So  Goldziher,  Der  Mythos  hei  den  Hehrnern,  113  fF. 

^  See  also  above,  p.  81  f. 


Chap.  L]  J5.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  91 

the  other  hand,  quite  natural  to  the  time  of  Jephthah,  especially  in 
a  rude  chieftain  of  the  steppes,  although  even  he  was  not  lacking 
in  feeling  and  sense  of  duty.^ 

Hence,  although  Jephthah's  origin  and  personality  are  obscure, 
and  the  exact  occasion  and  course  of  his  war  with  Ammon  un- 
known, and  even  the  time  of  his  appearance  only  to  be  inferred 
with  a  certain  amount  of  probability  from  his  place  in  our  Book  of 
Judges,^  yet  we  know  the  following  facts  about  him.  Summoned 
from  the  steppe  by  Gilead,  and  elected  leader,  he  defeated  the 
Ammonites,  wreaked  bloody  vengeance  on  Ephraim  for  its  conten- 
tiousness by  a  cleverly  devised  stratagem,  and  finally,  returning 
home  victorious,  plunged  himself  and  his  only  cliild  in  distress 
and  ruin  through  a  rash  vow  which  he  had  made.  '  The  rough 
warrior  rent  his  garments  and  kept  his  word.'  A  feast,  yearly 
celebrated  by  the  maidens  of  Gilead,  reminded  Israel  in  after 
ages  of  Jephthah's  glory  and  misfortune. 

The  second  figure  of  this  age,  that  of  Samson,  is  of  a  consider- 
ably different  type.  If  in  Jephthah  we  are  confronted  with  a 
historical  phenomenon  having  a  background  of  legend,  in  the  case 
of  Samson,  on  the  other  hand,  the  story  moves  uncertainly  amid 
myth  and  legend  and  history.  It  belongs  to  none  of  them  wholly ; 
each  claims  a  share  in  it. 

The  purely  mythical  interpretation  of  Samson  (Heb.  Shimshon), 
has  been  specially  dealt  with  by  Steinthal,  and  more  recently  by 
Wietzke.2  It  cannot  be  denied  that  such  an  interpretation  is 
suggested  by  Samson's  name,  as  well  as  that  of  his  mistress  Delilah.* 
Moreover,  the  hero's  long  hair,  as  the  source  of  his  strength, 
naturally  reminds  one  of  the  rays  of  Helios.  But  many  other 
points,    that    have    been    explained    by    similar   references,   are 

1  Cf.  Reuss,  Gtsclu  d.  ATr  132;  also  Kuen.  and  Budde,  loc.  cit.  On  the 
attempt  to  give  a  new  interpretation  to  the  saeritice,  see  the  Commentaries,  and 
Konig,  Hauptprohl.  74;  Kohler,  ii.  1,  100. 

2  With  which  the  relatively  later  occupation  of  Gilead  by  Israel  agrees. 

2  Zeitschr.f.  Volkerpsych.  ii.  129  fif.  ;  Wictzke,  Der  hihl.  Sinison,  1888.  [Cf. 
now  also  G.  A.  Smith,  Historical  Geogra2^hy,  p.  220  fif.,  and  especially,  Doorninck, 
dt  Simsonsarjen,  in    T.  Tijdschr.  1894,  14  ff.]. 

^  Shimshon  =  Sun-man  ;  Delilah,  connected  with  ?v,  night. 


92  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

explicable  much  more  naturally  and  simply  as  local  legend,  and 
even  as  naive  popular  tale.^ 

At  the  same  time,  we  must  take  into  account  the  fact  that  the 
story  of  Samson,  viewed  from  a  literary  point  of  view,  dates  from 
a  relatively  early  age,'-^  even  if  it  is  not,  as  Budde  in  particular 
thinks  he  can  prove,^  to  be  attributed  to  the  Jahvist  of  the  Penta- 
teuch ;  and  also  that  it  is  capable  of  a  quite  satisfactory  historical 
explanation  at  the  place  assigned  it  by  the  redactor  of  the  Stories 
of  the  Judges.  It  is  intrinsically  improbable  that  the  whole  tribe 
of  Dan  was  involved  in  the  expedition  to  Laish,-*  and  there  are 
traces  elsewhere  of  the  gradual  growth  in  strength  of  the  Philis- 
tines, who  had  immigrated  into  the  maritime  districts.  If  this  is 
so,  collisions  with  the  nearest  tribes  of  Israel  in  the  time  immedi- 
ately preceding  Saul,  are  in  themselves  quite  probable,  and  there  is 
no  ground  for  regarding  Samson  as  simply  the  shadow  of  Saul  cast 
back  into  the  time  of  the  Judges.^ 

Further  than  this  we  can  hardly  venture  to  go.  To  a  popular 
hero  of  the  tribe  of  Dan,  belonging  to  the  time  of  the  first  collisions 
between  Israel  and  the  Philistines,  concerning  whom  there  cir- 
culated among  the  people  many  a  tale  of  valour,  there  gradually 
became  attached  a  motley  mushroom-growth  of  legend  concerning 
ruse  and  wrong  of  every  kind,  such  as  were  or  were  said  to  have 
been  perpetrated  here  and  there  on  the  Philistines.  In  time,  a 
native  religious  and  foreign  mythological  element  were  mingled 
with  this.  The  hero  was  brought  into  connection  with  a  solar 
myth  that  had  been  introduced  from  abroad,  but  was  little 
understood.  It  seems  to  have  even  given  him  his  name.  As 
a  counterpoise,  he  was  credited  with  the  characteristics  of  the 
national  Israelitish  Nazirite. 

1  See  espec.  Wellh.  BL^  196  f.  There  is  no  trace  in  the  text  of  twelve  labours, 
corresponding  to  those  of  Hercules  (Ewald,  Gesch.  Isr.^  ii.  559  ;  [Engl,  trans, 
ii.  396]).     For  the  rest  cf.  also  Baethgen,  Studien  z.  sem.  Bdigionsgesch.  161  fif. 

-  xiv.  46  is  a  later  addition.  On  xv.  20,  xvi.  316,  see  above,  p.  11  and  p.  3, 
note  2.     On  chap.  xiv.  cf.  Stade,  ZA  W.  iv.  250  ff. 

"  See  RiSa,  132,  and  above,  p.  16  flF.  I  regard  chap.  xiii.  in  particular  as  a 
later  imitation  of  J. 

^  See  above,  p.  71  f.  =  Wellh.  197.     Of.  also  below,  p.  104. 


Chap.  L]  i?.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  93 

§  38.  Civilisation  and  Religion  in  this  Age} 

Throiio-h  the  entrance  into  the  land  of  Canaan  and  the  con- 
sequent  transition  to  agriculture  and  settled  life,  Israel's  whole 
mode  of  living  naturally  underwent  a  transformation.  Dwelling 
in  villages  and  towns  took  the  place  of  roaming  over  the  boundless 
desert.  Hut  and  liouse  more  and  more  took  the  place  of  tent. 
The  wandering  cattle-owner  became  a  peasant  and  farmer.  Ancient 
Israel  was  a  genuine  peasant  people.  It  produced  corn,  wine,  oil 
and  fis^s,  and  from  its  herds,  milk  and  flesh.  Whatever  of  these 
Israel  produced  in  greater  abundance  than  its  own  wants  demanded, 
found  ready  purchasers  in  the  Phoenician  dealers  that  were  to  be 
met  everywhere  throughout  the  land.  These  offered  in  exchange 
the  products  of  Tyrian  and  Sidonian  industry,  as  well  as  foreign 
produce  imported  from  all  directions.^ 

The  change  in  mode  of  life  and  occupation,  moreover,  did  not 
leave  the  hereditary  popular  organisation  quite  intact.  To  begin 
with,  the  admission  of  Canaanite,  or,  speaking  generally,  foreign 
elements  into  the  community  of  Israel,  which  was  becoming  in- 
creasingly common,  would  necessarily  in  the  course  of  time  break 
down  the  old  tribal  polity.  There  were  soon  individual  persons 
and  family  groups  in  abundance,  that  belonged  to  none  of  the  old 
Israelite  tribes.  But  still  more  did  living  in  villages  and  towns, 
and  clinging  to  the  soil,  demand  new  forms.  So,  ere  long,  there 
existed  alongside  of  the  old  nomadic  patriarchal  tribal  organisa- 
tion, in  which  the  tribal  head  ruled  and  directed  liis  kinsmen,  also 
an  oligarchic  organisation,  in  which  a  number  of  noble  families  or 
their  representatives,  directed  the  affairs  of  the  community.  The 
latter  organisation  seems  to  have,  more  and  more,  supplanted  the 
former.     We  find  the  former  expressly  mentioned  only  in  case  of 

^  [On  this  subject  rf.  now  also  the  corresponding  sections,  in  the  works  of 
Nowack  and  Benzinger  on  Archaeology,  and  in  Smend's  A.Tliche  Rcdigions- 
geschichte.] 

-  On  this  see  above,  p.  G2,  note  1,  and  the  interesting  examples  of  Phceuiciau- 
Canaanitish  industry,  difficult  indeed  to  fix  chronologically,  given  in  Perrot  et 
Chipiez,  Hist,  de  VArt,  iii.  chap.  x.  Besides,  on  art  and  industry  amongst  the 
Phoenicians,  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  i.  238  f. 


94  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

urgency,  when  an  individual  tribal  head  set  himself  up  as  chief 
or  Judge  ^  over  a  tribe,  or  grouj)  of  tribes,  as  a  rule  only  to  retire 
again  forthwith  from  his  higher  dignity  after  performing  his  task. 
This  shows,  no  doubt,  that  the  ancient  order  was  passing  away. 
Already,  in  the  time  under  consideration,  the  new  order  of  things 
that  was  destined  to  bear  within  it  the  germ  of  a  complete  trans- 
formation of  the  organisation  of  ancient  Israel,  had  fairly  estab- 
lished itself.  Especially  in  towns,  but  no  doubt  also  in  whole 
districts,  there  ruled  in  place  of  a  single  sheikh,  a  number  of  men, 
the  nobility  of  the  tribe  or  district.  It  is  these  that  are  referred 
to  as  '  men '  {hc'dlim)^^  and  we  have  a  kind  of  selection  from  these 
ruling  families,  in  the  elders  of  a  district  or  town  (zeqenim),  who 
were  in  turn  represented  by  a  city  magistrate,  or  several  such  (sar 
hd-ir).^  Such  was  the  condition  of  things  in  Shechem,  in  Succoth 
and  Penuel,  and  in  Gilead>  The  Phoenician  ^  and  Philistine  cities, 
and  still  better,  the  story  of  Jerubbaal  and  Abimelech,  show  that 
this  form  of  organisation  really  constituted  only  the  transition  to 
'  Tyranny '  and  monarchy,  possibly  also  temporarily  to  a  regular 
oligarchy. 

Living  close  together,  and  often  enough  associating  in  a 
peaceable  way  with  the  former  possessors  of  the  land,  could  not 
fail  to  exert  its  influence  also  on  Israel's  moral  and  intellectual 
life.  Israel  entered  on  the  inheritance  of  a  much  richer  and  more 
advanced  civilisation  than  that  which  it  had  itself  as  yet  com- 
manded. The  industrial  art  and  the  discoveries  of  Phoenicia,  still 
more  perhaps  the  art  and  civilisation  of  the  Euphrates  and  Egypt 
that  Phoenicia  had  borrowed,^^  were,  through  the  active  trade 
relations  subsisting,  soon  the  property  of  Israel.     Its  horizon  was 

^  Qdsin  or  ShS/et.  How  far  the  latter  is  an  ancient  name  is  discussed  above, 
p.  65  f.  {cf.  also  p.  3  f.  and  13) ;  for  the  former  see  Ju.  xi.  6. 

^  Ju.  ix.  2,  18,  23  f.,  26,  47  f.  Cf.  the  word  marina  occurring  in  Egyptian 
inscriptions. 

2  =  Mayor  and  Alderman.     Ju.  viii.  14;  ix.  30. 

*  See,  in  addition  to  the  places  just  mentioned,  Ju.  xi.  5  ff. 

5  See  also  Pietschmann,  Gesch.  d.  Phon.  237  f. 

^  On  the  various  things  borrowed  by  Phcenicia  from  Babylonia  and  Egypt 
(glass,  purple,  etc. ),  see  Pietschm.  loc.  cit.  239  flf. 


Chap.  I.]  .B.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  95 

widened ;  knowledge  and  interests,  but  with  them  also  needs  and 
enjoyments,  that  had  up  to  this  time  remained  unknown  to  this 
rough  desert  people,  were  made  accessible  to  them.  Even  though 
Israel  protested  against  certain  abuses,  and  looked  with  contempt 
on  the  voluptuousness  and  wickedness  of  the  Canaanite  cities  ^ — 
still,  in  the  main,  those  who  conquered  with  the  sword  may,  as 
has  so  often  happened,  soon  enough  have  lain  at  the  feet  of  the 
vanquished,  in  the  moral  and  intellectual  sphere. 

Alongside,  however,  of  a  slowly  advancing  refinement  of  life  and 
custom,  the  rude,  unpolished  manners  befitting  the  iron  age, 
remained  still,  in  general,  characteristic  of  Israel.  War  and  feud 
occupied  most  of  the  time.  Predatory  excursions,  marauding 
expeditions,  even  when  they  fell  on  the  unsuspecting  and  the 
innocent  and  at  times  injured  fellow-countrymen,  hardly  met  with 
serious  censure.^  Crafty  injury  of  the  enemy  was  hardly  felt  to 
be  blameworthy.^  Eape  in  one's  own  land  was  considered  in 
special  cases  an  act  of  lawful  self-defence.*  Only  open  treachery 
and  gross  violation  of  the  usages  of  hospitality  and  recognised 
custom,  were  strongly  detested.^  In  general,  the  right  of  the 
strongest  prevailed,  and  notions  of  law  were  based  on  the  custom 
of  blood-revenge.  In  the  case  of  an  enemy,  even  assassination  was 
lawful :  in  the  case  of  Ehud  and  Jael  it  is  highly  extolled.  Men  did 
not  shrink  even  from  human  sacrifice,  to  honour  a  vow  once  made. 

The  discovery  of  the  art  of  writing  is,  beyond  doubt,  the  most 
important  triumph  of  civilisation.  When  and  in  what  form  this 
art  reached  Israel,  we  cannot  say.  If,  as  I  believe,  Moses  was  a 
historical  personage  and  had  been  in  Egypt,  he  would  most  likely 
have  adopted  the  Egyptian  mode  of  writing.  But  we  know  at  the 
same  time  that  there  was  early  used  in  Palestine  a  new  way  of 
writing^ — the  alphabetic,  or,  strictly  speaking,  consonantal  script,  in 

1  GJ.  Gen.  xviii.  ;  Gen.  xv.  16 ;  ix.  22  flF.  ;  Ju.  xix.  flf. 

2  Ju.  xvii.  f.     See  above,  p.  70  fif.  ^  Samson  ;  Jacob  in  Genesis. 
*  Ju.  xxi.  13  ff.     See  above,  p.  21  f. 

^  Gen.  xxxiv.  ;  Ju.  xix.  ff.  ;  Ju.  ix.  7  ff. ,  etc. 

^  The  oldest  monument  is  still  the  stone  of  Mesha.  It  proves,  however,  long 
previous  practice  in  the  use  of  a  script. 


96  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

which  the  phonetic  principle,  already  known  to  the  Egyptians, 
though  not  carried  out  by  them,  was  recognised  in  its  immeasurable 
importance.  This  script  originated  as  a  consonantal  script  in 
Semitic  soil,  and  was  thence  adopted  by  the  Grseco-Eoman 
civilised  world — with  results  incalculably  great  for  it  and  for  our 
civilisation.  We  are  told  that  Jerubbaal-Gideon  had  written 
down  for  him  by  a  young  man  ^  of  Succoth,  casually  picked  up,  the 
seventy-seven  names  of  the  aldermen  and  council  of  the  town.  If 
the  statement  is  credible,  this  fact  alone  shows  such  a  general 
spread  of  the  art  of  writing  as  w^as  possible  only  by  the  help  of 
the  extraordinary  simplification  produced  in  that  art,  in  its  older 
form  so  complicated,  by  writing  the  consonants  alone.  If  this 
new  way  of  writing  is  not,  as  most  have  hitherto  been  inclined  to 
believe,  to  be  regarded  as  having  been  invented  in  Syria,^  but  as 
pointing  back  to  the  oldest  Arabia,^  it  will  still  remain  more 
probable  that  it  was  thence  introduced  by  the  Canaanites,*  and 
transmitted  by  them  to  the  Israelites,  than  that  the  reverse  process 
is  to  be  assumed. 

The  consequence  of  the  introduction  of  the  new  script  was  the 
beginning  of  real  literature.  Now,  the  first  heroic  lays  ^  and  the 
oldest  laws  referred  to  Moses,^  perhaps  also,  even  several  hero 
stories,  such  as  those  of  Jerubbaal  and  Abimelech,  were  reduced  to 
writing — promising  beginning  of  a  rich  literature  that  has  outlived 
the  centuries. 

^  It  is  hardly  a  'boy'  that  is  meant :  v.  '•K^'ji^D  "1^3,  Ju.  viii.  14.  On  the  other 
hand,  nothing  is  to  be  concluded,  as  to  the  character  of  the  script  at  all  events, 
from  the  name  Kiriath  Sepher  in  Ju.  i. 

-  So  still  Ed.  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  237.  See,  however,  Wellh.  Bl."^  631 ;  at 
least  in  so  far  as  concerns  invention  by  the  Phoenicians.  On  derivation  from 
Egypt,  V.  Lagarde,  Symmkta,  i.  Ill  ff. 

^  V.  Ed.  Glaser,  Skizze  der  Geogr.  u.  Gesch.  des  a! teat.  Arab.  1889;  and 
Prsetorius  thereon,  in  the  Litt.  Gentr.-Bl.  1889,  col.  1540. 

*  When  this  must  have  happened,  can  to  a  certain  extent  be  determined  from 
the  Amarna  Tablets,  since  in  them  the  Babylonian  cuneiform  script  is  still  in 
use.  It  merits  special  notice  that  even  Hebrew-Canaanitish  expressions  that  are 
interspersed  as  explanatory  glosses,  are  likewise  given  not  in  Canaanite,  but  in 
Babylonian  script.      V.  Zimmern  and  Winckler,  in  Z.  f.  Assyr.  vi.  154  ff.,  145. 

^  At  all  events,  Ju.  v.  ;  perhaps  Gen.  xlix.  and  others. 

^  Especially  Ex.  xx  ff.  (Decalogue  and  Book  of  the  Covenant). 


Ohap.  L]  i>\— history  of  THE  PERIOD  07 

The  question  of  greatest  importance,  however,  for  us  at  present 
is  whether  Israel,  the  conqueror  of  Canaan,  became  the  conquered, 
also  in  respect  of  its  religious'^  life  and  thought.  AVe  must  answer 
the  question  in  the  affirmative  and  in  the  negative  at  the  same 
time. 

So  far  as  we  can  see,  Israel  held  fast  to  the  God  brought  them 
by  Moses.  The  song  of  Deborah  is  an  enthusiastic  hymn  to 
Yahve  as  the  God  in  whose  name,  and  for  whose  people  and  cause, 
the  tribes  of  Israel  had  gone  to  war,  and  who  had  therefore  helped 
his  hosts  to  victory.-  Jerubbaal-Gideon,  Jephthah,  Samson,  are 
worshippers  of  Yahve ;  the  Danites  find  on  Mount  Ephraim  a 
sanctuary  of  Yahve,  and  transplant  it  as  that  of  their  own  God  to 
Laish.  Even  in  the  half-Canaanitish  Shechem,  at  least  the  Israelites 
living  there,  were  worshippers  of  Yahve.^  We  find  in  really  old 
accounts  no  single  case  of  a  formal  defection  on  any  considerable 
scale  to  alien  gods,  or  of  an  express  disavowal  of  Yahve."* 

The  more  recent  strata,  indeed,  of  the  book  under  consideration, 
especially  the  redactors,  Ei  and  E,  working  under  the  influence  of 
Deuteronomy,  tell  of  an  oft-repeated  general  apostasy  of  Israel  in 
favour  of  the  Canaanite  deities.^  But  it  is  noteworthy  that  the 
statements  are  confined  exclusively  to  these  late  narrators. 
Accordingly  there  are  remarkably  few  concrete  facts  adduced  in 
support  of  them.  The  idea  is  therefore  suggested  that  these 
Deuteronomistic  statements  represent  the  way  in  which  the  spirit 
of  the  later  times  estimated  certain  phenomena  actually  existent 
in  the  age  of  the  Judges,  which  did  not,  indeed,  signify  a  formal 
defection  from  Y'ahve,  but  yet  certainly  in  no  way  corresponded  to 
the  ideal  of  pure  Yahve-worship. 

^  [Cf.  La  rdig.  des  H6hr.  a  Vepoque  des  Juges,  in  the  Rev.  de  VHidoire  Rel. 
1893,  1  ff.] 

-   V.  especially  Baethgen,  Beitrdge,  204  f.  ^  Cf.  the  name  G'aal  ben  Jobaal. 

*  In  the  passage,  Ju.  v.  8,  cited  by  Baethgen,  Beitr.  186  f.,  the  text  and 
translation  are  too  uncertain  for  us  to  found  any  argument  on  it.  From  the 
single  name,  Shamgar  ben  'Anat,  we  cannot  at  any  rate  draw  any  more  general 
conclusions. 

°  Ju.  ii.  11  fiP.  ;  iii.  5  f.  ;  x.  6  fif.  ;  viii.  33  {v.  above,  p.  3,  notes  2  and  3).  Cf. 
Jer.  ii.  1  ff.,  7  f.  ;  Ez.  xvi.  16  ff.  ;  xx.  28  ff.  ;  xxiii,  37. 

VOL.  II.  G 


98  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

So  far  as  we  can  form  an  idea  of  the  worship  really  characteristic 
of  the  age,  it  was  of  the  kind  described  above.  Yahve  was  Israel's 
God — at  least  the  leading  men  appear  to  have  adhered  to  his 
worship — and  we  may  assume  the  same  of  the  people  in  general. 
Yet  close  contact  with  the  Canaanites  could  not  fail  to  have  its 
influence  also  in  this  sphere.  The  chief  god  of  the  Canaanites  was 
Ba'al,  the  'lord'  of  the  land,  of  the  people,  of  the  individual 
district  and  township ;  ^  the  chief  female  deity  was  'Ashtart.  In 
addition  to  these  there  existed  a  number  of  inferior  gods,  such  as 
Dagon,  'Anat,  Eesheph,^  and  others.  It  is  very  noteworthy  indeed 
that  we  find  no  mention  in  any  old  source  of  a  formal  desertion  of 
Israel  on  a  large  scale  to  these  gods,  and  even  allusions  to  them  in 
Israelitish  names  occur  only  very  exceptionally.^  On  the  other 
hand,  the  fact  that  allusions  to  Baal  do  play  a  part  in  the  proper 
names  and  the  worship  of  Israel,  sheds  all  the  clearer  light  on  the 
religious  conditions  of  the  age  under  consideration.^  The  later 
historical  treatment  of  this  period  indeed  recognised  in  this  latter 
circumstance  a  formal  apostasy  to  Baal,  and  therefore  either 
removed  such  names  or  explained  them  away.^  If  this  was  a 
mistake — at  all  events  the  practice  in  question  implied  a  friendly, 
neighbourly  approach  to  the  Canaanite  worship.  The  name 
Jobaal^  is  typical  of  the  whole  relation.  People  worshipped 
Yahve — he  was  certainly  the  God  of  Israel — but  they  did  not  see 
so  great  a  distinction  between  him  and  the  chief  god  of  their 
neighbours,  till  now  the  god  of  the  land  in  which  they  dwelt,  that 
they  could  not  in  the  main  identify  them  and  call  Yahve  Israel's 
Baal.     Israel  thus  did  not  get  beyond  the  limits  of  henotheism ; 

1  V.  the  article,  '  Baal,'  by  Ed.  Meyer  in  Roseher's  Worterhuch  der  griech.-rom. 
Mythologie,  col.  2867  ff. 

2  On  this,  as  also  on  this  whole  subject,  ?'.  the  instructive  section  in  Pietsch- 
inann,  Gesch.  d.  Phon.,  p.  152  fif. 

2  So  'Anat.  Names  like  Gad  and  Asher,  if  they  are  to  be  explained  in  this 
way,  belong  to  an  earlier  period. 

^  Of.  Jerubbaal,  Jobaal,  Baalberith :  later  Meribaal  (Mephibosheth)  and  Eshbaai 
(Ishbosheth) ;  also  Baaljada'  (1  Chr.  xiv.  7  ;  2  Sam.  v.  17). 

^  V.  the  passages  from  Judges  cited  above,  p.  97,  note  4.  Further,  Dillmann  in 
Sitz.-Ber.  d.  Berl.  Ahad.  d.  Wiss.,  1881  (Ba'al  with  fem.  article). 

^  [Yet  cf.  the  remark  on  p.  87,  note  1,  end.] 


Chap.  L]  £.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  99 

but  it  accomplished  a  union  between  Yahve  and  Baal  that  brought 
it  to  the  boundary  of  Nature-religion. 

The  consequences  could  not  fail  to  appear.^  The  Canaanites 
had  long  worshipped  their  gods  on  eminences  (hdmoth),  which  as 
being  places  nearer  the  deity  were  considered  holy.  Israel,  having 
come  into  possession  of  the  land,  and  soon  learned  to  bring  its  Yahv6 
into  connection  with  the  Canaanite  Baal,  did  not  shrink  from  also 
becoming  heir  to  these  holy  places.  Bethel,  Beersheba,  Shechem, 
Hebron,  Gilgal,  Penuel,  Kamah,  Mizpeh,  and  many  other  places 
became  soon  just  as  holy  for  Israel  as  they  had  once  been  for  the 
Canaanites.  To  a  number  of  them  the  patriarch  legends  became 
attached,  a  clear  proof  that  already  at  an  early  date  these  legends 
had  found  acceptance  in  Israel,  and  been  quite  appropriated  to 
the  service  of  Yahve-worship.  Sacred  trees,  to  be  found  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  high-place  or  in  the  open  field,  standing 
alone,  or  in  groups,  were  added  f  and  in  particular  the  Canaanite 
high-places  were  frequently  associated  with  the  so-called  Maggebas^ 
originally,  large  exposed  stones,  which  were  '  erected ' — i.e.  set  with 
the  pointed  end  upwards — and  honoured  as  seats  of  the  deity  with 
oil,  and  blood  of  sacrifice.  Later,  they  appear  to  have  been 
artificially  wrought  pillars,  that  probably  stood  in  the  proximity 
of  an  altar.^  Beside  the  Maggeba  stands  often  also  the  Ashera, 
originally  perhaps  the  simple  trunk  of  a  tree  or  a  pole  (as  symbol 
of  'Ashtart  the  goddess  of  fruitfulness)  fixed  in  the  earth  in  her 
honour  beside  her  altar.^      All  these  parts  of  the  old  Canaanite 

^  V.  on  this  Pietschmann,  loc,  cit.  ;  Stade,  Gesch.  Isr.  i.  466  flf.  ;  Baethgen, 
Beitr.  213  ff.  ;  Baudissin,  Stiidien,  ii.  p.  143  S. 

"  Such  a  tree,  the  'terebinth  of  the  oracle,'  stood  e.g.  at  Shechem,  Gen.  xii. 
6  ;  Ju.  ix.  6,  37 ;  Gen.  xxxv.  4 ;  Josh.  xxiv.  26  ;  Deut.  xi.  30.  Cf.  Ju.  iv.  5. 
On  sacred  trees  in  general  cf.  Baudissin,  Studien,  ii.  184  fif. 

^  V,  Corp.  Inscr.  Sem.  i.  42,  44,  46,  57,  58,  59,  60 ;  Gen.  xxviii.  18,  22 ;  xxxi. 
13 ;  xxxiii.  20  (read  naVD)  xxxv.  14,  20 ;  xlv.  51  f.  ;  Hos.  iii.  4.  Cf.  Stade,  459 
(there  also  an  illustration).     Bacthg.  215  fF.  ;  Pietschm.  212. 

*  V.  the  inscription  of  Ma'.^fih,  and  Hoflfmann,  Phon.  Inschr.  26;  perhaps 
also  Corp.  Inscr.  Sem.  i.  13  {cf.  Stade,  ZA  IF.  i.  344) ;  Ex.  xxxiv.  13  ;  Ju. 
iii.  7;  \±  35  ff.  (Ri).  Further,  in  the  Amarna  tablets,  cf.  Winckler,  Sitz.- 
Ber.  d.  Berl.  Akad.  1888,  583  fif.,  1341  fiF.,  esp.  1357  and  Z.f  Agypt.  1889,  42  ff. 
(No.  114  [115] :  abd\u\  as-ra-tum  =  '?r\'^^'''\1Vi).  On  the  question  whether  Ashera 
was   a    deity   (Ju.    iii.    7),   cf    Stade,    ZAW.    i.    345  (iii.    I  ff.  ;    iv.    291    ff.)  ; 


100  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

worship  were  taken  over  by  Israel  with  the  exception  of  the  last 
mentioned.^  But  here  also  Israel  preserved  its  independence. 
The  worship  at  the  bamoth  and  Masscbas  was  from  the  very 
beginning^  reojarded  as  offered  to  Yahve.^  Even  when  the  out- 
ward  forms  employed  were  closely  allied  to  those  of  the  Canaanite 
cultus — for  along  with  the  places,  important  usages  were  also 
adopted  by  Israel — even  when  an  effort  was  made  to  identify 
Yahv^  and  Baal  as  much  as  possible,  it  was  still  Yahv^  that  Israel 
worshipped.  The  great  mass  of  the  people  would  not  allow  them- 
selves to  be  robbed  of  him. 

A  number  of  examples  of  the  mode  of  worship  of  this  time 
have  been  supplied  us,  and  they  confirm  the  general  picture  just 
given.  In  Shechem  Israelites  and  Canaanites  had  entered  into 
a  treaty  to  dwell  together  in  peace.  When  a  certain  Ba'al-bcritli 
(lord  of  the  covenant)  is  found  to  have  been  an  object  of  worship 
there  at  that  time,  we  are  justified  in  conjecturing  that  he  was  the 
guardian  and  protector  of  the  treaty.^  Whether  this  god  was 
Yahve  or  the  Phoenician  Baal  is  not  said.  Nor  is  this  un- 
intentional ;  for  in  fact  he  represented  both.  By  the  Canaanite 
half  of  Shechem  he  would  be  regarded  as  their  Baal;  with  the 
Israelites  he  was  indeed  called.  Baal,  but  was  in  fact  Yahve.  This 
involved  no  conscious  renunciation  of  Yahve. 

Jerubbaal,  although  he  bore  the  name  of  that  other  god,  was  a 
faithful  worshipper  of  Yahve.  For  Yahve  he  drew  the  sword, 
and  to  Yahve  he  erected  a  sanctuary  in  his  native  city  of  Ophrah. 
But  the  Canaanitish  custom  of  erecting  in  the  sanctuary  images  of 
the  deity  artificially  wrought  and  covered  with  precious  metal, 
exerted  a  powerful  influence  over  him.     He  could  not  resist  it, 

Schrader,  Z.  f.  Assyr.  iii.  363  ff .  ;  also  Acad.  1889,  No.  919  (Cheyne),  917  f. 
(Sayce).  See  what  is  probably  a  representation  of  one  in  Stade,  461 ;  perhaps 
also  on  the  atele  from  Lilybiuum,  Corji.  In^icr.  Sem.  i.  PL  xxix.  138  (otherwise 
Meyer,  Art.  Baal).     Cf.  besides  Pietschm.  213. 

1  At  least  we  learn  nothing  of  them  in  older  times.  If  they  were  connected 
with  phallus-worship  (Baethgen,  219  ;  Collins,  Proc.  Soc.  B.  Arch.  1889,  291  ff.), 
this  would  be  explained. 

"  Even  Moses  erected  such  Massehas  (Ex.  xxiv.  4),  naturally  to  Yahve. 

2  Ju.  chap,  ix.,  and  on  it  above,  p.  83. 


Chap.  I.]  i)\— HISTOKY  OF  THE  PERIOD  101 

and  departed  from  the  custom  hitherto  prevailing  in  Israel,  of 
worshipping  the  deity  without  image.  The  later  editor  of  his 
history  is  fully  aware,  and  rightly,  that  a  dangerous  innovation  was 
thus  introduced  into  Israel.  What  Jerubbaal  did,  although  it 
was  not  apostasy  from  Yahve,  was  still  apostasy  from  the  image- 
less,  spiritual  worship  of  Yahve.^ 

When  a  man  like  Jerubbaal  found  nothing  to  object  to  in 
this,  we  need  not  wonder  that  the  custom  approved  by  him 
naturalised  itself  here  and  there  amongst  the  people.  The 
Danites  on  their  expedition  to  Laish  found  by  the  way  in  Mount 
Ephraim,  a  sanctuary  of  Yahve  quite  like  that  of  Jerubbaal. 
The  deity  worshipped  at  it  was  Yahve.^  His  priest  was  at  first  the 
son  of  the  owner  of  the  sanctuary,  but  soon  a  travelling  Levite, 
who  was  passing  by,  was  appointed  a  welcome  substitute  for  the 
ordinary  lay  priest.  The  object  of  the  Yahve-worship  consisted 
oi  Epliod  and  TerdpJiwi — an  image  of  Yahvd  of  the  same  kind  as 
that  at  Ophrah,  and  an  image  probably  representing  the  dead 
ancestor  of  the  family.  That  he  may  leave  us  in  no  doubt  as  to 
the  character  of  these  images,  the  editor  appends  untiringly 
the  explanatory  words,  that  they  were  graven  and  molten  images 
(jjesel  u-masseka) — that  is  to  say,  there  were  now  images  in  place  of 
the  imageless  worship.'^  But  even  he  knows  that  they  were  not 
images  of  Baal  or  'Ashtart,  but  emblems  belonging  to  the  worship  of 
Yahve.  Carried  off  by  the  Danites  along  with  the  priest,  these 
images  were  transferred  to  Dan,  and  were  the  origin  of  a  long 
celebrated  Yahve  sanctuary,  the  Levitical  priests  of  which  traced 
themselves  back  to  Moses.* 

Beside  all  this,  we  find  at  Shiloh,  at  the  transition  from  the 
time  of  the  Judges  to  that  of  the  Monarchy,  a  sanctuary^  with  the 
ancient  Yahve-ark,  and  a  LeviticaK'  priesthood  reaching  back  to 

^  See  above,  p.  82. 

-  C/.  Ju.  xvii.  13  ;  xviii.  6  in  N  ;  just  so  in  N^ 

=  See  above,  p.  19,  note  7.  See  further  on  Ephod  and  Teraphim  below, 
55  oO,  3.  ■*  Ju.  xviii.  30. 

■'  See  a  (later)  representation  of  a  temple  of  this  kind  in  Pietschm.  200. 

'•  See  1  Sam.  ii.  27  ff.,  as  well  as  the  incident  narrated  above,  and  below,  p.  107, 
note  1. 


102  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IL 

the  time  of  Moses.  In  it  there  is  no  trace  of  image,  but  simply 
the  ark.  Shiloh  appears  to  have  retained  the  traditions  of  the 
age  of  Moses  in  their  greatest  purity.  If  it  formed  already  in  the 
time  of  the  Judges  the  nucleus  of  a  Yahve-worship,  without 
image  1  and  less  affected  by  Canaanitish  elements,  this  would 
explain  whence  Samuel  got  the  impulse  to  his  later  efforts  towards 
this  end. 

^  For  proof  that  imageless  worship  was  not  without  examples  in  Phoenicia, 
c/l  Pietschm.  204  (Herakles  in  Gades). 


CHAPTER   II. 

SAMUEL    AND     SAUL. 

§  39.  The  Philistine  Domination.     Samuel. 

Some  time  after  the  fall  of  Abimelech — it  may  have  been  between 
the  second  third,  and  the  middle,  of  the  eleventh  century  B.C. — 
Israel  fell  into  new  distress.  The  menace  was  not,  as  so  often 
before,  from  the  predatory  nomadic  tribes  of  the  desert,  but  from 
a  maritime  people,  the  warlike  Philistines.  The  latter  had  some 
time  previously  ^  occupied  not  only  the  Mediterranean  coast,  but 
also  the  fruitful  plain  lying  farther  inland,  to  the  west  of  the 
mountain  district  of  Israel — the  plain  of  Sharon  west  of  Ephraim, 
and  the  Shephelah  west  of  Judah.  They  were  protected  by  a  line 
of  fortified  cities  from  the  onward  pressure  of  the  Israelites,  and 
we  may  suppose  that  the  two  peoples  lived  on  for  a  long  time  in 
peace.  The  Philistines  rejoiced  in  the  possession  of  their  fruitful 
plain  by  the  sea,  while  the  adjoining  Israelite  tribes  of  Judah, 
Dan,  and  Ephraim  were  satisfied  with  the  mountain  districts  and 
their  modest  harvests.  At  last,  however,  Dan  was  seized  with  a 
desire  to  extend  itself,  and  this  longing,  doomed  to  disappointment, 
cost  a  part  of  the  tribe  the  loss  of  its  old  home.^ 

It  may  have  been  due  to  the  superiority  of  v/hich  the  tribes 
of  Joseph  were  conscious,  thanks  to  the  closer  union  they  had 
attained  under  Jerubbaal  and  Abimelech,  that  in  Israel  people 
refused  to  be  content  any  longer  with  their  meagre  lot.     After 

1  When  this  happened  we  cannot  say.     Cf.  the  conjecture  above,  p.  62,  note  G. 

2  See  above,  p.  70  fif. 

103 


104  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

the  misfortune  that  befell  Dan,  a  fresh  effort  to  press  forward  into 
the  plain  in  the  west  seems  to  have  been  made  by  Ephraim,  pro- 
bably also  by  Judah.^  Thus  there  arose  between  the  two  parties 
a  struggle  that  lasted  years  and  even  decades.  It  was  carried  on 
with  varying  success :  neither  of  the  opponents  was  able  to  gain 
decided  supremacy  over  the  other.  It  is  to  this  time  that  the 
popular  stories  and  legends,  with  which  the  Book  of  Judges  magni- 
fies the  name  of  Samson,  point.  These  afford  us  to  a  certain  extent 
an  insight  into  the  conditions  that  then  prevailed.^  It  was  a  time 
of  long-continued  skirmishing  here  and  there;  not  continuous 
organised  military  expeditions,  but  rather  sudden  blows,  inflicted 
on  the  enemy  whenever  occasion  offered.  There  may  also  have 
been  regularly  planned  campaigns  and  real  battles,  but  they  led 
to  no  decisive  issue ;  the  aimless  skirmishing  and  manoeuvring 
continued  as  before. 

At  last  the  Philistines  succeeded  in  dealing  a  decisive  blow, 
and  with  this  event  the  whole  struggle  comes  at  last  more  clearly 
into  the  light  of  history.  By  the  victory  of  the  Philistines  the 
struggle  became  the  occasion  of  Israel's  recovering  its  strength, 
through  the  establishment  of  a  monarchy  in  the  person  of  Saul. 
From  the  plain  of  Sharon  the  Philistines  undertook  an  important 
advance  towards  the  north.  If  they  could  only  win  the  chain  of 
hills  that  lay  between  the  maritime  plain  and  the  plain  of  Jezreel, 
they  could  gain  access  to  the  latter  and  also  to  Mount  Ephraim. 
The  tribes  of  Israel  that  were  most  closely  concerned,  seem  in  the 
moment  of  danger  to  have  combined  and  called  out  a  considerable 
army ;  but  it  appears  to  have  been  wanting  in  unity  of  command, 
if  it  did  not  lack  proper  coherence  altogether. 

The  Philistines  encamped  at  Aphek,  at  the  north  end  of  the 
plain  of  Sharon,  towards  the  hills ;  while  Israel  occupied  a  strong 
position  not  far  distant,  at  Eben  ha-'ezer,  probably  in  the  mountains. 

^  It  is  also  possible,  however,  that  the  Philistines  themselves,  encouraged  by 
the  success  they  had  achieved  in  the  case  of  Dan,  made  a  further  attack  on  Israel. 
So  Wellh.  Ahriss.  19  f.  [Eng.  Trans.^  p.  39  f.] ;  Cornill,  Entsteh.  d.  V.  Isr.  23. 
Still,  the  example  of  Dan  suggests  rather  the  otlier  view. 

-  See  above,  p.  92. 


OiiAP.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  105 

Twice  did  they  meet  in  battle.^  The  first  shock  resulted  unfavour- 
ably to  Israel :  four  thousand  slain  covered  the  field  of  battle,  and 
Israel  had  to  withdraw  hastily  to  its  strong  camp  in  the  moun- 
tains. With  a  view  to  giving  a  decisive  blow  they  brought  the 
ark  from  Shiloh.  They  were  sure  victory  could  not  fail  if  Yahve 
was  in  the  midst  of  His  host.  But  this  hope  proved  vain.  Israel's 
army  sustained  a  worse  defeat  the  second  time  than  the  first,  and 
thirty  thousand  warriors  met  their  death  at  the  hand  of  the  enemy. 
The  rest  were  thrown  into  confusion  and  fled  in  wild  disorder, 
'  every  man  to  his  tent.'  The  ark  of  Yahve,  the  sacred  palladium 
of  Israel,  was  captured  by  the  enemy,  and  its  bearers,  the  priests 
Hophni  and  Phinehas,  were  slain.  Israel's  army  and  shrine  were 
lost  to  the  enemy,  and  with  them  country,  honour,  and  freedom. 
The  way  was  now  open  northwards  and  westwards,  to  the  fruitful 
plain  of  Jezreel,  and  to  Mount  Ephraim ;  and  the  Philistines,  using 
their  advantage,  pressed  onwards.  The  temple  of  Shiloh  in  Mount  ■ 
Ephraim  was  destroyed,-  and  apparently  the  whole  land  occupied. 
Henceforth  a  Philistine  governor^  resided  at  Gibeah,  considerably 
farther  south  than  Shiloh.  He  would  certainly  not  be  the  only 
such  officer.  In  short,  what  had  never  yet  occurred,  in  spite  of 
the  many  calamities  of  later  times,  now  came  to  pass :  Israel 
became  in  its  own  land  the  vassal  of  a  foreign  despot.  Even  its 
very  arms  are  said  to  have  been  taken  away,  and  the  smiths  carried 
off  from  the  land.^ 

Intelligent  men  in  Israel  would  have  little  difficulty  in  seeing 
what  the  cause  of  this  disaster  was.  It  could  not  have  occurred 
if  all  the  tribes  and  clans  that  acknowledged  themselves  to  be 


^  See  1  Sam.  iv.,  and  the  discussion  of  the  sources  above,  p.  31  ff.,  34. 

-  This  is  not,  indeed,  specially  related,  but  it  is  presupposed.  A  longer 
account  of  the  advance  of  the  Philistines  seems  to  have  dropped  out.  See  Wellh. 
y>V.4  210. 

2  1  Sam.  xiii.  3  {cf.  x.  5).  Perhaps,  however,  we  are  to  understand  2''V3  as  a 
I)illar  of  victory.     {Cor]).  Inscr.  Sem.  i.  123,  194  f.,  380,  etc.) 

^  This  is  stated  in  1  Sam.  xiii.  19  fl.  Yet  the  repeated  mention  of  the  army 
of  Israel  in  the  intervening  chapters  is  enough  to  suggest  reasonable  doubts  with 
regard  to  this  passage.  Klosterm.  ad  foe.  attempts  to  remove  the  difficulty  by 
amending  the  text. 


106  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

sons  of  Israel,  had  set  themselves  in  a  body  against  the  danger. 
Nay,  had  there  only  prevailed  as  much  union  as  Jerubbaal  and 
Abimelech  for  a  time  produced,  and  had  the  proper  man  stood  at 
their  head,  the  misfortune  could  hardly  have  become  so  great  and 
far-reaching  as  it  was.  It  is  significant  that  our  account  has  not 
preserved  the  name  of  any  leader.  The  army  can  hardly  have  been 
united  in  the  hands  of  one  man,  for  had  it  been,  there  would  be 
something  unintelligible,  even  after  a  severe  defeat,  about  the  wild 
precipitate  flight,  the  sudden  disorganisation,  and  the  unconditional 
surrender,  without  another  stroke,  of  the  whole  hill  country,  easily 
defensible  as  it  was. 

The  memory  of  what  Deborah  and  Gideon  had  done  was 
enough  to  indicate  the  course  to  be  pursued,  and  it  did  so  now. 
Israel  needed  to  be  united  and  led  by  one  man.  But  this  unifica- 
tion would  not  suffice  if  achieved  in  only  one  or  two  of  its  chief 
tribes — these  were  no  longer  adequate  to  meet  the  distress  of  the 
hour  :  it  must  include  the  whole  people.  Nor  was  it  enough  that 
provision  should  be  made  for  this  hour  of  danger,  it  must  be  per- 
manent. The  people  must  feel  themselves  once  more  to  be  a 
nation,  and  determine  to  remain  a  nation.  They  must  intrust 
themselves  to  a  king  who  would  call  out  his  army  and  lead  it  to 
battle.  It  was  only  in  a  monarchy,  which  should  comprise  all 
the  people  really  belonging  to  Israel,  that  deliverance  lay.  In- 
telligent men,  indeed,  might  have  recognised  this  long  ago.  But 
the  question  was  w^iether  the  nation  would  prove  to  have  sufficient 
strength  and  union  in  action  for  such  a  step,  and  would  at  the 
same  time  succeed  in  finding  the  right  man  to  carry  it  through. 

It  succeeded  in  both  these  respects,  but  not  at  once.  We  do 
not  know  how  long  the  disgrace  of  bondage  lasted ;  at  all  events, 
for  a  long  time.^  It  was  an  aged  seer,  Samuel,  that  pointed  out 
the  way  of  escape. 

He  had  come  in  his  early  youth  to  Shiloh,  the  temple  of  which 

^  If  the  accounts  in  1  Sam.  i.  ff.  and  chap,  iv,  represent  the  real  relations  of 
events  as  to  time,  the  Philistine  domination  must  have  lasted  at  any  rate  about 
sixty  years. 


Chap.  IL]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  107 

was  still  standing.  This  was  not  very  long  before  the  battle  of 
Aphek  [still  it  must  have  been  from  ten  to  twenty  years  before  it]. 
Samuel  was  admitted  by  Eli,  the  priest  ^  of  the  ark  at  Shiloh,  as 
temple  servant,  and  was  introduced  into  the  priesthood,^  although 
he  was  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  by  birth.^  After  the  disastrous 
day  of  Aphek  and  the  destruction  of  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh,  we 
lose  sight  of  him  along  with  the  rest  of  Israel.  It  is  not  till  lie 
is  an  old  man,  towards  the  close  of  the  period  of  oppression,  that 
he  appears  once  more.  He  seems  to  have  betaken  himself  to  his 
home  at  Eamah."*  Here  he  laboured  as  priest  and  seer.  The  two 
offices  are  not  opposed,  but  rather  most  closely  connected.  For 
if  as  seer  he  stood  in  special  communication  with  Yahvd,  he  would 
by  this  very  fact  1)6  the  appropriate  man  for  priest.  Moreover, 
there  stood  at  Eamali  a  high-place,  at  which  no  sacrifice  was  per- 
formed without  his  presence. 

That  Samuel's  activity  was  not  connected  with  the  ark  of  God 
where  his  labours  had  begun,  is  something  of  a  mystery,  yet  not 
more  so  than  the  fate  of  the  shrine  itself.  Lost  in  battle  with 
the  Philistines,  it  had  wandered  to  the  temple  of  Dagon.^  When 
disaster  came  on  them  in  many  forms  affecting  both  god  and 
people,  the  Philistines  recognised  the  avenging  hand  of  Yahve. 
They  sent  the  ark  of  Yahve  solemnly  back  to  Israel.     But  the 

^  Eli  himself  was  a  Levite  :  we  need  not  determine  whether  he  was  considered 
an  Aaronite.     On  this,  see  ThSt  W.  iii.  295  ff.  ;  Baudissin,  Priestert.  193  ff. 

2  On  the  age  of  1  Sam.  i.-iii.,  see  above,  p.  31  ff.,  34  f.  The  chapters  are 
among  the  younger  parts  of  SS.  This  does  not,  however,  preclude  the  existence 
of  a  historical  kernel  in  the  narrative  (against  Wellh.  Bl.'^  208). 

'^  On  the  text  of  1  Sam.  i.  1,  see  Wellh.  TBS.  and  Driver,  Notes,  ad  loc. 
Klosterm.,  on  account  of  1  Chron.  vi.  7  ff.,  assumes  that  he  was  of  Levitical 
descent ;  so  also  Kohler.  This  is  hardly  justified  ;  see  Ewald,  Gesch.  Isr.  ii.=^  594 
[Eng.  Trans. ^  ii.  421] ;  Driv.  4. 

*  Ramah  in  Zuph  (1  Sam.  i.  1)  is  identical  with  the  abode  of  Samuel  in  ix.  1  flf. 
(against  Kohl.  ii.  1,  95,  135;  Klost.  27,  and  Budde,  BiSa,  171).  For  Samuel 
does  not  seem  in  chap.  ix.  to  have  come  from  some  other  place,  but  to  be  staying 
at  his  own  home  (c/.  vers.  12,  24).  The  abode  of  Samuel  in  chap.  ix.  (ver.  4)  is 
in  Zuph,  as  is  the  Ramah  of  i.  1.  To  distinguish  two  places  is  not  practicable. 
The  site  of  the  Ramah  of  Samuel  is  indicated  by  Beit  Bimd,  not  by  er-Mm,  as 
we  may  see  from  the  route  of  Saul's  journey  in  ix.  1  flf.     (Wellh.  TBS.  70.) 

5  On  the  significance  and  origin  of  this  Philistine  deity,  sec  Pietschmanii, 
Gesch.  d.  Phon.  145. 


108  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

whole  people,  as  well  as  Samuel  and  Saul,  held  aloof  from  the 
famous  shrine  of  their  fathers.  It  remained  in  Kiriath-Jearim 
till  the  time  of  David,  laid  aside  and  half  forgotten.  Did  its 
misfortune  seem  to  have  robbed  it  of  its  power,  or  had  it  been 
defiled  by  its  stay  with  the  enemy,  that  people  hardly  remembered 
it  any  longer  ?  Or  did  they  regard  it  as  inseparably  connected 
with  the  sanctuary  of  Shiloh,  now  lying  in  ruins,  while  perhaps 
the  Philistines  prevented  the  rebuilding  of  the  latter,  hoping  thus 
to  deprive  Yahve  of  His  sanctuary  and  seat,  and  Israel  of  its 
strength  ?  I  should  be  inclined  to  regard  the  latter  explanation 
as  the  most  probable.^ 

Samuel,  however,  although  removed  from  the  ark,  perhaps  by 
force,  would  doubtless  not  stand  idly  by  during  the  long  time  of 
disgrace  and  bondage  that  ensued.  If  we  find  him  in  his  old  age 
a  patriot,  the  distress  of  whose  people  has  gone  to  his  heart,  and 
who  cannot  rest  till  he  has  found  the  right  man,  we  are  warranted 
in  thinking  of  the  man  in  his  prime  as  in  no  way  different.  From 
Eamah,  as  a  centre,  he  must  certainly  have  exerted  a  far-reaching 
influence  during  that  time  of  distress  and  shattered  hopes.  What 
was  wanted  was  to  arouse  again  Israel's  self-confidence  and  trust 
in  God,  which  must  have  fallen  very  low.  A  work  done  in  quiet 
was  needed  to  awaken  an  idealism  in  the  people,  and  to  promote 
a  purer  worship  of  Yahve  in  face  of  such  a  manifold  blending  with 
heathenish  elements  as  was  manifestly  to  be  found  in  the  age  of 
the  Judges,  and  as  was  made  natural  by  the  Philistine  domination. 
Perhaps  Samuel  was  guided  by  the  traditions  of  Shiloh.-  An 
intimation  of  some  activity  of  this  kind  is  still  to  be  found  in 
1  Sam.  vii.,  although  it  has  certainly  been  preserved  to  us  only 
in  a  tradition  of  very  late  date,  and  has  therefore  been  modified 
in  several  points.  The  section  in  its  present  form  is  undoubtedly 
unhistorical,3  for  a  thorough  conquest  of  the  Philistines  by  Samuel 

1  {Cf.  however,  now  in  this  connection  the  interesting  article  of  Kosters  on 
the  fate  of  the  ark  in  T.  Tijdschr.  1893,  361  ff.  He  supposes  that  the  riddle  is 
to  be  solved  by  the  hypotliesis  that  the  ark  was  not  recovered  from  the  Philistines 
till  the  time  of  David.]  -  See  above,  p.  101  f. 

2  On  the  chapter  cf.  above,  p.  24  f.     It  belongs  to  Ri  and  D-. 


Chap.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  109 

is  historically  out  of  the  question.  By  such  a  defeat  the  kingship 
of  Saul,  and  the  whole  subsequent  development  of  events,  would 
be  deprived  of  all  foundation.  But  there  appears  to  remain  this 
basis  of  fact  for  the  incidents  here  related,  that  Samuel  held  at 
Mizpah^  a  conference  with  the  heads  of  clans  of  Israel.  The 
question  was,  what  could  be  done  to  escape  the  Philistine  oppres- 
sion. The  idea  of  the  monarchy  must  have  then  suggested  itself 
to  Samuel  and  the  elders  of  the  people.  At  the  same  time,  how- 
ever, Samuel,  the  priest  and  seer  of  Yahvc,  who  had  passed  his 
youth  by  the  ark  at  Shiloh,  must  have  seen  the  surest  escape  from 
the  present  distress  in  a  return  to  Yahvd,  and  to  a  mode  of  divine 
worship  less  tainted  by  foreign  elements  than  that  practised  in 
these  latter  days.  There  is  no  ground  for  attributing  this  idea  in 
its  simple  form  only  to  later  authors. 

We  obtain  a  similar  view  of  Samuel's  position  by  considering 
his  relation  to  the  froiiilictic  guilds.  The  narrative  concerning 
Samuel  that  has  reached  us,  quite  recognised  that  he  was  not 
what  a  later  age  called  nabi,  '  prophet.'  It  designates  him  not 
a  prophet,  but  a  '  seer,'  and  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
latter  is  the  old  name,  and  the  former  the  more  recent  name,  for 
the  same  thing.'-  It  implies  thereby  that,  with  all  their  distinct- 
ness, there  is  yet  a  very  close  connection  between  the  two.  The 
prophets  of  later  times  were  an  outgrowth  of  just  such  seers  as 
Samuel.  The  latter  were  the  historical  basis.  But  Samuel  him- 
self stands  in  a  close  relation  to  the  transition  from  the  older  to 
the  newer  form.  Not  only  is  this  change  of  name  connected  with 
his  person,  but  he  seems  also  to  have  been  closely  connected,  at 
least  in  their  first  beginnings,  with  the  establishment  of  special 
prophetic  guilds,  of  which  we  learn  in  later  times. 

These  societies  appear  to  be  the  natural  basis  from  which 
prophecy  arose  in  Israel,  vivified  by  the  spirit  of  the  religion  of 
Yahve,  and  guided  by  such  men  as  Samuel,  and  afterwards  Elijah. 

1  On  :Mizpah,  see  Kamphausen  in  StKr.  1889,  197,  and  Budde,  RiSa,  185,  as 
against  Wellh.  BL'  203  ;  Proir-  268  [P]ng.  Trans,  p.  256].  See  also  Renan,  Hist. 
dnp.  Irr.  i.  374  [Eng.  Trans,  p.  301  f.].  "-  Cf.  1  Sam.  ix.  9. 


110  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

Bands  of  ecstatic  men,  singing  and  dancing,  carrying  all  before- 
them  in  wild  frenzy,  rush  like  madmen  through  the  land.  They 
are  religious  fanatics,  filled  with  holy  ardour  for  their  God ;  but 
it  is  certainly  not  only  religious  fanaticism  that  impels  them ; 
religion  and  patriotism  are  united.  For  Israel  is  Yahve's  people. 
God,  people,  and  land  are  inseparably  bound  together.  The  weight 
of  the  Philistine  yoke  that  rests  on  Yahve's  land  and  people  has 
called  forth  these  madmen,  and  in  holy  zeal  for  Yahve  and  His 
cause,  they  roam  over  the  land.  We  meet  here  in  Israel  with  a 
character  something  like  the  Eastern  dervish  of  to-day,  who,  in 
times  of  religious  and  political  excitement,  unfurls  the  banner  of 
the  prophet  and  preaches  a  holy  war.  Bands  of  wild,  excited 
dervishes  scoured  the  land,  enlisting  recruits  everywhere  for 
I'ahve  and  the  liberation  of  His  land.i 

It  is,  to  begin  with,  not  credible  that  Samuel  should  have 
stood  in  no  connection  with  these  men.  In  fact,  it  would  seem 
to  be  no  accident  that  it  was  in  his  home  of  Eamah  that  they 
had  their  seat,  and  that  it  was  just  after  Saul  had  his  important 
interview  with  Samuel  that  they  encountered  him.  There  could 
not  have  been  in  Israel  such  a  time  of  ferment  as  there  actually 
was,  nor  could  the  Philistine  yoke  have  been  in  the  minds  of  the 
people  a  burden  so  oppressive  and  disgraceful  as  it  was,  without 
Samuel  and  the  ecstatic  national  prophets  appearing,  and  without 
Samuel's  effort  to  clear  away  the  turbulent  and  boisterous  element 
of  their  character,  and  enlist  the  movement  in  the  service  of  the 
religion  of  Yahve. 

It  is  decidedly  incorrect  to  attempt  to  ascribe  to  Samuel  a 
simply  local  importance.  If  he  was  the  man  who  took  counsel 
with  the  heads  of  the  people  at  Mizpah  regarding  Israel's  weal 
and  woe,  and  if  he  had  relations,  none  the  less  important  that  they 
were  kept  in  the  background,  with  the  ecstatic  nebiim,  then  he  was 
not  an  unknown  seer,  spoken  of  only  in  a  corner  of  Benjamin,  with 
no  other  importance  in  Israel.    But  even  if  he  is  not  to  be  credited 

1  This  description  is  drawn  from  1  Sam.  ix.  (especially  ver.  9),  and  x.  1  fif,,  in 
combination  with  I  Sam.  x.  10  fF.  and  kindred  passages. 


Chap.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  111 

with  any  such  importance,  the  monarchy  established  in  the  person 
of  Saul  was,  at  all  events,  a  matter  with  which  he  was  most  closely 
connected.  If,  however,  he  was  the  man  that  gave  Israel  its  king, 
his  importance  and  influence  extended  beyond  Eamali  and  its 
immediate  neighbourhood.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  precise 
way  in  which  the  events  came  about,  this  at  least  is  certain,  that 
Samuel  exerted  an  influence  on  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy. 
Hence  he  must,  both  before  and  after  that  event,  have  occupied  a 
position  the  influence  of  which  reached  far  beyond  the  walls  of 
Eamah.  It  will  fall  to  the  history  of  Saul  to  set  this  in  its  proper 
light. 

§  40.  Said. 

It  was  Samuel  who  discovered  the  right  man  to  make  king. 
This  man  was  Saul,  the  son  of  Kish,  the  head  of  a  Benjamite 
family,  of  Gibeah  in  Benjamin. 

The  way  in  which  Saul  became  king  is  enveloped  in  darkness, 
and  will  remain  so.  Only  one  thing  is  certain,  namely,  that 
Samuel  had  in  some  special  way  a  hand  in  the  matter.  The 
attempt  has  been  made  to  determine  the  part  played  by  Samuel 
in  regard  to  Saul  and  the  monarchy,  by  following  that  one  of  our 
accounts  which  is  manifestly  the  older,  and  simply  setting  the 
other  aside,  as  offering  a  later  view  of  the  course  of  events.^ 
According  to  this  theory,  Samuel,  having  at  heart  the  distress  of 
the  people,  accidentally  meets  with  Saul  and  discerns  in  him  the 
right  man — the  man  he  has  long  been  seeking.  Animating  him 
with  a  sense  of  the  people's  distress,  Samuel  sends  him  home, 
confident  that  he  will  recognise  the  right  moment  to  act.  Saul 
does  as  he  is  directed,  and  a  cry  for  help  from  Jabesh  in  Gilead 
gives  him  the  opportunity  of  setting  himself  at  the  head  of  the 
army.  On  this  view  everything  else,  not  only  the  election  of 
Saul,  but  also  Samuel's  original  attitude  of  reluctance  towards  the 
monarchy,  must  be  held  to  rest  on  later  invention.- 

^  The  later  account  is  SS  ;  tlie  older,  S.     On  these,  see  above,  pp.  23  ff.,  26  ff. 
-  So  especially  Stade,  213,  with  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen. 


112  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

I  cannot  accept  this  view  without  qualiiication.  The  repre- 
sentation just  given  may  indeed  substantially  correspond  to  the 
actual  facts  of  the  case;  but  certain  features  of  the  additional 
narrative  preserved  in  the  younger  source,  appear  likewise  to  be 
genuine  and  original.^  Among  such  I  include  especially  the 
mention  of  negotiations  about  the  monarchy,  supposed  to  have 
taken  place  between  Samuel  and  the  elders  of  the  people.  An 
absolutely  unhistorical  feature  has  been  found  here  by  some,  and 
especially  in  Samuel's  holding  aloof  at  first  from  the  proposal  to 
found  a  monarchy.  Such  an  idea,  it  is  said,  could  originate  only 
in  later  times,  when  there  was  no  king,  or  when  men  were  dis- 
gusted with  the  monarchy. 

But  Samuel's  attitude  is  not  in  point  of  fact  so  surprising  as  it 
might  at  first  sight  appear.  Doubts  with  regard  to  the  monarchy 
might  really  arise  very  readily  in  the  mind  of  a  far-seeing  patriot 
of  those  days.  Monarchs  and  monarchic  systems  were  indeed  not 
unknown  to  Israel.  '  All  the  nations  round  about,'^  Egypt,  Assyria, 
Edom,  Moab,  Amnion,  the  Canaanitish  and  Philistine  cities,  had 
long  had  kings.  Even  Israel  had  made  their  acquaintance  in 
Gideon  and  Abimelech.  Obvious  as  the  outward  advantages  of  a 
monarchy  certainly  were,  people  could  not  fail  to  notice  also  the 
disadvantage  of  such  an  innovation  as  Israel  was  striving  after,  for 
a  community  that  had  till  now  been  constituted  rather  on  a 
republican  basis.  Moreover,  Israel's  most  glorious  memories  were 
against  the  change.  Moses  had  made  Israel  a  nation  and  yet  had 
not  become  king.  Least  of  all  could  the  experiences  of  the  age  of 
the  Judges  give  any  encouragement.     These  showed  how,  behind 

^  SS  is  decidedly  younger  than  S,  and  is  strongly  permeated,  especially  in  its 
conception  and  reproduction  of  the  facts,  by  the  ideas  of  the  time  of  Hosea.  But 
this  source  is  not  so  young  that  it  cannot  have  retained  real  reminiscences  of  the 
actual  course  of  events.  On  the  other  hand,  although  S  is  older  and,  on  the 
whole,  more  accurately  informed,  it  is  by  no  means  a  document  contemporaneous 
with  the  events  it  describes  (see  above,  p.  34).  And  this  reservation  applies 
especially  to  chap.  ix. ,  x.  1  fF,  This  is  enough  to  show  that  it  is  not  permissible 
simply  to  declare  S  historical  (Cornill,  ZKWL.  85,  116),  and  SS  unhistorical. 
Our  duty  is  rather  to  make  a  cautious  use  of  both  these  documents,  endeavouring 
to  determine  by  internal  evidence  what  the  7-eal  facts  probably  were. 

2  Gf.  1  Sam.  viii.  5. 


Chap.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  113 

such  a  monarchic  constitution  as  ancient  'Tyranny'  there  ever 
stood  the  danger  of  violence  and  despotism. 

There  is  in  fact  nothing  more  conceivable  than  that  Samuel, 
and  probably  many  another  along  with  him,  at  first  expressed 
grave  doubts  before  giving  consent  to  the  establishment  of  the 
kingly  power.^  If  he  resisted  and  overcame  his  scruples,  he  only 
did  what  many  another  in  his  position  had  already  done.  Even 
such  naive  joy  over  the  monarchy  as  shines  through  the  literary 
productions  of  the  earlier  period  of  the  monarchy,^  in  no  way 
conflicts  with  the  existence  of  hesitancy  for  a  time.  But  our 
sources  themselves  tell  us  that  these  scruples  did  not  exist  every- 
where, and  especially  not  among  the  people  and  their  leaders. 
And  it  is  obvious  that  if  the  monarchy,  once  in  existence,  led 
Israel  to  an  undreamed-of  height,  as  it  actually  did  under  David 
and  Solomon,  it  would  easily  win  men's  hearts. 

The  attitude  of  Samuel  is  thus  described  in  our  sources  with 
substantial  accuracy.  It  is  a  very  different  question,  however, 
whether  we  are  entitled  to  say  the  same  of  the  election  of  Saul.^ 
I  regard  it  as  inadmissible.  If  Saul  was  chosen  king  by  Samuel, 
and  if,  as  I  am  inclined  to  suppose,  the  latter  had  selected  Saul  in 
full  agreement  with  the  elders  of  the  people,  there  was  no  room 
left  for  an  election,  or  rather  a  destination,  by  lot.  Such  a 
proceeding  would,  indeed,  have  been  only  an  empty  formality,  on 
the  supposition  that  the  individual  had  been  chosen. 

The  first  thing  Saul  did  was  to  chastise  the  Ammonites.  It 
came  about  in  this  way.  Jabesh  in  Gilead,  an  Israelitish  city  east 
of  the  Jordan,  insolently  threatened  by  the  Ammonite  King 
Nahash,  sent  messengers  across  the  Jordan  imploring  succour  from 
the  other  tribes.  The  messengers  came  in  due  course — certainly 
not  by  accident* — to  Gibeah.  Saul  was  in  the  field,  and  the 
people  of  Gibeah  had  only  their  sympathy  and  regrets  to  offer 

^  Whether  the  objections  were  of  a  purely  religious  nature  (' Yahve  is  your 
king ')  is  indeed  doubtful,  as  such  an  idea  cannot  be  proved  to  exist,  before  the  time 
of  Hosea.     But  the  very  name  Malk  for  a  Phcenician  deity  made  it  plausible. 

-  Cf.  Num.  xxiii.  21  ;  xxiv.  24  ;  Dt.  xxxiii.  4  f. 

^  1  Sam.  X.  17  ff.  ^  So  Wellh.  Bl^  211  ;  Stade,  212. 

VOL.  II.  H 


114  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  11. 

their  countrymen  across  the  Jordan ;  they  lacked  the  courage  to 
go  to  their  aid.  As  Saul  returned  from  the  field,  following  his 
oxen,  he  heard  what  had  happened.  His  decision  w^as  quickly 
come  to.  Seizing  a  pair  of  oxen,  he  slew  them  on  the  spot,  and 
cut  them  up.  Then  he  bade  the  messengers  take  the  pieces  of  flesh 
and  go  through  all  Israel,  summoning  the  people  to  the  holy  war 
with  the  threat :  '  Whosoever  cometh  not  after  Saul  and  Samuel,^ 
so  shall  it  be  done  unto  his  oxen.'  '^ 

It  was  a  bold  impetuous  act,  and  a  startling  word,  that  the 
messengers  were  able  to  publish  in  Israel.  Nor  did  it  fail  to  do 
its  work.  Saul  had  acted  as  a  man  and  a  hero,  already  encircled 
with  the  lustre  of  his  destined  crown.  He  was  not  to  suffer  for 
his  chivalrous  daring  and  his  chivalrous  trust  in  the  tribes.  His 
summons  found  an  echo  in  people's  hearts;  he  succeeded  in 
gathering  an  army;  and  Jabesh  was  relieved.  Saul  had  now 
earned  his  crown  by  his  own  achievements.  He  was  conducted 
by  the  people  in  triumph  to  Gilgal  and  there  offered  the  throne.^ 

Saul's  work  was  not  over.  Eather,  the  time  had  now  fully 
come  for  him  to  act.  The  yoke  of  the  Philistines  still  lay  on 
Israel,  and  was  felt  to  be  a  greater  disgrace  and  oppression  than 
anything  Ammon  had  inflicted.  Here  then  was  Saul's  opportunity, 
'  what  his  hand  should  find.'  What  Samuel  had  whispered  to 
him,  though  enigmatical,  was  intelligible  enough.^  A  representa- 
tive ^  of  the  Philistine  oppressors  of  Israel  had  his  seat  in  Gibeah 
itself,  Saul's  home  and  present  residence.  It  was  probably 
immediately  after  the  return  from  Gilead  that  this  man  was  slain 
by  Jonathan,  Saul's  son.  The  signal  for  the  rising  was  thus  given. 
As  the  army  appears  to  have  been  already  entirely,  or  for  the  most 

^  The  reference  to  Samuel  is  generally  struck  out  as  a  gloss.  I  do  not,  however, 
regard  a  reference  to  him  as  impossible. 

-  Of.  1  Sam.  xi.  ;  and  above,  pp.  24,  29,  33  f.  The  section  is  generally  accepted 
as  historical. 

^  On  xi.  12-14  see  above,  p.  24,  note  3.  A  passage  of  somewhat  diflferent  form 
must  have  stood  in  S  instead  of  what  we  now  read.  At  least,  ti'inj  in  v.  14  does 
not  agree  with  S  (against  Klost.  3G).  ^  1  Sam.  x.  7. 

^  For  another  possible  interpretation  see  above,  p.  105,  note  3.  '  The  Philistines 
heard  of  it,'  in  xiii.  3,  agrees  very  well  with  that  explanation. 


OiiAr.  IL]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  115 

part  disbanded,  Saul  collected  again  hastily  what  force  he  could  ^ — 
six  hundred  men.  They  encamped  at  Gibeah ;  the  Philistines, 
opposite  to  them,  at  Michmash.  Here,  at  the  ascent  to  Mount 
Ephraim,  is  the  well-known  pass  that  forms  the  southern  key  to 
the  mountain  district.  It  seemed  as  if  Saul  with  his  company 
would  here  be  cut  off  from  the  rest  of  Israel.  Hence  it  appeared 
an  easy  matter  for  the  superior  force  of  the  Philistines  to  crush 
the  little  band. 

Michmash  and  Gibeah  are  separated  by  a  ravine.  Descending 
on  both  sides  in  rugged  precipices,  it  seemed  a  natural  and 
insurmountable  barrier  between  the  two  camps.-  A  Philistine 
picket  was  indeed  stationed  as  watch  on  the  brink  of  the  gorge. 
But  it  felt  it  to  be  unnecessary  to  be  on  its  guard.  Who  would 
climb  the  perpendicular  cliff?  Jonathan,  however,  with  reckless 
daring  succeeds,  along  with  his  armour-bearer,  in  climbing  the 
cliff.  The  unwatchful  picket  is  surprised ;  Jonathan  strikes  down 
all  who  come  in  his  way ;  while  the  attendant  following  behind 
gives  the  death-blow.  The  rest  of  the  picket,  imagining  that  the 
two  foolhardy  men  are  followed  by  a  company,  flee  in  terror  and 
carry  sudden  panic  into  the  camp.  Consternation  and  wild 
disorder  ensue.^ 

Saul's  watch  on  the  Gibeah  side  observe  the  confusion  in  the 
Philistine  camp  and  report  it  to  Saul.  When  Saul  gathers  his 
men,  Jonathan  and  his  attendant  are  missing.  It  is  clear  at  once 
what  has  happened,  and  what  ought  to  be  done.     Saul  seizes  the 

^  Cf.  1  Sam.  xiii.  1-6.  We  must  not  however  conceal  from  ourselves  that 
there  is  much  here  also  that  remains  obscure.  If  Saul  had  some  plan  of  action 
against  the  Philistines,  why  did  he  disband  the  army  (xiii.  2)  ?  Why  did  the 
Philistines  come  to  Michmash  if  Saul  was  stationed  there  (xiii.  2)  ?  Is  the 
situation  of  xiii.  2  ff.  (espec.  v.  6,  the  fear  of  the  Hebrews)  conceivable,  immediately 
after  the  victory  over  Ammon?  and  so  on.  It  is  thus  a  question  whether  much 
more  of  xiii.  1-6  is  original  than  v.  3.  (On  the  text  see  my  trans,  in  Kautzsch.) 
In  that  case  we  should  have  to  suppose  that  immediately  after  his  return,  Saul 
proceeded  with  his  six  hundred  men  against  the  Philistines,  or  that,  to  keep  up 
appearances,  he  retained  or  summoned  afresh  these  six  hundred  men  and  no  more, 
out  of  the  whole  army.  This  latter  is  the  view  taken  in  the  text.  On  xiii. 
76- 15a,  see  above,  p.  30. 

-  On  the  locality  see  Furrer,  in  Schenkers  BL.  iv.  216. 

3  1  Sam.  xiv.  1-15. 


116  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBEEWS  [Book  II. 

opportunity  to  make  a  sudden  swift  attack.  The  Philistines  flee 
in  wild  confusion.  Such  as  had  deserted  to  them  now  return  to 
Israel,  and  such  as  had  hidden  in  caves  and  caverns  come  out 
to  share  in  the  pursuit.  During  the  pursuit,  however,  Jonathan, 
not  knowing  of  the  prohibition  issued  by  his  father,  tastes  some 
food,  and  almost  falls  a  victim  to  the  latter's  blind  zeal.  Indeed,  it 
is  only  the  intercession  of  the  people  that  saves  the  life  of  the 
hero  of  the  day.  Possibly  some  one  else  was  sacrificed  as  a  victim 
to  the  superstitious  fanaticism  of  the  king.^ 

We  do  not  know  how  great  and  lasting  Saul's  success  was  ;  but 
we  shall  do  well  in  any  case  not  to  suppose  it  to  have  been  too 
great.  There  was  no  real  victory  won ;  the  Philistines,  seized  by 
panic,  apparently  did  not  wait  for  an  engagement  to  take  place, 
and  must  thus  have  brought  home  in  safety  the  principal  part  of 
their  army.  Yet  a  moral  victory  had  been  won  for  Saul  and  Israel ; 
and  in  point  of  fact,  the  territory  of  Benjamin,  at  all  events,  and 
probably  Judah  as  well,  was  cleared  of  Philistines.  The  Philistine 
wars  were  not  indeed  at  an  end.^  On  the  contrary  they  continued, 
as  one  writer^  expressly  declares,  throughout  Saul's  whole  life. 
The  feud  may  have  been  prosecuted  with  varying  success  until  it 
finally  cost  Saul  his  throne  and  his  life. 

The  defectiveness  of  our  traditional  sources  makes  itself  felt 
here  painfully.  Only  once  again  before  his  removal  by  death 
from  the  scene  of  action,  is  Saul  introduced  to  us  as  occupying 
himself  with  foreign  affairs.     Even  this  expedition  is  probably 

1  1  Sam.  xiv.  16-46.  On  chap.  xiv.  in  general,  see  above,  pp.  29  f.,  33  f.  Wellh. 
is  wrong  in  removing  xiv.  36-45.  When  we  consider  the  spirit  of  the  age  (c/. 
2  Sam.  xxi.  1  ff.)  we  shall  not  regard  redemption  by  the  offering  of  a  human 
sacrifice,  probably  some  prisoner  of  war,  as  inconceivable.  See  esp.  Ewald, 
Gesch.  Isr.^  iii.  51  [Eng.  Trans.-  iii.  36].  Yet,  as  the  redemption  of  a  human 
being  through  the  substitution  of  something  of  less  value  is  to  be  found  in  the 
oldest  laws  (Ex.  xxxiv.  20,  cf.  xiii.  13  ;  xxi.  8),  the  reference  may  very  well  be  to 
an  ox  or  a  gift  to  the  sanctuary.  So  Driver,  Notes,  p.  91,  and  most  writers. 
Klostermann's  emendation  of  the  text  is  quite  unwarranted. 

2  On  1  Sam.  xiv.  47-51  see  above,  p.  29  f.  The  statement  in  v.  47  cannot 
{cf.  V.  52)  correspond  to  the  real  course  of  events. 

'^  Cf.  xiv.  52.  The  writer  is  R,  but  his  statement  represents  a  perfectly  just 
view  of  the  state  of  affairs.     On  this  verse,  see  above,  pp.  30,  44, 


I 


Chap.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  117 

related  only  because  with  it  was  connected  the  estrangement 
between  him  and  Samuel,  an  estrangement  which  had  such  weighty 
consequences,  and  which  probably  contributed  more  than  anything 
else  to  drive  Saul's  spirit  into  fatal  madness. 

If  Saul  established  his  supremacy  first  of  all  in  the  east  by  the 
war  against  Amnion,  then  in  Israel  proper,  at  least  in  Benjamin, 
Ephraim,  and  Judah,  by  the  expulsion  of  the  Philistines,  it  would 
seem  natural  that  he  should  turn  to  the  south  of  Judah  and  under- 
take to  quiet,  once  for  all,  the  rapacious  Amalekites,  ever  eager  for 
an  attack.  What  the  special  occasion  was,  we  do  not  know.^  The 
enmity,  however,  between  Israel  and  Amalek  was  old  enough,  and 
there  was  no  need  for  any  fresh  incitement  to  war.-  Saul 
attacked  the  enemy  and  achieved  a  brilliant  success.  Such 
Amalekites  as  were  taken  captive  were,  in  accordance  with  long- 
honoured  usage  in  war,  put  to  death,  while  King  Agag  and  a  part 
of  the  captured  cattle  were  kept  alive.  Samuel,  not  satisfied  with 
this,  slew  Agag  with  his  own  hands  '  before  Yahve  in  Gilgal,'  ^  and 
announced  to  Saul  that  Yahve  repented  of  having  made  him  king. 
Thereupon  Samuel  returned  to  Eamah,  and  Saul  to  Gibeah.  '  And 
Samuel  saw  Saul  no  more  till  the  day  of  his  death.'  * 

A  serious  and  calamitous  breach  was  thus  brought  about  in  the 
relations  between  the  two  men.  We  have  no  ground  for  calling  in 
question  its  historicity.  In  fact,  Saul's  rejection  by  Samuel,  and 
his  feeling  that  the  Seer  of  Yahve  who  had  procured  for  him  his 
crown  was  now  against  him,  are  the  only  satisfactory  explanation  of 
the  unhappy  state  of  mind  that  now  came  over  Saul.  What  the 
real  ground  of  the  unfortunate  rupture  was,  however,  we  do  not 
learn.  The  difference  of  opinion  with  regard  to  Agag  and  the 
spoil,  may  have  brought  matters  to  a  crisis,  but  cannot  have  been 
the   only   reason.      The  fact  that  our  sources  seek   for   further 

^  See,  however,  the  mention  of  Agag's  deeds  in  1  Sam.  xv.  33. 

-  Hence  the  mention  of  Amalek's  old  offence  (1  Sam.  xv.  2  f.). 

•'  It  is  unnecessary  to  assign  a  sacrificial  meaning  to  Samuel's  slaying  Agag 
(Wellh.  Bl^  216  ;  Cornill,  ZKWL.  1885,  123,  etc.),  since  it  was  merely  the  carry- 
ing through  of  the  herem. 

^  1  Samuel  xv.  On  the  chap,  generally  see  above,  pp.  26,  34.  It  is,  at  all 
events,  one  of  the  older  sections  in  SS. 


118  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

grounds/  shows  that  many  things  had  occurred  to  disturb  the 
relation,  delicate  enough  from  the  beginning,  that  existed  between 
King  and  Seer.  Of  what  nature  they  were,  however,  we  are  not 
told.  The  source — perhaps  Benjamite,^  certainly  favourably  in- 
clined to  Saul — to  which  we  are  indebted  for  the  first  history  of 
Saul,  has  withheld  them  from  us.  Perhaps  it  omitted,  out  of 
consideration  for  Saul,  many  matters  that  were  little  creditable  to 
him.  This  may  also  be  the  reason  why  our  information  about 
Saul's  doings  in  general  is  so  meagre. 

In  the  war  against  the  Philistines,  the  course  of  events  would 
not  always  be  as  favourable  as  Israel  might  wish.  The  Philistines 
were,  after  all,  their  superiors,  from  long  practice  in  war,  and  from 
being  accustomed  to  prevail.  Moreover,  this  would  lead  the 
tribes  of  Israel  to  submit  less  unreservedly  to  the  sceptre  of  Saul, 
for  although  they  readily  submitted  to  him  as  a  conqueror,  they 
had  not  forgotten  their  old  independence.  Saul's  position,  thus 
already  hard  enough,  must  have  been  absolutely  intolerable  when, 
in  addition  to  all  this,  the  bond  that  united  him  to  Samuel  the 
Seer  threatened  to  break.  According  to  all  appearance  Saul  was 
an  impetuous  sanguine  spirit,  buoyed  up  by  success,  depressed  by 
misfortune.  No  wonder  if  the  unenviable  position  he  was  in 
proved  too  much  for  his  strength.  '  An  evil  spirit  from  Yalive ' 
came  over  him.^  Deep  melancholy  wrapped  his  spirit  in  gloom 
and  plunged  him  into  hopeless  dejection.  This  was  soon  to  be 
further  intensified  by  the  torture  of  jealousy,  and  Saul  to  be  driven 
to  wild  outbreaks  of  frenzy. 

^  Cf.  1  Sam.  xiii.  76- 15a,  and  above,  p.  30.  The  passage,  as  it  now  stands,  is 
from  R.  But  it  must  have  been  based  on  a  narrative  belonging  to  S  (in  con- 
nection with  which  source  this  passage  stands),  which  likewise  told  of  a  rupture 
between  Samuel  and  Saul,  on  the  occasion  of  a  sacrifice  at  Gilgal. 

-  See  above,  p.  34.  ^  \  gam.  xvi.  14. 


Chap.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  119 

§  41.  Continuation.     Saul  and  David} 

A  young  man  2  came  to  the  court  of  Saul,  David  ben  Jesse  by 
name.  He  was  of  Bethlehem-Judah, — a  good  soldier,  master  of  the 
lute,  handsome  in  appearance  and  fluent  in  speech.  He  was 
brought  in  tlie  hope  that  his  playing  would  drive  away  the  king's 
melancholy.  He  was  still  a  shepherd  in  the  service  of  his  father,^ 
but  Saul's  attendants  had  discovered  him  and  recommended  him 
to  the  king.  The  young  David  became  Saul's  page.  The  latter 
at  once  took  a  fancy  to  the  attractive  and  clever  young  man,  who 
soon  became  his  armour-bearer.  Thus,  when  David  had  proved 
himself  and  '  found  grace  with  Saul,'  the  relation  between  them 
became,  at  his  master's  special  request,  a  lasting  one.  The  soothing 
power  of  this  attractive  man,  who  was  able  to  play  so  skilfully  on 
the  lute  and  to  speak  and  recite  *  so  agreeably,  had  a  most  salutary 
influence  on  Saul.^ 

But  Saul  was  not  to  enjoy  his  new  friend.  After  he  had 
broken  with  Samuel,  or  the  latter  with  him,  it  was  as  if  disaster 
had  conspired  against  him  ;  he  felt  himself  forsaken  by  God,  and 
could  find  no  more  pleasure  in  existence.  He  saw  spectres  every- 
where which  brewed  disaster ;  and,  tragically  enough  for  him,  the 
very  man  in  whose  hands  he  had  put  himself,  in  the  hope  that  he 
might  be  able  to  chase  away  the  evil  spirit  from  his  mind,  was  the 
means  of  awaking  it  to  fresh  and  more  fearful  activity. 

David  was  one  of  those  divinely  favoured  natures  that  irresis- 
tibly attract  every  one  they  touch,  and  whose  charm  no  one  is  able 
to  withstand.     Hardly  had  he  joined  the  court  of  Saul,  when  he 

1  [On  the  life  of  David,  cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  art.  'David  '  in  Encyclopinlia  Brit- 
annka ;  and  Cheyne,  Aids  to  the  Study  of  Criticism,  1892,  Part  I.,  'The  David 
Narratives.'] 

-  David  was  about  twenty-five  years  old,  and  therefore  on  the  borderland 
between  youth  and  manhood. 

^  The  statement  in  question,  at  the  end  of  1  Sam,  xvi.  19,  is  generally  struck 
out  as  a  gloss.     See,  however,  above,  p.  35,  note  4. 

^  This  is  probably  implied  in  1  Sam.  xvi.  18. 

■'  1  Sam.  xvi.  14-23.  On  this  see  above,  p.  35 ;  and  on  the  source  Da,  to  which 
the  narrative  belongs,  p.  44  f.  On  the  passage,  xvi.  1-13,  which  we  have  passed 
over,  cf.  p.  38  and  the  references  there. 


120  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

won  to  himself  in  succession  first  the  king,  then  his  subjects,  court, 
son,  and  dauditer.  This,  however,  was  too  much  for  Saul's 
suspicious  nature.  He  began  to  fear  for  his  throne,  and  David's 
royal  patron  soon  became  his  most  bitter  and  deadly  enemy. 

Meanwhile,  the  Philistine  wars  continued.  Collisions  occurred 
from  time  to  time — now  here,  now  there.  Hence  we  find  Saul 
sometimes  at  home  in  Gibeah,  sometimes  with  the  army  in  camp. 
David,  his  intimate  companion  and  armour-bearer,  was  with  him 
wherever  he  went.  In  one  of  the  wars  David  slew  a  Philistine 
giant.  Legend  has  identified  the  latter  with  Goliath  of  Gath,  whom 
one  of  David's  heroes,  Elhanan  of  Bethlehem,  slew  at  a  later  stage, 
and  whose  '  spear  was  as  a  weaver's  beam.'  ^  David  won  further 
laurels  ^  of  all  kinds  in  the  war  with  the  Philistines,  which  seems 
to  have  been  the  chief  task  of  Saul,  and  he  was  in  consequence 
honoured  by  Saul  with  an  important  post  in  the  army.^  In  this 
position,  also,  he  succeeded  in  whatever  he  undertook,  and  it  did 
not  really  need  the  song  of  the  women,  '  Saul  hath  slain  his  thou- 
sands, but  David  his  ten  thousands,'  ^  to  enable  Saul  to  perceive 
that  the  youthful  minstrel  and  hero  was  in  fact  about  to  cast  the 
king  himself  into  the  shade.^ 

^  On  1  Sam.  xvii.  generally,  and  its  relation  to  xvi.  14  jff. ,  see  above,  p.  35  fF.  It 
appears  from  what  is  said  there  that,  even  according  to  the  lxx.  text  of  chap.  xvii. , 
the  two  narratives  do  not  agree.  There  is  also  to  be  taken  into  consideration  the 
statement  in  2  Sam.  xxi.  19,  according  to  which  Goliath  was  slain  by  one  of 
David's  heroes,  Elhanan  of  Bethlehem.  On  the  text  of  this  passage  and  its 
relation  to  that  of  1  Chr.  xx.  5,  see  especially  the  admirable  discussions  in  Driver, 
Notes,  272,  and  Kuen.  §  xxi.  10.  Klost.  {SaKo.  238),  like  Gratz  and  others,  does 
violence  to  the  text.  Nevertheless,  a  real  exploit  of  David's  may  lie  at  the  basis 
of  the  Goliath  story.  [Cf.  also  Cheyne,  Aids  to  the  Study  of  Criticism,  pp.  125- 
128.] 

-  1  Sam.  xviii.  G-8  was  once  (perhaps  with  a  somewhat  different  text)  the  con- 
tinuation of  xvi.  14  ff.  in  Da,  and  in  that  case  presupposed  certain  exploits  of 
David's,  to  which  the  slaying  of  a  Philistine  hero  may  have  belonged.  See  above, 
p.  37. 

3  This  is  presupposed  in  xviii.  6-8  (Da),  and  related,  although  in  another  con- 
nection, in  xviii.  13-16  (SS). 

^  That  the  song  is  historical  is  beyond  doubt.  It  may  be  questioned,  however, 
whether  it  was  sung  at  so  early  a  stage  (Cornill,  KgSt.  35). 

^  On  xviii.  9  f.,  17-19,  see  above,  p.  36,  note  4;  and  Kamphausen,  ZA  W.  vi. 
19  fif.  Chap,  xviii.  iu  its  present  form  is  a  completely  unintelligible  collection  of 
all  that  was  known  about  the  origin  of  the  quarrel  between  Saul  and  David.     It 


Chap.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  121 

A  sound  man  seated  on  Saul's  throne  could  only  have  rejoiced 
over  David  and  his  successes.  But  that  is  just  what  Saul  was  not. 
His  mind  was  fatally  clouded,  and  wliat  another  would  have  seen 
with  pride  and  joy,  and  made  use  of  for  his  own  good  and  the  good 
of  his  kingdom,  appeared  to  him,  seeing  as  he  did  disaster  every- 
where, only  as  a  threatening  danger,  and  awakened  in  him  gloomy 
suspicions. 

When  finally  David  won  the  sympathy  of  the  people  and  the 
court,  the  friendship  of  Jonathan  the  chivalrous  son  of  the  king — 
nay,  even  at  last,  to  complete  his  happiness  and  success,  the  love 
of  Saul's  daughter  MichaV  the  measure  of  Saul's  secret  suspicion 
was  also  filled.  One  development  after  another  occurred  to  excite 
Saul's  jealousy  afresh.-  At  last  the  turbulent  ferment  of  passion 
broke  forth  into  wild  frenzy.  Saul  has  no  longer  any  doubt: 
the  armour-bearer,  whom  he  had  promoted  to  be  leader  of  his 
forces,  is  not  satisfied  wdth  casting  into  the  shade  the  king's 
name  and  martial  glory ;  his  aim  is  higlier ;  he  wishes  to  become 
the  friend  of  the  king's  son,  the  king's  son-in-law — the  traitor 
wishes  to  become  the  kino's  successor  before  his  death.  Hence- 
forth  Saul's  decision  is  immovable :  the  traitor  is  doomed  to  death. 
Saul  seeks  to  carry  out  his  decision,  however  and  whenever  he 
can.  The  victim  of  his  suspicion  having  escaped  his  murderous 
steel,  he  goes  forth  expressly  to  seek  him.  With  the  tenacity 
peculiar  to  one  haunted  by  an  illusion,  he  devotes  himself  hence- 
forth almost  exclusively  to  his  purpose  of  avenging  himself  on  his 
supposed  mortal  enemy  and  persecutor.  We  may  confidently 
assert  that  this  thought,  which  never  again  left  the  unfortunate 
man,  finally  wasted  him  away. 

AVhether  David  was  or  was  not  guilty  of  what  Saul  reproached 
him  with,  will  hardly  be  seriously  discussed.^     David  may  have 

was  therefore  abridged,  even  by  the  Alexandrian  translator  (see  above,  p.  36  f.). 
An  attempt  is  made  in  the  text  above  to  indicate  to  some  extent  tlie  original 
course  of  events. 

1  See  1  Sam.  xviii.  7,  IC,  1,  20.  Although  the  order  is  disturbed,  we  have  here 
at  all  events  facts. 

-  Cf.  the  gradation  in  1  Sam.  xviii.  12,  15,  29a,  29/>. 

^  As  against  Duncker,  see  esp.  Kamph.  ZA  W.  vi.  7G. 


122  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

been  so  far  human  that,  having  risen  ahnost  too  suddenly,  he 
prided  himself  more  than  was  wise  in  his  good  fortune  and 
splendour.  It  may  have  afforded  him  a  satisfaction,  which  we 
can  well  understand  although  it  was  dangerous,  that  public  opinion 
preferred  him  and  his  deeds  to  the  king  himself  and  his  achieve- 
ments. But  that  David  was  striving  after  the  throne  is  neither 
proved  nor  credible.  Even  his  friendship  with  Jonathan  the 
legitimate  heir,  which  is  surely  authentic,  is  decidedly  against 
such  an  idea.  Had  any  such  suspicion  existed  anywhere  else 
than  in  the  morbidly  excited  brain  of  Saul,  and  perhaps  in  the 
circle  of  David's  envious  rivals  at  the  court  of  Saul — for  such 
would  certainly  not  be  wanting — Jonathan  himself  would  surely 
have  been  the  first  to  turn  away  from  David  with  disgust. 
Moreover,  if  David  looked  at  what  he  had  attained,  he  might 
well  be  satisfied  with  his  lot.  As  the  king's  son-in-law  he  would, 
at  all  events  after  Saul's  death,  be  the  nearest  to  the  throne,  and 
so  long  as  the  latter  lived  he  was  the  first  man  in  the  kingdom 
after  Jonathan. 

That  Saul  gave  to  David  in  marriage  his  daughter  Michal, 
who  had  fallen  in  love  with  him,  is  beyond  a  doubt.  It  is  even 
not  impossible  that  his  destination  to  be  the  king's  son-in-law 
may  have  fallen  in  the  time  of  Saul's  undisturbed  goodwill  towards 
him.i  On  the  other  hand,  according  to  a  narrative  bearing  in 
many  points  the  impress  of  credibility,-  we  should  have  to  connect 
with  this  very  event  the  first  attempt  of  Saul  to  get  rid  of  David, 
who  had  suddenly  become  hateful  to  him  as  a  supposed  rival. 
Confirmed  in  such  a  suspicion,  already  probably  entertained  in 
secret  by  learning  of  the  love  of  Michal  for  David,  Saul  hoped 
to  turn  it  into  a  weapon  for  David's  destruction.  He  promised 
him  his  daughter,  but  at  a  price  which  he  thought  David  could 

^  In  itself  this  would  be  the  more  natural  supposition.  It  is  reflected  also  in 
chap.  xvii.     In  this  case  xviii.  21  must  once  have  stood  in  another  connection. 

-  1  Sam.  xviii.  20-29a.  Kamphausen,  Rhein.  theol.  Arh.  vii.  21,  regards  this 
account  of  the  course  of  events  as  unhistorical.  See,  however,  the  following  note. 
At  all  events,  grounds  of  taste  and  propriety  are  not  decisive  against  the  historicity 
of  the  narrative.  Cf.  2  Sam.  iii.  14 ;  also  Brugsch,  Gesch.  Agypt.  515  f.  [Eng. 
Trans.2  ii.  126  f.];  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  312. 


Chap.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  123 

not  pay  without  exposing  his  life  to  great  danger.  He  was  to 
deliver  over  to  Saul,  as  a  dowry  for  Michal,  the  foreskins  of  a 
hundred  Philistines  to  be  slain  by  himself  ^ — a  striking  illustration 
of  the  rudeness  of  those  wild  warlike  times.  Contrary  to  expecta- 
tion, David  passed  through  the  trial  without  meeting  any  harm. 
He  even  brought  home  double  the  required  number  of  the  strange 
trophies.  Saul  had  pledged  his  royal  word  to  David :  the  king's 
daughter  was  his. 

The  first  plot  had  thus  failed.  But  Saul's  wild  hate  would 
be  only  the  more  intent  on  David's  destruction,  the  nearer  the 
latter  had  now  been  brought  to  him  as  his  own  son-in-law.^  One 
day,  when  David  returned  safe  from  a  victorious  expedition  against 
the  Philistines,  Saul  was  suffering  from  a  new  attack  of  his 
melancholy.  As  David  played  for  him  on  the  lute,  Saul  unex- 
pectedly hurled  his  spear  at  him.  By  a  dexterous  movement 
David  escaped  with  his  life.^  But  to  stay  any  longer  in  the 
palace  was  out  of  the  question,  and  he  hastened  home.  There  was 
some  hope  that  through  Michal's  interposition  it  might  be  possible 
to  allay  the  king's  rage  and  suspicion.  But  Saul  sent  messengers 
after  him  to  watch  the  house  by  night  and  seize  him  next  morning. 
Michal,  informed  of  this,  urged  David  to  speedy  flight.  When 
the  officers  came,  they  were  told  by  Michal  that  David  was  lying 
sick  in  bed.  Saul  commanded  him  to  be  brought  before  him  in 
his  bed.  The  attendants  came  once  more,  and  made  their  way 
to  the  bed,  only  to  find  lying  there  not  David  but  his  wife's 
Taraph.'*  I  see  no  reason  to  contest  the  historicity  of  this 
narrative  on  the  ground  of  its  contents.^'     On  the  other  hand,  we 

^  Since,  surely,  only  opponents  slain  by  his  own  hand  can  be  meant,  the  objec- 
tion of  Kamphausen  that  David,  as  commander  in  the  army,  could  have  chosen 
his  own  position  in  battle,  is  not  to  the  point. 

-  1  Sam.  xix.  1-7  relates  a  reconciliation  on  the  part  of  Saul,  brought  about  by 
Jonathan.  It  must  at  all  events  have  been  quite  temporary.  V.  3  belongs  to  R. 
The  passage  is  probably  a  parallel  in  SS  to  chap.  xx. 

"  xix.  8-10  (SS).  This  passage  is  here  in  a  better  place  than  its  parallel  in  Da, 
xviii.  10  f.  ^  xix.  11-17  ;  cf.  above,  p.  39. 

■'  Otherwise  Wellh.  ;  Stade,  234  f.  ;  Cornill,  KySt.  41  ;  also  Gaupp.  Zur  Oe.sch. 
Davids.  Saul's  fit  of  madness  was  not  enough  to  prove  that  he  had  further 
designs.  This  appeared  first  from  the  sending  of  the  officers.  On  xix.  18-24  ; 
XX,  la,  cf.  above,  p.  39. 


124  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

must  admit  that  it  seems  to  conflict  with  another  account  of  the 
mode  of  David's  flight  from  Saul.  The  fragmentary  and  often 
confused  condition  of  our  accounts,  makes  it  really  impossible  to 
reach  a  clear  idea  of  the  real  occasion  of  this  event.  According 
to  the  other  representation,  David  had  good  ground  to  suppose 
from  the  king's  behaviour  that  he  was  cherishing  suspicion  against 
him,  and  was  aiming  at  his  life.  He  confided  in  Jonathan,  who 
promised  to  put  an  end  to  his  uncertainty  on  the  subject.  David, 
as  the  king's  son-in-law  and  armour-bearer,  ate  daily,  when  not 
on  the  field,  at  Saul's  table  along  with  Jonathan  and  Abner,  the 
commander  of  the  forces.  This  suggested  a  plan.  David  absented 
himself  from  table,  and  hid  himself  in  the  field.  This  would  lead 
to  the  king's  showing  what  his  feeling  towards  him  was,  and  by 
an  appointed  sign  the  result  would  be  made  known  to  David. 
Jonathan  was  to  2,0  into  the  field  where  David  was  hidinsf  behind 
a  heap  of  stones,  and  shoot  an  arrow.  If  he  called  to  the  boy, 
'Fetch  the  arrow  and  come  here,'  David  could  return  without 
danger ;  if  he  told  the  boy  to  go  away,  David  must  flee.  In  point 
of  fact  Saul  did  miss  David  from  table,  at  least  on  the  second 
day.  Jonathan  made  excuse  for  him  on  the  score  that  he  had 
left  in  haste  for  Bethlehem  to  attend  a  sacrificial  feast  of  his 
family.  Saul  fell  into  a  rage  against  his  own  son  for  daring  to 
plead  the  traitor's  cause,  and  brandished  his  spear  threateningly 
against  him.  Jonathan  nov/  knew  all  that  was  necessary,  and  in 
the  manner  agreed  upon  with  David  made  known  to  him  the 
king's  feeling.^ 

The  breach  with  Saul  was  complete  :  David  must  flee. 
Whither  to  flee,  David  could  be  in  no  doubt.  Home  and  the 
ties  of  kinship  called  him  south ;  the  mountain-land  of  Judah 
offered  him  the  best  chance  of  protection  and  concealment;  the 

^  There  is  nothing  about  this  narrative,  apart  from  the  manifestly  wrong 
position  (xx.  1,  after  David's  flight)  it  now  occupies,  thanks  to  the  redactor,  that 
seriously  calls  its  historicity  in  question.  However,  vv.  5,  12,  19  f.  and  everything 
connected  with  them,  are  later  interpolations ;  cf.  v.  5,  '  evening,'  v.  ,35,  '  morning ' ; 
in  V.  12  f.  Jonathan  sends  (secret  word)  to  David  ;  v.  18,  he  gives  the  signal  with 
the  arrow.  In  v.  12  to  morrow  (evening),  in  v.  24  fF.  on  the  third  day.  See  my 
analysis  in  Kautzsch.     The  rest  belongs  to  Da. 


Chap.  IL]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  125 

Canaanites  and  Edomites,  who  adjoined  Israel  here  on  the  west 
and  the  south,  lived  on  tolerably  peaceable  terms  with  Israel,  so 
that  he  had  not  much  to  fear  from  them  if  he  were  ever  to  cross 
into  their  territory;  and  he  had  nothing  to  fear  from  the  hand 
of  Saul,  which  did  not  reach  so  far. 

His  way  to  the  south  led  him  past  Nob,  a  small  town  a  little 
to  the  north  of  Jerusalem.  The  priests  of  the  house  of  Eli  had, 
it  seems,  after  the  destruction  of  their  sanctuary  at  Shiloh, 
established  themselves  here  at  a  new  sanctuary,  although  they 
no  longer  possessed  the  ark  of  Yahve.  At  their  head  was 
Ahimelech.  As  David  arrived  here  alone  and  without  arms,  he 
alleged  in  explanation  a  secret  commission  of  Saul's  calling  for 
great  haste.  Instead  of  common  bread  and  a  sword,  which  were 
not  at  hand,  the  priest  gave  him  at  his  own  request  sacred  bread 
and  the  sword  of  the  giant  whom  he  had  slain,  which  had  been 
deposited  as  a  votive  offering  beside  the  ephod.^ 

David  hurried  farther  south  and  hid  himself  in  the  mountain 
fastness^  of  Adullam.  It  is  not  clear  to  whom  this  belonged,  and 
how  it  came  into  David's  possession.  The  most  natural  supposi- 
tion seems  to  be  that  the  castle  was  still  in  the  possession  of  the 
Canaanites,^  and  that  these  were  glad  to  receive  amongst  themselves 
the  famed — and  doubtless  also  feared — favourite  and  warrior  of 
Saul.  His  family,  dreading  the  revenge  of  Saul,  fled  to  him  here, 
and  formed  the  kernel  of  a  small  band  which  David  gathered 
round  himself  in  defensive  and  offensive  alliance,  as  a  protection 
against  an  unexpected  attack  from  Saul.  In  addition  to  these, 
dissatisfied  and  discontented  persons  of  all  kinds  collected  around 
him,  so  that  his  troop  reached  the  number  of  four  hundred  men."^ 

Saul  could  not  fail  to  observe  that  David  had  fled,  and  that 
he  had  here  found  a  safe  refuge.  Leaning  on  his  spear,  surrounded 
by  his  attendants,  he  held  council  with  the  heads  of  clans  of 

1  1  Sam.  xxi.  16-10  (SS).    I  see  no  ground  for  the  rejection  of  vv.  8-10  (Wellh., 
Stade).     On  xxi.  11  fF.  see  above,  p.  40,  and  Kamph.  ZA  W.  vi.  71. 
-  1  Sam.  xxii.  1.     Read  m^*D. 
'■'  Cf.  Gen.  xxxviii.  1  flF. 
4  1  Sam.  xxii.  1-5  (SS).     Sec  above,  p.  40. 


126  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

Benjamin.  He  detailed  to  them  in  stirring  words  what  he  had 
done  for  his  tribe ;  yet,  he  complained,  they  allowed  his  son  to 
enter  into  a  compact  against  him  with  the  Judrean  David,  without 
bringing  him  word  of  it.  This  complaint  was  heard  by  Doeg  the 
Edomite,  who  had  been  at  Nob  at  the  same  time  as  David,  and 
was  accidentally  now  staying  at  Gibeah.  He  informed  the  king 
of  what  he  had  seen  at  Nob.  Saul  in  his  anger  summoned  the 
whole  priesthood  before  him.  No  assertion  of  innocence,  no 
reference  to  David's  being  the  king's  son-in-law  and  most  trusted 
servant,  no  protestation  on  the  part  of  Ahimelech  that  he  had  had 
no  misgiving  when  he  inquired  of  Yahve  for  David,  as  he  had  so 
often  done  before,  could  produce  any  effect  on  the  furious  king. 
The  matter  was  clear  in  his  mind :  the  whole  priesthood  were  at 
one  with  David  and  Jonathan  in  seeking  to  remove  the  infirm 
king  and  set  another — whether  Jonathan  or  David — in  his  place. 
They  must  expiate  their  offence  with  their  death.  The  body- 
guard, however,  refused  to  lay  a  hand  on  the  priests  of  Yahve, 
and  so  Doeg  himself  accomplished  the  king's  bloody  command — 
eighty-five  priests  were  cut  down.  Moreover,  Saul  vowed  the 
destruction  of  their  city.  Nob.  Their  relatives,  man,  woman,  and 
child,  together  with  the  cattle,  were  given  to  the  sword.  Only 
a  son  of  Ahimelech's,  Abiathar  by  name,  escaped  the  frightful 
massacre,  and  fled  to  David  to  become  his  priest.^ 

What  David  and  such  in  Israel  as  sided  with  him  had  to 
expect  of  Saul,  could  be  seen  from  the  fate  of  Nob.  No  doubt 
it  was  Saul's  intention  to  leave  no  one  in  uncertainty  about  the 
matter.  In  point  of  fact,  he  had  made  an  example  that  would 
deter  any  one  in  Israel  from  incurring  such  suspicion  as  had 
befallen  Nob  and  its  priests. 

David  seems  to  have  lived  for  some  time  on  Jud?ean  soil,'^  but 
so  hidden  that  Saul  could  not  easily  make  himself  master  of  him. 
There  was  reason  enough  why  he  should  now  look  for  some  other 

1  1  Sam.  xxii.  6  ff.  (SS).     See  above,  p.  40. 

^  Gf.  xxiii.  3.     If  this  be  so,  David  must  have  left  Adullam  again  ;  yet  it  is 
also  quite  possible  that  the  narrator  (Da)  simply  reckoned  Adullam  to  Judah. 


CiiAr.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  127 

place.  His  fears  would  be  not  so  much  for  himself — although  his 
men  at  least  would  not  be  free  from  such  fears — as  for  his  Judrean 
fellow-countrymen.  Moreover,  he  saw  an  opportunity  of  making 
himself  useful  in  the  neighbourhood.  The  city  of  Keilah/  which 
probably  lay  between  Judah  and  the  Philistines,  and  was  therefore 
still  Canaanitish,  was  being  threatened  by  the  Philistines.  David 
attacked  them,  took  from  them  rich  spoil,  delivered  Keilah,  and 
settled  there.2  Saul  heard  the  news  with  joy.  If  his  enemy  were 
once  in  a  city,  even  were  it  walled,  he  could  beleaguer  him  and 
must  eventually  get  him  into  his  hands.  Accordingly  he  sum- 
moned the  army  of  Israel,  and  determined  to  lay  siege  to  Keilah. 
David,  however,  had  reason  to  fear  being  delivered  up  to  Saul  by 
the  inhabitants,  and  so,  following  an  oracle  of  Yalive,  he  left  the 
city  with  his  troop,  now  six  hundred  strong.  He  preferred  to 
move  about  here  and  there  in  the  mountains  as  hitherto.  The 
wandering  life  of  an  adventurer  afforded  liim  much  better  pro- 
tection from  Saul's  troops  than  staying  in  one  place.^ 

The  mountain  country  around  Hebron,  abounding  as  it  did  in 
dens  and  caverns,  seems  now  to  have  become  his  special  abode.^ 
It  is  not  impossible  that  Jonathan  once  paid  him  here  a  secret 
visit,  with  the  view  of  encouraging  his  friend  and  'strengthening 
his  hand  in  God.'  ^ 

From  this  point  onwards  we  lose  almost  all  trace  of  David's 
doings  and  movements.  It  is  not  that  we  have  no  statements 
referring  to  this  time,  but  that  there  are  too  many  of  them.  Here, 
in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  his  home,  inventive  legend 
was  probably  specially  active ;  it  delighted  to  magnify  tlie  lieroic 
figure  of  David  with  adventurous  and  wonderful  incidents  and 
experiences  of  all  kinds,  the  historical  basis  of  whicli  we  can  now 
only  partly  discover.     Thus  it  is  to  this  time  and  place  that  an 

^  On  the  age  of  this  place,  vide  Sayce,  Acad.  1889,  19  Jan. 

-  1  Sam.  xxiii,  1-5.  Ver.  6  is  from  R ;  see  above,  p.  40  f.  On  the  crcclil)ility 
of  this  and  the  following  story,  see  especially  Kamph.  ZA  W.  vi.  74  ff. 

^  1  Sam.  xxiii.  6-13.  ^  1  Sam.  xxiii.  19  fF. 

•'"'  1  Sam.  xxiii.  14-18.  On  this,  cf.  p.  41.  Yet,  even  if  the  passage  is  docu- 
mentary (SS),  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  its  contents  awaken  certain  suspicions. 
Cf.  Stade,=  247. 


128  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

incident  displaying  David's  magnanimity  in  sparing  Saul's  life, 
seems  to  belong.  But  the  detailed  account  of  the  incident  is  to 
be  found  in  our  documents  in  two  different  versions/  and  we  have 
in  at  least  one  of  them  the  result  of  the  free  elaboration  of  the 
affair  in  the  mouth  of  the  people,  while  it  is  probable  that  this 
is  to  be  seen  in  both  of  them. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  stand  once  more  on  firm  historical 
ground  when  we  pass  to  another  incident  of  this  time.  In  the 
neighbourhood  of  Hebron,  as  the  history  of  the  conquest  has 
already  taught  us,  the  tribe  of  Caleb  had  its  seat.  A  wealthy 
man  of  this  tribe  who  lived  in  Maon,  ISTabal  by  name,  was,  as 
David  learned,  celebrating  with  his  men  the  feast  of  sheep-shear- 
ing at  Carmel,  a  little  town  south-east  of  Hebron,  towards  the 
Dead  Sea.^  Nabal  possessed  three  thousand  sheep  and  one  thou- 
sand goats.  David,  who  had  his  camp  in  the  wilderness  of  Maon, 
had  naturally  to  find  sustenance  for  his  troop,  now  grown  to  six 
hundred  men.  He  had  to  trust  to  such  booty  as  he  could  gather 
from  predatory  nomads  who  might  overrun  the  Negeb  of  Judah, 
and  to  what  he  could  exact  from  the  cattle-owners  of  the  JSTegeb, 
whose  natural  protector  he  was.  Thus  he  had  a  right  to  demand 
of  the  w^ealthy  ISTabal  a  share  for  himself  and  his  people  of  the 
feast  that  was  being  kept. 

He  sent  messengers  reminding  Nabal  of  the  protection  he  had 
been  to  him,  and  asking  for  his  reward.  Nabal  answered  them 
roughly  and  brusquely :  there  were  servants  in  abundance  escaped 
from  their  masters ;  was  he  to  prepare  for  such  his  bread,  his 
wine,^  and  his  cattle  ?  David  resolved  to  avenge  the  insult.  He 
took  four  hundred  of  his  men  with  him  to  chastise  Nabal,  while 
two  hundred  remained  behind  in  the  camp.  Nabal's  wife,  Abigail, 
recognising  how  much  her  husband  had  been  benefited  by  David, 
and  fearing  David's  vengeance,  went  out  with  rich  presents  to 
meet  him.     She  succeeded  in  appeasing  his  rage.     When  Nabal, 

^  1  Sam.  xxiv.  (Da)  and  xxvi.  (SS).     See  above,  p.  41  f. 
2  On  Carmel,  cf.  Badek.2  179  [Eng.  Trans.  (1894),  p.  144]. 
^  So,  according  to  lxx.,  in  1  Sam.  xxv.  11. 


Chap.  II]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  129 

who  had  gone  to  some  excess  at  the  feast,  was  struck  with  apoplexy 
and  died  a  few  days  later,  David  sought  the  hand  of  his  clever  and 
beautiful  wife.  Not  only  did  Nabal's  considerable  possessions 
thus  come  into  his  hands,  but  what  was  of  much  more  importance 
to  David,  by  marrying  into  one  of  the  wealthiest  and  most  influ- 
ential families  of  Caleb  he  established  himself  in  that  tribe,  which 
was  in  great  part  Israelitish,  and,  where  not  Israelitish,  at  all 
events  nearly  related  to  Israel.^ 

Perhaps  this  very  circumstance  occasioned  him  new  troubles 
from  Saul.  Not  only  would  Saul  feel  himself  touched  in  the 
honour  of  his  family  by  David's  new  alliance,-  but,  what  is  more 
to  the  point,  the  fact  that  a  homeless  freebooter  had  become  a 
rich  sheikh  of  the  tribe  of  Caleb,  would  give  him  cause  for  actual 
anxiety.  It  is  a  fact  that  David,  who  had  probably  remained 
some  time  in  this  neighbourhood,  no  longer  felt  himself  safe  here. 
Driven  first  of  all  from  the  south-west,  now  from  the  south-east, 
and  thus  reduced  to  the  last  extremities,  David  seemed  to  have 
no  choice  but  to  take  a  final  and  desperate  step.  He  went  over 
with  his  six  hundred  men  to  the  territory  of  the  Philistine  king 
of  Gath,  Achish  ben  Maoch.  At  his  own  request,  as  he  did  not 
care  to  remain  long  at  the  royal  residence,  a  country  town  called 
Ziklag  ^  was  given  him  in  fief  by  Achish.  David  would,  for  reasons 
easily  imagined,  feel  himself  safer  from  suspicion  and  strife  at 
some  distance  from  the  court  than  in  the  capital.* 

This  was  something  unprecedented  that  had  happened.  David, 
the  patriot,  the  most  popular  man  in  Israel,  their  most  successful 
and  celebrated  champion  against  the  Philistines,  had  actually  gone 
over  to  this  hereditary  foe  of  Israel.  Not  long  before — it  can 
hardly  have  been  more  than  a  year — after  being  pursued  to  death 
by  Saul,  he  had  let  his  old  passion,  the  Philistine  war,  revive  once 
more,  and  snatched  Keilah  from  the  hands  of  the  enemy.     Now 

^  1  Sam,  XXV.  1-43  (Da),  one  of  our  best  narratives. 
~  Cf.  I  Sam.  XXV.  44,  and  also  above,  p.  41,  note  4. 
^  On  its  position,  see  Miihlau  in  Riehm's  HWB. 

*  1  Sam.  xxvii.  1  fif.     See  also  above,  p.  42,  and  especially  Kamph.  ZA  W.  vi. 
85fif. 

VOL.  II.  I 


130  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IL 

he  was  one  of  them.  How  is  such  a  change  conceivable  ?  How 
could  the  Philistines  bring  themselves  to  receive  him  ? 

This  is,  however,  not  the  only  case  in  history  of  two  that  have 
before  been  at  variance,  uniting  in  common  hatred  of  a  third,  and 
so  forgetting  what  has  hitherto  kept  them  apart.  It  is  not  even 
necessary  to  suppose  an  old  understanding,  according  to  which 
David  had  even  before  this  time  agreed  to  spare  Philistine  terri- 
tory,^ although  such  a  supposition  is  not  excluded.  The  approxi- 
mation may,  I  believe,  very  well  have  been  brought  about  suddenly 
and  independently.  David  was,  whenever  he  might  come,  a  valu- 
able ally  for  the  Philistines.  He  had  been,  as  long  as  he  remained 
in  the  service  of  Saul,  their  most  dangerous  enemy ;  and  who 
could  say  whether  Saul  might  not,  after  all,  if  the  Philistines 
pressed  upon  him  hard  enough,  some  time  recognise  his  own 
interest  and  become  reconciled  to  David  ?  Or,  what  would  happen 
if  the  feeble  king  should  die,  and  Jonathan  should  lead  back  in 
triumph  his  long-persecuted  friend  ?  In  short,  it  would  be  good 
for  the  Philistines,  in  any  case,  to  have  David  on  their  side.  For 
then,  it  seemed,  he  would  become  for  ever  harmless  as  a  fighter 
for  Israel  against  Philistia. 

David's  step,  however,  naturally  presupposes  that  definite 
arrangements  were  now  made  between  David  and  Achish.  If 
David  wished  to  be  regarded  as  a  friend  of  the  Philistines,  and 
maintain  himself  as  such,  he  must  of  necessity  offer  certain  guar- 
antees of  the  loyalty  of  his  intentions.  He  must  pledge  himself 
to  military  service  with  Achish  in  the  event  of  a  war  with  Saul ;  ^ 
nay,  he  must  even  now  bring  proofs  that  he  had  really  become 
Saul's  foe,  and  the  Philistines'  friend.  David's  ingenuity  and 
shrewdness  achieved  even  this,  without  his  being  actually  reduced 
to  the  position  of  taking  the  field  against  Israel.  From  his  new 
abode  at  Ziklag — and  now  we  understand  better  why  the  capital 
seemed  to  him  an  uncomfortable  residence — he  often  undertook 
expeditions,  from   which   he   returned  home   laden   with   booty. 

1  So  Kamph.  loc.  cit.,  pp.  82,  89. 

2  See  1  Sam.  xxviii.  1,  and  Kamph.  loc.  cit.,  p.  84. 


Chap.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  131 

These  were  directed  apparently  and  ostensibly  against  Judali,  but 
in  reality  against  the  desert  tribes  of  Arabs.  As  a  protection 
against  discovery  in  these  secret  proceedings,  all  were  put  to  death 
wherever  he  went — men,  women,  and  probably  even  children. i 

It  was  indeed  a  desperate  step  that  David  had  taken.  Only 
the  courage  of  despair  could  have  enabled  him  to  carry  his  policy 
through.  If  he  did  not  wish  indeed  to  become  a  traitor  to  his 
people,  if  he  wished  to  be  better  than  he  pretended  to  Achish  to 
be,  he  had  no  choice  left  but  dissimulation,  falsehood,  deceit,  and 
even  cruel  murder.  It  was  a  dangerous  game  that  David  was 
playing,  all  the  more  daring  that  he  could  never,  after  all,  be  sure 
how  long  duplicity  and  deceit  would  succeed  in  deceiving  Achish. 
An  accident  might  any  day  bring  about  discovery,  and  with  it  his 
certain  and  ignominious  destruction.  Only  deliverance  from  this 
unbearable  and  unworthy  situation  could  now  save  him.  It  was 
David's  good  fortune  that  he  was  soon  delivered  from  it,  although 
the  hardest  trial  of  all  yet  awaited  him. 

§  42.  Continuation.     Saul's  End. 

The  consequences  of  David's  going  over  to  Achish,  and  alliance 
with  him,  were  not  long  in  showing  themselves.  The  Philistines 
felt  themselves  now  sufficiently  strong  to  undertake  once  more  a 
decisive  attack  on  Israel :  they  hoped  for  a  return  of  the  times  of 
Eli  and  Samuel.  Achish  gathered  his  army.  David,  being  now 
a  Philistine  vassal,  was  simply  reminded  by  Achish  of  his  duty, 
and  promised  to  do  it.  Like  others  before  him,  this  Philistine 
king  was  unable  to  withstand  the  captivating  power  of  David's 
personality :  he  trusted  him  unconditionally,  and  even  appointed 
him  one  of  his  own  bodyguard.-  His  fellow-kings,  who  probably 
had  no  knowledge  of  David  from  personal  intercourse,  and  saw  in 
him  only  the  former  champion  of  their  enemies,  the  favourite  of 
Saul  and  the  friend  of  Jonathan,  thought  otherwise. 

^  On  the  credibility  of  this  narrative  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  8-12),  sec  Kaniph.  loc.  cit., 
p.  85  ff'.,  as  against  Duncker,  Wellhausen,  and  Stade. 
-  1  Sam.  xxviii.  1,  2. 


132  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

As  tbey  had  done  a  few  decades  before,  the  forces  of  the 
Philistines  now  set  forth  northwards,  with  the  view  of  advancing 
against  Israel  from  the  plain  of  Jezreel.^  As  Saul's  kingdom  does 
not  seem  to  have  reached  any  farther  north,  they  were  protected 
in  the  rear.  Thus  far  David  had  gone  with  them  loyally :  now, 
matters  must  be  decided.  The  collision  of  the  forces  was  at  hand ; 
what  should  become  of  him  ? 

It  is  hard  to  say  what  David  could  possibly  have  done  if 
Achish  had  insisted  on  his  right  to  make  use  of  his  services,  and 
had  actually  taken  him  with  him  into  battle  against  Saul  and 
Israel.  Would  he — as  Duncker  and  others  believe  he  was  capable 
of  doing" — have  unhesitatingly  wielded  the  sword  against  his 
people  ?  Or  would  he,  at  the  last  moment,  have  refused  to  serve 
Achish — a  step  which  would  have  been  certain  death  ?  Or,  finally, 
would  the  shrewdness  that  never  failed  him  have  found  even  now 
a  means  of  relieving  him  from  the  painful  necessity  of  playing  the 
traitor,  either  on  this  side  or  on  that  ?  The  situation  was  so 
critical  that  probably  many  others  would  not  have  been  able  to 
endure  the  inner  conflict  so  long.  Not  so  David.  He  advanced 
with  the  host  to  Aphek,  certainly  with  no  light  heart,  but  doubt- 
less leaving  his  cause  even  now  to  his  God  whom  he  had  ever 
trusted.^ 

In  point  of  fact,  at  the  last  hour  the  deliverance  did  come. 
The  chiefs  accompanying  Achish,  not  convinced  by  their  suzerain's 
confidence  in  David,  imperiously  demanded  his  withdrawal  from 
the  army.  It  was  enough  for  them  that  David  did  not  fight 
against  them ;  anything  more  they  did  not  expect  of  him.  We 
cannot  regard  them  as  wrong ;  any  other  prudent  commander,  less 
full  of  confidence  than  Achish,  would  have  acted  as  they  desired. 
Human  nature  is  not  to  be  counted  on.  Who  can  say  whether, 
had  Achish  carried  out  his  will,  the  result  might  not  have 
proved  those  men  right,  at  least  if  circumstances  had  so  turned 

^  1  Sam.  xxix.  1  ff.  The  passage  forms  the  contmiiation  of  xxviii.  1,  2.  See 
above,  p.  42  f. 

-  Against  Duncker,  and  also  Wellh.  and  Stade,  see  espec.  Kamph.  ZA  W. 
vi.  86  f.  ^  Cf.  his  conduct  at  Nob,  Keilah,  and  later  at  Ziklag. 


CfiAr.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  133 

out  that  David's  interference  could  still  have  been  of  any  con- 
siderable use  to  Israel  ? 

It  was  only  another  demonstration  of  David's  often-proved 
shrewdness,  that  he  indignantly  repelled  as  an  insult  to  his  honour, 
what  he  certainly  in  his  heart  ardently  desired.  It  was  with 
reluctance  that  Achish  yielded,  and  he  tried  to  excuse  himself  to 
David.  But  David  was  now  free.^  He  returned  to  Ziklag. 
Arriving  there  on  the  third  day,  he  found  the  city  empty  and 
reduced  to  a  heap  of  ashes.  The  Amalekitcs,  no  doubt  taking 
their  revenge  for  raids  undertaken  by  David  from  Ziklag,  had 
made  an  attack  during  his  absence,  burnt  and  plundered  the  city, 
and  carried  away  wives  and  children.  David's  men  broke  into 
loud  lament.  There  threatened  to  be  a  mutiny  against  himself, 
for  it  was  on  him  that  his  men  laid  the  responsibility  for  the 
disaster.  They  would  recall  his  cruel  conduct  against  the 
Bedouins  of  the  desert.  David,  quickly  making  up  his  mind, 
inquired  of  Yahve,  and  determined  to  pursue  the  enemy.  Two 
hundred  of  his  men,  who  were  worn  out,  he  left  behind  at  the 
Wadi  esh-Sheri'a:  the  other  four  hundred  went  on  southwards. 
A  man  whom  they  found  half-dead  by  the  way  and  brought  back 
to  life,  pointed  out  the  track.  He  was  the  Egyptian  slave  of  an 
Amalekite  who  had  taken  part  in  the  expedition.  Thus  David 
was  able  to  make  a  sudden  attack.  The  men  who  did  not  escape 
were  slain,  and  the  spoil  they  had  taken  from  Ziklag,  people  and 
cattle,  besides  other  rich  booty,  was  recovered.- 

Meanwhile,  in  the  plain  of  Kishon,  the  fate  of  Saul  and  his 
followers  had  been  speedily  determined.  Like  Israel  in  the  days 
of  Eli,  Saul  did  not  wait  for  the  Philistines  to  establish  themselves 
in  the  plain  of  Jezreel  and  thence  force  their  way  on  into  the 
middle  of  the  land.  He  proceeded  himself  against  them  there. 
Once  more  the  battle  was  to  be  fought  in  the  plain  of  Jezreel  or 
its  neighbourhood.  Before  Saul  had  called  out  his  army,  the 
Philistines  had  already  become  masters  of  the  plain,  and  were 
encamped  at  its   eastern  end   at  Shunem.      Saul   assembled  his 

^  1  Sam.  xxix.  '  1  Sam.  xxx. 


134  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

army  on  Mount  Gilboa.^  It  was  here  the  battle  had  to  be 
fought. 

As  he  had  done  on  previous  occasions,  Saul  now  sought  an 
intimation  of  Yahve's  will  before  advancinoj  to  the  decisive  battle. 
Evil  dreams  had  cast  into  a  deeper  gloom  the  already  clouded 
mind  of  the  unhappy  ruler.  The  oracular  decision  of  the  sacred 
lot  and  the  prophetic  judgment  which  he  procured,  did  not  seem 
to  him  to  be  auspicious.^  His  gloomy  spirit  was  filled  with 
anxious  forebodings.  Anguish  of  mind  drove  the  unhappy  man 
to  the  last  means  of  procuring  the  desired  communication,  a  means 
the  use  of  which  had  been  forbidden  by  himself.  His  misfortune 
was  connected  with  the  name  of  Samuel.  Since  the  latter  had 
forsaken  him,  Saul  had  been  forsaken  by  God.  Samuel  was  indeed 
long  since  dead ;  but  in  this  hour  of  mortal  peril  Saul  felt  he  must 
see  him  once  again  to  ask  his  counsel.  He  stole  away  by  night 
in  disguise,  accompanied  by  only  a  few  trusted  attendants,  to 
Endor,  where  dwelt  a  woman  who  practised  necromancy.  Even 
apart  from  this  he  was  not  free  of  superstition  ;3  but  in  union 
with  Samuel,  and  no  doubt  at  the  latter's  instigation,  he  had  for- 
bidden the  black  arts  associated  with  it  to  be  used  in  Israel. 
Now,  in  his  despair,  he  was  inconsistent  with  himself.  The  shrewd 
woman  quickly  perceived  who  was  consulting  her.  It  would 
indeed  not  be  hard  to  discover,  from  the  nature  and  connection  of 
the  questions,  who  the  questioner  was.  Samuel,  whom  the  woman 
brought  up  to  speak  to  him,  gave  him  little  encouragement. 
Deeply  affected,  already  bowed  down  by  care,  and  exhausted  unto 
death,  Saul  returned  again  by  night  to  his  camp.*  Next  morning 
the  battle  began. 

The  cause  of  Saul  was  lost  before  a  single  blow  had  been 

^  1  Sam.  xxviii.  4.  The  passage  xxviii.  3-25  (SS  cf.  p.  42  f.)  properly  follows 
chap.  xxix.  f.  There  is  no  need  to  assume  (Stade,^  255)  a  previous  battle  in  the 
plain  in  consequence  of  which  Israel  was  driven  back  into  Gilboa. 

-  It  is  thus  we  are  to  understand  v.  6.  He  probably  received  an  answer,  but 
such  as  did  not  satisfy  him.  ^  qj^  chap.  xiv. 

*  The  story  is  (against  Stade,^  255)  to  be  regarded  as  historical.  The 
character  of  SS  admits,  and  internal  grounds  do  not  forbid,  the  belief  that  the 
narrative  xxviii.  8-25  rests  on  a  real  incident. 


Chap.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  135 

struck  for  it,  for  energy  deserts  an  army  when  its  leader  is  hope- 
less. Saul's  forces  were  defeated  and  fled,  and  his  three  elder 
sons,  Jonathan,  Abinadab,  and  Melchishua  fell.  He  himself  was 
hard  beset  by  the  Philistine  archers,  and  when  his  armour-bearer 
refused  his  request  to  smite  him  to  death,  he  threw  himself  on  his 
own  sw^ord  to  escape  the  foeman's  hand. 

The  pursuers  gave  no  thought  as  yet  to  the  slain ;  over  their 
bodies  they  passed  in  search  of  the  survivors,  till  night  fell, 
mercifully  concealing  the  battlefield  and  its  royal  dead.  Not  till 
morning,  when  the  victors  returned  to  plunder  the  slain,  did  they 
find  among  the  rest  the  body  of  Saul.  Cutting  off  his  head,  they 
sent  it  along  with  his  armour  as  a  trophy  to  their  own  land.  The 
body  they  hung  up,  as  an  insult  to  Israel,  on  the  wall  of  Bethshean. 
The  citizens  of  Jabesh  Gilead  (the  place  where  Saul  had  achieved 
his  first  military  success)  loyally  and  gratefully  remembered  their 
former  deliverer.  They  came  in  haste  to  Bethshean,  carried  away 
the  body  by  night,  and  gave  it  an  honourable  burial  at  their  own 
city  of  Jabesh.^ 

With  the  fall  of  Saul  Israel  lost  a  hero  who  had  begun  his 
career  with  brilliance  and  great  promise.  He  seemed  to  be  called 
to  do  great  things.  A  very  talented  nature,  richly  gifted,  quick  to 
decide,  firm  of  hand,  bold  to  venture,  valiant  in  battle,  animated 
with  zeal  for  the  greatness  of  Israel,  and  devoutly  attached  to 
Yahve,  he  stopped  suddenly  short  in  his  course,  paralysed  by  a 
mysterious  power.  He  suddenly  showed  himself  unequal  to  the 
task  that  his  nation  and  his  crown  imposed  upon  him,  without 
our  being  able  to  say  wherein  exactly  his  weakness  or  his  fault 
lay.  His  relation  to  Samuel  had  certainly  something  to  do  with 
it.  But  what  was  it  that  Samuel  required  of  him,  or  he  of 
Samuel?  Why  was  the  thought  of  the  distress  of  their  native 
land,  and  of  all  they  had  in  common,  not  enough  to  overcome  what 
divided  them  ?     That  the  difference  was  of  a  religious  nature,  is 

^  1  Sam.  xxxi.  (Da).  On  the  duration  of  Saul's  reign  see  Kaniphausen, 
Chronolofjie  der  hehr.  Konirje,  p.  16.  He  supposes  twenty  years.  On  Saul's  age 
at  the  time  of  his  accession  (1  Sam.  xiii.  1)  see  Kamph.  in  Bhein.  Gem.-Blatty 
18S4,  No.  6  flF.  ;  and  Driver,  Notes,  74  f.     On  the  chronology  see  below,  §  53a. 


136  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

hardly  to  be  doubted.  Perhaps  the  fact  tliat  during  his  whole 
career  Saul  never  once  thought  of  the  ancient  shrine,  the  ark  of 
Yahve,  is  not  without  significance.^  It  must  have  lain  close  to 
Samuel's  heart  from  the  days  of  Shiloh  onwards.  Moreover,  it  is 
hardly  accidental  that  the  note  of  irritation  against  the  monarchy 
which  our  younger  source  discloses,  was  connected  with  the 
person  and  monarchy  of  Saul,  and  that  it  sees  in  the  latter  a 
rejection  of  Yahve,  and  a  monarchy  after  the  manner  of  the 
heathen.  This  aversion  may  apply  to  Saul  not  simply  as  first 
representative  of  the  monarchy.  We  shall  rather  be  disposed  to 
derive  from  it  the  impression  that,  with  all  his  patriotic  zeal,^ 
Saul  was  yet  deficient  in  the  deeper  understanding  of  Israel's 
peculiar  religious  character  and  special  task.  An  estrangement 
between  him  and  Samuel  was  thus  inevitable. 

But  even  did  we  know  more  facts  than  the  imperfect  tradition 
has  preserved  for  us,  the  fate  of  Saul  would  not  lose  for  us  its 
deep  mysteriousness.  The  veil  which  envelops  every  genuinely 
tragical  form  in  human  history,  would  still  obscure  his  inner 
being  and  the  cause  of  his  fate.  From  the  very  beginning 
there  slumbered  in  his  nature,  so  rich  in  noble  capacities,  darker 
as  well  as  brighter  influences  and  tendencies.  With  a  noble 
enthusiasm  and  a  mysterious  capacity  of  prophetic  ecstasy^  there 
were  associated  in  him,  even  in  happier  days,  blind  zeal,  wild 
fanaticism,  and  terrifying  superstition.*  His  temperament,  half- 
sanguine,  half-choleric,  was  precisely  that  which  is  so  apt  to  lead  on 
to  a  dangerous  melancholy.  But  all  these  germs  and  indications 
are  insufficient  really  to  explain  the  calamitous  crisis  in  his  inner 
consciousness  and  in  his  fortunes.  The  tragedy  in  his  life  con- 
sisted in  this,  that  a  dark  overpowering  fate,  the  cause  of  which 
we  do  not  clearly  understand,  compelled  the  infatuated  man  to 
ruin  himself  by  fatal  broodings,  all  his  energy  paralysed,  himself 
alienated  from  his  duty,  and  sinking  deeper  and  deeper  in  mental 

^  [Yet  cf.  the  note,  on  p.  108,  on  Kosters'  view.] 
-  See  especially  2  Sam.  xxi.  1  It'. 
^  Gf.  the  saying,  *  Is  Saul  among  the  prophets  ?  ' 
*  Cf.  especially  1  Sam.  xiv. 


Chap.  II.]  SAMUEL  AND  SAUL  137 

gloom.  It  is  very  significant  that  Saul  fell  finally  by  his  own 
hand :  ever  since  his  star  began  to  decline,  it  was  his  fate  to 
consume  his  own  energies  through  suspicion  and  blind  passion, 
and  in  his  delusion  to  be  the  artificer  of  his  own  ruin.  That  in 
spite  of  all  this,  Saul's  noble  nature,  and  the  place  he  occupied  in 
Israel  in  his  better  days,  and  his  achievements  for  his  country, 
were  not  forgotten,  is  shown  by  the  generous  deed  of  the 
citizens  of  Jabesh,  and  by  the  elegy  that  David  sang  over  him, 
speaking  as  he  did  for  the  hearts  of  mourning  Israel.^ 

^  2  Sam,  i.   17  fF.     The  story  is  undoubtedly  genuine ;  yet  cf.  Budde,  RiSa, 
238  f. 


CHAPTER    III. 

DAVID,   KING. 

^  43.  David  and  Esliba'al. 

The  position  produced  by  the  fall  of  Saul  and  his  comrades  was 
very  critical.  Under  him,  even  if  its  measure  of  success  had  been 
variable,  Israel  had  continued  to  fight  with  the  Philistines,  and  had 
at  last  kept  them  off  fairly  well.  Now,  however,  war  was  no  longer 
to  be  thought  of,  Israel's  forces  were  scattered  or  annihilated, 
and  their  leaders  fallen.  The  enemy  lost  no  time  in  improving 
their  victory  to  the  full.  The  plain  of  the  Kishon,  not  only  as  far 
as  Gilboa,  but  even  on  to  Bethshean,  and  the  cities  of  the  Jordan 
valley  on  both  sides  of  the  stream,  fell  at  once  into  their  hands.^ 
Who  could  prevent  them  from  getting  possession,  as  before,  of  the 
mountains  of  Ephraim,  and  installing  their  representative  in 
Gibeah  of  Saul  ? 

For  the  present  the  way  thither  was  open  to  the  Philistines. 
If  they  did  not  avail  themselves  of  it,  it  was  probably  policy  that 
warned  them  to  be  moderate.  They  knew  the  energies  that 
slumbered  in  Israel ;  and  although  Saul's  army  had  been  this  time 
defeated  and  even  destroyed,  the  men  of  Israel  had  learned  and 
practised  the  art  of  war  under  him  and  his  heroes;  it  was  not 
expedient  to  exasperate  them  to  the  utmost.  Moreover,  Saul's 
dynasty  was  not  extinct,  and  Abner,  the  leader  of  his  forces, 
was  still  alive ;  these  would  have  to  be  reckoned  with. 

We  are  not  told  how  Abner  escaped  from  the  battle  of  Gilboa, 
although  it  is  quite  probable  that  he  was  present  at  it,  nor  how 

^  1  Sam.  xxxi.  7. 
138 


Chap.  III.]  DAVID,  KING  139 

much  of  Saul's  army  he  succeeded  in  rescuing.  There  would 
hardly  be  enough  to  permit  of  Abner's  continuing  the  war  against 
the  Philistines.  It  is  much  more  probable  that  Abner  and 
Eshba'al  (Ishbosheth^) — the  surviving  son  of  Saul,  in  whose  behalf 
he  acted,  and  to  whom  by  right  of  succession  the  throne  of  David 
passed — submitted  to  a  peace  which  allowed  Saul's  dynasty  to 
reign  over  Israel  at  least  in  name.  It  is,  however,  significant 
enough  that  Eshba'al's  residence  was  no  louGfer  at  Gibeah,  the 
royal  city  of  Saul,  nor  even  in  Benjamin  at  all,  or  anywhere  west 
of  the  Jordan,  but  in  the  long  famous  Mahanaim  on  the  Jabbok. 
It  was  certainly  not  of  their  own  free  will  that  Eshba'al  and 
Abner  transferred  the  centre  of  sovereignty  to  the  east  of  the 
Jordan,  where  there  were  always  narrower  limits  to  the  freedom 
of  Israel's  development.  We  must  rather  see  in  this,  for  the 
Philistines,  one  of  the  fruits  of  their  victory,  and  for  Eshba'al,  one 
of  the  humiliating  conditions  of  the  peace  and  of  his  reign.  In 
other  words,  as  Kamphausen  acutely  saw  and  successfully  proved,^ 
Israel  was  tolerated  as  a  kingdom  at  all,  only  as  a  vassal  state  of 
the  Philistines.  It  was  tributary  and  compelled  to  seek  its  centre 
of  gravity  in  the  east,  so  as  to  be  farther  from  the  Philistines,  and 
thus  not  exposed  to  such  immediate  danger.  Nay,  it  is  not  impossible 
that  it  was  also  only  by  paying  tribute  to  the  Moabites  and 
Ammonites,  whom  his  father  had  conquered,  that  Eshba'al  secured 
the  friendliness  even  of  these  neighbours.^  In  any  case,  the 
kingdom  of  Saul  played  a  most  ignoble  part  under  the  intel- 
lectually insignificant  Eshba'al  and  the  violent  Abner — although  it 
is  rather  of  his  words  than  of  his  deeds  that  we  hear. 

It  could  only  be  to  the  interest  of  the  Philistines  to  increase 
the  unsubstantiality  of  Eshba'al's  authority.  Hence  they  must 
have  been  eager  to   avail  themselves  of   every   opportunity   by 

^  We  have  still  a  trace  of  the  original  form  and  pronunciation  of  the  name  in 
the  EtV/3aa\  of  the  lxx.  (see  Holmes  and  Parsons,  Cod.  93,  Aqu.  Symm.  Theod. ) ; 
also  in  the  Eshba'al  of  1  Chron.  viii.  33,  ix.  39.  It  is  interesting  that  in  1  Sam. 
xiv.  49,  a  son  of  Saul's  is  called  Jishwi  [Ishvi]  (  =  Ishj6  =  Eshba'al). 

-  In  the  article,  '  The  Philistines  and  the  Hebrews  in  the  time  of  DaN-id,'  in 
ZAW.  vi.  43  ff.  On  the  opposing  view  of  Ewald,  Kuhler,  Orelli,  Wellh.,  and 
others,  see  ibid.  p.  46  f.  '^  Kamphausen,  loc.  cit.  p.  68  f. 


140  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

which  new  difficulties  could  be  created  for  the  insignificant  and 
inactive  vassal  state,  by  which  any  desire  to  recover  itself  would 
be  nipped  in  the  bud  once  for  all.  Such  considerations  enable  us 
to  understand  how  David  had  no  difficulties  of  any  kind  put  in  his 
way  by  the  Philistines,  who  were  to  a  certain  extent  now  masters 
of  the  situation  throughout  the  whole  of  Saul's  kingdom,  although 
David's  plans  might,  if  circumstances  favoured,  become  very 
dangerous  even  to  them. 

We  must  not  for^jet  that  at  this  time  David  was  a  vassal  of 
the  Philistines  at  Ziklag,  and  was  bound  to  them  in  military 
service.  As  he  had  entered  into  this  relationship  of  his  own  free 
will,  he  could  doubtless  dissolve  it  at  any  time ;  but  yet  in  view 
of  the  position  that  he  had  hitherto  occupied  towards  the 
Philistines,  especially  in  view  of  their  present  predominant 
influence,  he  could  undertake  nothing  in  that  region  which  was 
not  agreeable  to  them.  We  left  David  at  Ziklag  as  he  had 
returned  laden  with  booty  from  his  pursuit  of  the  Amalekites.  It 
cannot  have  been  more  than  a  few  days  before  the  news  of  what 
had  happened  during  the  interval  of  his  absence  reached  him. 
On  the  third  day  after  his  return  he  received  the  first  tidings 
through  an  Amalekite,  who  brought  him  Saul's  royal  insignia, 
perhaps  on  the  pretence  that  he  had  at  Saul's  request  himself 
dealt  him  his  death-blow.^  One  cannot  see  why  this  whole 
narrative  should  be  regarded  as  a  pure  fiction.^  It  is  enough  to 
suppose  that  the  bearer  of  the  tidings,  hoping  to  win  a  sub- 
stantial reward  from  David,  lied  as  to  his  own  conduct.  There 
was  abundant  opportunity  for  despoiling  Saul's  body  on  the  night 
after  his  death,  during  which  it  lay  on  the  field  of  battle.  More- 
over it  was  not  unnatural  to  see  in  David,  if  not  the  future  king 
of  Israel,  at  least  the  person  who  on  the  death  of  Saul  and 
Jonathan  could  think  of  securing  for  himself  a  share  of  the 
inheritance. 

^  2  Sam.  i.  1-16. 

-  So  Stade  (258  f.)  and  others  ;  i.  6-16  belongs  to  SS  (see  above,  p.  43),  but 
on  account  of  iv.  10  there  must  have  stood  a  parallel  in  Da.  Only  there  was 
there  no  account  of  the  slaying  of  Saul.     All  the  rest  is  unobjectionable. 


Chap.  III.]  DAVID,  KING  141 

How  easily,  on  the  other  hand,  similar  thoughts  would  occur  to 
David  himself,  and  so  probably  to  others  also,  is  shown  by  the 
circumstance  that  David  employed  part  of  the  booty  which  he  had 
just  brought  with  him  from  his  raid  against  Amalek,  in  sending 
presents  to  the  tribal  chiefs  in  Judah.^  We  have  every  right  to 
assume  that  this  measure  of  David's,  since  his  predatory  expedi- 
tion and  the  death  of  Saul  were  so  closely  connected  in  time,  took 
place  not  before  but  after  the  arrival  of  the  disastrous  news  about 
Saul  and  Jonathan.  What  else  could  the  presents  signify  than 
that  they  were  to  support  David's  candidature  for  the  sovereignty 
in  Judah,  and  to  make  the  tribal  chiefs  favourable  to  him  ?  They 
had  the  same  meaning  as  the  congratulations  offered  shortly 
afterwards  to  Jabesh  in  Gilead,  in  recognition  of  the  noble  spirit 
it  had  shown  towards  Saul.^  What  David  in  this  latter  case 
directly  expressed — that  their  lawful  king  was  dead,  and  they 
might  now  look  to  him — he  would  doubtless  not  withhold  from 
the  nobles  of  Judah  on  the  occasion  of  sending  the  presents  in 
question. 

These  nobles  likewise  could  have  no  doubt,  on  a  little  reflection, 
what  they  ought  to  do.  Here  in  Judah,  if  anywhere,  the  discon- 
tent with  Saul's  rule  would  find  expression.  The  persecution  of 
David  must  have  been  keenly  felt  by  his  tribe.  Moreover,  after  the 
overthrow  of  the  army,  the  land  was  open  to  the  Philistines.  Abner 
and  Eshba'al  were  not  in  a  position  to  offer  protection.  What 
wonder  if  the  south,  lying  as  it  did  nearest  to  the  enemy,  should 
seek  to  secure  itself  as  far  as  it  could  ?  Nothing  could  present  a 
better  opportunity  for  this  than  David's  offer.  He  was  not  only 
a  fellow-tribesman  of  Judah,  and  since  the  death  of  Nabal  a  rich 
landowner  there ;  not  only  a  leader  against  the  Philistines  long 
crowned  with  victory,  and  honour ;  he  was  also  now  a  vassal  and 
tributary  of  the  Philistines.  So  long  as  he  continued  in  this 
position  (and  there  must  have  been  negotiations  on  this  subject 
beforehand  with  Achish,  as  well  as  with  the  nobles  of  Judah), 

1  1  Sam.  XXX.  26  ff. 

-  2  Sam.  ii.  5  fl".    Klosterm.  {SaKo)  supposes  presents  to  have  been  sent. 


142  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IT. 

Judah  could  be  at  rest  with  regard  to  invasion  from  the  Philistines. 
If,  however,  at  any  time  this  relation  should  be  dissolved,  David, 
the  approved  champion  against  the  Philistines,  would  be  the  best 
man  for  Judah  and  Israel  to  have  at  their  head. 

We  have  already  seen  what  the  considerations  may  have  been 
which  led  the  Philistines  to  allow  David  to  go  his  own  way, 
without  seriously  inquiring  whether  they  would  not  afterwards 
have  to  regret  bitterly  having  given  their  consent  to  what  was 
now  happening.  Their  consent  to  his  plans  naturally  presupposed 
David's  assurance  that  he  would  be  willing  to  remain  their  vassal 
as  before.  In  view  of  this,  two  kings  in  Israel  instead  of  one, 
would  be  quite  welcome  to  the  Philistines.  They  could  hope  that 
each  in  turn  would  be  held  in  check  by  the  other.  If  they  over- 
looked the  extraordinary  personality  of  David,  they  could  in  fact 
count  on  being  able  to  make  use  of  the  one  to  hold  within  bounds 
any  possible  encroachments  on  the  part  of  the  other.  But  David 
had  ere  this  defeated  many  shrewd  calculations. 

Thus  David,  as  he  was  favoured  also  by  Yahve  and  his  oracle, 
became  king  over  Judah.  He  took  up  his  abode,  at  the  command 
of  Yahve,  at  Hebron,  the  ancient  capital  of  the  district.  Here  he 
was  also  anointed  in  due  form  as  king  over  the  house  of  Judah. ^ 
For  seven  and  a  half  years,  according  to  the  statement  of  our 
documents,  he  ruled  over  this  kingdom.^  There  is  no  ground  for 
calling  in  question  the  correctness  of  this  chronology.  This  was 
a  modest  beginning  if  David  already  meditated  reigning  over  an 
individual  and  independent  Israel.  But  as  compared  with  the 
danger  that  had  for  years  threatened  him,  and  with  the  fate  which 
had  brought  him  in  these  last  months  to  the  brink  of  destruction, 
it  was  a  promising  turn  of  events.  Moreover,  David  was  the  man 
to  bide  his  time  in  patience.  If  he  had  learned  anything  in  the 
storms  and  battles  of  his  time  of  flight,  it  must  have  been  patience 
and  prudent  self-restraint. 

How  David's  step  was  regarded  at  Mahanaim  where  Eshba'al, 

1  2  Sam.  ii.  1-4. 

2  2  Sam.  ii.  11  ;  c/.  Kamphausen,  Chronologie  der  hehr.  Konige,  p.  16, 


Chap.  III.]  DAVID,  KING  143 

or  rather  Abner  in  his  name,  was  reigning,  may  be  imagined.  It 
must  have  been  regarded  as  an  attack  on  the  house  of  Saul,  and 
its  legitimate  rule.  Hence  the  whole  time  that  David  was  at 
Hebron — i.e.  the  time  preceding  Eshba'al's  death — was  occupied 
with  a  civil  war  between  Judah  and  the  North.^  Only,  as  Kamp- 
hausen  has  rightly  emphasised,^  we  must  be  on  our  guard  against 
forminir  too  laro-e  notions  as  to  the  extent  of  this  war.     David  had 

o  o 

in  fact  no  interest  in  pushing  forward  the  war  with  special  energy. 
It  was  otherwise  than  by  force  of  arms  that  he  had  to  reach  his 
goal.  Eshba'al,  indeed,  remained  in  a  state  of  war  with  David 
throughout  the  whole  of  his  reign  of  seven  and  a  half  years.  But 
David  seems  to  have  confined  himself  substantially  to  defensive 
measures,  while  his  opponent  lacked,  not  indeed  the  will,  but  the 
needful  strength,  for  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  struggle. 
Among  the  people  at  large  also,  a  domestic  war  would  find  little 
sympathy,  and  what  sympathy  ever  existed^  became  less  and  less. 
For  time  only  served  to  force,  even  on  the  Northern  tribes,  a 
clearer  perception  of  the  fact,  that  the  star  of  Saul's  house  was 
sinking,  and  that  David  was  the  rising  star  in  Israel,  to  whom  the 
future  belonged.  If  it  was  in  itself  a  misfortune  that  Eshba'al, 
whether  of  age  or  not,^  disappeared  entirely  behind  the  figure  of 
his  general  Abner,  the  latter  was  himself  far  from  being  in  a 
position  to  bear  comparison  with  David.  Personally  brave,  and, 
so  long  as  Eshba'al  allowed  him  to  do  as  he  pleased,  faithfully 
devoted  to  the  house  of  Saul,  he  yet  did  not  in  any  respect  achieve 
anything  extraordinary.  Hence,  of  necessity,  the  sympathy  of 
Israel  as  a  whole  turned  more  and  more  to  David.  There  was  no 
hope  of  any  one  but  David  being  adequate  to  the  task  under 
which  the  house  of  Saul  had  succumbed,  and  was  daily  suc- 
cumbing further.     Thus  we  can  see  David's  power  growing  visibly, 

1  2  Sam.  iii.  1,6.  "  ZA  W.  vi.  72. 

=  So  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  §  306. 

*  The  one  is  assumed  by  Kamphausen,  the  other  by  Stadc.  Eshba'al  appears, 
at  all  events,  to  have  been  young.  The  number  40  in  2  Sam.  ii.  10  (see  aljove, 
p.  46)  for  Eshba'al's  age,  is  just  as  impossible  as  the  two  years  there  assumed  for 
Eshba'al's  reign.  The  latter,  like  David  in  Hebron,  must  have  reigned  seven  and 
a  half  years.     On  this  last  point  see  Kamph.  ZA  W.  vi.  44  f. 


144  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

almost  from  day  to  day,  while  Eshba'al's  throne  was  gradually 
becoming  weaker  and  weaker.^  Meanwhile,  David's  cleverness 
and  moderation  achieved  more  than  one  triumph. 

Meagre  as  the  information  is  that  has  reached  us  concerning 
individual  events  of  the  war  which  filled  the  seven  and  a  half 
years  of  the  reign  of  Eshba'al,  we  are  not  left  absolutely  in  the 
dark.  We  have  no  right  to  declare  what  little  has  reached  us 
purely  unhistorical,  although  legendary  elements  have  attached 
themselves  to  it.  A  battle  took  place  at  Gibeon,  which  turned 
out  unfavourably  for  Abner  and  his  army.  On  David's  side 
fought  Joab  and  his  two  brothers,  Abishai  and  Asahel.  The  latter, 
'  swift  of  foot  as  one  of  the  gazelles  of  the  field,'  ^  outstripped  the 
rest  in  pursuit  of  the  flying  foe.  He  would  not  desist  from 
following  Abner,  though  the  latter,  fearing  the  revenge  of  Joab, 
warned  him  to  do  so.  So  Abner  slew  him,  thereby  sealing  his 
own  fate.^ 

This  encounter  between  the  forces  of  David  and  Eshba'al  was 
certainly  not  the  only  one  that  there  was  to  report.  But  the 
narrator  may  have  desired  as  far  as  possible  to  efface  the  memory 
of  the  times  of  this  inglorious  civil  war.  Such  further  contests 
as  there  might  be  to  relate,  would  hardly  be  unfavourable  to 
David :  *  but  his  military  reputation  was  too  firmly  established  to 
need  to  be  set  in  a  clearer  light  at  the  cost  of  the  house  of  Saul. 
On  the  other  hand,  how  indefensible  the  position  of  Eshba'al  as 
against  David  became  in  the  course  of  time,  appears  of  itself, 
without  any  further  description  of  the  events  of  the  war. 

David,  indeed,  had  certainly  done  his  best  to  win  sympathy  for 
himself  in  the  domain  of  Eshba'al  as  far  as  it  went.  In  his 
message  to  Jabesh  in  Gilead,  he  had  notified  the  city  that  Judah 
had  anointed  him  king  in  Hebron,  and,  adroitly  recognising  their 
noble  conduct  toward  Saul,  had  pointed  out  to  the  citizens  that, 

1  2  Sam.  iii.  1.  ^  2  Sam.  ii.  18. 

2  2  Sam.  ii.  12-32.  The  passage  vv.  13-16  seems  to  be  an  etymological  legend 
(Stade,  Kamph.  ZA  W.  vi.  71);  but  the  battle  itself,  in  view  of  the  later  events 
which  cannot  possibly  be  an  invention,  is  certainly  historical. 

4  Cf.  2  Sam.  iii.  1. 


Chap.  III.]  DAVID,  KING  145 

with  the  death  of  the  latter  their  obligations  to  his  house  were  at 
an  eud.i  This  message  was  certainly  not  the  only  one  of  its  kind. 
David  was  not  the  man  to  neglect  his  advantage.  All  that  could 
be  done  quietly,  without  raising  the  suspicion  of  the  Philistines, 
and  without  incurring  the  displeasure  of  the  northern  tribes,  he 
did.  But  what  helped  him  most  was  the  incapacity  of  Eshba'al 
himself,  the  fruits  of  which  David  could  watch  quietly  coming  to 
maturity.  A  comparison  between  him  and  his  rival  would,  even 
in  the  territory  of  Eshba'al,  result  more  and  more  in  favour  of 
David. 

Hence  we  cannot  wonder  that  in  course  of  time  a  party  was 
formed,  among  the  nobles  of  Israel  themselves,  that  took  a  decided 
stand  on  David's  side,  and  believed  that  Israel's  future  depended 
on  his  ruling  over  the  whole  nation.  Moreover,  in  consequence  of 
Eshba'al's  incapacity,  the  Philistine  yoke  must  have  become  ever 
more  oppressive,  and  the  longing  for  a  deliverer — a  champion 
against  the  Philistines,  such  as  Saul  had  once  been — ever  more 
burning.^  The  time  had  thus  come  for  David  to  act,  in  accordance 
with  the  divine  call  of  which  he  had  probably  long  been  conscious.^ 
But  now  also  he  was  spared  the  necessity  of  reaching  his  goal  by 
force.  His  God  whom  he  trusted  had  appointed  that  the  ripe 
fruit  should  fall  into  his  hands. 

Up  to  this  point  Abner  had  faithfully  held  to  Eshba'al.  Saul's 
house  was  also  his  own.*  The  crown  of  Benjamin  was  the  pride 
of  his  tribe  and  family.  The  ambition  and  lust  of  power  which 
were  united  in  his  character,  found  sufficient  food  in  the  prominent 
position  that  he  had  acquired  at  the  side  of  Eshba'al.  Everything 
was  made  dependent  on  his  person  and  his  personal  feelings.  His 
king  might  have  reason  enough  for  jealousy  and  dissatisfaction. 
But  he  would  not  allow  such  feelings  to  appear  in  the  case  of  one 
who  had  become  indispensable  to  him.  On  one  occasion  matters 
culminated  in  a  rather  serious  outburst.     Abner  was  believed  to 

'  See  above,  p.  140  f.  -  Cf.  2  Sam.  iii.  17. 

^  Gf.  2  Sam.  iii.  18.     Abner's  speech  to  Esliba'al  (iii.  9  f.)  can  hardly  have 
been  spoken  as  here  given. 

^  He  was  Saul's  cousin  (Kamph.  64),  hardly  his  uncle, 

VOL.  II.  K 


146  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

have  taken  to  himself  a  concubine  of  Saul's.  In  accordance  with 
the  ideas  of  the  age  this  aroused  in  Eshba'al  serious  suspicions  of 
Abner's  loyalty.  He  became  afraid  that  Abner  was  striving  for 
his  throne.  With  this,  Abner's  adherence  to  his  cause  was  at  an 
end.  It  was  probably  less  fear  of  Eshba'al  that  influenced  him, 
than  other  considerations ;  for  the  quarrel  could  easily  have  been 
settled  had  he  so  wished.  It  was  rather  a  welcome  occasion, 
enabling  Abner  with  some  show  of  right  to  turn  to  the  rising  star.^ 

Abner  immediately  entered  into  negotiations  with  David.  He 
offered  not  only  to  go  over  to  him  himself,  but  also  to  bring  over 
all  Israel.^  We  must  therefore  assume  that  he  not  only  knew  the 
temper  of  Israel,  but  had  also  taken  steps  to  secure  it.  Secret 
arrangements,  such  as  our  documents  mention,^  between  Abner  and 
the  elders  of  Israel,  and  even  the  nobles  of  Benjamin,  had  already 
doubtless  taken  place  before  Abner's  breach  with  Eshba'al.  Israel 
wanted  David  as  their  king  because  it  was  in  him  alone  that  they 
saw  a  deliverer  from  the  Philistines.  Abner  had  placed  himself 
at  the  disposal  of  this  current,  and  doubtless  actually  sought  the 
breach  with  Eshba'al. 

David  did  not  accept  the  offer  without  conditions.  The  situation 
did  not  yet  seem  to  him  so  far  advanced  that  he  could  expect  to 
set  himself  on  the  throne  of  Saul,  without  fear  of  opposition  and  a 
prolongation  of  the  dissension.  For  this  purpose  the  bond  must 
first  be  restored  that  once  united  him  to  the  house  of  Saul,  and 
would  give  him  some  right  to  think  of  succeeding  him.  He 
demanded  back  his  wife  Michal,  Saul's  daughter,  whom  Saul  had 
taken  from  him.* 

To  obtain  her  he  must  have  the  help  of  Abner.  Moreover, 
Abner  was  still  his  master's  counsellor,  and  if  the  quarrel  between 
them  had  already  occurred,  there  would  be  the  more  likelihood  of 
Eshba'al's  hoping  to  pacify  his  angry  general  again  by  humouring 
him  in  this  matter.     Eor  David,  everything  depended  on  getting 

1  2  Sam.  iii.  7  ff.  On  the  text,  especially  in  v.  7,  cf.  Wellh.  TBS.  ;  Driver, 
Notes  ;  Klosterm.  SaKo  ;  and  my  translation. 

2  2  Sam.  iii.  12.  3  2  Sam.  iii.  17-19.  ^  2  Sam.  iii.  13. 


Chap.  III.]  DAVID,  KING  147 

possession  of  his  wife,  not  by  force,  but  by  way  of  right.  If  this 
were  once  accomplished,  everything  else  would  come  about  of 
itself.  He  would  make  Abner  welcome,  and  it  would  hardly  be 
any  longer  necessary  to  set  Eshba'al  aside ;  in  any  case  this  would 
not  be  difficult  to  manage  if  Abner  no  longer  supported  him. 
David  could  confidently  leave  to  Abner  all  care  about  him.  It  is 
thus  that  we  are  to  understand  David's  going  directly  to  Eshba'al 
for  his  wife,^  which,  after  Abner's  offer,  might  seem  strange,  and, 
what  is  even  more  astonishing,  Eshba'al's  showing  himself  ready 
to  grant  David's  wish.-  This  cannot  possibly  have  happened 
spontaneously.  Eshba'al  acted  under  pressure  of  Abner's  dictation. 
David's  superior  strength  was  probably  so  well  known,  that  if 
Abner  likewise  threw  his  weight  into  the  scale,  it  would  seem 
advisable  to  Eshba'al  to  oblige  him  in  this  matter.  Indeed,  he 
was  so  entirely  in  Abner's  hands  that  Abner  was  able  to  bring  it 
about,  that  he  himself  should  be  selected  to  convey  the  daughter 
of  Saul  to  David. 

At  the  head  of  an  embassy  of  twenty  of  Eshba'al's  followers, 
Abner  conducted  Michal  to  Hebron.  At  the  feast  which  David 
gave  in  their  honour,  Abner  renewed  for  himself  and  all  Israel  the 
offer  to  oro  over  from  Eshba'al  to  David.  What  David  had 
demanded,  he  had  done;  the  king's  daughter  had  been  brought 
back  to  David  as  his  lawful  wife  ;  David  could  now  come  forward, 
in  place  of  the  incapable  Eshba'al,  as  heir  to  the  crown  of  Saul. 
David  now  accepted  the  offer,  and  the  arrangement  doubtless 
provided  that,  immediately  after  his  return,  Abner  should  proceed 
to  fulfil  his  promise.^  Abner  thus  became  a  traitor  to  his  lord, 
and  David  accessory  to  and  an  abettor  of  a  long  and  regularly 
prepared,  and  probably  well  thought  out,  conspiracy  against 
Eshba'al.  We  have  no  ground  or  right  to  extenuate  what  David 
did.  A  reasonable  judgment,  however,  must,  at  the  same  time, 
acknowledge  that,  in  so  far  as  we  can  see,  David  did  not  originate 

^  2  Sam.  iii.  14,     David,  doubtless,  did  this  in  concert  with  Abner. 
-  2  Sam.  iii.  15.     He  had  Michal  brought,  first  of  all,  by  Abner  to  Mahanaim 
(Klosterm.).  '  2  Sam.  iii.  20  f. 


148  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

tlie  conspiracy,  but  only  accepted  its  fruits.  As  matters  stood 
David's  course  was  the  only  possible  one.  If  Eshba'al  was  once 
recognised  as  incapable  of  accomplishing  for  Israel  the  task  that 
devolved  on  the  successor  of  Saul,  David,  who  had  long  felt  in 
himself  Yahve's  call  to  be  Israel's  king  and  deliverer,  had  a  right 
to  bid  Israel  welcome  if  they  voluntarily  came  over  to  him.  He 
could  leave  it  to  Abner  to  bear  the  responsibility  of  his  own  acts ; 
to  hinder  him  was  not  in  his  province. 

Y^et  Abner  was  not  to  live  to  complete  his  work.  His  fate 
overtook  him  while  he  was  still  in  Hebron.  Joab,  David's 
ambitious  and  violent  captain,  as  Abner  had  slain  Asahel,  was 
necessarily  his  mortal  enemy.  Moreover,  if  Joab  knew  of  Abner's 
plans,  personal  jealousy  might  also  come  into  play.  David  had 
taken  the  precaution  of  having  Joab  at  a  distance  from  Hebron. 
Ee turning  before  the  time,  however,  Joab  was  able  to  get  Abner 
into  his  hands,  and,  acting  in  an  illegal  way  as  avenger  ^  of  his 
brother  Asahel,  he  slew  him  in  the  gate  of  Hebron.^  David  had 
every  reason  to  be  angry  with  Joab,  and  sincerely  to  mourn  over 
Abner.  Not  only  did  his  plans  with  Abner  seem  to  have  come  to 
nothing,  but  the  shadow  of  ignominious  treachery  might  only  too 
easily  fall  from  Joab  on  to  David  himself.  For,  at  least  in  the 
eyes  of  the  uninitiated,  there  had  fallen  with  Abner  the  one 
support  of  Eshba'al's  throne.  And  yet,  as  we  know,  there  was 
not  the  slightest  motive  for  David's  getting  Abner  out  of  the 
way. 

But  Eshba'al's  fate  also  hastened  to  its  accomplishment.  He 
was  treacherously  slain  by  two  Benjamite  chieftains.  At  noon- 
tide, while  the  portress  was  asleep,  and  Eshba'al  himself  was 
taking  his  mid-day  rest  on  his  couch,  they  broke  into  the  palace 
and  slew  him.^  Did  David  know  of  this,  or  have  a  hand  in  it  ? 
Hardly  in  any  other  way  than  that  he  knew  of  Abner's  project,  in 
which  the  assassination  of  Eshba'al  may  have  played  a  part.  It  is 
therefore  credible  that  when  the  murderers,  expecting  his  thanks, 

^  See  1  Kings  ii.  5,  and  Klosterm.  SaKO,  ad  loc.  ^  2  Sam.  iii.  23  ff. 

'^  2  Sam.  iv.     On  the  text,  especially  in  v.  6,  see  my  translation. 


Chap.  Ill]  DAVID,  KING  149 

brought  him  Eshba'al's  head,  he  rewarded  them  just  as  he  formerly 
rewarded  the  Amalekite  who  tokl  him  of  the  death  of  Saul.^  For 
he  couki  do  this  without  making  himself  guilty  of  hypocrisy. 
What  possible  interest  had  David  in  Eshba'al's  death,  above  all,  as> 
after  the  assassination  of  Abner,  '  his  hands  had  become  weak '  ?" 
Especially  now  that  Abner  was  gone,  but  even  before  that,  he  had 
sufficient  strength,  and  he  did  not  lack  opportunities,  to  get 
Eshba'al  out  of  the  way  in  open  war  if  he  had  wished  to  do  so. 
Moreover,  Abner's  death  had  caused  him  embarrassment  enough. 
Doubtless,  in  the  understanding  come  to  between  Abner  and  his 
associates,  the  fate  of  Eshba'al  was  involved.  Now,  however,  on 
Abner's  sudden  death,  his  party  was  without  a  leader,  and  such  as 
had  been  initiated  into  Abner's  plans  regarded  his  and  their  cause 
as  lost.  The  thing  to  be  done  now  was  to  act  with  double 
promptitude  before  Abner's  plans  should  be  betrayed  to  Eshba'al. 
If  the  latter  were  once  removed,  all  danger  would  be  obviated,  and 
the  murderers  would  be  sure  of  David's  royal  thanks.  But  if 
David  had  not  occasioned  the  conspiracy,  he  had  also  no  reason  to 
spare  the  murderers  who  forced  themselves  on  him  in  so  repulsive 
a  way. 

The  last  obstacle  to  David's  extension  of  his  rule  over  all 
Israel  was  thus  removed.  It  is  nowhere  stated  that  any  other 
son  survived  Saul  besides  Eshba'al.  Moreover,  of  the  three  sons 
that  fell  with  Saul,  the  two  younger  appear  to  have  died  childless, 
or,  at  all  events,  without  male  offspring.  They  were  doubtless  still 
of  yuuthful  age  like  Eshba'al  himself.  Jonathan  alone  left  behind 
him  a  son,  Meriba'al,  called  by  the  later  editors  of  our  text 
Mephibosheth.2  At  the  time  of  his  father's  death  he  was  five 
years  of  age.     He  was  therefore  now  in  his  twelfth  or  thirteenth 

1  2  Sam.  iv.  8  flf.  2  2  Sam.  iv.  1. 

^  See  the  correct  form  of  the  name  in  1  Chron.  ix.  40  (viii,  34)  and  LXX. , 
Luc.  ;  thereon  Driver,  Notes,  195  f.  Meriba'al,  like  Eshba'al,  means  '  man  of 
Ba'al,' — i.e.  of  Yahve.  From  aversion  to  the  name  Ba'al,  later  editors  turned 
both  the  above  names  into  '  man  of  shame. '  Mephibosheth,  instead  of  Meribosheth, 
is  then  a  further  malformation — if  the  process  was  not  [of.  Luc.  'Me/j.cpL^aaX)  com- 
pleted in  the  stages  Meriba'al — Mephiba'al— Mephibosheth  (1  Chr.  viii.  34;  Ju. 
vi.  32  ;  and  Baudissin,  Stiidieii,  i.  108). 


150  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IL 

year,  and  had  not  yet  at  all  events  any  claim  to  the  throne. 
Moreover,  this  one  grandson  of  Saul's  was  a  cripple.  His  nurse, 
on  hearing  the  terrible  news  of  the  death  of  Saul  and  Jonathan, 
had  let  him  fall  in  her  flight.^  Hence  in  no  case  could  there  be 
any  question  of  his  succeeding  to  the  throne.  There  still  re- 
mained of  Saul's  posterity  two  sons  of  his  concubine  Eizpah ;  ^ 
but  these  also  were  at  all  events  still  young.  Israel  was  now,  if 
ever,  in  need  of  a  true  man. 

§  44.  David  in  Jerusalem.     The  Philistines. 

It  was  only  to  David  that  the  eyes  of  Israel  could  turn.  All 
the  tribes,  represented  by  their  nobles,  came  to  David  to  Hebron  and 
said,  '  Behold,  we  are  thy  flesh  and  bone.  In  times  past  when  Saul 
was  still  our  kinsj,  it  was  thou  that  leddest  out  and  brouffhtest  in 
Israel.  Yahve  also  said  to  thee,  "Thou  shalt  feed  my  people 
Israel,  and  thou  shalt  be  prince  over  Israel."'  Thereupon  the 
elders  of  Israel  anointed  David  king  before  Yahve  in  Hebron.^ 
Nothing  brings  out  more  clearly  than  these  words  of  our 
narrator's,  the  idea  that  animated  all  Israel  in  calling  David  to 
the  throne  of  Saul.  It  was  as  an  illustrious  leader  in  the 
Philistine  wars,  that  he  still  lived  in  their  memory.  And  the 
more  inglorious  and  oppressive  the  present,  the  more  vivid  would 
this  memory  of  the  time  of  Saul  necessarily  be.  Saul  having 
perished  in  the  Philistine  war,  it  would  be  easy  enough  for  any 
one  to  say  that  his  and  Israel's  lot  would  have  been  better  had 
he  not  wantonly  driven  from  him  the  best  of  his  heroes. 

David  could  therefore  be  at  no  loss  as  to  his  first  task  as  newly 
elected  king  of  all  Israel.  What  was  to  be  done  was  clearly 
enough  pointed  out  to  him.  Israel  must  again  be  made  free,  the 
Philistines  must  again  be  driven  back  to  their  coast-land.  This 
was   what   the   tribes   meant   when   they  asked   that   David  in 

^  2  Sam.  iv.  4.     The  notice  is  in  a  wrong  place,  but  is  certainly  authentic. 
-  2  Sam.  xxi.  1  ff. 

^  In  2  Sam.  v.  1-3,  v.  1  f.  and  3  are  doublets.     Perhaps  r,  3  gives  the  more 
original  account.     See  above,  p.  46. 


Chap.  III.]  DAVID,  KING  151 

particular  should  be  their  leader.  Thus  alone  could  David,  like 
Saul,  ensure  the  continuance  of  the  confidence  with  whicli  the 
tribes  had  met  him  when  they  anointed  him  king. 

In  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  too,  there  was  a  quick  com- 
prehension of  the  occurrence  at  Hebron.  There  was  doubtless  no 
need  of  many  words  and  messages  to  give  notice  of  the  termina- 
tion of  the  vassalage  in  which  David  had  hitherto  stood  to 
Philistia.  Saul's  crown  having  passed  to  David,  the  relations  of 
the  latter  to  the  Philistines,  as  regards  the  rights  of  Israel,  were 
precisely  the  same  as  those  of  Saul  had  been.  Nevertheless, 
David  appears  to  have  suffered  an  attack  from  the  enemy  even 
earlier  than  he  could  have  expected  it.  Immediately  on  learning 
the  news  of  the  anointing  of  David  at  Hebron,  the  Philistines 
broke  into  Judah.  David  was  to  be  surprised,  and  Israel's  attempt 
to  become,  through  him,  once  more  independent,  to  be  nipped  in  the 
bud.  Bethlehem,  David's  home,  was  quickly  taken  possession  of, 
and  Hebron  threatened.  David  was  promptly  informed ;  but  he 
had  not  time  to  call  together  his  forces.  He  was  compelled  to 
withdraw^  in  all  haste  to  the  stronghold  of  Adullam,^  once  so 
familiar  to  him.  Here  he  seems  to  have  tarried  some  time,  till 
his  forces  were  assembled.  Finally,  however,  he  succeeded  in 
inflicting  a  decided  blow  on  the  Philistines,  who  had  their  camp 
in  the  valley  of  the  giants,  the  so-called  plain  of  Eephaim,  north 
of  Jebus,  toward  Gibeon.^ 

The  Philistines  were  certainly  not  yet  annihilated,  nor  even 
effectually  checked,  by  this  defeat.  Hostilities  were  resumed  at  a 
later  date — on  the  occasion  of  another  attack  on  Judah.^  In 
obedience  to  the  oracle  of  Yahve,  David  made  his  way  round  the 

1  It  is  this  place  alone  that  can  be  meant  in  2  Sam.  v.  17,  as  well.  This 
appears  from  xxiii.  13,  where  instead  of  nij;^  we  must,  according  to  v.  14,  read 
'VD  {rf.  also  Tl''!  there  and  here). 

-  This  account  of  the  course  of  events  is  obtained  by  combining  2  Sam.  v. 
17  ff.  and  2  Sam.  xxiii.  1.3  ff.  v.  17  connects  itself  immediately  with  v.  3  (see 
above,  p.  46).  xxiii.  13  ff.  belongs  chronologically  between  v.  17  and  v.  18-21. 
The  situation  in  v.  17  ff.  is  only  explained  by  xxiii.  13  ff.  The  site  of  the  valley  of 
the  giants  is  defined  by  Gibeon  and  Gezer  (v.  22  ff.  So  already  the  Onom. ,  against 
Josephus).  ^  2  Sam.  v.  22  ff. 


152  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

army  of  the  Philistines,  encamped  once  again  in  the  valley  of  the 
giants,  and  attacked  them  from  the  north,  thus  falling  upon  their 
rear.     He  routed  them  from  Gibeon  to  Gezer.^ 

For  the  present  the  Philistines  seem  to  have  been  brought  to  a 
halt  by  these  two  defeats,  inflicted  on  them  in  rapid  succession  by 
David.  But  their  strength  was  not  yet  broken.  A  series  of 
battles  may  have  followed,  both  at  this  time  and  later.^  Yet, 
strange  to  say,  the  traditions  that  have  reached  us  concerning 
David,  which  are  in  parts  so  copious,  have  almost  entirely  passed 
over  these  events.  And  this,  although  they  determined  David's 
position  in  Israel,  and  Israel's  position  in  Syria,  and  are  therefore 
of  critical  importance  for  the  history  of  Israel.  It  will  always  be 
a  mystery,  what  can  have  led  the  collector  of  our  information 
concerning  that  age,  after  providing  us  with  such  copious  accounts 
of  David's  wars  with  Saul,  and  his  struggle  for  the  crown  at 
Hebron  and  Jebus,  to  inform  the  ages  to  come  only  in  a  meagre 
way  of  the  very  achievements  of  David,  which  for  the  most  part 
made  good  his  position  in  history.^ 

It  is  a  fact,  at  all  events,  that  before  Israel  could  get  rest  from 
the  Philistines,  David  had  to  engage  in  many,  and  doubtless  serious, 
battles.  Many  a  memory  of  David  and  his  heroes,  many  a  daring 
exploit  of  his  brave  band,  that  survived  to  after  ages,  is  to  be 
referred  to  these  wars.^  On  one  such  occasion,  David's  own  life 
was  at  stake  ;  ^  on  another,  Goliath  of  Gath  was  slain — the  warrior 
who  lent  his  name  to  the  unknown  Philistine  giant,  slain  by  David 
himself  at  an  earlier  date.*^  At  last,  by  a  decisive  blow,  David 
succeeded  in  subduing  the  capital  of  the  Philistines,  and  with  it 

^  It  is  thus  we  must  read  in  v.  72,  with  the  lxx.     On  Gezer,  see  H  WB. 

2  Cf.  p-nnj^,  2  Sam.  viii.  1. 

^  We  may  perhaps  conjecture  that  there  once  existed  a  special  book — a  kind 
of  *  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahv6 ' — that  told  of  these  wars.  Our  author  would 
take  it  for  granted  as  well  known,  and  therefore  abstain  from  giving  larger 
extracts  from  it. 

•»  See  2  Sam.  xxi.  15  ff.  ;  xxiii.  8  fF. 

5  2  Sam.  xxi.  16  f. 

6  2  Sam.  xxi.  19.  See  also  above,  p.  120;  also  Kamph.  St.Kr.  1882,  117  f.  ; 
Kuenen,  T.  Tijdschr.  viii.  279  ;  also  Bottcher,  Neue  Ahre7ilese,  No.  402. 


Chap.  III.]  DAVID,  KING  153 

their  whole  laiid.^  The  power  of  the  Philistines  was  henceforth 
broken.  They  do  not  appear  again  [for  a  long  time]  as  enemies  of 
Israel.  It  was  allotted  to  David  to  subdue  this  adversary  that  had 
committed  so  many  outrages  on  Israel,  and  had  more  than  once 
brought  its  existence  into  question.  The  Philistines  were  no 
longer  Israel's  enemies.  Prom  David's  time  Israel's  relation  to 
Philistia  was  substantially  peaceable.  Notwithstanding  his 
victories,  David  had  not  really  subjugated  Philistia  or  destroyed 
its  nationality.  He  was  satisfied  with  having  again  made  good 
Israel's  position,  and  compelled  the  adversary  to  keep  peace  with 
them.  The  way  seemed  thus  to  have  been  prepared  for  even  a 
tolerably  friendly  relation  henceforth  between  the  two.  The 
Phihstines,  giving  up  the  hope  of  being  able  to  prevail  by  force 
against  David,  appear,  like  the  Canaanites  at  an  earlier  date,  to 
have  set  themselves  more  and  more  to  come  to  terms  with  Israel 
as  neighbours,  in  peace  and  friendliness.  They  were  soon  so  little 
felt  to  be  the  hereditary  foe  of  Israel,  that  David  selected  or 
supplemented  his  bodyguard  from  them.^ 

David  was,  however,  not  content  with  what  he  had  so  far 
achieved.  Had  he  only  accomplished  the  one  thing  to  which  he 
had  been  in  the  first  place  called — the  deliverance  of  Israel  from 
the  yoke  of  the  Philistines — he  would  still  be  the  greatest  man 
that  Israel  had  produced  since  Moses.  He  had  thereby  restored 
Israel  to  its  true  position.  But  his  aim  was  still  higher.  Israel 
must  not  only  be  free :  it  must  also  be  able  to  use  its  freedom. 
This  can,  in  any  circumstances,  only  be  the  case  when  a  nation's 
freedom  is  accompanied  by  national  unity  and  strength.  Israel 
must  be  united,  and  must  be  raised  to  an  honourable  position 
among  the  neighbouring  states  of  Syria.  Step  by  step  did  David 
approach  this  goal.  He  taught  the  tribes  to  give  expression  to 
their  unity  anew,  and  better  than  they  had  ever  been  able  to  do  it 

1  2  Sam.  viii.  1.  On  n?3«  cf.  Bab.  and  Orient.  Bee,  Feb.  1890,  p.  69  S.  ; 
Acad.  1890,  No.  929. 

-  The  Krethi  and  Flethi,  who  have  rightly  been  taken  to  be  Cretans  and 
Philistines — i.e.  a  Philistine  band.  See  espec.  2  Sam.  xv.  18  ff.  ;  1  Kings  i.  8,  10, 
38,  and  below,  p.  164  f. 


154  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

before ;  he  qualified  them,  in  their  estimation,  to  control  their  own 
destinies — nay,  Israel  had  him  to  thank,  that  for  a  while  it  was 
given  to  it  to  join  in  speaking  a  decisive  word  in  the  counsels  of 
the  nations  of  Asia  west  of  the  Euphrates.  No  wonder  therefore 
that  Israel  knew  of  no  f]jreater  kino:  than  David,  and  that  his 
name  was  for  all  ages  the  expression  of  the  greatest  glory  and 
splendour  imaginable  in  Israel.  David  was  the  greatest  man  in 
Israel's  history  next  to  Moses,  and  he  was  at  the  same  time  the 
most  popular. 

That  the  tribes  of  Israel  felt  themselves  to  be  a  unity,  a  nation, 
that  they  also  for  a  time  gave  practical  proof  of  being  a  united 
people,  was  not  the  result  of  the  work  of  David.  Moses,  and 
again  at  a  later  time  Saul,  for  a  part  of  the  tribes  also  Deborah, 
had  given  expression  to  this  ideal  unity,  and  actually  realised  it 
in  a  transitory  way.  The  tribes  must  now  for  long  have  known 
that  they  were  members  of  a  nation.  But  there  was  always 
lacking,  even  as  far  down  as  Saul,  the  power  to  maintain  what 
was  transiently  gained.  There  was  lacking  in  particular,  even 
where  freedom  had  really  been  won,  a  national  centre  round  which 
the  life  of  the  people,  political  as  well  as  religious,  might  gather. 
Only  if  this  could  be  found  would  the  unification  become  really 
complete,  and  the  freedom  that  had  been  won  by  the  sword  be 
guaranteed  in  peace  for  some  length  of  time.  With  inexplicable 
short-sightedness  Saul  had  done  practically  nothing  towards  this 
end.  The  national  sanctuary,  lost  and  then  recovered  again,  he 
had  allowed  to  remain  unnoticed  in  a  corner  of  Israel,  and  had 
fixed  his  seat  as  king,  just  as  he  did  as  farmer,  at  his  Benjamite 
home  of  Gibeah,  a  place  that  had  neither  a  past  nor  a  future — the 
best  proof  that  Saul  lacked  the  genius  of  the  king.i  David  saw 
deeper  than  Saul.  If  Saul  was  an  able  warrior,  who  when  he  had 
put  back  his  sword  into  its  sheath  returned  to  his  oxen  at  Gibeah, 
David  was  a  born  ruler.  He  knew  that  religion  and  national  life 
needed  a  centre,  unity  a  point  of  support,  national  strength  a 
rallying-place — in  short,  that  the  land,  if  it  was  to  maintain  its 

^  See  Cornill,  Eatdehung  des  V.  Isr.,  p.  26. 


Chap.  III.]  DAVID,  KING  155 

unity  and  its  freedom,  needed  a  capital  that  would  be  worthy  of 
the  monarchy  and  would  guarantee  its  stability. 

Immediately  after  bringing  to  an  end  at  least  the  first  conflicts 
with  the  Philistines,  David  proceeded  to  the  accomplishment  of 
this  object.^  His  choice  proved  him  to  be  possessed  of  the  insight 
of  genius.  Hebron,  situated  at  the  southern  end  of  the  land, 
constituting  moreover  the  old  capital  of  David's  tribe,  was  neither 
by  position  nor  in  view  of  its  tribal  connection,  fitted  to  form  the 
centre  of  the  new  kingdom,  which  was  to  be  lifted  above  the 
ancient  tribal  distinctions.  Saul's  residence  at  Gibeah  was  on 
similar  grounds  unsuited,  in  addition  to  being  probably  strategically 
unimportant.  On  the  other  hand,  the  stronghold  of  Jebus  met 
the  requirements  of  David  as  no  other  place  in  Israel  did. 
Equipped  by  nature  as  an  almost  impregnable  stronghold,  Jebus 
was  strategically  one  of  the  most  important  points  in  the  land. 
In  the  centre  of  communication  between  the  Mediterranean  and 
the  East,  as  well  as  Syria  and  Egypt,  it  was  a  natural  centre 
for   trade  and   intercourse  in  oeneral.      As  it   was  still   in   the 

o 

possession  of  the  Canaanites,  it  was  not  involved  in  the  contest 
as  to  the  relative  predominance  of  the  tribes,  and  was  fitted 
to  remain  so.  And  yet  again,  being  situated  tolerably  near 
David's  home,  Jebus  provided  for  the  maintenance  of  the  connec- 
tion of  David's  throne  with  the  tribe  of  Judah,  a  connection 
that  was  within  certain  limits  indispensable.  In  fact,  David's 
constituting  Jebus  —  henceforth  in  the  Old  Testament  called 
Jerusalem^ — the  capital  of  his  kingdom,  was  an  act  of  incalculably 
far-reaching  importance.     It  is  quite  impossible  to  say  what  would 

1  2  Sam.  V.  4-16  or  6-16  is  not  in  its  right  place.  The  passage  belongs 
between  v.  21  and  v.  22. 

2  The  meaning  of  the  name  is  obscure.  On  this  v.  Grill,  ZA  W.  iv.  134  flf. 
Hitlierto  it  has  been  assumed  that  Jebus  was  the  old  name  of  the  city,  and 
Jerusalem  a  name  conferred  on  it  by  Israel.  This  assumption  is  overthrown  by 
the  fact,  ol)served  by  Sayce,  that  Jerusalem  occurs  as  Uru-salim  also  in  the 
Tell-el-Amarna  tablets.  We  must  accordingly  suppose  that  Israel  only  restored 
to  the  city  the  name  that  from  ancient  times  had  belonged  to  it.  Perhaps  a  new 
light  thus  falls  also  on  Ju.  i.  7  f.  V.  Sayce,  Acad.  1890,  April  19,  2G ;  1891, 
Feb.  7  ;  Zimmern,  ZDPV.  1891,  138  ff.,  Z.  As.^yr.  1891,  245  fT. 


156  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

have  become  of  Judah  and  David's  throne,  in  the  centuries  after 
the  death  of  Solomon,  if  it  had  not  possessed  Jerusalem.  What 
share,  however,  Jerusalem  had  in  the  fortunes  of  Israel  before  and 
after  the  Exile,  is  familiar  to  every  one  who  is  acquainted  with 
those  fortunes.  Prophets  and  poets  soon  enough  recognised  its 
importance.  Judah,  and  even  Israel,  is  soon  hardly  conceivable 
without  Jerusalem.  Its  fate  determined  the  condition  of  the 
people,  and  on  two  occasions  its  fall  sealed  also  the  fall  of  the 
nation.  If  David's  successfully  conducted  war  of  deliverance 
against  the  Philistines  was  the  first  jewel  that  he  set  in  his  newly 
acquired  royal  crown,  Jerusalem,  now  won  and  promoted  to  be  the 
royal  city  of  Israel,  was  the  second. 

Jebus  was  a  remnant  of  a  greater  district — a  strip  of  land 
belonging  to  the  Canaanites  that  extended,  not  only  in  the  times 
of  the  conquest  but  also  considerably  later,  into  the  territory  of 
Israel  itself,  and  included  such  places  as  Gibeon,  Beeroth,  Kiriath 
Jearim,  and  Chephirah.  Most  of  this  district,  after  remaining  long 
separate  from  Israel,  was  doubtless  in  the  course  of  time  absorbed. 
Saul  had  at  last  set  himself  to  accomplish  this  by  force.^  Only 
Jebus,  with  its  strong  rocky  fortress  of  Zion,^  had  obsti- 
nately resisted  all  attacks.  Its  possessors  seem  to  have  formed 
a  separate  Canaanitish  tribe,  called  after  their  city,  the  Jebus- 
ites. 

David's  attempt  to  win  the  Jebusites  and  their  city  for  Israel  by 
friendly  means  failed.^  Their  castle  seemed  to  the  Jebusites  so 
strong  that  lame  and  blind  men  appeared  sufficient  to  defend  it.^ 
Xot  disconcerted  by  their  contempt,  David  proceeded  to  use  force, 
and  stormed  town  and  citadel.  The  citadel  he  took  as  his  own 
possession  and  called  it  David's  citadel  ('  the  city  of  David '),  after 

1  2  Sam.  xxi.  1  ff. 

2  On  the  position  of  the  hill  of  Zion,  r.  Fiirrer  in  Schenkel's  BL.  iii.  214  ff.  ; 
von  Alten  and  Klaiber,  in  ZDPV.  iii.  116  ff.,  189  ff.  ;  iv.  18  ff.  ;  xi.  1  ff.  Also 
the  physical  maps  of  Zimmermann,  in  Karten  u.  Plane  zur  Tojjographie  des  alten 
Jerusalem,  reproduced  in  Rhiem's  HWB.  and  in  Stade,-269. 

2  We  must,  according  to  v.  6,  suppose  such  an  attempt. 

•^  David's  answer  (v.  8)  to  their  scornful  speech  is  now  no  longer  intelligible. 
On  Sinndr  see  Pal.  ExpL  Fund,  1S90,  200  ff. 


Chap.  III.]  DAVID,  KING  157 

he  had  modified  it  to  suit  himself.^  Iliram  of  Tyre,  to  whom  the 
friendship  of  his  powerful  neighbour  must  have  been  a  matter  of 
some  importance,  is  said  to  have  given  him  a  helping  hand  in  this 
work  with  cedar-wood  and  workmen.^  The  former  possessors  of 
the  city  appear  not  to  have  been  treated  by  David  according  to  the 
usages  of  war,  but  to  have  been  spared,  just  as  the  Philistines  were 
afterwards.  At  least,  there  were  Jebusites  in  later  times  living 
along  with  Israel  in  Jerusalem. 

The  conquest  of  Jerusalem  by  David,  and  the  designation  of 
that  city  as  capital  of  the  land,  had  a  still  deeper  significance. 
A  royal  seat  and  capital  must  necessarily  possess  also  a  royal 
sanctuary.  Eeligion  in  Israel  was  a  national  affair.  No  event 
which  touched  the  nation  could  dispense  with  it.  If  the  national 
capital,  the  focus  of  the  life  of  the  people,  was  to  answer  its 
purpose,  it  must  be  the  centre  likewise  of  the  religious  life  of 
the  people.  Jerusalem  could  attain  the  position  it  was  entitled  to 
as  capital,  the  position  too  that  David  was,  in  point  of  fact,  to 
give  it  in  Israel,  only  by  becoming  the  centre  of  the  worship  of 
Yahve. 

It  is  an  additional  proof  of  the  greatness  of  David  that  he 
perceived  this  likewise.  It  is  the  man  who  understands  the 
spirit  of  his  age  and  his  nation,  and  is  able  to  come  forward 
promptly  and  energetically  in  compliance  with  it,  that  makes 
history.  David  perceived  that  the  spirit  of  his  people  and  its 
vocation  demanded  a  close  connection  between  national  life  and 
religious  life.      He  had  an  eye   for  the  secret   inner  nature  of 

^  On  the  site  of  David's  citadel  see  the  articles  of  Klaiber,  mentioned  on 
p.  156,  note  2,  and  especially  also  Guthe's  account  of  his  excavations,  in  ZDPV. 
V.  ;  above  all  pp.  314  ff.,  830  fF. 

-  2  Sam.  V.  9,  11.  Hiram,  by  the  Phoenicians  probably  called  Hirom  (c/. 
Elpdj/ios ;  Ass.  Hirummu),  reigned  altogether,  according  to  Josephus,  Ant.  viii. 
V.  Z  =  c.  A]),  i.  18,  for  thirty-four  years  (commonly  ==  969-936  ;  see  Meyer,  Gesch. 
d.  Alt.  345  f.).  As  Hiram  was  also  a  contemporary  of  Solomon's,  this  accords 
only  with  the  last  part  of  David's  reign,  while  the  building  must  have  fallen  in 
the  earlier  period.  (See  Riehm,  in  IIWB.  Artie.  Hiram.)  Hence  either  Josephus' 
numbers,  taken  from  Menander,  are  inexact,  or  we  have  in  our  account  a  confusion 
with  what  Hiram  did  for  Solomon.  Perhaps  it  was  really  Hiram's  father  Abiba'al 
that  helped  David.     With  reference  to  him,  see  Pietschm.  Gesch.  d.  PhOn,  294. 


158  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

his  nation,  which  pointed  it  out  as  the  people  of  religion,  the 
people  of  God.  Thus  he  became  not  only  the  national  but  also 
the  religious  hero  of  Israel,  and  the  two  aspects  were  inseparably 
connected.  It  is  not  necessary  to  ignore  David's  weaknesses  and 
despotic  moods,  or  to  make  the  primitive  hero  into  a  tender-hearted 
saint,  in  order  to  be  able  to  appreciate  his  deep  religious  character 
and  his  importance  for  the  religion  of  Israel.  As  Moses  sheds  a 
lustre  on  Israel's  past,  so  does  David  on  Israel's  future;  and  in 
troublous  days  it  was  his  name  that  revived  Israel's  dying  hope 
and  its  faith  in  God.  Yahve,  the  God  of  Israel,  became  through 
him  at  once  the  supreme  dweller  in  Jerusalem;  the  neighbour, 
almost  the  fellow-inmate — nay,  the  host  and  father,  of  Israel's  king. 
Jerusalem,  the  city  of  the  king,  became  at  the  same  time  the  city 
of  God,  the  holy  city.  David's  family  was  Yahve's  dynasty,  and 
its  members  Yahve's  sons.  And  even  the  hero  of  the  latter  age, 
who  shall  deliver  Israel  and  the  world  from  all  troubles,  could  soon 
be  hardly  otherwise  thought  of  than  as  a  second  David,  as  the 
counterpart,  the  great  son  of  the  glorious  founder  of  the  holy 
city. 

The  ancient  shrine  of  the  Mosaic  age,  the  ark  of  God,  had  been 
almost  forgotten  ever  since  the  disastrous  day  when  it  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  enemy.  The  Philistines,  indeed,  had  felt  a  religious 
horror  of  it  and  had  restored  it  again  to  Israel.  But  neither  Saul, 
nor  the  priests  of  Nob,  the  successors  of  those  of  Shiloh,  nor  any 
one  else  in  Israel,  had  shown  any  interest  in  it.  It  may  have 
seemed  profaned  by  its  stay  in  the  enemy's  land.  Moreover,  the 
indifferent  military  success  that  it  had  brought  the  hosts  of  Israel 
at  Aphek  had  probably  shaken  their  faith  in  it.^ 

It  was  otherwise  with  David.  He  was  not  alarmed  by  the 
superstitious  scruples  of  Saul  and  his  age.  He  saw  in  the  ark 
what  it  really  was,  and  what  he  himself  needed  :  the  ancient  shrine 
of  Israel,  which  had  guaranteed  the  presence  of  Yahve  in  the 
wilderness,  and  with  which  great  memories  were  connected.  It 
would,  in  his  view,  be  only  a  further  reason  for  restoring  it  to 

^  See  above,  pp.  107  f.,  136. 


Chap.  III.]  DAVID,  KING  159 

honour,  that  it  had  for  long — perhaps  from  the  beginning — had  its 
seat  in  the  tribe  of  Joseph.  It  was  just  the  northern  group  of 
tribes  that  he  regarded  it  a  matter  of  vital  importance  to  win  over 
to  himself  and  to  Jerusalem. 

This  being  so,  the  ark  was  brought  in  solemn  procession  from 
Ba'al  Jehuda,^  where  it  had  stood  in  the  house  of  a  private  indi- 
vidual. It  was  an  important  occasion,  and  the  whole  nation 
participated  in  the  ceremony.  On  the  way,  however,  an  accident 
befell  the  driver  of  the  waggon  on  which  the  ark  was  being  carried. 
This  disconcerted  David.  The  delusion  with  which  he  thought 
he  had  broken,  that  Yahve's  hand  was  withdrawn  from  the  ark, 
seemed  after  all  to  be  based  on  truth.  He  did  not  dare  to  bring 
the  ark  to  Zion.  It  was -not  till  Obed-Edom-  of  Gath,  in  whose 
house  the  ark  was  now  left  for  three  months,  had  found  it  a  source 
of  blessing  to  himself — stranger  as  he  was — that  David  ventured  to 
carry  out  his  design.  The  people  escorted  Yahve  up  to  Zion  with 
joyful  shout  and  sound  of  trumpet.  David  himself,  dressed  in 
the  linen  garments  of  a  priest,  took  part  in  the  procession,  dancing  ^ 
before  the  ark ;  and,  as  highest  in  rank,  discharged  the  duties  of 
the  priestly  office  before  Yahve  in  Zion.  Michal,  Saul's  proud 
daughter,  was  ashamed  of  her  husband  for  thus  demeaning  him- 
self before  his  young  men  and  maidens.  But  David's  pride  was 
in  being  honoured  of  God.  His  was  a  true  religious  nature,  that 
did  not  hesitate  to  approach  what  even  in  that  age  seemed  religious 
eccentricity.* 

It  must  appear  in  the  highest  degree  surprising  that  David  • 
built  no  temple  for  the  ark;  when  he  had  brought  it  into  his 
capital  and  to  his  palace,  the  idea  must  have  occurred  to  him  of 
erecting  there  a  worthy  abode  for  Yahve.     As  he  did  not  do  so, 

^  According  to  1  Chron.  xiii.  6,  Josh.  xv.  9  flf.,  60,  xviii.  14,  this  was  tlie 
same  place  as  Kiriath  Jearim.  Perhaps  the  place  received  its  name  from  the 
stay  of  the  ark.     On  the  text,  see  Driver,  Notes,  203. 

-  On  the  name,  see  CIS.  295  ;  also  Baethgen,  Btitr.  10  ;  Wellh.  Reste  aliarab. 
Heident.  2. 

^  Cf.  Exod.  xxxii.  19 ;  1  Kings  xviii.  2G,  and  the  name  BaX/xap/cwj,  Corji, 
Inscr.  Grace.  4536  {rf.  Meyer  in  Roscher,  col.  2868  ;  Baethgen,  Btitr.  25). 

4  2  Sam.  vi.  1-23. 


160  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

he  must  have  been  influenced  by  special  reasons  and  considera- 
tions. If,  moreover,  it  is  true,  as  the  history  of  Samuel  suggests,^ 
that  the  ark  had  already  had  a  proper  temple  at  Shiloh,  we  need 
have  no  hesitation  in  affirming  that  nothing  short  of  a  divine 
oracle  could  have  withheld  David  from  building  a  real  temple. 
AVithout  such  a  definite  declaration  of  Yahvci's  will,  it  would  have 
been  culpable  indifference,  and  sacrilegious  contempt  for  the 
majesty  of  Yahve,  had  David  built  no  temple.  There  is  there- 
fore, in  point  of  fact,  no  ground  for  calling  in  question  as  a  later 
invention  the  intention  of  David,  obviously  attributed  to  him  by 
the  tradition,  to  build  on  Zion  a  temple  to  Yahv^,  and  its  abandon- 
ment in  obedience  to  a  prophetic  oracle.  The  somewhat  late 
origin  of  the  passage  in  question  cannot  invalidate  such  over- 
powering internal  evidence  as  there  is  in  favour  of  the  fact.  Nay, 
it  is  even  conceivable  that,  on  this  occasion,  the  prospect  of  a  stable 
dynasty  was  also  presented  to  David  by  prophetic  message.^ 

§  45.  FuTtlur  Wars.     David's  Army.     Saul's  House. 

David  was  not  to  be  allowed  to  enjoy  in  peace  what  he  had 
won.  It  could  scarcely  be  otherwise,  and  David  himself  would 
hardly  have  desired  it  otherwise.  If  Israel  was  to  be  supreme 
in  Syria,  if  its  boundaries  were  to  be  ensured,  its  independence 

^  Cf.  1  Sam.  i.  24,  iii.  3  ;  Jer.  vii.  14.  The  later  representation  (D")  in  2  Sam. 
vii.  6  is  somewhat  different. 

-  2  Sam.  vii.  It  depends  on  the  age  and  literary  structure  of  this  important 
chapter.  On  this  question,  see  Wellh.  BL"^  223  ;  Kuen.  §  xxii.  5  ;  Budde,  RiSa, 
244  f.  I  regard  it  as  proved,  that  the  chapter  as  we  now  read  it  comes  from 
circles  closely  related  to  D.  It  is  not,  however,  simply  to  be  regarded  as  Deutero- 
nomic  ;  for  (a)  ver.  13  is  an  interpolation  which  breaks  the  connection  (Well- 
hausen),  and  only  after  its  removal  do  vers.  11-17  give  a  satisfactory  sense.  Why 
should  Solomon  be  called  '  son  of  God,'  and  not  David,  if  ver.  14  must  refer  to 
an  individual?  Cf.  also  v^er.  16  and  ver.  19,  where  it  is  clearly  the  dynasty  that 
is  meant.  (6)  Ver.  13  is  a  Deuteronomic  interpolation,  meant  to  bring  special 
honour  to  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  (c)  It  having  been  proved  in  one  case  that 
a  writer  closely  related  to  D  revised  the  passage,  the  other  traces  of  Deuteronomic 
style  would  also  point,  not  to  the  original  author,  but  to  this  reviser.  Cf.  the 
tedious  speech  and  the  overcrowding  in  ver.  7  £f.  The  incident  itself  might  thus 
very  well  be  old  and  historical ;  at  the  same  time,  we  know  that  from  the  time  of 
Josiah  the  idea  here  represented  received  new  life  and  new  literary  treatment. 


Chap.  ITT.]  DAVID,  KING  161 

which  had  been  so  often  contested  by  its  neighbours,  to  be  rendered 
undisputed,  it  must  come  to  an  understanding  with  its  other 
neighbours.  It  was,  therefore,  impossible  that  David  should 
content  himself  with  acquiring  the  crown  over  all  Israel  and 
overthrowing  the  Philistines.  The  occasion,  however,  came  from 
without — from  Amnion — although,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  not 
unwelcome  to  David.  The  different  Aramaic  peoples  soon  joined 
the  Ammonites,  so  that  when  David  subdued  them,  he  was  lord 
of  the  whole  territory  adjoining  Israel  on  the  north  and  east. 

The  king  of  the  Ammonites  insulted  the  ambassadors  sent  by 
David  to  congratulate  him  on  his  accession  to  the  throne.  This 
conduct  would  seem  to  us  unintelligible,  were  it  not  that  we  must 
certainly  take  it  for  granted  that  the  neighbours  also  regarded  a 
settlement  with  David  as  inevitable.  They  had  every  reason  to 
regard  David's  strong  position  with  suspicion,  and  to  fear  for  their 
own  safety.  If,  moreover,  it  is  true,  as  we  are  entitled  to  con- 
jecture, that  Eshba'al  had  been  able  to  maintain  his  independence 
even  of  his  eastern  neighbours  only  by  paying  them  tribute,  the 
whole  affair  becomes  still  clearer.  With  David's  accession  the 
payment  of  tribute  had  come  to  an  end.  Ammon  and  Moab  must 
seek  to  maintain  their  position.  If  their  own  forces  were  not 
sufficient  for  the  attempt,  it  must  be  made  with  help  from  without. 
Ammon  accordingly  opened  hostilities  in  a  defiant  manner,  and 
Moab  would  hardly  remain  behind.^ 

In  fact,  the  Ammonites  were  immediately  joined  by  the  Ara- 
maeans of  Zobah,  as  well  as  those  of  Beth  Eehob,  Ishtob,  and 
Ma'achah.2  We  have  here,  therefore,  nothing  short  of  a  coalition 
of  the  neighbouring  kingdoms  lying  to  the  east  and  north-east, 
having  as  its  object  to  weaken  the  dominant  position  won  by 
Israel  under  David,  which  seemed  to  threaten  their  integrity.^ 

Joab,  the  commander  of  David's  army,  marched  against  the 
enemy.     When  he  arrived  in  the  territory  of  the  Ammonites,  the 

1  See  Kamph.  ZA  W.  vi.  68. 

-  On  these  kingdoms,  see  Meyer,   Geacli.  d.  Alt.  §  287,  300.     The  view  that 
Beth  Rehub  was  not  properly  a  kingdom  (Meyer,  p.  364)  is  not  a  probable  one, 
■'  2  Sam.  X.  1-0. 

VOL.  II,  L 


162  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Cook  II. 

enemies  had  already  united  their  forces.  They  unexpectedly  got 
the  start  of  him ;  and  while  the  Ammonites,  sallying  forth  from 
their  capital,  encountered  him  in  open  battle,  their  allies  sought 
to  fall  on  him  in  the  rear.  A  quick  decision  during  the  battle 
relieved  Joab's  dangerous  position.  He  commands  half  of  his 
torce,  under  his  brother  Abishai,  to  engage  the  Ammonites  in  front, 
and  throws  himself  with  the  rest  on  the  Aramaeans  attacking  him 
in  the  rear.  The  latter  having  been  driven  back  by  Joab,  the 
Ammonites  also  fell  into  confusion  before  Abishai,  and  fled  into 
their  city.^ 

The  city  itself,  however,  Eabbath  Amnion,  was  not  conquered. 
The  expedition  was  only  broken  off.  The  Aramaeans  also  appeared 
again  the  following  year,  with  Hadadezer,^  the  king  of  the  powerful 
kingdom  of  Zobah,  at  their  head.  This  time  David  himself  took 
the  field  and  defeated  them.  Hadadezer's  kingdom  appears,  at 
least  in  part,  to  have  fallen  into  David's  hands.  The  smaller 
kings  in  his  neighbourhood  also  submitted  themselves  to  David.^ 
In  the  following  year,  Joab  succeeded  in  reducing  Eabbath  Ammon 
to  extremities.  He  took  the  so-called  City  of  Waters,  leaving 
it  to  David  himself  to  complete  the  conquest.  The  spoil  was 
abundant,  including  as  it  did  the  golden  crown  of  the  Ammonite 
god  Milcom,  which  weighed  a  talent,  and  was  richly  adorned  with 
jewels.^  The  prisoners  were  harshly  treated,  yet  perhaps  not  so 
cruelly  as  the  present  text  would  lead  one  to  suppose.^  The 
Moabites  were  probably  also  defeated  and  cruelly  punished  at  this 
time.^ 

Whether  the  Ammonites  were  thus  permanently  subdued  is 
very  doubtful.     At  a  later  time,  at  all  events,  their  country  did 

1  2  Sam.  X,  7-14. 

-  Gf.  the  Hebrew  names,  Eli'ezer,  'Azarja  (Azariah).  ^  2  Sam.  x.  15-19. 

^  2  Sam.  xi.  1,  17;  xii.  26-30. 

^  2  Sam.  xii.  31.  On  this  verse,  see  (amongst  others)  Hoffmann  in  ZA  W.  ii. 
66  if.  ;  Kamphausen  in  Bhein.  Gem.  Bl.  1884,  No.  9 ;  Herderschee  in  Theol. 
Tijdschr.  1891,  127  flf.  On  the  other  hand,  cf.  e.g.  Steiner  in  TJieoL  Z.  a.  d. 
Schiveiz,  1885,  303  ff. 

^  Their  being  mentioned  in  the  first  place  in  2  Sam.  viii,  2  seems  to  point  to 
this  ;  yet  see  what  follows. 


Chap.  Ill]  DAVID,  KING  163 

not  belong  to  Israel ;  although  it  probably  did  under  David.  In 
any  case,  for  the  present  these  predatory  tribes  of  the  east,  that 
so  often  threatened  Israel,  had  been  quelled.  The  eastern  bound- 
ary of  David's  kingdom  was  now  secured  against  invasion  as  far 
as  the  desert.  Towards  the  north,  David's  rule  reached  as  far  as 
Lebanon  and  Hermon.  Even  the  rulers  of  the  districts  lying 
farther  north  and  east  sought  his  friendship.  Amongst  these  was 
To'i,  king  of  Ilamath  on  the  Orontes,  who  was  in  a  continual  state 
of  feud  with  Hadadezer,  and  so  would  be  only  too  grateful  to 
David  for  defeating  him.^  Another  of  them  was  Talmai,  the  king 
of  Geshiir,  a  district  near  Hermon,  south-west  of  Damascus.  A 
daughter  of  his  was  among  David's  wives — the  mother  of  Absalom .^ 

The  Phoenicians  had  still  more  reason  than  these  northern 
neighbours  to  cultivate  friendly  relations  with  David.  Their 
commerce  could  only  gain  from  the  existence  in  the  Palestinian 
'hinterland'  of  a  powerful  and  organised  state  such  as  David 
aimed  at.  Their  king,  Hiram  of  Tyre,  concluded  with  David  a 
friendly  alliance,  that  continued  to  subsist  under  Solomon.^ 

Israel's  position  was  thus  secured  towards  the  north  and  east. 
From  the  time  when  the  Philistines  were  finally  conquered,  there 
had  been  no  adversary  to  fear  from  the  west.  It  was  therefore  only 
from  the  south  and  south-east  that  disturbances  could  now 
arise.  Amalek,  Edom,  and  Moab  had  all  of  them  now  and  then 
given  Israel  trouble.  These  also  were  added  to  David's  conquests, 
partly  as  early  as  the  time  of  the  battles  with  Ammon  and  the 
Aramaeans,*  partly  not  till  a  later  occasion.^  Moab  was  not  able 
to  maintain  its  ground,  and  became  tributary  to  David.  Amalek, 
the  Bedouin  tribe,  skilful  in  war  and  ever  greedy  for  spoil,  with 
which  Israel  had  so  many  tough  fights,  disappeared  from  history, 
apparently  utterly  destroyed  by  David.     Edom  was  subdued,  its 

^  2  Sam.  viii.  9  f. 

"  Cf.  1  Sam,  iii.  .3  ;  xiii.  37.  The  subjugation  of  Damascus  mentioned  in  2  Sam. 
viii.  5  f.  is  improbable  ;  vide  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  364.  On  the  literary  char- 
acter of  chap.  viii.  see  above,  p.  47  f.,  and  Budde,  BiSa,  249  f. 

^  See  however  above,  p.  157,  note  2. 

*  See  above,  p.  162  f,  ^  2  Sam.  viii.  11  ff.  ;  (/.  Num.  xxiv.  17  fif. 


164  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

land  being  henceforth  administered  by  agents  sent  by  David ;  and 
the  approach  to  the  Eed  Sea,  along  with  the  seaport  towns  of 
Eziongeber  and  Elath,  fell  into  David's  hands.  A  later  notice ^ 
tells  us  that  long  and  bloody  battles  were  needed  ere  Edom 
submitted.  The  consequence  of  this  obstinacy  was  a  murder- 
ous massacre,  which  itself  became  the  source  of  later  complica- 
tions. 

David's  kingdom  thus  reached  from  the  Eed  Sea  to  Lebanon. 
It  was  the  dominant  power  in  Syria ;  its  position  was  undisputed. 
It  had  no  longer  any  adversary  to  fear.  Next  to  David  himself, 
his  general  Joab  had  the  greatest  share  in  these  successes, 
especially  as  in  later  times  David  appears  to  have  ceased,  as  a 
rule,  to  take  the  field  in  person.  Joab  remained  from  first  to  last 
faithfully  devoted  to  David,  through  all  storms  and  vicissitudes 
of  fortune,  never  wavering.  A  warrior  whose  keen  sword 
fortune  never  failed,  he  was  also  a  man  of  brutal  violence  and 
ungovernable  selfishness,  to  whom  no  tie  seemed  sacred  and  no 
means  illegitimate. 

It  is  obvious  that  for  such  wars  as  David  had  to  conduct  in 
all  directions,  he  needed  a  carefully  equipped  and  well-trained 
army.  The  basis  of  his  army  was  a  sort  of  guard  in  which  he 
could  place  implicit  confidence.  This  consisted  of  those  six 
hundred  men  who  had  gathered  around  him  in  the  days  of  his 
flight  from  Saul,  and  had  held  by  him  faithfully  during  the  time 
of  his  persecution.  When  David  became  king,  they  naturally 
remained  near  him.  They  formed  henceforth  his  bodyguard,  and 
bore  the  name  oi  gibhorim,  'the  heroes.'  It  is  self-evident  that 
special  undertakings  would  devolve  upon  them  in  war.-  The 
gaps  produced  in  the  ranks  of  this  select  corps  by  David's 
numerous  wars  were  filled  up,  after  his  victories  over  the  Philis- 
tines, chiefly  with  foreigners,  especially  Philistines,  and  Cretan 
mercenaries  akin  to  them — a  j)roceeding  the  reason  for  which  is 
to  be  found  in  the  later  designation  of  the  corps  to  be  a  bodyguard 

^  ]  Kings  xi.  14  ff.     On  this,  see  below,  in  §  48. 

-  For  deeds  of  some  of  them,  see  2  Sam.  xxiji.  8  fF.,  and  above,  p,  152. 


Chap.  ITT.]  DAVID,  KING  165 

for  the  king.     Hence  the  whole  corps  soon  went  by  the  name  of 
Cretans  and  Philistines.^ 

Important  as  this  select  corps  would  always  be  for  David,  it 
could  not  possibly  suffice  for  his  greater  expeditions.  According 
to  ancient  custom  all  Israel^  was  called  out  for  service  when  an 
enemy  threatened  from  without.  It  was  the  men  of  Israel, 
capable  of  bearing  arms,  that  formed  the  national  army  of  Israel. 
The  greater  the  cohesion  of  the  tribes,  the  more  numerous  the 
muster;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  fewer  the  tribes  that 
seriously  professed  to  belong  to  Israel,  the  lighter  the  muster  that 
resulted.  Moreover,  the  farther  a  tribe  lay  from  the  immediate 
danger,  the  more  sluggishly  would  its  men  gather  round  the 
banner  of  Israel.  This  provision  also  seems  in  the  long-run  not 
to  have  sufficed  David  for  his  wars.  His  power,  and  the  whole 
position  of  Israel  as  created  by  him,  rested  on  his  sword.  If  it 
was  to  be  maintained,  his  sword  had  to  be  ever  ready.  David 
perceived  that  for  such  wars  as  he  had  to  wage,  it  was  necessary 
that  Israel  should  possess,  even  in  times  of  peace,  a  fixed  and 
permanent  military  organisation.  Its  troops  could  thus  be  super- 
vised even  during  peace,  and  no  tribe  could  shirk  its  duty  on  the 
outbreak  of  war.  As  a  step  towards  this  object,  a  census  of  the 
nation  was  undertaken  by  Joab,  David's  general.  It  was  meant 
to  provide  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  men  in  Israel  capable  of 
bearing  arms,  and  afford  a  basis  for  the  proposed  organisation.  He 
was  engaged  on  it  for  three-quarters  of  a  year,  extending  his  tour 
as  far  as  Kadesh  on  the  Orontes,  the  capital  of  the  kingdom  of  the 
Hittites,  formerly  so  powerful.  This  must,  therefore,  if  our  notice 
be  correct,^  have  been  likewise  subdued  by  David.  Soon  after 
this  census,  Israel  was  overtaken  by  a  devastating  pestilence. 
David  perceived  in  this  the  chastising  hand  of  Yahve.^     We  have, 

^  See  above,  p.  153,  note  2. 

2  Cf.  the  expression  '  the  people  '  =  the  army,  or  '  the  man,'  '  the  men  of  Israel,' 
in  the  wars  of  Saul,  and  elsewhere. 

3  It  rests  on  lxx.  Luc.  2  Sam.  xxiv.  6  (see  Hitzig,  ZDMG.  ix.  763  f.  ;  Wellh. 
TBS.  221).  However,  it  might  also  have  made  its  way  into  the  lxx.  through 
mere  conjecture. 

■»  2  Sam.  xxiv.,  on  which  see  above,  p.  48  f.  For  the  text,  rj\  \\'cllli.  TBS., 
and  Driver,  Notes. 


166  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

however,  reason  to  suppose  that  it  was  not  on  the  basis  of  his  new 
military  system,  that  David  achieved  his  successes  in  war  against 
the  surrounding  nations.  It  seems  to  have  been  rather  on  the 
ground  of  the  practical  appearance  gained  in  these  wars,  that  the 
work  of  organisation  was  taken  in  hand,  as  a  measure  that  would 
bear  fruit  in  later  times.^ 

Two  episodes  relating  to  David's  conduct  towards  the  few  still 
surviving  members  of  the  family  of  his  predecessor  Saul,  may 
conclude  the  history  of  David,  in  so  far  as  that  is  not  controlled 
by  the  well-known  occurrences  in  his  family.  These  episodes 
belong  apparently  to  the  time  before  David's  foreign  wars.  In 
our  narrative,  however,  they  stand  out  of  all  historical  connection, 
so  that  it  is  difficult  to  fix  their  date.^  The  second  of  these  must 
be  judged  in  the  light  of  the  first. 

The  first  is  as  follows.  Doubtless  some  time  after  the  whole 
kincrdom  of  Saul  had  come  into  his  hands  and  he  had  established 

o 

himself  in  Zion,^  David  felt  the  necessity  of  showing  his  goodwill 
to  any  of  the  posterity  of  Saul  that  might  still  be  living.  He  did 
this  in  memory  of  the  friendship  that  had  bound  him  to  Jonathan, 
Saul's  son.  As  a  result  of  his  investigation  it  appeared  that  there 
was  still  living  a  son  of  Jonathan's  named  Meriba'al.  He  had 
been  lame  from  childhood,  and  was  living  apparentl}^  in  retire- 
ment at  L6-debar,*  probably  from  fear  of  David's  revenge.  David 
had  him  brought  before  him,  and  presented  him  with  his  grand- 
father's property.  Hence  it  would  appear  that  this  had  been,  in 
the  meanwhile,  confiscated  by  David.  Meriba'al  was,  however,  to 
make  his  residence  in  Jerusalem,  and  Ziba,  Saul's  steward,  was  to 
attend  to  the  estate  at  Gibeah  in  his  stead.     In  this  arrangement 

^  The  position  of  the  narrative  in  1  Chron.  xxi.  is  in  favour  of  this,  as  also  the 
expedition  east  of  Jordan  and  in  the  far  north.         -  See,  however,  the  next  note. 

2  Yet  not  too  soon  after  that,  as  may  be  inferred  from  2  Sam.  iv.  4,  in  com- 
bination with  ix.  12.  If,  at  the  death  of  Saul,  Meriba'al  was  five  years  old,  and 
so  at  the  time  of  David's  accession  to  the  throne  of  all  Israel,  twelve  to  thirteen 
years  old  ;  and  if  he  now  had  a  young  son,  some  ten  years  may  have  elapsed  since 
Eshba'al's  death.     We  cannot  speak  more  definitely. 

*  This  place  must  have  lain  somewhere  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Mahanaim. 
Of.  2  Sam.  xvii.  27. 


Chap.  Ill]  DAVID,  KING  167 

David  combined  generosity  and  policy.  He  generously  spared 
Meriba'al,  who  might  suppose  his  life  forfeited,  and  endowed  him 
besides  in  royal  fashion.  But  he  did  not  fail  to  remove  the 
prince  from  his  family,  and  from  Saul's  royal  seat,  and  to  retain 
him  under  his  own  eye  at  Jerusalem.  He  was  determined  that 
Meriba'al  and  the  nobles  of  Benjamin  should  be  kept  away  from 
everything  that  might  remind  them  of  the  rights  of  the  house  of  Saul.^ 
If  in  this  case  David  showed  generosity  in  a  way  that  no  one 
could  reasonably  expect  of  him,  it  is  not  likely  that  in  another 
case,  of  which  an  account  has  been  preserved — the  second  of  the 
episodes  referred  to  above — he  aimed  at  exterminating  the  house  of 
SauL  '  In  his  zeal  for  Israel '  Saul  had  done  violence  to  Gibeon, 
a  place  that  had  had  its  individuality  as  a  Canaanitish  city 
assured  to  it  by  ancient  treaty.  We  must  suppose  that  he  made 
an  attack  on  it  and  devoted  a  part  of  its  Canaanitish  population 
to  death.  In  consequence  of  this  breach  of  faith  there  lay  on 
Saul  and  Israel  a  charge  of  blood-guiltiness  which  must  be  wiped 
out.  Once,  during  the  reign  of  David,  some  time  after  the  incident 
just  described,^  the  land  was  visited  for  a  period  of  three  years  by 
drought  and  famine.  David  inquired  of  Yahve,  and  was  told  that 
the  reason  was  to  be  found  in  the  blood-guiltiness  that  rested  on 
Saul's  house,  and  therefore  on  Israel— for  the  king  represented  the 
people.  The  citizens  of  Gibeon,  who  had  suffered  the  wrong,  were 
to  assign  the  form  of  expiation.  They  demanded  blood  for  blood. 
Seven  males  of  the  race  of  Saul  were  delivered  over  to  the 
Gibeonites,  and  '  hung  up '  by  them  '  before  Yahve.' ^  These  were 
two  sons  of  Saul  by  Eizpah,  the  concubine  who  had  been  the 
means  of  the  quarrel  between  Abner  and  Eshba'al,  and  five  grand- 
sons of  Saul,  sons  of  Merab^  by  her  marriage  with  Adriel,  the  son 
of  Barzillai^  of  Abel  Meholah.     David  remembered  his  covenant 

1  2  Sam.  ix.  -  Cf.  ver.  7. 

^  This  took  place  at  Gibeon  itself,  '  on  the  hill  of  Yahv6,'  ver.  6.  See  lxx.  and 
Driver,  Notes,  269  f.  That  they  had  previously  been  slain  is  presupposed.  The 
aggravation  of  the  punishment  consisted  in  leaving  the  bodies  unburied.  On  the 
word,  see  Dillm.  on  Num.  xxv.  4. 

^  We  must  read  thus  in  ver.  8  (lxx.  Luc.  Pesh.)  instead  of  Michal. 

5  [See  Nestle,  ZDPV.  1892,  257.] 


168  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

with  Jonathan,  and  spared  his  son  Meriba'al.  It  is  an  affecting 
picture  of  maternal  love  that  we  have  in  the  unhappy  Eizpah 
keeping  watch  over  her  dead  sons,  driving  away  wild  beasts  and  birds 
of  prey  from  their  dead  bodies,  till  at  last  rain  fell,  indicating  that 
the  anger  of  Yahve  was  past.  The  bodies  might  now  be  buried. 
David  had  their  bones  gathered,^  and  interred  in  the  family  burying- 
place  of  Kish  at  Gibeah.  The  house  of  Saul  had  fallen  a  victim, 
hardly  by  the  will  of  David,  to  the  religious  belief  of  the  age.^ 

§  46.  Family  history  of  David.     Absalom. 

David  had  gloriously  subdued  the  enemies  of  Israel,  but  he 
was  not  able  to  control  his  own  unruly  passions.  The  same  man 
who  had  the  strength  and  skill  to  lead  his  people  on  from  step  to 
step,  had  not  enough  firmness  of  will  to  train  his  sons  to  virtue 
and  honour.  The  bitter  fruits  of  such  weakness  could  not  fail  to 
appear.  Our  document  relates  them  with  a  simple  objectivity,  an 
unsparing  impartiality,  and  a  loftiness  of  moral  tone,  that  are 
seldom  to  be  matched. 

While  Joab  was  with  the  army  in  front  of  Eabbath  Ammon, 
David  sinned  with  the  wife  of  a  captain  who  had  gone  to  the  war.^ 
The  consequences,  which  did  not  fail  to  appear,  induced  David  to 
summon  home  the  husband  Uriah,  with  tidings  of  the  state  of 
the  war.  Ostensibly  from  a  feeling  of  military  duty,  probably  in 
reality  because  he  knew  what  had  taken  place,  Uriah  refused  to 
see  his  wife,  and  hastened  back  to  the  army.  There  remained 
only  one  way  of  hiding  the  king's  disgrace.  He  gave  Uriah  a 
letter  to  Joab,  which  should  dispose  of  the  possible  troublesome 
accuser.  Joab  was  to  assign  him  a  dangerous  post  in  the  battle, 
and  leave  him  to  his  fate.  The  plot  was  successful.  Uriah's  wife, 
Bathsheba,  mourned  for  her  husband  as  in  duty  bound,  and  then 
became  the  wife  of  her  seducer.* 

^   V.  13  f.  according  to  lxx.  -  2  Sam.  xxi.  1-14. 

^  The   narrative   furnishes   interesting  evidence  that  other    houses  stood  on 
Zion  in  addition  to  the  palace  of  David,  probably  those  of  his  military  staff. 
*  2  Sam.  xi.  2-27.     On  the  whole  section,  chaps,  ix.-xx.,  see  above,  p.  47  f. 


CiiAP.  IIT.]  BAVTD,  KING  l69 

When  Bathsheba  gave  birth  to  a  child,  what  Uriah  had 
suspected  or  discovered  could  be  hid  from  no  one.  The  prophet 
Nathan  undertook  to  represent  the  public  conscience.  First  by 
a  parable,  and  then  point  blank,  he  made  known  to  David  the 
judgment  of  Yahve.  Instead  of  becoming  angry  with  Nathan, 
David  showed  his  true  greatness,  and  confessed  his  fault.  The 
child  fell  ill  and  died,  notwithstanding  David's  prayers,  after 
seven  days.^  David  recognised  in  this  the  judgment  of  Yahve  for 
his  own  sin,  but  he  could  not  prevent  his  example  from  speedily 
bearing  evil  fruit  in  the  lives  of  his  grown-up  sons. 

Amnon,  his  first-born,  was  inflamed  with  a  passion  for  his  half- 
sister  Tamar.  Following  the  advice  of  an  unscrupulous  court 
favourite,  he  succeeded  in  getting  her  into  his  power  by  craft.  By 
feigning  sickness  he  found  a  pretext  for  receiving  a  visit  from  her. 
After  accomplishing  his  purpose,  he  drove  away  the  dishonoured 
maiden  with  rude  and  heartless  violence,  thus  proving  that  it  was 
unejoverned  desire  and  not  love  that  had  moved  him.^ 

When  we  hear  the  narrator  describe  the  way  in  which  this 
evil  deed  produced  evil  fruit  in  David's  household,  it  is  as  though 
we  were  witnessing  a  Greek  tragedy  enacted  before  our  eyes. 
Crime  was  heaped  on  crime,  as  if  in  obedience  to  an  awful  destiny. 
The  father  had  begun  with  open  adultery,  and  had  then  en- 
deavoured to  veil  his  guilt  with  hypocrisy  and  to  cover  it  with 
blood.  He  need  not  be  surprised  if  his  children  did  not  shrink 
from  rape,  if  not  incest,  and  were  led  on  to  murder  and  insurrec- 
tion. 

After  what  David  had  done  himself,  he  did  not  dare  to  punish 
Amnon's  misdeed  otherwise  than  with  words. -^  Accordingly 
another  of  his  sons,  Absalom,  Tamar's  full  brother,  constituted 
himself  the  avenger  of  his  sister's  disgrace.^  But  he  could  await 
his  opportunity.  Two  years  after  the  incident  had  occurred,  he 
invited  the  royal  court  to  a  feast  at  his  estate  at  Ba'al  Hazor :  it 

^  2  Sam.  xii.  1-9,  13-25  :  vv.  10-12  have  apparently  been  added  by  E. 

-  2  tSam.  xiii.  1-19. 

•'  2  Sam.  xiii.  21,  according  to  lxx.     See  my  translation. 

^  2  Sam.  xiii.  20-22.     On  the  site  of  Ba'al  Hazor,  v.  Wellh.  TBS.  on  v.  34. 


170  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

was  the  feast  of  sheep-shearing.  Amnon  and  the  other  princes 
presented  themselves.  In  the  course  of  the  feast  the  former  was 
suddenly  slain  by  Absalom's  men.  The  rest  fled  home,  Absalom 
himself  fleeing  to  Geshiir,  to  his  grandfather  Talmai.^  He  stayed 
there  in  exile  for  three  years,  until  he  succeeded,  through  a 
stratagem  of  Joab's,  in  reconciling  the  king.  He  was  now  at  liberty 
to  return  to  Jerusalem  ;  but  for  two  years  more  he  was  forbidden  to 
appear  in  the  king's  presence.  At  last  he  succeeded,  through  a 
second  intervention  of  Joab's,  in  obtaining  the  king's  full  pardon.^ 

David  did  not  consult  his  own  good  in  receiving  Absalom  into 
favour.  To  the  ambition  and  haughtiness  of  Absalom's  character 
were  now  added  defiance  and  thirst  for  revenge  for  the  wrong  that 
he  thought,  or  affected  to  think,  had  been  done  to  him.  Invested 
with  the  rights  of  successor  to  the  throne,  he  availed  himself  of  his 
newly  won  position  to  steal  the  hearts  of  the  people  from  his 
father,  who  was  now  growing  old.  And  not  content  with  the 
prospect  of  becoming,  after  a  longer  or  shorter  time,  the  legitimate 
successor  to  his  father,  he  formed  a  treacherous  plot  to  remove 
him  before  his  time.^ 

He  was  probably  engaged  for  four^  years  in  making  prepara- 
tions in  secret  for  the  step  he  meant  to  take,  winning  the  people 
to  himself  by  a  display  of  royal  splendour  and  condescending 
graciousness,  and  endeavouring  to  gain  confidants  and  accomplices 
for  his  treacherous  plans.  Having  thoroughly  equipped  himself, 
he  proceeded  to  proclaim  open  revolt  against  the  unsuspecting 
king. 

With  the  king's  permission,  he  was  to  celebrate  a  sacrifice  at 
the  ancient  sacred  city  of  Hebron,  the  superseded  and  therefore 
discontented  capital  of  Judah.  At  the  same  time  as  he  left 
Jerusalem,  messengers  also  left  it  to  publish  throughout  all  Israel 
his  approaching  accession  to  the  throne.  At  Hebron,  supported 
by  the  chiefs  of  the  clans  of  Judah,  Absalom  unfurled  the  flag  of 

1  2  Sam.  xiii.  23-39.     On  Geshur  v.  ZD P  V  xiii.  198  f.  and  285  f. 

2  2  Sam.  xiv.  s  2  Sam.  xv.  1-6. 
^  According  to  an  emended  reading  in  2  Sam.  xv.  7. 


CoAr.  TIT.]  DAVID,  IvING  171 

revolt.      Soon   a   considerable   part  of   all   Israel  were  gathered 
about  him.i 

The  news  of  Absalom's  revolt  came  on  David  like  a  thunder- 
clap out  of  a  clear  sky.  It  struck  him  unsuspecting  and  utterly 
unprepared.  David's  rule  must  have  excited  discontent  not  only 
in  Judah  but  also  in  the  rest  of  Israel.  He  appears,  for  the 
moment,  to  have  been  able  to  count  on  but  little  support  w^est  of 
the  Jordan,  beyond  his  six  hundred  trusted  veterans.  It  seems  to 
have  been  only  the  east,  which  before  held  so  fast  by  the  house  of 
Saul,  that  now  remained  true  to  him  likewise.  He  did  not  feel 
himself  sufficiently  safe  from  a  sudden  attack  by  Absalom,  even 
in  his  capital,  strong  as  it  was,  and  so  determined  to  abandon  it.- 

David's  trust  in  God,  and  his  courage  and  shrewdness,  which 
had  so  often  stood  him  in  good  stead,  did  not  fail  him  even  in 
this  predicament,  the  most  trying  he  had  fallen  into  in  his  life, 
full  as  it  was  of  adventure.  Leaving  his  harem  in  the  palace,  and 
crossincj  the  brook  Kidron,  he  fled  to  the  Jordan.  He  was 
accompanied  by  his  bodyguard,  his  household,  and  such  as 
adhered  to  him,  including  the  priests  Zadok  and  Abiathar.  bearing 
the  ark  of  Yahve.  David  directed  the  latter  to  return  to  Jeru- 
salem, as  he  had  a  firm  hope  that  Yahve  would  not  abandon  his 
city.  Moreover  the  priests,  if  they  returned,  could  send  him 
secret  tidings  by  their  sons,  Jonathan  and  Ahimaaz,  of  what 
transpired  in  the  city.  With  the  same  object  in  view  he  sent 
back  Hushai,  one  of  his  trusted  followers,  with  the  commission  to 
feign  himself  a  partisan  of  Absalom's,  and  thwart  the  counsel  of 
the  wily  Ahithophel,  who  had  deserted  to  Absalom.^^ 

David  was  now  to  learn  that  Absalom's  appeal  to  Israel  had 
found  a  willing  ear  in  the  house  and  tribe  of  Saul  also.  He  was 
met  at  the  Mount  of  Olives  by  Ziba,  the  steward  of  Meriba'al,  with 
the  tidings  that  his  master  had  joined  Absalom  in  the  hope  tliat 
he  might  recover  through  him  his  grandfather's  throne.*  A  dis- 
tinguished Benjamite,  Shimei  by  name,  met  him  soon  afterwards 

^  2  Sam.  XV.  7-12.  2  2  Sam.  xv.  13-15. 

3  2  Sam.  XV.  16-37.  *  2  Sam.  xvi.  1-4. 


172  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

at  Bahurini.i  He  received  David  with  fierce  invectives,  which 
revealed  clearly  enough  how  fresh  a  memory  many  irreconcilable 
spirits  retained  of  Saul,  and  of  his  house  and  its  cruel  fate, 
innocent  as  David  was  in  the  matter.- 

The  empty  capital  was  taken  possession  of  by  Absalom,  who 
showed  the  nation  that  he  claimed  the  succession,  by  appropriating 
David's  harem.  He  must  get  David  out  of  the  way  if  he  wished  to 
secure  his  throne.  Since  he  was  already  supported  by  a  goodly 
force,  this  would  be  easy  to  accomplish  now  before  David  had 
been  able  to  collect  an  army.  Such  was  Ahithophel's  counsel, 
the  only  counsel  that  met  the  requirements  of  the  situation. 
Absalom's  unlucky  fate,  however,  would  not  allow  him  to  follow 
this  advice.  It  flattered  the  vanity  of  the  prince  to  consult  also 
one  of  David's  former  trusty  counsellors,  and  Hushai's  cunning 
succeeded  in  duping  the  blinded  prince :  his  fate  was  sealed. 
Hushai  succeeded  in  awakening  Absalom's  alarm  at  the  thought 
of  David's  brave  and  daring  band  of  warriors,  and  led  him  to  wait 
till  he  should  have  gathered  the  army  of  all  Israel  about  him.  At 
the  same  time  Hushai  sent  David  word  by  the  priests  of  what 
had  been  decided  on.s 

Henceforth  David  was  master  of  the  situation.  His  decision 
was  quickly  made.  He  crossed  the  Jordan,  proceeded  to  Maha- 
naim,  the  former  royal  residence  of  Eshba'al,  and  employed  the 
time  left  him  in  gathering  an  army  about  him.  There  were 
naturally  still  thousands  in  Israel  who,  when  David's  call  to  arms 
w^ent  forth,  were  not  deaf  to  the  voice  of  duty  and  the  glorious 
name  of  the  old  hero  king.  Important  men  of  Gilead  like 
Barzillai  and  Machir  ben  Ammiel,  and  even  Shobi  ben  Nahash, 
the  vanquished  Ammonite  king,  granted  him  ample  support.^ 

Meanwhile,  Absalom  had  likewise  crossed  the  Jordan.     It  was 

^  On  the  site  of  this  place  v.  Marti,  ZDPV.  iii.  8  ff.,  and  Van  Kasteren,  ihid. 
xiii.  101  fF.  The  latter  decides  in  favour  of  a  group  of  ruins  on  the  ridge  of  Bir 
Zennaki.  "  2  Sam.  xvi.  5-13. 

^  2  Sam.  xvi.  14-xvii.  23.  Notice  the  pragmatism  of  the  narrative  (quite  in 
the  style  of  Ju.  ix. )  here,  where  the  threads  of  the  plot  begin  to  be  unravelled. 
Of.  espec.  2  Sam.  xvii.  146,  23,  with  Ju.  ix.  20,  24,  56  f. 

•*  2  Sam.  xvii.  24-29.     On  the  text  see  the  translation  in  Kautzsch. 


CiiAP.  III.]  DAVID,  KING  173 

here,  on  the  eastern  side,  that  the  contest  was  to  be  decided. 
David's  army  set  out  in  three  divisions,  led  by  Joab,  Abishai,  and 
Ittai  the  Gittite.  Absalom  had  for  general  a  nephew  of  David's 
named  'Amasa,  a  son  of  David's  sister  Abigail  by  an  Ishmaelite 
named  Ithra.  Yielding  to  the  urgent  entreaties  of  his  followers, 
David  remained  behind  in  Mahanaim.  The  conflict  took  place  in 
the  forest  of  Ephraim — a  name  that  must  have  been  borne  by 
some  forest  district  east  of  the  Jordan.^  Absalom's  forces  were 
unable  to  stand  before  David's  men,  though  far  superior  to  them 
in  point  of  numbers,  representing  indeed,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
narrator,  all  ^Israel.'  In  the  haste  of  his  flight,  Absalom  was 
caught  by  his  long  flowing  hair  in  the  branches  of  a  terebinth. 
His  mule  escaped,  and  he  was  found  thus  by  a  common  soldier, 
hanging  between  heaven  and  earth.  The  soldier  reported  what 
he  had  seen  to  Joab.  That  fierce  warrior  knew  no  pity.  He 
paid  no  heed  even  to  the  special  command  of  David  which  the 
soldier  had  feared,  but  reproached  the  latter  for  his  soft-hearted- 
ness,  and  thrust  three  arrows  through  Absalom's  heart.  Then  he 
announced  at  once  by  trumpet-blast  that  the  pursuit  was  at  an 
end.  The  body  of  Absalom  was  cast  into  a  pit  and  covered  over 
with  stones.^ 

David  awaited  the  issue  at  Mahanaim,  sitting  in  the  gate.  The 
porter  saw  a  man  running  from  the  field  of  battle,  and  soon 
another.  The  first  he  recognised  as  Ahimaaz,  the  son  of  Zadok, 
who  had  already  done  good  service  as  messenger  in  Jerusalem. 
Outstripping  the  courier  sent  by  Joab,  he  brought  word  of  the 
victory  of  David.  The  paternal  heart  of  the  king,  however,  was 
thinking  only  of  Absalom.  On  being  asked  about  him,  Ahimaaz 
evaded  the  question.  Meanwhile  the  other  runner  had  arrived, 
and  related  plainly  what  had  taken  place.  The  king  was  quite 
broken  down.  Moved  to  the  depths  of  his  heart,  he  went  up  into 
the  upper  chamber  of  the  gate-house,  breaking  out  into  loud 
laments  over  his  son.     He  spent  a  long  time  here,  heedless  in  his 

^  Lxx.  Liic.  reads  Mahanaim ;  v.  Klost.  SaKo,  on  2  Sam.  xviii,  6. 
-  2  Sam.  xviii.  1-18  ;  v,  18  is  in  part  a  gloss  ;  v.  my  translation. 


174  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IT. 

grief  even  of  the  victorious  army,  which  had  in  the  meantime 
drawn  near.  Joab's  anger  over  this  neglect  of  his  brave  and 
trusty  defenders,  is  not  unreasonable.  It  was  only  his  strong 
words  that  availed  to  rouse  the  king  to  master  his  grief.^ 

The  conscience  of  the  people  awoke,  as  was  to  be  expected, 
now  that  the  sword  had  spoken.  The  tribes  of  Israel  that  had 
revolted  returned  in  penitence  to  their  king,  remembering  how 
much  Israel  owed  to  him,  perhaps  also  under  the  influence  of 
their  old  antipathy  against  Judah.  Judah  alone  still  held  sullenly 
aloof.  It  was  quite  apparent  that  David's  own  tribe  had  been  the 
seat  of  the  conspiracy.  David  felt  that  the  first  thing  to  be  done 
was  to  win  it.  He  accordingly  entered  into  negotiations  with  the 
elders  of  the  tribe,  and  went  so  far  as  to  offer  'Amasa  Joab's  place 
in  the  army.  Perhaps  an  old  ground  of  discontent  on  the  part  of 
Judah  was  thus  removed. 

The  men  of  Judah  then  brought  David  in  state  across  the 
Jordan.  They  were  joined  by  the  Shimei  already  mentioned, 
at  the  head  of  a  thousand  Benjamites  :  David  magnanimously 
pardoned  him.  Ziba  also  was  zealous  in  his  attendance  on  David, 
and  soon  even  the  lame  Meriba'al  appeared  to  clear  himself  from 
the  charges  made  by  his  steward.  David,  not  quite  trusting  his 
innocence,  commanded  the  two  to  divide  the  property.  The  rest 
of  the  army  of  Israel  joined  David's  procession  at  Gilgal. 

It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  however,  that  the  precedence  con- 
ceded by  David  to  the  headstrong  Judseans  produced  discord. 
The  quarrel  between  North  and  South  threatened  to  break  out 
anew.2  Indeed,  at  least  a  part  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  was  still 
unable  to  restrain  its  enmity  against  David.  Sheba'  ben  Bichri 
sounded  once  more  the  call  to  arms  against  David.  It  would 
appear  that  on  this  occasion  also,  a  considerable  part  of  Israel 
responded  to  the  summons  to  revolt.  Judah,  however,  remained 
steadfast  this  time,  and  brought  David  back  to  Jerusalem.  In 
accordance  with  David's  promise,  'Amasa  was  intrusted  with  the 
command  of  the  army  of  Judah  against  the  rebels.     Joab,  how- 

1  2  Sam.  xviii.  19-xix.  9.  -  2  Sam.  xix.  10-44. 


Chap.  Ill]  DAVID,  KING  175 

ever,  was  not  the  man  to  bear  with  patience  this  slight,  which  he 
had  hardly  fully  deserved.  As  'Amasa  loitered,  Joab  was  able  to 
make  himself  again  indispensable  to  the  king.^  David  sent  him 
also  with  the  bodyguard  to  fight  against  Sheba.  They  came  upon 
'Amasa  at  Gibeon,  where  the  latter  fell,  as  Abner  had  done,  by  the 
treacherous  sword  of  Joab. 

The  insurgents  proceeded  towards  the  north.  Joab  pursued 
them  and  drove  them  to  the  farthest  limits  of  the  territory  of 
Israel.  Sheba  succeeded  in  establishing  himself  in  Abel-beth- 
Ma'acah,  close  by  Dan  and  the  sources  of  the  Jordan.  Joab 
prepared  to  storm  the  city.  Then  in  response  to  his  demand,  the 
head  of  the  insurgent  was  flung  to  him  over  the  wall,  whereupon 
Joab  withdrew  and  spared  the  faithful  city.^ 

David's  history  is  here  at  an  end.  In  what  followed  he  is 
hardly  a  voluntary  agent.  He  may  still  have  held  the  reins  of 
government  in  Israel  for  some  time^  in  peace,  quiet  and  un- 
disturbed. We  next  come  upon  him  as  an  old  man,  hardly  any 
longer  capable  of  making  up  his  own  mind,  quite  in  the  hands  of 
his  court  and  harem — a  society  not  over  nice  as  to  its  aims  and 
means.     David  has  left  the  stage  of  history.*  . 

David's  character  stands  forth  more  clearly  in  the  light  of 
history  than  that  of  Saul.  Israel's  greatness  and  Yahve's  honour 
were  for  David  the  first  commandment.  Tie  has  liis  reward,  not 
only  in  Israel's  gratitude,  but  in  the  undying  love  and  respect  of 
posterity.  The  giant-shadows  of  his  career  were  powerless  to 
destroy  this  feeling.  David  stands  head  and  shoulders  above 
the  average  of  human  rulers.  Not  only  his  predecessor  Saul,  but 
the  kings  of  Israel  that  followed  him,  are  far  inferior  to  him  in 

^  In  the  MT.  of  2  Sam.  xx.  6,  Abishai  has  been  wrongly  substituted  for  Joab  ; 
V.  Pesh.  and  Klost.  SaKo,  ad  loe.  "  2  Sam.  xx.  1-22. 

^  Absalom's  insurrection  took  place  in  or  near  the  last  decade  of  David's 
reign.  This  is  to  be  inferred  from  2  Sam.  iii.  3,  in  connection  with  xiii.  38  ;  xiv. 
28  ;  XV.  7  ;  if  we  suppose  that  when  Absalom  murdered  Amnon  he  was  already 
grown  up.  In  this  way,  if  we  allow  x  years  before  Absalom's  birth,  we  get  for 
the  period  from  the  accession  of  David  in  Hebron  to  Absalom's  insurrection  ; 
X  +  about  20  +  3  +  2-1-4,  that  is  to  say  +31  years, 

^  {Cf.  also  Farrar,  The  First  Booh  of  Kiwjs,  p,  Gl  flf,] 


176  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

nobility,  in  vigour  and  skill — both  as  a  warrior  and  as  a  ruler — in 
magnanimity,  sagacity,  and  tenacity  of  purpose.  Even  in  un- 
restrained feeling  and  tyrannous  passion,  he  is  equalled  by  few. 

David's  weaknesses  are  patent ;  but  even  in  these  his  greatness 
of  soul  always  reappears  in  its  native  beauty.  In  his  despotic 
caprice  he  seduced  Bathsheba  and  basely  murdered  Uriah,  but  he 
bowed  in  genuine  contrition  and  unfeigned  penitence  under  the 
sentence  of  the  nation,  and  the  scathing  judgment  of  Yahve's 
prophet.  His  parental  weakness  was  responsible  for  Amnon's 
offence,  and  for  Absalom's  insurrection  and  bloodshed ;  but  his 
paternal  heart  did  not  cease  to  go  out  towards  his  son,  low  as  he 
had  fallen.  David's  weakness,  as  it  meets  us  in  noble  fatherly 
orief,  comes  home  to  our  human  nature,  and  is  transformed  before 
us  into  an  affecting  picture  of  magnanimity  and  paternal  fidelity. 
Although  his  magnanimity  may  have  wavered  in  the  case  of  Joab 
(our  insight  into  the  real  relations  of  the  events  is  too  defective 
to  warrant  our  passing  final  judgment),  it  is  unquestioned  as 
regards  Saul  and  his  house,  and  also  Shimei  and  'Amasa.  Poetic 
gifts  and  religious  zeal  were  such  marked  characteristics  of  David's, 
that  we  can  hardly  deny  the  possibility  of  his  having  had  an 
active  share  in  the  beginnings  of  religious  lyric  poetry  in  Israel.^ 

^  [Cf.  the  character-sketches  of  David  in  W.  R.  Smith's  article  'David,'  Enc. 
Britannica,  and  Cheyne,  Aids  to  the.  Study  of  Criticism,  Part  I.] 


CHAPTEE    IV. 

SOLOMON. 

§  47.  Solomons  Accession. 

The  last  days  of  the  great  king  were  disturbed  by  quarrels  about 
the  succession.  As  our  information  is  so  incomplete,  the  real 
circumstances  of  Solomon's  accession  will  always  be  involved  in  a 
certain  obscurity.  We  shall  first  of  all  reproduce  the  account 
given  in  the  document  that  has  reached  us. 

David  had  become  so  aged  as  to  need  nursing.  The  court 
could  not  avoid  the  question  of  the  succession.  Now  that 
Absalom  was  dead,  the  nearest  to  the  throne  by  order  of  birth 
was  Adonijah,  David's  fourth  son.  Indeed,  Adonijah  regarded 
himself  as  his  father's  successor,  and  even  allowed  himself  to 
go  so  far  as  to  openly  assert  the  rights  of  that  position,  as  Absalom 
had  done.^  Accordingly,  at  court  and  among  influential  circles 
of  the  people,  Adonijah  seems  to  have  been  quite  regarded  as 
the  future  king.^  David  himself,  who  loved  him  fondly,  and 
regarded  him  as  taking  the  place  of  Absalom,  whom  he  still 
mourned,  did  not  venture  to  restrain  him.^ 

But  Adonijah's  hopes  did  not  meet  with  approval  everywhere 
at  court.  He  succeeded,  indeed,  in  securing  Joab  and  the  priest 
Abiathar.  But  on  the  other  side  was  Bathsheba,  who  was 
exerting  herself  to  secure  the  succession  for  her  son  Solomon. 
She  was  supported  by  Zadok  the  priest,  Nathan  the  prophet,  and 

1  1  Kings  i.  5  f.  -  1  Kings  i.  9. 

3  1  Kings  i.  6  (read  nVV). 

VOL.  IL  M 


178  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

Benaiah,  the  captain  of  the  guard.  There  were  thus  in  David's 
last  days  two  court  parties  violently  opposed  to  each  other. 

One  day  Adonijah  had  a  sacrificial  feast  at  the  *  Stone  of  the 
Serpent'  [Zoheleth],  a  stone  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem 
at  which  sacrifices  were  offered.^  Nathan,  the  moving  spirit  of 
the  other  party,  appears  to  have  been  afraid  that  the  banquet 
might  end,  like  Absalom's  at  Hebron,  in  proclaiming  Adonijah 
king.  Were  that  to  happen,  Solomon's  cause  would  be  lost. 
It  was,  therefore,  necessary  to  take  immediate  action.  It  was 
arranged  that  Bathsheba  should  at  once  convey  word  to  the  king 
of  what  was  taking  place  at  the  Stone  of  the  Serpent,  remind 
him  of  a  promise  he  had  once  made,  which  pointed  to  the 
succession  of  Solomon,  and  bring  about  its  immediate  confirma- 
tion. 

Bathsheba  did  as  she  was  instructed.  After  a  short  interval, 
Nathan  himself  followed  her  into  the  presence  of  the  king,  to  give 
weight  to  her  words.  He  asserted  that  he  had  even  heard  the 
shout  of  the  conspirators:  'Long  live  King  Adonijah  !'  By  their 
united  efforts  they  succeeded  in  awakening  the  suspicion  of  the 
king.  He  was  convinced  that  he  was  to  be  deprived  of  his  throne 
in  his  old  age,  and  to  fall  a  victim  to  a  conspiracy  of  one  of  his 
sons.  He  forthwith  formally  adjudged  the  succession  to  Solomon. 
The  latter  was  by  his  order  conducted  on  the  king's  own  mule  to 
Giljon,  a  sacred  spring  near  Jerusalem,^  anointed  by  Zadok  and 
Nathan,  proclaimed  king,  and  formally  installed  on  the  throne. 
The  joyful  acclamations  of  the  people,  and  the  blast  of  the  trumpets, 
reached  the  ears  of  the  feasters  not  far  off.  There  was  barely  time 
to  ask  what  the  cause  was,  when  word  was  brought  by  Jonathan, 
the  son  of  Abiathar,  of  what  had  happened — Solomon  was  king. 
The  only  chance  for  Adonijah  was  to  take  refuge  at  the  altar, 
holding  to  the  horns  of  which  he  implored  his   more   fortunate 

1  The  site  of  this  place  is  determined  by  the  spring  Rogel  (now  Job's  Well), 
1  Kings  i.  9.     See  Biid.^  113  (^  103)  [Eng.  Transl.^  p.  101],  and  Riehm  in  HWB. 

2  On  the  site  of  Gihon,  cf.  Furrer  in  BL,  ii.  463 ;  Biid.^  HI  ff.  (S  IQl  f.)  [Eng. 
Transl.2  99  ff.].  It  is  the  spring  of  Mary  in  the  valley  of  the  Kidron.  It  is  only 
about  800  metres  [slightly  under  half  a  mile]  distant  from  Job's  Well. 


Chap.  IV.]  SOLOMON  1V9 

brother  for  his  bare  life.  He  professed  his  allegiance  to  his  brother 
and  was  allowed  to  live. 

Solomon  had  thus  been  proclaimed  king.  Before  David  ex- 
pired he  had  a  charge  to  give  his  successor  that  weighed  on  his 
mind.  He  reminded  his  son  of  Joab's  still  unexpiated  murder 
of  Abner  and  'Amasa,  of  Barzillai's  kindness  to  him,  and  of  the 
curses  uttered  by  Shime'i  against  his  house.  Barzillai  was  to  be 
royally  rewarded  ;  the  other  two  were  not  to  be  suffered  to  go 
down  to  Sheol  in  peace.^ 

David's  eyes  were  hardly  closed  in  death  when  Adonijah,  who 
had  been  pardoned  by  Solomon,  was  again  seized  with  a  longing 
after  the  throne.  He  wished  to  have  Abishag,  David's  nurse,  for 
his  wife,  and  hoped  to  obtain  Solomon's  consent  through  the  medi- 
ation of  Bathsheba.  We  know  from  Absalom's  conduct  with 
regard  to  David's  harem  what  this  request  implied  according  to  the 
ideas  of  the  age.  Solomon  saw  through  Adonijah's  daring  plans, 
and  the  latter  paid  the  penalty  with  his  life.  At  the  same  time 
Adonijah's  most  distinguished  adherents  were  condemned.  Abiathar 
was  dismissed  from  his  office  as  priest,  but  his  life  was  spared  in 
memory  of  the  services  he  had  rendered  to  David  through  good 
fortune  and  ill.  He  w^as  banished  to  Anathoth,  and  his  place  was 
taken  by  his  colleague  Zadok.  Joab,  suspecting  the  worst,  fled 
to  the  altar  of  Yahve,  but  there  was  no  mercy  for  him.  Adducing 
in  his  condemnation  his  old  bloody  deeds,  Solomon  commanded 
him  to  be  slain.  Lastly,  Shime'i,  who  had  had  no  share  in 
Adonijah's  attempts,  was  provisionally  confined  to  Jerusalem, 
and  when,  contrary  to  the  king's  orders,  he  shortly  afterwards  left 
the  city,  he  was  put  to  death. 

So  runs  the  narrative  in  1  Kings  i.  and  ii.  Eecently  it  has 
been  supposed  by  many  to  contain  in  its  first  part  a  palace  intrigue 
against  the  succession  of  Adonijah,  set  in  motion  in  the  interest 
of  Solomon  by  Nathan  and  Bathsheba ;  while,  in  the  second  part  of 

'  I  ^  According  to  the  text,  it  was  not  simply  a  '  warning '  that  was  given  to 

0  I       Solomon,  or  a  command  to  interfere  if  certain  contingencies  occurred  (Kcihlcr, 
i\      ii.  1,372  f.). 


180  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

the  account,  has  been  recognised  a  thinly  veiled  attempt  to  shift  from 
the  shoulders  of  Solomon  the  responsibility  for  the  bloody  deed  with 
which  he  felt  himself  compelled  to  prop  up  his  newly  won  throne.^ 

It  seems  to  be  decidedly  in  favour  of  this  view  that,  up  to  this 
time,  there  has  been  no  hint  of  such  a  thing  as  the  succession's 
going  to  Solomon.  If  Adonijah  fell  an  innocent  victim  to  a  court 
intrigue,  we  must  suppose  that  Bathsheba  and  Nathan  inveigled 
the  imbecile  old  king  into  sanctioning  a  promise  which  he  had 
never  really  made,  but  which,  in  his  anxiety  for  peace  in  his 
last  days,  he  weakly  appropriated.^  This  view  seems  to  be  also 
favoured  by  the  fact  that  the  narrator,  obviously  with  a  touch  of 
intentional  irony,  tells  nothing  in  his  own  person  of  Adonijah's 
criminal  objects  in  connection  with  the  sacrificial  banquet,  although 
indeed  he  makes  Nathan  know  all  about  them  in  his  interview 
with  the  king.  Finally,  with  reference  to  the  second  part  of  the 
narrative,  there  appear  in  the  piece  relating  to  David's  last  dis- 
position clear  traces  of  a  later  hand.  These  suggest  the  suspicion 
that  the  whole  piece  is  of  a  later  origin,^  and  support  the  view  that 
in  the  original  account,  and  hence  in  actual  fact,  Joab  at  least  was 
put  to  death  by  Solomon  on  the  ground  not  of  his  remote  but  of 
his  immediate  past,  and  not  by  desire  of  David,  but  as  a  partisan 
of  Adonijah. 

But  the  literary  basis  of  this  last  supposition  is  not  sufficiently 

ensured.      The  very  parts  of  David's  last  words  that  relate  to 

Joab  and  Shime'i  are  certainly  old,^  and  the  whole  piece  is  derived 

^  So  Duncker,  Ed.  Meyer,  Wellhausen,  and  Stade.  Otherwise,  Dillmann  in 
Bib.  Lex.  Art.  '  Solomon ' ;  Kohler,  and  others. 

2  So  especially  Wellh.  Bl."^  226,  note. 

3  See  Wellh.  Bl."^  226.  He  regards  1  Kings  ii.  1-12  as  a  Deuteronomistic 
addition.     So  does  Stade. 

•*  See  Kuen.  §  xxv.  1.  He  apj^eals  above  all  to  ver.  7;  so  also  Budde,  BiSa, 
263.  Vers.  5-9  cannot,  in  point  of  fact,  be  simply  inferred  from  what  follows 
them.  It  is  easier  to  understand  the  failure  to  make  special  mention  of  the 
carrying  out  of  David's  wish  with  regard  to  Barzillai  (ver.  7),  than  to  suppose 
the  wish  itself  an  invention,  when  no  corresponding  fact  is  related.  It  is  likewise 
in  favour  of  the  originality  and  historical  character  of  vers.  5-9  that,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  Solomon's  subsequent  conduct  is  oiot  determined  exclusively  by  a  reference 
to  Adonijah  (against  Wellhausen  and  Stade).  Abiathar  was  spared,  while  Joab 
was  not.     Shime'i  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  Adonijah. 


Chap.  IY.]  SOLOMON  181 

from  our  best  document.  In  fact,  a  wish  of  this  kind  on  the 
part  of  David  does  not  raise  such  serious  difficulties  on  the  score 
of  its  contents  as  might  appear.  We  must  guard  against  trying 
to  measure  the  distant  past  by  our  moral  feelings.  We  must 
remember  what  David  did  to  the  house  of  Saul,  in  compliance 
with  the  terrible  belief  of  his  age,  in  order  to  wash  away  a  taint 
of  blood-guiltiness  that  still  adhered  to  it.  If  we  only  do  so,  it 
will  not  seem  strange,  after  all,  that  in  the  case  before  us  David 
was  haunted  by  an  anxious  dread  lest  the  crime  and  the  curse 
of  a  time  long  past  might  burst  upon  his  house  after  his  own 
death,  as  it  had  burst  on  the  house  of  Saul.^ 

It  seems  to  me  as  if  the  arguments  in  favour  of  David's  having 
actually  given  the  instructions  in  question  are  thus  stronger  than 
those  against  it.  But  light  is  thus  also  shed  on  the  other  parts 
of  the  narrative,  whose  parts  are  closely  connected.  If  David 
really  gave  Solomon  this  commission,  he  was  at  least  still  so  far 
in  command  of  his  mind  and  will  that  the  promise  regarding 
Solomon's  succession  attributed  to  him  cannot  have  been  pure 
invention.^  Bathsheba  and  Nathan  must  have  been  able  to  refer 
to  certain  facts.  We  may  probably  draw  conclusions  regarding 
the  succession  to  David's  throne  from  the  way  in  which  Saul,  and 
David  himself,  had  become  king.  To  all  appearance,  the  succession 
Avas  not  yet  so  fixed  that  the  eldest  son  would  of  necessity  be  the 
heir.  Natural  as  it  would  be,  there  had  not  yet  been  established 
any  law  of  this  kind.  Even  if  there  had  for  long  been  no  doubt 
that  one  of  David's  sons  would  be  his  successor,  he  had  yet  liberty 
to  determine  which  of  them  it  should  be.  David  had  probably 
taken  no  definite  steps  at  all  wuth  regard  to  the  succession.  He 
regarded  Adonijah's  doings  and  aspirations  as  presumptuous, 
although  he  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  forestall  them.  But  it  w^ould 
be  only  human  if,  at  the  same  time,  urged  to  it  perhaps  by 
Adonijah's  pretensions,  on  the  one  side,  and  Bathsheba's  urgency 
on  the  other,  he  had  at  some  time  or  otlier  incidentally  given  some 

1  Cf.  especially  ii.  33,  44  f.,  where  this  thought  clearly  appears  ;  and  Budde, 
mSa,  264.  -  So  especially  Wellh.  BL^  226,  note. 


182  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

promise  on  which  Solomon's  friends  could  build  hopes  for  their 
man. 

It  was  a  clever  game,  although  exceeding  lawful  bounds,  that 
Nathan  and  Bathsheba  played.  Adonijah  may  indeed  have  held 
his  meeting  at  the  Stone  of  the  Serpent  not  simply  for  the  purpose 
of  offering  a  harmless  sacrifice;  but  the  only  fact  that  is  really 
known  is  that  he  wished  to  be  alone  with  his  supporters,  and  that 
Solomon  and  his  party  were  not  invited.^  This  was  sufticient 
to  warrant  apprehensions  for  the  king — the  case  of  Absalom  made 
this  only  too  natural — but  to  report  treasonable  deeds  ^  was  nothing 
else  than  a  clever  piece  of  palace  intrigue.  This  at  least  is  the 
result  we  must  arrive  at,  if  the  relater  of  the  incident  tells  all  that 
he  knew,  and  judges  the  events  impartially.  But  it  is  quite 
possible  that  he  knew  more  than  he  actually  says,  and  had  reasons 
for  concealing  his  true  opinion.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  possible 
that  he  had  been  a  partisan  of  Adonijah — he  makes  '  all  the  men 
of  Israel'  belong  to  that  party ^ — and  therefore  regarded  events 
in  a  light  too  unfavourable  to  Solomon,  although  he  had  not  the 
courage  to  express  plainly  his  unfavourable  judgment.* 

Abiathar's  removal  from  the  priesthood  was  an  event  of  the 
greatest  importance  in  the  history  of  the  religious  cultus  in  Israel. 
A  new  priesthood  took  the  place  of  the  house  of  Eli,  which  had 
been  so  seriously  threatened  under  Saul,  but  had  finally  obtained 
favour  again  under  David.  The  importance  of  the  change  appears 
from  its  having  been  prophetically  referred  to  in  the  history  of 
Eli.  The  latter  traced  his  own  and  his  family's  priesthood 
to  Egypt,  and  probably  to  Aaron  as  priestly  ancestor.  We  do  not 
know  vv'hat  the  claims  of  Zadok  were.  He  can  hardly  have  begun 
an  absolutely  new  line  in  the  sense  that  he  was  not  a  Levite  at 
all.^     Solomon  would  have  avoided  appointing  in  Abiathar's  place 

^  1  Kings  i.  10,  19,  26.      -  1  Kings  i.  25.       -  1  Kings  i.  9,  cf.  especially  ii.  15. 

^  [On  further  consideration  I  am  more  inclined  than  formerly  to  regard 
Adonijah's  guilt  as  proven.  In  this  case  there  is  still  less  ground  for  suspecting 
Nathan  and  Bathsheba  of  intrigue  than  is  represented  in  the  text  above.  There 
is  thus,  however,  all  the  more  reason  for  supposing  that  the  narrator  is  not  quite 
free  from  tendency.] 

s  Cf.  ThStW.  iii.  299  ff.  ;  Baudissin,  Oesch.  des  Priestert.  194,  197  ff. 


Chap.  IV.]  SOLOMON  183 

one  who  had  no  claim  whatever  to  priestly  descent.  From  this 
time  forth  the  priesthood  at  Jerusalem  belonged  to  the  hcne  Sadoq 
(Zadok).  After  the  erection  of  the  temple  they  succeeded  in 
raising  their  office,  and  consequently  their  house,  to  greater  pro- 
sperity and  power. 


§  48.  Solomon,  King. 

Solomon's  task  as  king  was  obvious.  As  David's  successor  he 
entered  on  a  rich  inheritance.  All  he  had  to  do  was  to  preserve 
what  David  had  established,  and  to  strengthen  it.  His  foreign 
policy  must  be  to  maintain  the  extraordinary  predominance  that 
Israel  had  won :  at  home  he  had  to  render  permanent  the  uni- 
fication of  the  tribes  that  David  had  accomplished,  and  bind  Israel 
to  the  house  of  the  great  king. 

This  last  Solomon  was  not  able  to  accomplish.  He  himself, 
however,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  seems  to  have  had  strength  and 
ability  enough  to  maintain  the  position  that  Israel  had  reached. 
David's  kingdom  remained  in  his  hands,  if  not  uncontested  yet 
substantially  unimpaired,  and  although  he  was  not  able,  or  else  was 
not  concerned,  to  keep  the  tribes  of  Israel  contented  under  his 
sceptre,  there  was  no  outbreak  so  long  as  he  himself  lived.  The 
only  attempt  at  an  uprising  of  which  we  hear — that  of  Jeroboam — 
was  vigorously  suppressed.  However  great  the  desire  of  the 
northern  tribes  to  withdraw  from  the  house  of  David  may  have 
been,  they  did  not  attempt  to  emancipate  themselves  from  the 
powerful  sceptre  of  Solomon. 

This  shows,  to  begin  with  the  internal  relations,  that  Solomon 
was  not  the  weak,  inactive  king  that  many  have  represented  him 
as  being.  But  in  external  affairs  as  well,  he  seems  to  have  been 
equal  to  his  task,  at  least  in  all  important  affairs. 

There  was  no  lack  of  difficulties.  The  death  of  the  mighty 
David  was  doubtless  an  event  long  looked  forward  to  by  many  of 
Israel's  adversaries.  When  there  was  added  to  this  the  disappearance 
from  the  scene  of  his  bravest  soldier,  Joab,  the  opportunity  for 


184  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

attacking  Israel  became  still  more  inviting.  Hadad,  a  scion  of  the 
ancient  royal  house  of  Edom  which  David  had  overthrown/  had 
escaped  to  Egypt.  Like  Solomon  himself,  he  had  succeeded  in 
obtaining  for  his  wife  a  princess  of  the  house  of  Pharaoh,  the  sister 
of  the  queen  Tahpenes.^  Immediately  on  the  death  of  David 
he  returned  home,  and  appears  to  have  wrested  from  Solomon  at 
least  a  part  of  Edom.^  However,  either  his  dominion  was  in- 
significant and  harmless  in  the  view  of  Solomon,  or  the  latter 
succeeded  in  recovering  possession  of  Edom,  for  the  approach 
to  the  Eed  Sea  at  Eziongeber  remained  in  the  hands  of  Solomon.^ 

A  second  adversary  is  said  to  have  sprung  up  for  Solomon  in 
the  north,  at  Damascus.  Rezon  ben  Eliada',  a  general  of  that 
Hadad'ezer  of  Aram  Zoba  whom  David  had  conquered,^  severed 
himself  from  his  master.  After  living  for  some  time  a  life  of 
adventure,  he  founded  a  dominion  of  his  own,  and  elevated  the 
ancient  city  of  Damascus  to  be  its  capital.  He  drove  out  the 
governor  whom  David  is  represented  as  having  once  placed  there, 
and  Solomon  did  not  succeed  in  recovering  the  city.  Here, 
therefore,  if  the  narrative  is  historical,^  Solomon  must  have 
suffered  a  real,  and  apparently  a  permanent,  loss.  Yet  it  is  hard 
to  say  whether  at  the  time  it  was  much  felt ;  for  probably  neither 

1  2  Sam.  viii.  13  f.     On  this  see  above,  p.  163  f. 

-  The  conjecture  of  Klost.  ad  loc.  is  uncalled  for. 

2  1  Kings  xi.  14  ff.  On  the  conclusion  of  the  narrative,  cf.  lxx.,  and  above, 
pp.  53,  57  f.  The  narrative  belongs  to  So,  and  is  probably  historical.  Yet  it  is 
remarkable  that  the  names  of  both  the  Pharaoh  and  his  sister-in-law  are  lacking. 
The  same  is  true  indeed  in  the  case  of  Solomon's  own  marriage,  but  there  we 
have  to  deal  only  with  scanty  notices,  while  here  we  have  a  detailed  narrative. 
The  conjecture  of  Stade  {Gesch.  Isr.  i.  302),  that  Solomon's  marriage  with  a 
daughter  of  Pharaoh  was  really  brought  about  by  this  incident,  is  inviting. 

■*  There  is  no  reason  to  question  this  fact  (Stade).  The  question  suggests 
itself,  how  long  the  contempt  for  Israel  (ver.  2oh)  lasted. 

5  2  Sam.  viii.  3  fF.     Cf.  above,  p.  162. 

^  It  is  to  be  found  in  1  Kings  xi.  23  f.,  25«  of  the  MT.,  whereas  in  the  lxx.  it 
is  lacking.  See  above,  p.  53,  where  it  is  shown  that  the  absence  of  the  passage 
from  the  lxx.  is  most  probably  not  accidental.  Moreover,  v.  24  offers  special 
difficulties,  so  that  the  whole  incident  is  brought  into  suspicion.  See  also  Meyer, 
Gesch.  d.  Alt.  371.  Nevertheless,  the  kingdom  of  Damascus  must  have  come  into 
existence  not  long  after  Solomon.  To  this  extent  some  historical  reminiscence  or 
other  may  very  well  underlie  the  story. 


Chap.  IV.]  SOLOMON  185 

David  nor  Solomon  was  ever  really  in  possession  of  Damascus  and 
Aram  Damascus. ^  Here  again,  just  as  in  the  internal  affairs  of 
Solomon's  kingdom,  the  prospect  for  the  future  seems  to  have 
been  the  most  serious  thing,  for  certainly  in  course  of  time  the 
kingdom  of  Damascus  was  to  become  one  of  Israel's  most  dangerous 
adversaries. 

If  Solomon  had  thus  in  the  south,  perhaps  also  in  the  north, 
received  a  certain  check,  it  was  not  a  very  important  one,  and 
elsewhere  he  appears  to  have  accomplished  not  a  little  towards 
maintaining  and  strengthening  the  external  position  of  Israel.  It 
is  possible  that  he  laid  the  greatest  stress  not  so  much  on  the 
conquests  of  David  that  lay  more  on  the  outskirts  of  his  kingdom, 
as  on  maintaining  the  territory  of  Israel  proper.  It  is,  at  all  events, 
a  fact  that  he  defended  the  latter  against  hostile  attacks  by  the 
erection  of  strong  fortresses,  an  undertaking  the  meritoriousness 
of  which  cannot  be  questioned.  In  the  north,  he  fortified  Hazor 
and  Megiddo  ;  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem,  Beth-horon  and 
the  Canaanitish  royal  city  of  Gezer  ;2  towards  the  south,  as  a 
protection  for  the  frontier  and  the  caravan  route  from  Hebron  to 
Elath,  the  city  of  Tamar.^  Gezer  was  conquered  for  Solomon  by 
the  Pharaoh  of  Egypt  whose  daughter  he  married.  Mention  is 
also  made  of  a  city  called  Ba'alath,  of  uncertain  site,  perhaps  near 
Gezer,  as  being  one  of  Solomon's  fortified  places.*  Moreover,  he 
devoted  a  great  deal  of  care  to  increasing  and  keeping  in  good 
condition  the  materials  of  war,  and  the  cavalry  that  he  had, 
stationed  in  a  line  of  garrison  cities.  If  the  numbers  given  are  open 
to  suspicion,  the  fact  itself  cannot  be  doubted.^  All  this  shows  that 
we  can  hardly  speak  of  a  decline  of  Israel's  power  under  Solomon, 
even  if  he  had  to  give  up  certain  advance  posts.     Still,  after  all, 

^  See  above,  p.  163,  note  2. 

2  On  the  site  of  this  city  see  Klost.  SaKo.  328&  [and  above,  p.  151  ;  also 
especially  ZDPV.  1894,  p.  36  flf.  It  is  Tell  Jezer ;  in  Josephus,  Td^-qpa,  also 
rdSapa]. 

2  Tadmor  (  =  Palmyra),  which  Klost.  still  retains,  is  certainly  incorrect. 

•*  1  Kings  ix.  156,  16-18.  The  notices  are  old  and  genuine  (A),  even  if  the 
present  text  is  quite  in  disorder.     See  above,  p.  52  f. 

^  See  below,  p.  188  f.,  and  especially  p.  188,  note  5. 


186  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  IL 

Solomon  did  not  attain  the  greatness  of  his  father.  Brought  up  as 
a  king's  son,  without  the  opportunity  or  the  necessity  of  steeling 
his  will  in  the  hard  school  of  danger  and  self-denial,  he  was  also 
destitute  of  his  father's  energy  and  originality.  He  was  more 
interested  in  the  privileges  of  the  throne  and  its  comforts,  than  in 
its  lofty  duties  and  mission.  The  despotic  tendencies  which,  in 
the  case  of  the  father,  appeared  only  occasionally,  and  were  always 
restrained  or  suppressed,  became,  in  the  case  of  the  son,  a  funda- 
mental trait  of  character.  His  chief  interest  was  in  costly  build- 
ings, foreign  wives,  and  gorgeous  display. 

At  the  same  time  he  laid  stress  on  the  regular  administration 
of  justice,  and  his  strongest  point  was  the  organisation  of  the 
government  of  the  land.  The  final  subjugation  and  absorption  of 
the  Canaanites  went  on  simultaneously  with  this.^  Both  probably 
served  the  same  end.  Solomon  needed  plenty  of  money  and  work- 
men for  his  expensive  buildings.  This  had  to  be  supplied  by 
his  subjects.  He  recognised  no  distinction  among  the  population ; 
there  was  none  that  could  escape  the  burdens  that  fell  on  the 
community.2  He  treated  all  Israel  as  a  unity,  and  divided  it, 
without  any  regard  to  diversity  of  tribes  or  the  distinction  of 
Israelite  and  Canaanite,  into  twelve  districts.  Each  was  superin- 
tended by  an  overseer,  although  the  names  have  in  part  been  lost.^ 
The  taxes  were  fixed  on  the  basis  of  this  division.  It  was  doubt- 
less on  the  same  principle  that  the  forced  labour  was  regulated, 
which  Solomon  needed  for  the  vast  structures  tliat  he  reared  for 

1  1  Kings  ix.  20  f.  MT.  (in  the  lxx.  following  x.  22).  The  notice  is  certainly 
late  (D-),  but  still  pre-exilic  ('unto  this  day,'  v.  21),  and,  notwithstanding  v.  22, 
not  incredible.     Yet  see  Stade,  Gesch.  p.  303. 

-  1  Kings  ix.  22  conflicts  with  iv.  7  ff. 

2  1  Kings  iv.  7-19  {A).  Stade,  Gesch.  i.  p.  305,  speaks  of  thirteen  districts. 
But  the  number  twelve  is  guaranteed  by  the  twelve  months  (iv.  7  ;  v.  7),  whereas 
iv.  19c  is  corrupt.  The  usual  expedient  (supplying  Judah  in  v.  19)  is  probably 
a  mistake.  jSIoreover,  taxation  and  forced  labour  are  by  no  means  the  same  thing 
(against  Stade) ;  cf.  the  distinction  between  persons  and  things  recognised  in  the 
use  of  2''^^*J  and  D?3  in  iv.  5,  6  ;  xi.  28  (house  of  Joseph).  On  iv.  7-19  MT.,  cf. 
the  LXX.  The  MT.  has  only  seven  of  the  twelve  names.  Ed.  Rom.  has  one  name 
more  {Beev  [Batw/)]  from  p  orllfTp?);  Luc.  has  some  more,  specially  corrupt 
{e.g.  in  v.  13). 


Chap.  IV.]  SOLOMON  187 

purposes  of  war  and  peace.  In  Lebanon  alone  he  is  said  to  have 
had  ten  thousand  labourers  constantly  at  work  under  Adoniram.^ 
The  distinction  between  Israelite  and  Canaanite  continued  to  be 
observed  only  to  this  extent,  that  the  districts  that  had  formerly 
been  Canaanite  were  considerably  smaller  than  the  others.  Hence 
if  the  contribution  was  rendered  by  each  district  in  succession,  it 
would  fall  on  the  Canaanites  heavier.  They  were  indeed  become 
'  tributary '  through  this  forcible  incorporation  into  Israel. 

The  simple  court  kept  by  Saul  and  David  had  known  nothing 
of  such  burdens.  They  would  therefore  now  be  felt  all  the  more 
severe.  There  was  just  as  little  regard  for  the  freedom  as  for  the 
property  of  subjects.  No  wonder  then  that,  in  course  of  time,  the 
discontent  which  had  probably  long  been  cherished  in  secret,  burst 
forth  in  angry  revolt.  It  was  no  accident  that  this  originated 
with  the  house  of  Joseph,  and  so  with  Ephraim,  and  still  less  that 
it  originated  with  one  of  Solomon's  overseers.  The  old  enmity  of 
the  northern  tribes  against  the  house  of  Jesse,  and  the  discontent 
with  the  present  severe  regime,  were  two  springs  whose  waters 
flowed  into  the  same  channel. 

Jeroboam  ben  Nebat,  an  Ephraimite  of  Zereda,  placed  himself 
at  the  head  of  the  movement.  He  seems  to  have  been  a  young 
man  of  low  station,  the  son  of  a  poor  widow.  It  was  towards  the 
end  of  his  reign,  as  he  was  building  Millo^  and  so  '  closing  up  the 
breach  of  the  city  of  David,'  that  the  king  made  Jeroboam's 
acquaintance  among  his  workmen,  and  learned  to  appreciate  his 
value.  Soon  he  had  assigned  to  him  the  oversight  of  the  forced 
labour  of  the  house  of  Joseph — the  very  best  opportunity  for 
becoming  acquainted  with  the  complaints  of  the  people  and 
turning  them  to  advantage.  After  a  shorter  or  longer  time, 
Jeroboam  resolved  to  raise  the  flag  of  revolt.  He  achieved 
nothing,  however:  either  the  conspiracy  was  prematurely  dis- 
covered, or  the  rising  was  suppressed.     Jeroboam  himself  escaped 

1  1  Kings  V.  27  f.  (So).     The  question  arises  how  the  following  statement  in 
V.  29  f.  agrees  with  this.     It  is  usually  regarded  as  an  addition  by  the  hand  of 

-  [SeeZZ)Pr.  1894,  p.  6.] 


188  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

to  Egypt,  where  lie  met  with  a  good  reception  from  the  Pharaoh 
Shishak,  the  Shishonq  who  founded  the  twenty-second  dynasty  of 
Manetho.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Jeroboam  was  supported  in  his 
enterprise  by  a  prophet,  Ahijah  of  Shiloh.^  The  discontent  with 
the  regime  of  Solomon  had  affected  all  classes  of  the  community. 

The  traditional  view  of  Solomon  represents  him  as  a  king 
equally  rich  in  wisdom  and  justice,  and  in  gold  and  treasures. 
His  wisdom  and  justice  are  proved  by  his  measures  for  securing 
his  frontier  and  for  regulating  the  administration  of  the  kingdom, 
and  by  his  celebrated,  and  certainly  historical,  judicial  judgment,^ 
which  indeed  leaves  posterity  to  wonder  to  which  of  the  great 
king's  endowments  the  palm  should  be  awarded,  his  wisdom  or  his 
justice.  There  was  therefore  good  warrant  for  attributing  to  him 
many  sayings  of  practical  wisdom.  It  is  also  quite  credible  that, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  accession,  he  had  a  vision  pointing  out  to 
him  his  way  and  the  will  of  Yahve.^  It  can  cause  no  surprise 
that  vast  treasure  passed  through  his  hands,  when  we  reflect  with 
what  severity  his  taxes  were  collected,  and  remember  that  he  also 
undertook  many  profitable  enterprises. 

It  is  beyond  doubt  that  Solomon  was  the  first  to  introduce  the 
horse  into  Israel  on  a  large  scale,  especially  for  military  purposes.* 
It  is  remarkable  that  all  allusions  to  this  are  to  be  found  in 
connection  with  later  statements  concerning  Solomon's  magni- 
ficence and  splendour.^  Still,  this  cannot  prevent  us  from 
regarding  them  as  historically  reliable,  at  least  as  far  as  regards 
the  fact  in  question.  If  Egypt  was,  as  it  appears  to  have  been, 
the    land    from  which    Syria  got    its   supply   of   horses,  and   if 

^  The  narrative  is  to  be  found  in  1  Kings  xi.  26-40.  Vv.  26-28,  40  are  cer- 
tainly old.  The  intervening  narrative  concerning  the  insurrection  proper  has 
fallen  out ;  but  this  does  not  show  that  vv.  29-39  have  taken  its  place.  The  passage 
29-39  has  evidently  been  revised,  but  its  kernel  seems  to  be  old.  (See  above, 
p.  58.)  Note  especially  ^HN*  D2K^,  v.  32,  35.  Stade  (306  f.)  takes  a  different 
view. 

-  1  Kings  iii.  16  ff.     (So,  or  even  A?). 

2  1  Kings  iii.  4  ff.     See  above,  p.  57  f . ,  esp.  p.  57,  note  5. 

*  See  Rhiem  in  H  WB.  p.  865  [-885],  and  such  passages  as  1  Kings  xvi.  9. 

^  1  Kings  v.  6,  X.  26 ;  cf.  ix.  19.  It  is  certainly  very  suspicious  that  two  of 
these  passages  are  wanting  in  the  lxx. 


Chap.  IV.]  SOLOMON  189 

Solomon  was  the  son-in-law  of  the  Pharaoh  reigning  there,  there 
is  probably  also  no  serious  objection  to  be  made  to  the  statement 
that  Solomon  was  able  to  make  a  lucrative  business  of  his  impor- 
tation of  Egyptian  horses.^  The  visit  of  the  queen  of  the  old 
Sabsean  kingdom  to  Solomon's  court  was  probably  also,  in  the 
first  instance,  connected  with  commercial  affairs.  I  am  not  inclined 
to  relegate  it  either,  once  for  all,  to  the  region  of  legend.^  For 
though  later  legend  may  have  considerably  exaggerated  Solomon's 
splendour,  all  those  legends  could  not  have  originated  without 
some  foundation  in  the  facts  themselves.  Solomon's  expeditions, 
on  the  other  hand,  to  the  Arabian  gold  land  of  Ophir,^  seem  to  me 
to  be  specially  well  attested  by  the  sources.*  It  was  a  case  of 
a  single  ship,  which  Iliram  of  Tyre^  manned  with  his  skilled 
seamen,  to  bring  natural  products  and  articles  of  trade  from 
Arabia  Felix. 

All  this  is  not  at  all  inconsistent^  with  Solomon's  treasury 
often  being  empty,  finally  so  empty  that  he  was  obliged  to  pledge 
twenty  cities  in  Galilee  to  Hiram."^  His  marriage  with  a  daughter 
of  Pharaoh  made  his  court  expensive,  and  his  castles  and  fortifica- 
tions must  have  consumed  enormous  sums  of  money. 

§  49.  Solomon's  Temple  and  Palace. 

We  cannot  deny  Solomon  also  a  deep  interest  in  religion  and 
cultus.     His  building  the  temple  testifies  to  this.     It  was,  indeed, 

^  1  Kings  X.  28  f.     The  text  is  almost  hopelessly  corrupt. 

-  We  must  assign  the  narrative  (x,  1  fF.)  to  So.  See  above,  p.  58.  On  the 
kingdom  of  Saba,  see  now  esp.  Glaser,  Skizze  cler  Gesch.  und  Geogr.  Arabicns 
(1890),  p.  357  ff.,  and  thereon  Sprenger  in  ZDMG.  1890,  501  flf. 

^  On  its  site  see  Glaser,  ibid.  ;  but  esp.  Sprenger,  ibid.  514  ff. 

■*  1  Kings  ix.  26  flf.  ;  x.  11  (A  and  So).  The  two  passages  are  in  perfect 
agreement  with  each  other,  although  they  come  from  different  hands.  In  x.  11 
the  ship  is  actually  called  Hiram's  ship,  which  is  fully  accounted  for  by  the  facts 
set  forth  in  ix.  26  ff".  I  would  assign  x.  22  to  a  third  not  very  late  source.  Here 
there  are  two  ships  (of  Tarshish).  The  passage  is  further  interesting  on  account 
of  the  information  it  gives  of  the  nature  and  cargo  of  these  Tartessus  ships.  [On 
Tarshish  compare  now  also  Le  Page  Renouf,  in  Proc.  Soc.  Bibl.  Arch.  1894, 
p.  104  fF.,  and  138  ff.]  ^  On  Hiram  see  above,  p.  157,  note  2. 

^  On  this  and  the  preceding  see  Stade,  Geach.  i.  303  f. 

7  1  Kings  ix.  10  f. 


190  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

only  as  a  constituent  part  of  his  magnificent  royal  city  that  he 
built  it.  But  we  can  hardly  suppose  that  he  did  not  at  the  same 
time  contemplate  providing  the  nation  with  a  sanctuary  of  special 
importance  and  attractive  power.  Nevertheless,  it  was  certainly 
not  a  part  of  his  design,  at  least  for  the  present,  to  constitute  the 
temple  the  one  valid  and  legitimate  sanctuary,  as  Deuteronomy 
afterwards  did,  although  in  time  this  result  would  follow  of  itself. 
But  there  is  hardly  any  good  reason  for  denying  that  the  king  was 
animated  by  the  aim  of  constituting  his  sanctuary  more  and  more 
the  centre  of  the  religious  life  of  the  nation,  in  the  same  way  as 
Jerusalem  had  become,  by  David's  influence  and  his  own,  and  the 
presence  of  his  magnificent  court,  more  and  more  the  centre  of 
public  and  civil  life.  In  fact,  although  the  temple  was  only  a 
constituent  part  of  the  palace  buildings,  it  was  at  the  same  time  so 
grandly  and  independently  planned,  as  to  betray  a  higher  destina- 
tion already  present  in  the  mind  of  Solomon.  A  mere  palace 
sanctuary,  were  it  ever  so  splendid,  would  be  smaller  and  simpler 
in  its  plan. 

A  number  of  scholars  have  recently  done  meritorious  work  in 
the  careful  investigation  of  the  subject  of  Solomon's  buildings.  In 
the  first  place,  Stade  advanced  our  knowledge  of  the  subject  by  a 
thorough-going  investigation  of  the  text  of  our  account  in  1  Kings 
v.-vii.^  Then,  on  the  basis  of  his  penetrating  critical  investigations, 
he  accomplished  the  reconstruction  of  the  temple  and  the  other 
buildings  of  Solomon  in  a  manner  that  is  highly  attractive,  and,  in 
many  points,  very  satisfactory.-  His  results  have  been  accepted  in 
important  points  by  a  number  of  those  who  have  taken  up  the 
subject  more  recently.  In  particular,  his  critical  results  have  been 
acknowledged  by  Chipiez  and  Perrot  in  their  great  and  splendid 
work.^  Where  they  deviate  from  Stade  in  their  restorations  of  the 
buildings  themselves,  they  not  infrequently  wander  from  the  basis 
of  exact  demonstration.      Friedrich,^  also,  who  notwithstanding 

1  ZA  W.  iii.  129  ff.  -  Gesclu  Isr.  i.  311  ff. 

^  Le  temple  de  Jerusalem  et  la  maison  dn  hois-Liban.     Paris,  1889. 

■^  Tempel  und  Palast  Salomos,  Innsbr.  1887,  where  special  attention  is  devoted 
to  the  meaning  of  the  word  Vp^.  See  still  more  recently,  Die  vorderas.  Hoh- 
tektonik,  1891.     [Also  the  handbooks  on  Archaeology.] 


Chap.  IV.]  SOLOMON  191 

agreement  with  Stade  on  many  matters,  gives  a  different  explana- 
tion of  several  important  points,  and  thus  reaches  a  considerably 
different  general  result,  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  always  happy  in 
the  points  where  he  pursues  an  independent  course.  Altliough  he 
is  able  to  refer  in  several  cases  to  the  Septuagint  and  Targum,  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  these  late  translators  themselves  had 
no  idea  of  the  meaning  of  the  disputed  terms.^  After  all,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  we  have  only  a  basis  of  hypothesis  to  go  upon, 
and  have  often,  in  the  absence  of  certainty,  to  seek  the  greatest 
probability. 

The  site  of  the  temple  of  Solomon  is,  in  all  probability,  to  be 
sought  in  the  neighbourhood  of  that  spot  on  the  hill  of  Zion  which 
is  still  regarded  as  sacred  by  the  Arabs  of  to-day,  and  is  known  as 
the  Dome  of  the  Eock.  As  is  well  known,  there  is  to  be  found 
within  the  latter  a  sacred  rock,  of  which  there  still  lies  exposed  a 
portion  of  some  fifty-seven  feet  in  length,  forty-three  feet  in  breadth, 
and  six  and  a  half  feet  in  height.^ 

We  may  assume  that  the  altar  erected  by  David  at  the  thresh- 
ing-floor of  Araunah,  and  therefore,  also,  the  altar  of  burnt-offering 
of  Solomon,  stood  on  this  rock.  There  is  still  evidence,  in  the  signs 
of  an  escape-channel  connected  with  an  aqueduct,  that  the  rock 
once  served  as  an  altar.^  From  this  rock  as  a  starting-point,  the 
position  of  the  temple  itself  may  be  accurately  determined,  for  the 
altar  of  burnt-offering  was  placed  east  of  the  temple,  in  front  of  its 
chief  entrance  in  the  outer  court.  The  temple  itself,  therefore, 
extended  lengthwise  westward  from  the  altar.  As  the  hill  slopes 
somewhat  toward  the  west,  there  was  need  here  of  somewhat 
extensive  artificial  foundations.'* 

1  Cf.  also  WolfiF,  ZDPV.  xi.  60  ff.,  and  his  Tempel  v.  Jerus.,  1887. 

2  Cf.  Adler,  Der  Felsendom  und  die  Id.  Grabeskirche  zu  Jerus.  (1873),  p.  17  ff.  ; 
Schick,  Beit  el  Makdas  oder  der  alte  Tem2Jelplatz  zu  Jei'us.  (1887),  p.  7  tf. ,  and  the 
illustration  on  p.  14  (fig.  2)  ;  Bad. ^  47  [Eng.  Transl.- p.  45];  Ebers  and  Gutho, 
Paldst.  67. 

^  On  this  see  Biid.^  47  [Eng.  Transl.-  p.  45];  and  on  its  significance,  esp. 
Guthe,  ZDPV.  xiii.  123  ff. 

^  The  topographical  investigations  of  recent  times,  founded  on  the  results  of 
excavations,  have  provided  more  detailed  information  on  this  subject.     See  esp. 


192  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

It  is  only  the  inner  dimensions  of  the  temple  that  have  been 
supplied  us,  so  that  we  can  form  no  exact  idea  either  of  the 
height  or  structure  of  the  roof,  or  of  the  thickness  of  the  outer 
wall.  The  details  of  Ezekiel  can  to  some  extent  be  applied  here 
and  there  with  great  probability,  since  Ezekiel  knew  the  temple  of 
Solomon,  and  made  it  the  basis  of  his  description  of  the  future  temple. 

The  temple  strictly  so  called,  consisted  of  two  principal  compart- 
ments— the  Debir,  or  so-called  Holy  of  Holies,  at  the  back,  perfectly 
dark  and  built  in  the  shape  of  a  cube ;  and  before  it  an  oblong 
front  room.  The  latter  was  forty  cubits  in  length,  twenty  in 
breadth,  and  thirty  in  height.  There  stood  in  it  an  altar  made  of 
cedar- wood,  the  so-called  table  of  shew-bread.  The  sacrificial  loaves 
of  Yahve  were  brought  at  regular  intervals,  as  had  been  the  case 
before  at  Nob,  and  probably  at  the  ark.  They  were  deposited 
on  this  altar-table  before  the  face  of  Yahve.  The  outer  room 
probably  also  contained,  even  in  the  temple  of  Solomon,  although 
this  has  latterly  been  contested,  the  altar  of  incense.  This  room 
also  must  have  been  comparatively  dark,  as  the  windows  of 
moderate  size  through  which  it  received  its  light,  were  at  a  height 
of  not  less  than  twenty  cubits  above  the  ground. 

The  back  room  which  constituted  the  adytum  proper,  called  in 
Hebrew  Debir,  formed  a  cube,  twenty  cubits  in  length  and  breadth 
and  height.  It  was  enclosed  above  by  a  roof  of  its  own,  while  the 
temple  building  itself  was  continued  to  a  height  of  thirty  cubits. 
There  was  thus  over  the  Holy  of  Holies  ^  an  upper  story  ten 
cubits  high.  The  Holy  of  Holies  was  the  dwelling-place  proper 
of  Yahve.  It  contained,  in  the  case  of  the  temple  of  Solomon, 
so  far  as  we  know,  the  ark  and  nothing  else.  Over  this,  represent- 
ing the  presence  of  God,  and  acting  as  guardians,  so  to  speak,  of 
the  sacred  place,-  stood  two  cherubim  carved  in  olive-wood,  each 
ten  cubits  in  height. 

Zimmermann,  Karten  und  Plane  zur  Topogr.  d.  alt.  Jey'us.  nebst  Begleitschrift. 
Also  Warren,  Underground  Jerusalem ;  Wilson  and  Warren,  Recovery  of  Jerusalem 
(1871);  Survey  of  Western  Palestine  (1884).  Also  Ebers  and  Guthe,  Palast.  in 
Bild  und  Wort  ;  and  Guthe  in  ZDPV.  v.  7  ff.,  271  ff. 

^  The  name  itself  is  younger.  -  Cf.  the  cherubim  of  Paradise. 


Chap.  IV.]  SOLOMON  193 

In  front  of  the  building  was  an  entrance-hall  twenty  cubits 
broad  and  ten  cubits  long,  at  the  entrance  to  which  stood  two 
pillars  cast  in  bronze,  called  Jachin  and  Boaz.  The  temple  was  sur- 
rounded on  its  three  remaining  sides — those  facing  north,  west,  and 
soutli — by  a  structure  fifteen  cubits  high,  attached  directly  to  the 
outer  wall.  It  enclosed  the  three  sides  of  the  temple  to  half  their 
height,  and  consisted  of  three  stories,  each  five  cubits  high,  and 
each  containing  a  number  of  apartments.  These  appear  to  have 
served  for  the  accommodation  of  temple  paraphernalia  and  votive 
offerings.  The  whole  building  was  surrounded  by  the  outer 
court,  the  size  of  which  we  do  not  know.  This  latter  was  the 
real  place  of  worship  for  the  people,  where  they  presented  their 
sacrifices  and  celebrated  their  feasts.  The  temple  itself  was 
entered  by  the  priests  alone. 

The  other  buildings  erected  by  Solomon  on  Zion  immediately 
adjoined  the  temple  enclosure  proper,  which  constituted  a  con- 
siderable part  of  the  whole.  They  lay  in  all  probability  farther 
south,  where  on  the  one  hand  there  is  more  space,  and  on  the 
other  Zion  slopes  down  in  such  a  way  that  one  would  naturally 
speak  of  going  up  to  the  temple  from  the  palace.^  We  are  not 
told  in  what  relation  they  stood  to  the  old  citadel  of  David.  It 
is  most  natural  to  suppose  that  the  latter  was  pulled  down  when 
Solomon's  own  palace  and  that  of  his  Egyptian  wife  had  been 
built.  It  may  perhaps  have  stood  on  a  site  afterwards  occupied 
by  one  of  Solomon's  halls.  The  buildings  constituting  Solomon's 
palace  consisted  of  three  parts.  The  first  was  the  so-called  House 
of  the  Forest  of  Lebanon.  It  was  a  hundred  cubits  long,  and 
half  as  broad,  and  rested  on  forty-five'  cedar  pillars ;  looking 
therefore,  from  a  distance,  like  a  cedar  forest.  The  purpose  of  this 
stately  building  may  be  inferred  from  its  hall-like  plan.  It  may 
have  served  for  gatherings  of  the  nobility,  the  elders  of  Israel, 
while  its  upper  apartments  might  very  well  form  the  armoury 
of  the  royal  castle." 

1  SeeGuthe,  ZDPV.  v.  314. 

'  Cf.  Isa.  xxxix,  2 ;  xxii.  8  ;   1  Kings  x.  16  f. 

VOL.  II.  N 


194  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

The  second  part,  lying  between  the  House  of  Lebanon  and  the 
palace  proper,  consisted  of  two  halls.  The  first  of  them — that 
lying  nearer  the  city — was  a  pillared  hall,  fifty  cubits  long  and 
thirty  cubits  broad,  provided  with  a  stately  vestibule.  In  im- 
mediate connection  with  it  stood  another  hall  which  served  as 
a  hall  of  judgment.  Here  Solomon  dispensed  justice,  while 
the  first-mentioned  hall,  in  front  of  it,  probably  formed  only 
the  entrance  to  it — a  place  where  people  seeking  justice 
assembled  to  await  their  summons  to  appear  before  the 
throne. 

The  third  part  of  the  whole  group  of  buildings  forming 
Solomon's  citadel,  consisted  of  the  royal  palace  itself,  and  that  of 
the  queen.  It  was  enclosed  between  the  temple  with  its  outer 
court  towards  the  north,  and  the  above-mentioned  halls  used  for 
state  buildings  toward  the  south,  as  if  protected  on  both  sides. 
We  are  not  informed  of  the  structure  of  these  buildings  forming 
the  palace  proper.  The  priestly  narrator,  accurately  informed  as 
he  is  about  the  temple  and  the  outer  buildings,  seems  not  to  have 
set  foot  in  these.  We  know  only  that  the  palace  consisted 
of  two  main  buildings,  the  palace  of  Solomon  and  his  family, 
and  that  of  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh,  which  immediately  ad- 
joined it. 

So  stately  a  building  as  Solomon's  temple  or  his  palace  was  for 
that  age,  could  not  indeed  be  carried  through  in  Israel  with  native 
labour  or  native  materials.  The  finer  qualities  of  wood  grew,  in 
Israel  itself,  only  in  small  quantities ;  cedars,  hardly  anywhere. 
The  art  of  working  in  stone  and  building  with  squared  stone 
seems  to  have  been  still  unknown  in  Israel.  Still  less  had  casting 
in  bronze,  and  in  general  the  more  artistic  kinds  of  work  in  metal, 
been  naturalised  in  Israel.  Hence  it  was  necessary  to  look  for 
foreign  help. 

David  had  already  employed  Phoenician  masons  and  carpenters, 
and  Phoenician  cedar,  for  his  palace  on  Zion,  which  was  at  all 
events  a  much  more  unassuming  structure,  and  the  treaty  with 
Hiram  of  Tyre  was  still  in  existence.     It  was  thus  a  matter  of 


Chap.  IV.]  SOLOMON  195 

course  that  Solomon  would  follow  his  father's  example.^  The 
wood  was  hewn  on  Lebanon  by  the  forced  labour  of  Israelites  in 
the  service  of  Solomon,  transported  by  Hiram's  men  to  the  sea, 
and  conveyed  to  a  suitable  harbour  near  Jerusalem  (Joppa).  For 
these  services  Solomon  handed  over  to  Hiram  great  quantities  of 
wheat  and  oil  from  the  produce  of  his  land. 

The  time  spent  in  building  the  temple  was  almost  seven  years. 
The  bronze  work  was  cast  by  a  Tyrian  artificer  named  Huram- 
abi,2  who  erected  his  workshop  at  Succoth  in  the  valley  of  the 
Jordan.  On  the  completion  of  the  temple,  Solomon  celebrated  a ' 
splendid  festival  of  dedication,  and  brought  the  ark  with  cere- 
monial pomp  to  the  sacred  inner  apartment  of  the  temple."^  On 
this  occasion  Solomon  pronounced  a  highly  poetical  dedication 
oracle,  which  is  somewhat  mutilated  in  the  present  text,  but  can 
be  recovered  from  the  Lxx.^  The  later  editor  substituted  for  it  a 
detailed  dedicatory  prayer  of  Solomon.     The  saying  runs  thus  : — 

*  The  sun  hath  Yahve  set  in  the  canopy  of  heaven. 
Himself  hath  said,  he  will  dwelt  in  darkness. 
I  have  built  thee  a  house  to  dwell  in, 
A  place  to  dwell  in  for  eternal  ages.' 

The  importance  of  Solomon's  temple^  has  been  explained  in 
what  was  said  of  the  significance  of  David's  choice  of  Jerusalem 
as  capital  of  the  land,  and  centre  of  the  religious  life  of  Israel. 
Solomon  was  in  this  respect  only  the  executor  of  his  father's 
designs.  But  what  was  thus  accomplished — David  preparing  the 
way  and  Solomon  carrying  the  work  through — can  hardly  be 
estimated  at  too  high  a  value.     In  particular,  it  was  only  through 

^  Doubtless  the  PhcBnicians  themselves  worked  for  the  most  part  according 
to  foreign  patterns  {cf.  Pietschmann,  140  fif.,  265  ff.).  Hence  we  may  assume 
that  Solomon's  temple  and  its  various  fittings  bore  resemblance  in  many  points 
not  only  to  Phoenician,  but  also  to  other,  and  especially  to  Assyrian,  temples  of 
that  age. 

"  [On  this  name  see  Giesebrecht,  in  ZA  W.  i.  239  fif.] 

2  1  Kings  viii.  1  fF.  The  piece  has  been  repeatedly  revised,  as  the  numerous 
additions  in  the  LXX.  are  enough  to  show.  The  kernel  is  old.  See  Wellh.  Bl.^ 
234  ff.,  and  above,  p.  52. 

•1  [Wellhausen,  Bl.''  236  ;  cf.  Cheyne,  Origin  of  the  Pscdter,  pp.  193,  212.] 

5  See  also  Smend,  in  StKr.  1884,  689  ff. 


196  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

the  temple  of  Jerusalem  that  Judah  and  the  dynasty  of  David, 
which  were  soon  to  be  severed  from  the  rest  of  Israel  and  lead  for 
centuries  a  separate  existence,  were  at  all  able,  and  especially  for 
so  long  a  time  able,  to  maintain  themselves.  The  religious  side 
of  David's  work  had  attained  through  the  temple  a  character  of 
permanence.  The  ark  had  found  its  place,  and  God  himself  a 
home  in  Israel,  for  all  time.  If  Judah  was  only  partly  able  to 
administer  this  legacy  of  its  two  greatest  kings,  it  would  soon 
perceive  what  a  treasure  it  had  thus  secured  in  its  midst.  From 
the  point  of  view  of  religion,  it  was  the  place  of  the  imageless 
worship  of  Yahve,  a  worship  that  must  more  and  more  win 
general  approbation ;  from  the  political  point  of  view,  it  was  the 
most  splendid  sanctuary  in  Israel,  which  surpassed  all  others,  and 
soon  became  the  ideal  support  of  the  house  of  David  in  time  of 
trouble.  In  both  these  respects  the  temple  became  the  corner- 
stone on  which  Israel's  enemies  shattered  themselves,  and  the 
foundation-stone  on  which  Israel's  hope  built  up  for  itself  a  new 
future. 


§  50.  Civilisation  and  Religion  of  the  First  Period  of  the 
Monarchy} 

1.  Mode  of  life.  Political  organisation.  Literature. — The 
transition  from  nomadic  to  agricultural  life  had  been  accomplished 
in  the  preceding  period.  It  was  simply  the  consequence  of  this 
change  of  life,  and  of  what  Israel  saw  of  the  life  of  the  former 
possessors  of  the  land,  that  people  became  more  and  more 
accustomed  to  dwell  in  cities  and  to  adopt  the  forms  of  city  life. 
Gibeah,  Saul's  royal  seat,  seems  to  have  been  nothing  more  than 
an  unassuming  peasant  village,  and  his  citadel  there  not  much 
more  than  a  dwelling-house,  arranged  after  the  primitive  fashion 
of  the  age.  In  David's  time  things  changed,  and  still  more  in 
Solomon's.     The  value   of  walled   and   fortified    cities,  and    the 

^  [See  also  now  the   related    sections    in  the    Archaeological  Handbooks  of 
Nowack  and  Benzinger,  and  in  Smend's  i477.  Rdigionsgeschichtt.] 


Chap.  IV.]  SOLOMON  197 

charm  and  importance  of  royal  castles  and  skilfully  constructed 
stone  buildings,  came  to  be  felt.  We  see  at  all  points  the  wider 
prospect  and  clianged  mode  of  life. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  it  was  impossible  to  do  justice  to  the 
higher  claims  of  this  age  of  progress  without  help  from  without. 
The  original  affinity  of  the  Canaanites  and  the  Phoenicians  was 
not  only  no  hindrance,  but  perhaps  actually  an  incentive,  to  closer 
relations  between  Israel  and  Tyre  and  Sidon,  the  headquarters  of 
the  Phoenician  city  republics.  Israel  had,  on  the  whole,  come  to 
terms  in  a  peaceable  manner  with  the  former  masters  of  the  land. 
Occasional  provocations  and  individual  cases  of  oppression  of 
Canaanite  cities  by  Saul  and  Solomon,  in  no  way  altered  the 
relation.  The  Phoenicians  were  hardly  any  longer  conscious  of 
the  old  connection. 

The  alliance  with  Hiram  was  fruitful  of  many  results  for 
Israel.  Without  it  David's  and  Solomon's  buildings  would  hardly 
be  conceivable.  The  stimulus  that  Israel  itself  derived  from  them 
must,  in  any  case,  be  estimated  at  a  high  value.  Moreover  Israel, 
which  up  to  this  time  appears  to  have  devoted  itself  exclusively 
to  its  own  land,  became  now  acquainted  with  the  commerce  of  the 
world  on  a  larger  scale.  It  was  at  first  a  timid  and  very  unas- 
suming attempt  that  Israel  made,  in  a  sphere  that  was  afterwards 
to  become  almost  a  second  nature  to  it.  Yet  in  view  of  this  later 
development  of  the  people  of  Israel,  Solomon's  expeditions  to 
Ophir  have  a  special  interest. 

An  advance  in  political  organisation  and  its  institutions  was 
just  as  much  a  matter  of  course,  on  the  rise  of  the  monarchy,  as 
the  development  of  intellectual  and  moral  life. 

The  old  associations  of  clan  and  tribe,  the  classical  testimony 
to  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  Blessing  of  Jacob  in  Gen.  xlix., 
still  retained  their  vitality.  Saul  relied  on  his  tribe  of  Benjamin,^ 
David  on  Judah.  The  movements  led  by  Shimei  and  Jeroboam 
also  had  their  support  in  tribal  feeling.  Alongside  of  this,  more- 
over,   there    existed    at   this   time,  especially   in    the   cities,   an 

1  Cf.  1  Sam.  xxii.  7. 


198  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

oligarchic  communal  polity  after  the  Phcenician  pattern.^  But 
both  of  these  lost  in  importance  through  the  establishment  of 
the  monarchic  system.  They  were  supplanted  either  in  part  or 
altogether,  by  independent  organisations.  Solomon's  partition  of 
the  land  into  districts  for  taxation,  broke  through  the  old  tribal 
system.  The  requirements  of  the  military  organisation  of  David 
and  Solomon  would  hardly  be  met  by  such  a  muster  as  the  heads 
of  tribes  and  elders  of  districts  had  had  at  their  disposal.  The 
object  served  by  David's  census  of  the  nation  was  certainly  similar 
to  that  of  Solomon's  division  of  the  land  into  districts.  With  this 
was  connected  the  appearance  of  definite  offices,  which  can  now 
be  clearly  discerned,  and  which  became  in  time  indispensable  to 
the  monarchy.  A  whole  staff  of  officials  was  brought  into  exis- 
tence, the  highest  representatives  of  which  are  named  for  us  in 
the  case  of  David  and  Solomon.^  It  was  inevitable  that  there 
should  soon  spring  up,  in  addition  to  the  occupants  of  the  highest 
position,  a  number  of  other  holders  of  royal  office. 

Two  of  the  highest  court  officials  bore  the  names  of  Mazkir 
and  Sopher.  These  were  the  Chancellor,  and  the  Secretary  or 
Secretaries  of  State.^  They  indicate  that  we  have  reached  a 
distinct  turning-point  in  the  intellectual  life  of  the  age.  The  art 
of  writing,  hitherto  only  exceptionally  found,  had  become  the 
rule.*  Israel  had  thus  attained  the  rank  of  a  nation  manifesting 
literary  activity.  If  posterity  has  more  than  a  vague  knowledge 
of  the  past  of  Israel,  it  owes  it  to  the  circumstance  just  mentioned. 
It  may  be  left  undecided  how  far  we  still  have  records  dating 
from  the  days  of  David — e.g.  from  the  hand  of  his  Mazkir  and 
Sopher.  At  all  events,  the  documents  Je  and  Da  may  be  traced 
indirectly  back  to  this  officer.  David's  elegy  on  Saul  and 
Jonathan  may  belong  directly  to  him.  With  still  greater  pro- 
bability was  it  argued  above,  that  considerable  fragments  of  the 

1  Cf.  e.g.  1  Sam.  xi.  3  ;  xvi.  4  ;  2  Sam.  iii.  17 ;  v.  3 ;  xvii.  4,  15 ;  xix.  12  ; 
1  Kings  viii.  1,  3. 

2  2  Sam.  viii.  16-18 ;  xx.  23-25 ;  1  Kings  iv.  2-6  ;  cf.  v.  7  fif.  Solomon  took 
over  several  of  these  officers  from  his  father.  On  the  list  of  his  officers,  see 
above   p,  186,  note  3.  ^  In  the  time  of  Solomon  there  were  two. 

*  At  least,  the  name  SSpher  shows  this.     CJ.  2  Sam.  xi.  14. 


Chap.  IV.]  SOLOMON  199 

work  of  this  officer  of  Solomon's  have  reached  us.^  In  any  case 
these  were  not  the  only  products  of  the  literary  activity  of  the 
age  of  Solomon.  Those  songs,  belonging  in  part  to  a  much  older 
age,  which  formed  the  contents  of  the  Booh  of  the  Wars  of  Yahv^, 
— i.e.  the  wars  of  Israel  during  its  heroic  age — and  of  the 
Book  of  the  Excellent^  were  now  also  collected.  Song-books  and 
annals  thus  formed  the  continuation  of  a  literature,  the  beginnings 
of  which  belonged  to  the  preceding  period,  and  the  most  magni- 
ficent fruits  of  which  were  to  be  matured  in  the  period  imme- 
diately following. 

2.  Morals. — Saul  and  David  were  men  of  the  sword.  The  iron 
age  did  not  belie  itself  in  their  conduct  and  that  of  their  con- 
temporaries. The  usages  of  war  had  scarcely  been  at  all  miti- 
gated as  compared  with  the  preceding  age.  The  cruel  custom  of 
the  herem — the  ban^ — still  continued  in  force.  Nay,  Samuel  is 
represented  as  having  enforced  it  with  special  severity.*  Even 
where  the  herem  is  not  specially  mentioned,  the  enemy  seems  to 
have  been  treated  with  the  old  severity.  On  being  conquered 
they  were  massacred,^  and  in  many  predatory  excursions  not 
even  women  and  children  were  spared.^  Even  where  political 
or  humane  considerations  might  demand  partial  or  complete 
clemency,  the  lot  of  the  conquered  was  hard  enough.'^ 

The  character  of  the  age  naturally  brought  with  it  other 
savage  customs.  It  was  a  hundred  foreskins  of  slaughtered 
Philistines  that  Saul  demanded  as  a  dowry  at  the  hand  of  his 
prospective  son-in-law.^  Saul's  posterity  were  sacrificed  by 
David  to  a  terrible  superstition,  and  were  exposed  unburied, 
under  the  open  sky,  as  food  for  the  birds  and  beasts.^     Under  the 

1  See  above,  p.  56  f. 

-  On  these  see  above,  vol.  i.  p.  81  ff.  [Eng.  Transl.,  i.  90  ff.]. 
^  See  above,  p.  64  f.,  and  Driver,  Notes,  p,  100  f. 

4  1  Sam.  XV.  10  ff.  ^  i  Kings  xi.  14  f.  (MT,  24)  ;  2  Kings  viii.  4  (?). 

^  1  Sam.  xxvii.  9  flF. 

'  2  Sam.  viii.  1  flF.  ;  xii.  31.     On  this  passage  see  above,  p.  162,  note  5. 
^  1  Sam.  xviii.  25  flf. 

^  2  Sam.  xxi.     Cf.  the  hanging  up  of  the  bodies  of  Saul  and  Jonathan  by  the 
Philistines.     1  Sam.  xxxi.  10,  12 ;  2  Sam.  xxi.  12. 


200  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

curse  of  the  same  dark  delusion,  Saul  himself  was  ready  to  cut 
off  his  own  heroic  son  on  the  very  day  of  his  victory.^ 

But  gross  and  savage  customs  were  counterbalanced  by 
gentler  traits  and  kindlier  usages.  They  show  more  and  more 
how  noble  energies  were  gradually  evolving  themselves,  which 
were  destined,  in  alliance  with  the  religion  of  Israel,  to  break 
through  the  old  Semitic  modes  of  thought  and  life.  The  friend- 
ship of  David  and  Jonathan  is  for  all  ages  the  type  of  the  purest 
and  noblest  human  friendship.  David's  dirge  over  Saul  and  his 
noble  son  is  a  unique  expression  of  noble  sentiment.  His 
conduct  towards  Nathan  is  a  triumph  of  noble,  truly  royal  feeling. 
Kizpah  bath  Aiah,  Saul's  concubine,  is  the  Antigone  of  Hebrew 
antiquity.  The  noble,  honest  pride  of  Barzillai  the  Gileadite,  and 
the  grateful  fidelity  of  the  people  of  Jabesh  towards  Saul,  find 
their  parallel  but  seldom  in  any  age.^  Abel  and  Dan  were  a 
retreat  for  good  old  customs,  which  were  clung  to  with  piety.^ 
Above  all,  however,  the  monarchy  itself  was  a  guarantee  of  law.* 
It  abolished  blood-revenge  at  least  in  principle,^  and  procured 
rest  for  the  citizen  from  aggressor  and  oppressor. 

3.  Religion  and  Belief. — Yahvd  is  undisputedly  the  God  of 
Israel.  Saul  and  David  cannot  for  a  moment  be  suspected  of 
idolatry.  It  is  only  of  Solomon  that  anything  of  that  kind  is 
related.  He  built  his  foreign  wives  altars  for  their  gods.  The 
author  of  our  Book  of  Kings  regards  this  toleration  as  a  serious 
offence,  and  relates  at  the  same  time  that  Solomon  gave  his  heart 
to  foreign  gods.  However,  this  last  charge  is  not  placed  beyond 
doubt  f  and  if  it  is  made  good,  Solomon's  foreign  worship  forms 
an  exception  to  all  we  know  of  the  whole  period. 

1  1  Sam.  xiv.  44.     Gf.  also  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1  fif. 

2  2  Sam.  i.  19  ff.  ;  xxi.  10;  xix.  32  fif.  ;  1  Sam.  xxxi.  11  f. 
'  2  Sam.  XX.  18  f.  ;  cf.  my  translation. 

■»  1  Kings  iii.  5  fif.,  16  fif.  ;  2  Sam.  xv.  1  fif.  ;  xiv.  4  fif. 

^  2  Sam.  xiv.  6  fif.  ;  iii.  28 ;  1  Kings  ii.  5. 

^  1  Kings  xi.  4  fif.  The  whole  chapter  as  far  as  v.  13  has,  at  all  events,  been 
very  freely  revised  by  D^.  See  especially  v.  11  fif.  Only  v.  7  is  certainly  old  (A?). 
With  V.  6  cf.  Deut.  i.  36  (nnt^  vh^) ;  Dl^  ^^^  in  v.  4  resembles  the  language  of 
Chronicles, 


Chap.  IV.j  SOLOMON  201 

On  the  other  hand,  in  this  age  the  worship  of  Yahve  was,  in 
many  respects,  not  regulated  in  the  way  that  a  later  age  supposed. 
Samuel  himself  sacrificed  not  at  one  place  but  at  a  whole  series  of 
high  places.  In  the  absence  of  an  altar,  Saul  made  use  of  an  ordinary 
stone  on  occasion ;  and  as  soon  as  the  stone  had  received  the  blood 
of  the  victim  Yahv(^  was  satisfied.^  Solomon  also  did  not  confine 
himself  to  Jerusalem,  but  offered  sacrifice  on  the  high  place  of 
Gibeon.2  Samuel,  the  priest  of  the  ark  at  Sliiloh,  was  not  of 
Levitical  descent,  but  was  an  Ephraimite.  There  were  in  David's 
time  also  non-Levitical  occupants  of  priestly  offices,  along  with 
Zadok  and  Abiathar.  David  wore  priestly  garments,  and  he  and 
Saul  offered  sacrifice  when  they  saw  fit.* 

In  the  earlier  part  of  this  period  the  name  Ba'al  was  still 
without  scruple  used  for  Yahve,^  although  from  the  time  of  David 
the  practice  seems  to  have  fallen  out  of  use,  at  least  in  proper 
names.  The  worship  of  Yahv^  under  an  image  was  likewise  still 
practised.  The  shrines  at  Dan  and  Ophrah  doubtless  still 
continued  to  exist.  After  the  destruction  of  the  sanctuary  at 
Shiloh,  there  was  an  ephocl  at  Nob  in  the  charge  of  Ahimelech  ben 
Ahitub  of  the  house  of  Eli.  Another  was  to  be  found  with  Saul, 
in  the  charge  of  Ahijah  ben  Ahitub  of  the  house  of  Eli,  probably 
the  brother  of  Ahimelech.^  Perhaps  the  latter  epliod  was  that  of 
Gideon  of  Ophrah  ;  at  all  events,  we  have  no  reason  to  regard  it  as 
different  from  that  of  Ophrah.  Ahimelech's  ephod  was  afterwards 
brought  by  Abiathar  to  David.     There  was  in  connection  with  it 

1  1  Sam.  xiv.  32  ff.     Cf.  above,  p.  99  (the  oldest  kind  of  Masstha). 

-  1  Kings  iii.  3,  4  (Da  and  A) :  v.  2  is  a  later  addition  which  limits  the 
admission  made  in  v.  3.     On  the  Bama  at  Gibeon,  cf.  2  Sam.  xxi.  6,  9. 

^  2  Sam.  viii.  18 ;  xx.  26.     See,  however,  Baudissin,  Priestert.  191. 

■*  2  Sam.  V.  17  f.  ;  vi.  14  ;  1  Sam.  xiv.  34,  35.  The  whole  scene  was  enacted 
without  the  co-operation  of  the  priest  who  was  present  with  the  army  ;  moreover, 
in  xiii.  8  ff.  (R),  it  is  probable  that  Saul's  offence  did  not,  in  the  original  form  of 
the  document,  consist  in  his  sacrificing  without  the  co-operation  of  Samuel. 

=  Eshba'al,  Meriba'al,  Be'eliada',  2  Sam.  v.  16.  Note  especially  1  Sam.  xiv.  49, 
according  to  emended  text,  Ishio  =  Eshba'al — i.e.  Ba'al  =  Yahve.  On  the  signi- 
ficance of  this  fact  see  above,  p.  98. 

^  The  genealogy  of  these  priests,  however,  involves  us  in  difficulty,  as  Zadok 
is  also  called  a  son  of  Ahitub.  Of.  1  Sam.  xiv.  3;  xxii.  11,  20;  2  Sam.  viii.  17 
(see  my  transl.  and  Wellh".  TBS.  176  f.). 


202  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

an  oracle  by  sacred  lot,  Urim  and  Thummim}  If  Gideon's  ephod 
was  an  image,  those  of  Saul  and  David  would  probably  be  so  also.^ 
There  was  most  probably,  even  before  Jeroboam's  time,  an  im- 
portant sanctuary  at  Gilgal,  at  which  Yahvd  was  worshipped 
under  the  image  of  an  ox.^ 

The  terajphim  cult  was  practised  in  the  house  of  Saul,  at  least 
by  one  of  its  members.  David  himself  did  not  prohibit  it  or 
succeed  in  putting  a  stop  to  it.*  But  we  cannot  infer  from  this 
the  existence  of  polytheism  in  the  case  of  David  or  Saul  or 
their  circle.  It  was  simply  a  relic  of  the  ancient  Semitic  worship 
of  ancestors.  Still  David  did  not  get  beyond  Henotheism.  He 
gives  expression  to  his  belief  in  the  existence  of  other  gods.^ 
Solomon  went  so  far  as  to  erect  other  altars  in  addition  to  those  for 
Yahv^,  although  these  may,  on  the  most  favourable  interpretation, 
not  have  been  intended  for  his  own  use.^ 

Human  sacrifices  cannot  be  proved  with  certainty  to  have 
been  in  use.  What  have  been  taken  for  such,^  admit  of  other 
explanations.  Nevertheless,  there  are  other  respects  in  which  the 
age  suffered  from  the  curse  of  superstitious  fears  and  scruples, 
that  call  to  mind  the  early  supremacy  of  the  belief  in  demons. 
Some  points  in  the  character  and  fate  of  Saul  can  be  understood 

1  1  Sam.  xiv.  18-37  ff.  (on  the  text  see  my  transl. ) ;  xxiii.  9  ff.  ;  xxx.  7  f .  ; 
cf.  xxviii,  6. 

-  In  addition  to  the  passages  in  the  Book  of  Judges  (see  above,  pp.  82,  101  f.),  the 
following  are  decidedly  in  favour  of  this  view  :  (a)  Isa.  xxx.  22,  where  mSJ< 
occurs  in  connection  with  statues  ;  {h)  Hos.  iii.  4,  where  ephod  and  teraphim  are 
mentioned  as  analogous  things.  But  ter^aphim  were  also  to  be  found  with  Saul 
and  David.  Note  in  this  connection  the  passages  where  bringing  forward  the 
ephod  is  equivalent  to  inquiring  of  God  (xxviii.  6  ;  xiv.  37  if.  ;  cf.  xxx.  7  f.); 
1  Sam.  xiv.  3,  18  (corrected  text) ;  xxiii.  6,  9  flf.  ;  xxx.  7  f.  (S  and  Da),  and  xxi.  10 
('  behind  the  ephod,'  SS).  It  is  otherwise  in  the  case  of  the  ephod  (or  ephod  bad) 
in  ii.  18,  28  ('  before  me ')  SS  and  D^  ;  xxii.  18,  SS  ;  2  Sam.  vi.  14,  Je.  Here  it  is 
the  linen  garment  used  by  the  priests  of  the  ark,  and  hence  by  the  house  of  Eli  at 
Nob.     Cf.  moreover,  Konig,  Hauptprohleme,  59  fF. 

3  Hos.  ix.  15  {cf.  iv,  15)  ;  and  cf  Kohl,  ii.  2,  15,  on  this. 

*  1  Sam.  xix.  13  ff.  ;  also  xv.  23,  and  above,  p.  39.  We  can  infer  from 
xix.  13  ff.  that  the  teraphim  were  of  human  form. 

5  1  Sam.  xxvi.  19,  ^  Qjj  ^j^jg  ggg  above,  p.  200. 

^  1  Sam.  xiv.  15  (Jonathan,  cf  above,  p.  116,  note  1)  j  xv.  33  (Agag) ;  2  Sam. 
xxi.  1  ff.     On  this  subject  see  Bathgen,  Beitr.  221. 


Chap.  IV.]  SOLOMON  203 

only  on  the  supposition  that  he  was  possessed  by  an  overpowering 
tendency  to  superstitious  fear  of  strange  supernatural  powers.^ 
David  allowed  himself  to  be  driven  by  such  fears  to  do  violence  to 
the  house  of  Saul.^  There  was  no  hope  to  comfort  people  in  the 
presence  of  death.^  The  belief  was,  that  exactly  as  a  man  was  when 
he  died/  he  would  join  the  company  of  his  fathers,^  and  lead  with 
them  a  shadowy  existence.  Perhaps  the  family  sacrifice^  and  the 
penates  cult  {terajphim)  were  supposed  to  influence  the  shades, 
whom  popular  superstition  summoned  for  special  ends  to  foretell 
good  or  evil.'^ 

The  Yahvism  of  the  earlier  period  of  the  monarchy,  like  that 
of  the  pre-monarchic  age,  thus  bore,  in  many  respects,  a  half- 
heathen  character.  Still  it  was  never  merged  in  heathenism. 
The  worship  of  God  at  the  sanctuary  of  Shiloh,  and  the  faith  of  its 
foremost  priest  Samuel,  rose  decidedly  above  the  level  of  the 
common  popular  ideas  of  the  age.  It  is  only  thus  that  we  can 
explain  the  references  to  the  special  religious  position  occupied  by 
Samuel  in  relation  to  his  age.  This  was  certainly  one  of  the 
grounds  of  his  conflict  with  Saul. 

Shiloh  was  in  possession  of  the  ark,  but  it  had  no  image  of 
God.  It  is  remarkable  that  Samuel  also  is  never  mentioned  in 
connection  with  an  ephod  in  the  sense  of  an  image  of  God.  Only 
the  more  markedly,  however,  did  ephod  and  teraphim  come  into 
the  foreground  when  the  ark  had  disappeared  from  the  scene,  and 
Saul  had  begun  to  be  estranged  from  Samuel.  This  concurrence 
of  circumstances  can  hardly  be  accidental.  It  is  interesting  to 
notice,  on  the  other  hand,  that  when  interest  in  the  ark  was 
revived  by  David,  these  elements,  foreign  to  the  higher  Yahvism, 
retreated   again.     The   Levitical  priesthood,  previously    specially 

^  1  Sam.  xiv.  43  ff ;  xxviii.  1  ff.     Also  above,  pp.  134,  136. 

^  2  Sam.  xxi.  1  ff.  ;  cf.  1  Kings  ii.  5  ff.,  and  above,  p.  181. 

^  2  Sam.  xii.  23  :  '  I  shall  go  to  him,  he  shall  not  return  to  me.' 

*  Thus  e.g.  a  murdered  man,  blood-stained,  like  Banquo's  ghost ;  1  Kings 
ii.  9,  6.  Only  thus  can  we  explain  the  conduct  of  Rizpah  in  2  Sam.  xxi.,  and 
that  of  the  Philistines  and  the  people  of  Jabesh  towards  Saul  and  Jonathan  in 
1  Sam.  xxxi.  ^  i  Kings  i.  21  ;  xi.  21  ;  cf.  ii.  10 ;  xi.  43. 

«  1  Sam.  XX.  6.  ^  1  Sam.  xxviii.  3  ff. 


204  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  II. 

favoured,  became  more  and  more  the  rule.  The  use  of  the  name 
Ba'al  in  proper  names  cannot  be  proved  after  David's  time.  After 
David  ascended  the  throne  in  Jerusalem,  and  had  brought  back 
the  ark,  we  do  not  again  meet  with  epliod  or  other  image  of 
Yahv^.  The  ark  must  have  gathered  about  itself,  to  a  remarkable 
degree,  the  traditions  of  the  age  of  Moses. 

It  is  thus,  on  the  whole,  we  understand  the  religious  character 
of  the  age  that  preceded  David,  and  the  turning-point  in  religious 
life  represented  by  his  bringing  back  the  ark  and  restoring  it  to 
honour.  The  destruction  of  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh,  and  the 
disaster  that  befell  the  ark  at  that  time,  had  wrought  a  deep  effect. 
The  house  of  Eli  held  aloof  from  the  shrine  that  had  incurred  the 
disgrace  of  captivity.  They  appear  to  have  betaken  themselves  to 
the  worship  of  the  cpliod,  partly  at  Nob,  partly  at  other  places, 
perhaps  at  Ophrah.  Saul,  whether  led  by  them,  or  himself  urging 
them  on,  devoted  himself  to  the  same  cult.  David  attained  to 
greatness  while  practising  this  form  of  divine  worship,  and 
adhered  to  it  for  a  time.  But  on  being  raised  to  the  position  of 
king  over  all  Israel,  he  found  tlie  opportunity  to  claim  for  the 
ancient  shrine,  and  the  manner  of  worshipping  God  that  clung  to 
it,  its  rightful  place. 


BOOK   III. 

THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  AND  THE  ADVANCE 

OF  RELiaiON 

A.  THE  SOUECES  FOE  THIS  PEEIOD. 

§  51.  The  First  Book  of  Kings:  Chapter  xii,  and  omvards} 

1.  The  Text. — Here,  too,  first  of  all,  certain  important  instances 
in  which  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  recensions  of  our  text  differ, 
claim  our  attention.  At  the  beginning  of  chap.  xii.  there  is  some- 
thing wrong  with  the  M.T.,  as  a  comparison  of  v.  2^  with  2  Chr. 
X.  2,  and  of  vv,  2^  3^  with  -y.  20  will  show.  According  to  this, 
Jeroboam  must  have  returned  immediately  after  Solomon's  death  ; 
while  his  entrance  into  Shechem,  on  the  other  hand,  can  only  have 
taken  place  after  the  negotiations,  as  is  also  assumed  by  the  lxx. 
Alex,  in  xii.  2.  The  correctness  of  this  assumption  is  thoroughly 
confirmed  by  the  LXX.  Vat.  and  Luc.  if  the  close  of  chap.  xi.  in  the 
LXX.  is  taken  over  into  chap.  xii.  There  v.  2  M.T.  follows  xi.  43% 
while  V.  3*  is  wanting.  We  thus  get  the  correct  order  of  events  as 
follows.  Solomon  dies,  Jeroboam  comes  back,  Eehoboam  is  made 
king  provisionally,  Shechem,  Jeroboam.  It  follows  from  this  tliat 
the  text  has  to  be  altered,  and  that  xii.  2  has  to  be  put  before  v.  1, 
while  V.  3*  has  to  be  struck  out  as  a  later  addition.^ 

A  still  more  important  difference  between  the  two  texts  is 

^  On  the  literature  of  the  Book  of  Kings  cf.  above,  p.  49,  note  4,  to  which 
has  now  to  be  added  Kamphausen's  translation  of  the  Book  in  Kautzsch. 

2  See  also  Wellh.  Bl.^  243.  In  v.  12,  too,  in  the  lxx.  Jeroboam's  name  is  not 
mentioned. 

205 


206  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

found  in  the  course  of  chap.  xii.  and  at  the  beginning  of  chap.  xiv. 
After  xii.  24  the  LXX.  inserts  a  long  narrative  relating  to  Jeroboam, 
which  is  wanting  in  the  M.T.  In  it,  first  of  all,  the  death  of 
Solomon  and  the  accession  of  Eehoboam^  are  once  more  recounted, 
and,  following  on  this,  Jeroboam's  earlier  history  is  repeated  pretty 
much  in  connection  with  xi.  26  ff.  Before  his  return  from  Egypt 
Jeroboam  allies  himself  by  marriage  with  Pharaoh  Shishak.  He 
returns  and  gathers  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  around  him.  His  son 
falls  ill,  and,  on  account  of  this,  he  sends  his  wife  to  consult  the 
prophet  Ahijah  of  Shiloh,  who,  however,  gives  him  an  unfavour- 
able answer.  It  is  now  that  he  first  goes  to  Shechem,  collects  the 
tribes  of  Israel  together  there,  and  induces  them  to  revolt.  The 
circumstances  are  once  more  related  very  much  in  the  same  shape 
as  that  in  which  they  had  been  already  given  in  xii.  3  ff.  From 
here  onwards  the  LXX.  again  joins  the  M.T.  (xii.  25  ff.),  except 
that  in  chap.  xiv.  it,  of  course,  omits  verses  1-20,  which,  so  far 
as  their  main  substance  is  concerned,  had  been  already  given. 

Leopold  von  Eanke-  has  accepted  this  piece  with  great  warmth. 
He  thinks  that,  in  his  character  as  historian,  he  is  justified  in 
preferring  it  to  the  M.T.  But  he  has  overlooked  some  essential 
points  which  cast  grave  suspicions  on  the  piece.  The  reason 
which  weighs  most  strongly  with  me  against  accepting  it  is,  that 
if  it  belonged  to  the  genuine  LXX.,  the  latter  would  thereby  come 
to  be  in  the  most  flagrant  contradiction  with  itself.  It  assumes, 
as  we  have  seen,  and  as  is  also  in  accordance  with  the  course  of 
events  in  xii.  1-24,  that  Jeroboam  had  kept  away  from  Shechem 
until  the  matter  was  decided.  How  can  it  then  here  represent 
Jeroboam  as  having  been  in  Shechem  from  the  very  first  ? 
Further,  the  scene  in  Shiloh  has  meaning  only  in  the  place  where 
the  M.T.  gives  it  (xiv.  1  ff.),  but  not  before  Jeroboam  has  committed 
the  real  offences  of  his  life.  Kuenen  is,  accordingly,  decidedly 
right  when  he  gives  the  preference  to  the  M.T.  over  the  Lxx.^     He 

1  The  Vat,  assigns  him  a  life  of  sixteen  years,  and  a  reign  of  twelve  ;  and  Luc, 
forty-one  and  seventeen. 

2  Weltgeschichte,  iii.  2,  4  ff.  ^  Q^d.^  §  ^xvi.  10. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  207 

is  in  error,  however,  when  he  assumes  that  we  have  here  to  do 
with  a  narrative  of  the  course  of  events  which  favours  Jeroboam. 
The  opposite  is  the  case.  His  mother  is  represented  as  a  harlot,  and 
the  revolt  is  laid  at  his  door.^  It  is  here,  too,  that  the  point  of  the 
whole  lies.  The  intention  is  perfectly  evident,  and  has,  moreover, 
had  its  effect  in  the  M.T.  of  xii.  1  ff. 

1  content  myself  simply  with  mentioning  alterations  of  place 
such  as  are  found  in  chaps,  xx.  and  xxi.,  and  in  xxii.  41-51  (in  the 
LXX.  after  xvi.  28). 

2.  The  Frameiuorh. — If  we  consider  the  narrative  matter  of 
1  Kings  xii.  to  2  Kings  xxv.,  first  of  all  as  a  whole,  we  at  once  meet 
with  a  feature  which  reminds  us  directly  of  the  Book  of  Judges. 
Here  each  king  is  introduced  and  dismissed  with  some  perfectly 
definite  words,  all  of  the  same  tenor,  just  as  the  individual  Judges 
are  there.  Only  here  in  the  Book  of  Kings  the  formula  is  much 
more  strictly  adhered  to  than  in  the  other  case.  Each  king  of 
Judah  is  introduced  by  a  notice  regarding  the  time  of  his 
accession  in  relation  to  the  accession  of  his  royal  contemporary  in 
Israel,  his  age  at  the  time  of  his  entrance  into  office,  and  the 
duration  of  his  reign,  as  well  as  the  name  and  home  of  his  mother. 
From  Manasseh  onwards  the  information  regarding  the  first  of 
these  points  is,  of  course,  wanting.  In  the  case  of  the  kings  of  Israel 
there  is  no  mention  of  their  age,  or  of  their  mothers  ;  we  only  get 
information  regarding  the  contemporary  king  of  Judah  and  the  length 
of  the  reif^n.  In  the  case  of  each  kinsj  it  is  stated  whether  he  did 
or  did  not  what  was  right  before  Yahve.  So,  too,  the  history  of  each 
king  winds  up  with  a  stereotyped  formula,  in  which  it  is  said  that 
further  information  about  his  history  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah,  or  Israel,  as  the  case  may  be, 
and  also  where  the  king  was  buried  and  who  was  his  successor.^ 

It  ought  to  be  clear  that  here  we  have  not  to  do  with  a 
narrator  who  was  contemporary  with  the  earlier  kings,  but  with  a 

^  The  omission  of  xiv.  7-9,  14-16  M.T.  naturally  followed,  after  the  scene  in 
Shiloh  was  put  before  Jeroboam's  accession  to  the  throne. 

2  On  the  proof  passages  in  1  Kings  xiv.  19  f.,  21,  29  fif.,  etc.,  see  Kuen.  §  xxi  v.  2. 
On  the  several  exceptions,  and  the  reasons  for  them,  see  Bl.^  241  f.  in  the  notes. 


208  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

later  editor,  who  is  able  to  survey  the  whole  history  of  the  kings, 
and  thus  stands  at  the  end  of  the  development.  If  we  accordingly 
recall  what  we  know  from  the  Books  of  Judges  and  Samuel  as 
well  as  regards  1  Kings  i.-xi.,  the  supposition  is  forced  on  us  that 
the  revision  originated  in  the  circle  of  writers  belonging  to  the 
later  period  who  were  influenced  by  Deuteronomy  (D^).  This 
supposition  is  made  a  certainty  by  the  fact  that  the  verdict  passed 
on  the  individual  kings  is  based  on  the  standard  supplied  by  the 
Deuteronomic  Law.^  That  the  author  of  the  formula,  however,  is 
not  merely  a  writer  who  is  working  over  existing  narratives,  but  is 
also  the  actual  author  of  our  Book  of  Kings,  is  shown  in  the  most 
unmistakable  way  by  his  constant  reference  to  the  sources  which 
he  uses,  or  has  not  used,  as  the  case  may  be. 

The  first  question  accordingly  is  as  to  what  we  can  conclude 
regarding  the  documentary  material  used  by  him  from  the 
information  which  he  himself  supplies. 

3.  The  Annals  of  the  KingsP- — '  The  rest  of  the  acts  of  King  NN. 
and  all  that  he  did  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  history  of  the 
Kings  of  Judah  (or  Israel).'  Already  in  the  case  of  David  and 
Solomon,  amongst  the  ofi&cers  of  the  crown,  the  chancellor  and  the 
state-recorder  (Mazkir  and  Sopher)  are  mentioned.  One  of  them, 
presumably  the  first,  is  the  historiographer-royal.  The  office, 
doubtless,  continued  to  exist  under  the  later  kings,  and  the  royal 
archives  in  Jerusalem  and  Samaria  became  more  and  more  a 
valuable  collection  of  data  regarding  the  acts  of  the  kings.  Had 
our  author  access  to  these  archives,  and  did  he  draw  directly  upon 
them  ?  So  far  as  the  kings  of  Israel  are  concerned,  this  question  is 
a  'priori  to  be  answered  in  the  negative  rather  than  in  the  affirma- 
tive. Otherwise  we  should  have  to  adopt  the  supposition  that 
when  Samaria  was  pillaged,  the  contents  of  tlie  Samaritan  royal 
archives  found  their  way  to  Jerusalem,  which  is,  on  the  face  of  it, 
not  very  probable.     It  is,  however,  well  possible  that  he  was  able 

1  See  especially  the  reference  to  the  Bamoth,  1  Kings  xv.  14 ;  2  Kings  xii.  3, 
xiv.  4,  XV.  4,  xxii.  44 ;  and  cf.  1  Kings  iii.  2  f.,  and  further  Wellh.  Bl"^  259  f. 

2  See  Ewald,  Gesch.  Isr.  i.3,  198  fif.  (English  ed.  i.  136  flF. ).     Wellh.  Bl^  260 flf.  ; 
Kuen.  §  xxiv.  8  ff. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  209 

to  make  use  of  the  Judaic  Annals  of  the  Kings  which  were 
preserved  in  Jerusalem. 

Still  the  possibility  of  his  having  done  even  this  ought  not  to 
be  held  to  be  a  certainty  without  further  consideration.  It  is 
rightly  regarded  as  a  remarkable  circumstance  that  our  author 
does  not  mention  the  Annals  of  the  Kings  themselves,  but  speaks  of 
a  book  of  the  Annals  of  the  Kings.  Our  discussion  of  1  Kings  i.-xi. 
has  already  shown  that  the  two  are  not  one  and  the  same.  We 
can  quite  as  readily  think  of  the  '  Book  of  the  Annals  of  the 
Kings  of  Israel/  or  of  Judah,  as  a  book  in  which  the  contents  of 
those  Annals  were  set  down  verbally,  as  one  in  which  the  Annals 
were  reproduced  in  an  independent  form.  The  plural  *  kings,'  too, 
makes  this  latter  supposition  a  more  likely  one,  in  the  case  of 
Judah,  than  the  former.  It  is  thus  in  the  highest  degree  probable 
that  those  writings  cited  by  our  author  had  a  close  connection 
with  the  official  Annals  of  the  Kings  themselves,  and  there  is  no 
room  for  doubting  that  they — even  if  we  think  in  this  connection 
of  other  than  the  official  Annals — take  us  back  to  sources  of 
information  which  are  genuinely  ancient  and  trustworthy.  Still 
this  by  no  means  proves  that  our  author  was  in  a  position  to 
draw  directly  on  those  original  documents. 

All  the  same,  these  two  Books  of  Annals  to  which  the  author 
of  the  Book  of  Kings  had  access  must  have  been  sources  of  price- 
less value.  If  he  had  only  reproduced  them  for  us  we  should 
have  been  in  an  enviable  position.  Unfortunately,  this  he  has 
done  in  an  extremely  restricted  degree  only.  The  way  in  which 
he  at  times  mentions  the  Book  of  Annals  in  question,  unmistak- 
ably shows  that  he  refers  us  to  it  just  when  it  is  his  intention  not 
to  let  it  speak  for  itself.  He  wishes  it  to  be  regarded  as  the  com- 
plement of  his  own  book  for  any  one  who  wishes  to  get  further 
information.  Possibly  the  Books  of  the  Annals  chietiy  contained 
the  political  history  of  the  kings,  an  account  of  their  doings  in 
war,  of  their  buildings,  and  of  measures  they  carried  out.  For 
information  regarding  these  matters  we  are  accordingly  referred  to 
them.  The  author  of  our  book,  on  the  other  hand,  iu  accordance 
VOL.  II.  o 


210  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

with  his  entire  plan,  has  no  intention  of  giving  an  exhaustive 
account  of  matters  belonging  to  secular  life.  This  can  be  got  in 
the  Books  of  the  Annals.  What  interests  him,  and  what,  as  he 
believes,  will  be  more  useful  for  his  readers  to  know,  has  reference 
to  the  life  of  Israel  in  its  religious  aspect  and  in  connection  with 
the  service  of  God,  and  to  the  merits  or  transgressions  of  the  kings 
in  this  particular  sphere.  What  belongs  to  this  subject,  so  far  as 
we  have  to  do  with  facts  and  not  with  reflections,  has  been  taken 
by  him  out  of  the  Book  of  the  Annals ;  everything  of  a  different 
kind  he  either  leaves  out,  or  merely  touches  on  it  in  passing. 

From  this  standpoint  we  shall  be  able  to  form  an  approximate 
idea  of  the  relation  in  which  our  author  stood  to  the  Book  of 
Annals,  or  to  the  Annals  themselves  mentioned  by  him.  So  long 
as  he  mentions  this  source  we  have  a  right,  in  every  case  where 
he  does  not  give  us  his  own  reflections,  and  where  he  supplies 
information  regarding  things  that  would  naturally  be  found  in  the 
Book  of  Annals,  to  search  out  any  traces  of  this  latter.  The 
extracts  and  statements  which  he  has  transferred  to  his  pages 
from  this  Book,  or  the  Books  of  the  Annals  of  the  Kings,  we  shall 
briefly  designate  by  K.  Should  the  trace  of  the  documents  on 
which  the  Book  of  the  Annals  of  the  Kinoes — i.e.  of  the  Annals  of 
the  Kings  themselves — is  based,  anywhere  show  itself,  then  in 
analogy  with  our  method  of  procedure  in  1  Kings  i.-xi.,  this 
would  be  called  A.  The  period  of  K  is,  for  Israel  (Ki)  subsequent 
to  722,  and  for  Judah  (Kj)  after  Jehoiakim,i  from  which  it  directly 
follows  that  the  former  book  was  also  written  in  Judah.- 

According  to  what  has  been  said,  we  cannot  reckon  as  belong- 
ing to  K,  firstly,  whatever  has  not  to  do  with  the  kings — as,  for 
instance,  the  detailed  histories  of  the  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha ; 
next,  whatever  in  general  does  not  suit  with  the  character  of  the 
Book  of  Annals,  such  as  narratives  of  a  specially  popular  or  pro- 
phetic tendency.      To   this   latter   class   particularly  belong  the 

^  See  2  Kings  xxiv.  5.     On  Hosea,  see  Kuenen,  §  xxiv.  8. 
-  For  a  somewhat  more  precise  determination  of  the  date  of  the  Israelitish 
Book,  see  below,  p.  219. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  211 

detailed  narratives  referring  to  events  connected  with  the  house 
of  Omri,  which  we  meet  with  in  1  Kings  xvii.  to  2  Kings  x.  '  They 
contain  what  is  partly  naive  and  partly  prophetic  tradition,  and 
are  distinguished  by  fine  description,  and  have  absolutely  nothing 
of  the  dry  annalistic  tone.'  ^  We  are  consequently  led  to  suppose 
that  our  author  had  at  his  disposal  other  sources  besides  those 
actually  mentioned  by  him. 

4.  The  separate  narrative-pieces  as  far  as  2  Kings  xx. — The 
history  of  the  revolt  of  Israel  from  Eehoboam  (1  Kings  xii.  1-20) 
is  an  excellent  bit  of  narrative.^  It  is  not,  however,  easy  to 
apportionate  it  to  a  definite  source.  It  is  evident,  to  begin  with, 
that  it  was  written  before  722.  The  whole  tone,  as  well  as  what 
is  mentioned  in  v.  19,  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  regarding  this. 
The  author  is  a  man  who  sees  in  Kehoboam's  fate  something  which 
was  deserved  by  him  and  Solomon.^  Whether  because  of  this, 
and  because  he  is  acquainted  with  the  prophetical  utterance  of 
Ahijah  and  the  words  in  2  Sam.  xx.  1,  it  is  necessary^  to  consider 
him  as  belonging  to  Judah,  is  a  point  I  leave  undecided.  In  this 
case  A  would  naturally  be  excluded,  and  the  narrative  is  much 
too  old  to  belong  to  K,  if  we  do  not  wish  to  assume  that  K  itself 
made  use  of  other  sources  besides  A.  To  me  the  narrative  appears 
to  be  thoroughly  Israelitish,  just  because  of  the  triumphant  tone 
of  the  reference  to  the  events  in  2  Sam.  xx.  The  conjecture  that 
it  constituted  the  beginning  of  the  Israelitish  Annals  of  the  Kings 
is  a  bold  one,  but  perhaps  not  without  some  foundation  in  fact.^ 

Of  a  decidedly  different  kind  is  the  remainder  of  chap.  xii. 
Verses  21-24,  at  least  in  their  present  form,  and  probably  in  any 
form,  are  a  later  addition,  and  originated  at  earliest  with  the 
Deuteronomic  editor,  as  is  also  the  case  with  vv.  32  and  33.^    Verses 

1  Wellh.  BL^  260  f. 

2  On  vv.  1-3,  see  above,  p.  205.     Verse  17  is  also  wanting  in  the  lxx. 

'  See  especially  v.  15.     It  recalls  the  style  of  argument  in  Judges  ix.,  and  is 
accordingly  not  to  be  referred  to  D-  (against  Kuen.  §  xxv.  4). 

4  So  Wellh.  Bl^  243. 

5  There  is  nothing  to  support  the  view  that  it  belongs  to  E  (Corn.  Grundr. 
124),  and  indeed  mv?  v.  20,  is  against  it. 

«  See  Stade,  Gesch.  350. 


212  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

25-31  have  also,  without  doubt,  been  worked  over  by  D^.  The 
piece,  however,  because  of  vv.  25  and  28,  points  to  an  older  original 
source.  I  would  suggest  Ki,  since  express  mention  of  the  fact 
that  Shechem  was  in  Ephraim  could  only  have  been  made  after 
722  when  the  city  was  destroyed.  In  any  case  it  has  to  be  ob- 
served that  V.  28^  is  not  dependent  upon  Ex.  xxxii.  8.  This  sentence, 
as  well  as  the  notices  in  v.  25,  must  in  the  present  case  rest  on 
genuine  historical  tradition,  from  which  it  has  come  into  Ex.  xxxii. 
For  it  is  only  in  the  case  of  Jeroboam,  and  not  in  the  case  of  Aaron, 
that  the  plural '  gods '  has  any  meaning. 

As  regards  chap,  xiii.,  I  refer  readers  to  Wellhausen  and  Stade.^ 
The  piece  is  a  later  addition,  of  a  Midrasch  kind,  to  the  Book  of 
Kings;  it  is  only  the  conclusion  (vv.  33^  34)  which  rests  on  an 
older  basis,  and  it  constitutes  the  continuation  of  xii.  31.  The 
section  in  chap,  xiv.,  to  begin  with,  dealing  with  the  wife  of 
Jeroboam  (vv.  1-18)  has,  indeed,  been  worked  over  by  D^,  as  is  the 
case  with  other  similar  prophecies  relating  to  Israelitish  kings, 
but  there  is  no  mistaking  the  presence  in  it  of  an  older  original.^ 
It  can  hardly,  however,  go  back  so  far  as  the  Hexateuch  E,  as 
Cornill  ^  would  have  us  believe,  but  rather  to  Ki.  In  chap.  xiv. 
21-31,  we  have  the  history  of  Eehoboam  introduced.  If  we  take 
out  what  belongs  to  D^,  then  in  any  case  an  old  kernel  is  left  in 
vv.  25-28,  30.  This  belongs  to  Kj,  and  probably  also  in  part  to  A. 
Verse  23,  too,  and  especially  v.  24,  may  possibly  go  back  to  some 
ancient  traditions. 

In  chap.  XV.  the  whole  history  of  Abijam  (vv.  1-8)  belongs  to  D^, 
though,  of  course,  as  has  always  to  be  remembered,  this  does  not 
mean  that  the  matters  of  fact  in  the  framework  regarding  the 
king's  mother  and  his  burial  do  not  go  back  to  K  or  A.  Verse  6 
is  similar  to  xiv.  30.  In  the  history  of  Asa  (vv.  9-24)  the  section 
16-22  stands  out  pre-eminently  as  an  ancient  element.  It  points 
to  Kj,  and  probably  is  based  on  A.  Compare  v.  16  with  xiv.  30. 
So  too  V.  13,  even  if  written  by  D^,  goes  back  to  ancient  data,  and 

1  BL*  244 ;  Stade,  350  f.  ;  further,  Kuen.  §  xxv.  4 ;  Kdhler,  Gesch.  ii.  2,  51. 

2  So  Wellhausen,  Stade,  Kuenen.  3  Qrundriss,  124, 


1 


i^ 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  213 

perhaps  t*.  15  also.  The  next  bit  dealing  with  Nadab  (vv.  25-32) 
is  entirely  the  work  of  D^.  He  uses  such  freedom  with  the 
material  taken  from  Ki  that  it  is  impossible  to  get  to  know  the 
form  which  the  details  had  originally  in  K.  Verse  32,  as  its  place 
clearly  shows,  has  been  inserted  here.  It  may  have  come  out  of 
Aj,  but  it  may  also  be  a  free  imitation  of  xiv.  30 ;  xv.  6. 

As  regards  chap.  xvi.  also,  to  which  xv.  33  f.  belongs,  the  state 
of  the  case  is  similar.  D^,  the  chief  author  of  our  Book  of  Kings, 
is  the  main  speaker.  The  portions,  vv.  9-11  (12^?),  15^  18,  21  f., 
24,  31^  32  (34  ?),  may  be  recognised  as  belonging  to  the  sources, 
apart,  of  course,  from  the  names  and  such-like  which  were  natur- 
ally fixed.  They  have  their  origin  as  a  whole  in  Ki.  A  few  things, 
V.  21  f.  specially  for  example,  where  the  narrative  makes  a  fresh 
start,  may  be  ascribed  to  A.  Perhaps  v.  34=  belongs  to  A  also ;  the 
end  of  the  verse  may  be  by  D^.i 

Chaps,  xvii.-xix.  present  us  with  something  which  is  perfectly 
new  as  compared  with  the  narratives  hitherto  given.  Here  we 
have  no  longer  to  do  with  mere  extracts,  as  is  the  case  in  the  last 
sections,  but  with  detailed  and  independent  descriptions.  In 
addition  to  this,  the  chief  role  is  not  played  by  the  king,  but  by 
the  prophet ;  and  the  latter  does  not  merely  appear  on  the  scene, 
as  in  chaps,  xi.  and  xiii.,  with  a  prophecy  for  the  special  occasion, 
in  order  again  to  disappear,  but  he  dominates  the  situation.  This 
shows  that  we  are  no  longer  dealing  with  elements  belonging  to 
the  Book  of  the  Annals  of  the  Kings.  We  have  to  do  with  an 
independent  Prophetical  history  (Pr)  from  which  our  author  trans- 
fers large  portions  to  his  book.^  In  chap.  xix.  the  history  of  Elijah 
breaks  off  abruptly,  so  that  we  look  in  vain  for  the  carrying  out  of 

^  I  do  not  consider  that  it  is  necessarily  so,  spite  of  Jos.  vi.  26.  If  we  com- 
pare the  two  passages,  Jos.  vi.  is  obviously  the  later  of  the  two.  It  is,  besides, 
later  than  J  (c/.  '  riseth  up  and  buildeth,'  '  this  city  Jericho ').  There  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  author  of  1  Kings  xvi.  was  acquainted  with  Jos.  vi.  (Kuen. 
§  xiii.  15),  all  that  was  necessary  was  that  he  should  know  the  circumstance. 
That  both  passages  have  the  same  source,  and  that  this  is  J  (Corn.  Grundr.  125),  is, 
in  my  opinion,  doubly  improbable.  The  absence  of  the  verse  in  a  part  of  the  lxx. 
recension  is  noteworthy,  and  because  of  this  Klostermann  regards  it  as  a  gloss, 

^  See  especially  Wellh.  Bl''  245  ff.  ;  Kuenen,  §  xxv.  6  fif. 


214  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

the  command  given  in  xix.  15-18;  for  2  Kings  viii.  and  ix.,  as  will 
be  shown,  are  by  another  hand.  The  origin  of  Pr  is,  by  xix.  3, 
placed  beyond  doubt;  only  an  Ephraimite  can  express  himself 
thus.  That  the  piece  is  very  old  is  shown  by  the  absence  of 
any  polemic  against  bull- worship.  Kuenen,  accordingly,  rightly 
ascribes  it  to  the  eighth,  or  perhaps  to  the  ninth,  century. 

Chap.  xxi.  is  the  continuation  of  Pr.  The  difficulties  which 
Kuenen  finds  in  the  way  of  accepting  this  view  disappear,  in  my 
opinion,  as  soon  as  we  assume  that  'Cv.  21-26  have  been  worked 
over  by  Dl  It  is  doubtful,  on  the  other  hand,  if  it  is  possible 
to  discover  any  further  continuation  of  Pr.  What  is  further 
related  of  Elijah  either  does  not  belong  at  all  to  what  has  pre- 
ceded, or  does  not  absolutely  belong  to  it.  The  former  holds  good 
with  regard  to  2  Kings  i.  We  may  attribute  v.  1  to  K.  Verses 
2-17  are  of  very  late  origin,  and  are  probably  an  imitation  of 
1  Sam.  xix.  18  ff.  2  Kings  ii.,  again,  although  the  chapter  stands 
in  such  close  connection  with  the  history  of  Elijah,  nevertheless 
appears  to  have  rather  belonged  to  another  group  ^  of  prophetical 
histories  of  which  Elisha  was  the  central  point.  It  is  one  of  the 
most  valuable  pieces  in  this  group  (Pr^),  and  was  probably  the 
beginning  of  it. 

We  next  get  a  continuation  of  this  group  (Pr-)  consisting  of 
a  series  of  shorter  and  longer  narratives,  of  which  Elisha  is  the 
subject,  and  which  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  altogether  homogeneous 
either  as  regards  value  or  origin.  Some  of  them,  such  as  2  Kings 
ii.  1  ff.,  are  good  old  narrative  pieces ;  others,  again,  have  the  char- 
acter of  a  legendary  elaboration  of  older  material.  To  these  belong, 
as  a  whole,  the  following  sections:  2  Kings  ii.  19-22,  23-25;  iv. 
1-7,8-37,38-41,42-44;  v.;  vi.  1-7,  8-23;  viii.  1-6,  7-15  ;  xiii.  14-21. 
In  all  of  them  the  prophet  Elisha  occupies  a  central  position, 
though,  indeed,  the  relation  in  which  he  stands  to  the  events 
described  is  not  always  exactly  the  same.^     For  the  rest,  there  is 

^  Elijah  has  his  fixed  residence  in  Gilgal  in  the  circle  of  the  pupils  of  the 
prophets,  2  Kings  ii.  1  flf.     See  Wellh.  248. 

2  Wellh.  BL*  253.     He  is  sometimes  in  Gilgal,  sometimes  in  Samaria, 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  215 

no  mistaking  the  fact  that  the  Elisha  stories,  even  though  they 
may  have  formed  parts  of  a  history  of  the  prophets  of  some  length, 
are  not  all  due  to  the  same  author.^ 

As  regards  their  origin,  we  can  hardly  doubt  but  that  these  ^ 
narratives  are  Samaritan.  They  obviously  have  sprung  up  in  the 
district  which  constituted  the  scene  of  the  activity  of  their  hero. 
It  is  difficult,  however,  to  give  any  conclusive  opinion  as  to  their 
age,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  narratives  of  which  Elisha  is  the 
subject  are  so  little  uniform.  It  is  easy  to  see  that,  as  a  whole, 
they  belong  to  a  considerably  later  date,  and  are  further  away 
from  the  events  than  the  Elijah  stories.^  At  the  same  time  they 
contain  portions  whose  age  and  historical  value  show  that  they 
are  not  very  far  behind  the  Elijah  narratives.^  We  have  to  con-  y 
sider,  besides,  that  it  is  not  the  original  composer  who  is  to  blame 
for  the  frequent  clumsy  insertion,  into  the  body  of  the  narrative, 
of  separate  stories  taken  from  Pr^,  but  the  author  of  our  present 
Book  of  Kings.*  If  we  further  bear  in  mind  how  quickly  legends, 
such  as  we  have,  to  some  extent,  here  in  the  more  recent  elements, 
grow  up  round  a  celebrated  man,  we  shall  not  be  mistaken  if  we 
assume  that  Pr-  dates  from  not  long  after  the  year  700. 

If  we  now  return  from  these  stories  of  the  prophets,  which  are 
continued  far  into  the  Second  Book  of  Kings,  to  the  end  of  the 
First  Book,  we  have  still  left  chaps,  xx.  and  xxii.  containing  the 
narration  of  Ahab's  Syrian  Wars  and  his  heroic  death.^  That 
they  do  not  belong  to  the  history  of  the  prophets  is  already 
evident  from  the  place  which  Ahab  occupies  in  them.  The  king  ^ 
is  portrayed  in  a  decidedly  sympathetic  fashion,  which  is  wholly 
different  from  what  we  have  in  Pr.  There  is  not  a  syllable  about 
Elijah.  And,  in  this  connection,  it  has  to  be  noted  that  2  Kings 
iii.^  must  also  belong  to  the  same  body  of  narratives.     The  points 

^  Cf.  vi.  8  ff.  with  chap.  v.  (war,  spite  of  Naaman's  cure) ;  vi.  1  fF.  with  v. 
26  f.  (Gehazi,  although  leprous,  transacts  business  with  the  king).  See  Kuen, 
§  XXV.  12.  '-  Cf.  viii.  1  ff.  ;  iv.  8  fif. 

^  So  ii,  1  ff,  ;  viii.  7  ff.  ^  See  especially  Kuen.  §  xxv.  13. 

^  Naturally  we  have  here  to  do  with  chap.  xxii.  only  so  far  as  v.  38.  The 
rest  of  it  is  to  l>e  traced  to  D-  who,  especially  in  vv.  47-50,  founds  on  his  known 
sources  (K  and  A,  cf.  v.  50.)  "  Verses  1-3  belong  to  the  author. 


216  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

of  contact  between  2  Kings  iii.  7,  11,  and  1  Kings  xxii.  4,  5,  7,  are 
sufiQciently  obvious. 

In  it  the  prophet  Elisha  plays  a  definite  role,  while  in  contrast  to 
this  in  1  Kings  xx.  and  xxii.,  the  place  of  Elijah  is  taken  by  Micah 
ben  Jimla.  The  work  of  the  later  reviser  is  more  or  less  strongly 
marked  in  all  three  chapters ;  the  anonymous  prophets,  especially 
in  1  Kings  xx.,  must  be  traced  to  him.^  The  narratives  are  in 
substance  historically  true,  but  have  been  taken  throughout  from 
popular  tradition,  as  the  numbers  given  specially  show.^  For  this 
reason  neither  A  nor  K  can  be  regarded  as  the  source.  What  we 
have  here  must  therefore  be  some  portions  of  a  popular  Ephraimite 
narrative-book  which  have  come  down  to  us.  The  obvious  partiality 
with  which  the  author  treats  the  King  of  Judah  is  perhaps  indi- 
cative of  the  period  to  which  the  composition  of  the  book  is 
to  be  assigned.^  It  reminds  us  of  Amos,  and  especially  of 
Hosea. 

It  is  extremely  probable  that  chap,  vii.,  to  which  vi.  24-33 
belongs  and  which  now  forms  part  of  the  Elisha  stories,  belongs  to 
this  group  of  Ephraimite  histories  of  wars  and  kings  with  their 
prophetic  colouring.  It  treats  of  the  siege  and  marvellous 
deliverance  of  Samaria.  How  it  has  come  to  be  in  its  present 
connection  is  easily  explained  by  the  part  here  played  by  Elisha. 
There  is  a  great  deal  to  be  said  for  Kuenen's  conjecture  that  the 
King  of  Israel  here  mentioned  is  not  Joram  ben  Ahab,  but 
Jehoahaz  ben  Jehu.^  But  even  if  it  is  correct,  as  I  believe  it  is,  it 
does  not  necessarily  follow  that  vi.  24  to  vii.  20  belongs  to  Pr.^ 
The  objections  raised  by  Kuenen  against  the  view  that  the  piece 
is  closely  related  to  the  Ephraimite  history  of  the  wars,  do  not 
seem  to  me  to  be  decisive.^ 

The  piece  dealing  with  Jehu's  revolution  (chaps,  ix.  and  x.) 
is,  so  far  as  the  art  of  narrative  is  concerned,  one  of  the  very  best 
bits   in   the   Old   Testament.     The   narrator,   who   describes   the 

1  Wellh.  Bl.'^  249  flf.     On  xx.  35  ff.  see  also  Kuen.  xxv.  10. 

2  See  XX.  1,  15,  29,  30.  '^  iii.  13  f.     See  below,  §  66. 
*  §  xxv.  12  f.,  and  in  addition,  2  Kings  vi.  32. 

^  Of.  especially  chap.  iii.  and  Bl.^  251 ;  on  the  other  side,  xiii.  14  flf. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  217 

scenes,  writes  with  a  vividness  and  a  dramatic  force  which 
might  seem  to  imply  that  he  must  have  been  there  himself.  That 
this  was  actually  the  case  is,  nevertheless,  not  very  probable.^ 
His  information,  however,  must  have  been  got  from  some  one  who 
had  been  directly  concerned  in  the  events.  It  is  further  worthy 
of  notice  that  the  narrator  makes  absolutely  no  pretence  of  gloss- 
ing over  Jehu's  revolting  cruelty,  still  less  does  he  pretend  to 
approve  of  it.  His  account  is  of  an  objective  character,  and  he 
allows  the  facts  themselves  to  testify  against  Jehu.  So  far  as  his 
private  opinion  is  concerned,  he  leans  to  the  judgment  given  in 
vi.  32  and  Hos.  i.  4.^  From  this  his  close  relationship  with  the 
author  of  1  Kings  xx.,  xxii. ;  2  Kings  iii.,  vi.  24  ff.,  is  plainly  ^ 
evident.^  Stade,  however,  has  shown,  with  some  probability,* 
that  in  chap.  x.  a  second,  and  perhaps  later,  account  is  united  with 
the  first.  It  is  to  be  found  in  vv.  12-16.  Kuenen  has  expressed 
some  doubts  regarding  -z;.  17  ff.  also,^  still  the  difficulty  may  lie 
entirely  in  the  restatement  of  the  events. 

From  chap.  xi.  onwards,  with  the  exception  of  the  short  formal 
statements  regarding  the  individual  kings,  we  have  almost 
nothing  but  somewhat  more  detailed  narratives  dealing  with 
matters  in  Judah.  Chaps,  xi.  and  xii.  (more  accurately  xii.  5-19) 
in  the  first  place,  form  a  section  by  themselves.  The  subject  is 
the  accession  and  the  reign  of  Joash  of  Judah.  Both  narratives 
are  Judaic,  and  taken  from  the  best  source.  They  seem  to  have 
been  transferred  from  A  to  K.  Probably  in  xii.  5-17  we  have  a 
free  version  given  by  K  of  what  was  taken  out  of  A ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  xii.  18  A's  own  words  are  given.  Chap.  xii.  5  ff.  is 
also  a  most  valuable  historical  document  owing  to  the  thoroughly 
independent  attitude  of  the  writer  towards  the  priesthood.  In 
xi.  13-18^  Stade^  has  pointed  out  traces  of  a  second  account 
which  may  be  regarded  as  a  later  insertion  relatively  to  the  main 
account. 

^  Cf.  X.  1  fif.,  27.     Verse  28  flf.  is  an  addition  by  D^. 

2  Cf.  especially  x.  9  :  '  Ye  be  guiltless.'  ^  See  on  this,  VVellh.  BL*  252. 

*»  ZA  W.  V.  275  ff.  ^  Onrf.2  §  xxv.  14. 

6  ZA  W.  V.  280  flf.     On  the  text  of  xi.  1  fif.  see  Wellh.  BL"  258. 


218  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

Chaps,  xiii.-xv.  give  an  account  of  the  kings  of  Israel  from 
Jehoahaz  to  Pekah.  At  the  end  of  xv.  Jotham  and  Aniaziah  of 
Judah,  along  with  Joash  of  Israel,  are  briefly  mentioned.  We 
have  already  dealt  with  xiii.  14-21  (Pr-).  In  the  rest  it  is  only 
exceptionally  that  the  source  itself  is  quoted  along  with  D^.  The 
most  important  instance  in  which  this  has  happened  is  xiv.  8-14:  the 
account  of  how  Amaziah  was  disposed  of  by  Joash  of  Israel.  The 
depreciatory  style  in  which  the  king  of  Judah  is  spoken  of 
makes  us  at  once  suspect  an  Ephraimite  source.  The  suspicion  is 
turned  into  a  certainty  by  the  remark  that  Bethshemesh  belongs 
to  Judah,  V.  11.  This  last  remark,  however,  according  to  what 
was  formerly  stated,  excludes  K.  We  have  thus  again,  probably, 
a  bit  out  of  Ai.  Besides  this  piece  the  following  portions  in  this 
section  are  from  the  original  sources  :  xiii.  (6^?)  7,  22,  24  ff. ;  xiv. 
19-22 ;  XV.  5,  10,  14,  16,  19  £,  25  (29  f.  ?),  35^  (37  ?).  Bits  such 
as  XV.  19  f.,  29  f.,  have  been  worked  over  by  K  himself  rely- 
ing on  his  recollections,  the  rest  has  been  taken  out  of  the  Annals. 

Chap,  xvi.,  again,  in  vv.  5-18,  contains  a  narrative  of  some 
length.  The  second  half,  vv.  10-18,  strikes  us  at  once  by  the 
naiveU  of  its  point  of  view,  as  compared  with  the  later  conception 
of  the  Temple.  ISTeither  the  priest  Urijah  nor  the  narrator  finds 
anything  to  blame  in  what  Ahaz  does.  This  suggests  that  K  had 
some  material  ready  to  hand  which  was  taken  over  from  a  previous 
account,  namely  A.  The  resemblance  to  xii.  5  ff.  confirms  this 
supposition.  The  first  piece,  vv,  5-9,  is  not  quite  imiform,  as  is 
shown  by  the  double  statement,  vv.  5  and  6.  Besides  the  entire 
character  of  v.  6  ff.,  the  judgment  given  in  v.  6,  as  well  as  the 
time  indicated,  do  not  allow  us  to  think  of  A ;  here  we  have  K, 
but  in  V.  5  again  A :  the  '  then,'  v.  5,  confirms  this. 

Chap.  xvii.  relates  the  end  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  and  the 
latest  fortunes  of  the  country.  We  are  naturally  led  to  expect 
that  Ki  should  finish  here.  Accordingly  we  may  attribute  vv.  3-6, 
first  of  all,  to  this  source.  With  v.  7  another  author  apparently  is 
introduced,  and  he  writes  under  the  influence  of  the  Deuteronomic 
point  of  view.     But  when  we  read  on  from  v.  7,  and  compare  v.  20 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  219 

with  V.  23,  it  is  at  once  clear  that  here  too  we  have  to  do  with 
more  than  a  single  hand.  Verse  21,  to  begin  with,  knows  only 
of  the  Israelites  whom  Yahv^  has  given  into  captivity  '  unto  this 
day.'  It  thus  occupies  the  same  standpoint  as  v.  18.  Verses  19 
and  20,  on  the  other  hand,  look  back  on  the  rejection  of  Israel  mid 
Judah,  S.S  V.  13  had  already  done.  The  original  author  D'^  (R'^, 
Dt)  wrote,  while  Judah  still  existed,  the  verses  in  xviii.  21-23  by 
way  of  explaining  the  fate  of  Israel.  A  later  author,  R,  after 
Judah's  fall,  added  on  vv.  7-17,  19  f.^ 

The  rest  of  the  chapter,  vv.  24-41,  treats  of  the  origin  and 
doings  of  the  so-called  Samaritans.  Here  we  are  struck  by  the 
fact  that  V.  34  says  the  opposite  of  v.  41.  According  to  the  former 
they  did  not  fear  Yahve  ;  according  to  the  latter  they  did  fear  Him, 
only  they  kept  their  images.  In  keeping  with  this  is  the  satisfied 
tone  in  which  v.  28  ends :  after  they  had  practised  the  original 
idolatrous  worship  they  are  taught  how  to  fear  the  God  of  the 
country  and  adopt  His  service;  wliile,  on  the  other  hand,  v.  29  ff. 
makes  mention  of  a  relapse  into  idol-worship,  though  certainly 
combined  with  the  worship  of  Yahve  (32,  33).  In  addition  to  this, 
V.  34*  and  v.  il  form  each  an  independent  conclusion.  We  shall 
thus  have  to  take  vv.  24-28  and  41  together.  In  this  piece  we 
have  the  by  no  means  unfavourable  judgment  of  a  pre-exilic  author 
on  the  Samaritans.  Even  the  Bethel  cult  is  not  condemned  in 
the  uncompromising  style  of  D^.  According  to  v.  41,  the  date  is 
somewhere  about  the  year  660.  This  points  to  K,  and  indicates 
at  the  same  time  the  date  of  the  composition  of  Ki.  Verses  29-34 
form  a  later  addition  of  a  decidedly  less  favourable  character ;  2 
vv.  34^-40,  on  the  other  hand,  are  quite  in  the  wrong  place.  Here 
we  have  not  to  do  with  the  Samaritans  at  all,  but  with  Israel, 
quite  in  the  style  of  vv.  19  and  20.  The  proper  place  of  the  piece 
must  therefore  have  been  in  the  neighbourhood  of  these  verses. 
In  vv.  29-34*  we  must  recognise  D^,  and  in  vv.  34^-40,  E. 

Of  the  still  remaining  Judaic  narratives,  those  relating  to  the  reign 

1  Cf.  Wellh.  Bl.^  262  f.  ;  Stade,  ZA  W.  vi.  163  flf.  ;  also  Kuen.  §  xxvi.  o. 

2  See  Stade,  ZA  W.  vi.  168  f. 


220  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

of  Hezekiah,  chaps,  xviii.-xx.,  interest  us  in  a  pre-eminent  degree, 
because  they  embody  the  accounts  of  the  rescue  of  Jerusalem  from 
Sennacherib.  In  xviii.  1-8  documentary  elements  are  in  any  case 
to  be  found  only  in  vv.  4  and  8.^  Later  on,  we  shall  have  to  con- 
sider to  what  degree  this  is  the  case  with  regard  to  v.  4.  Every- 
thing in  vv.  9-12,  with  the  exception  of  v.  12,  may  have  come  from 
the  sources.  Verses  9-11  form  the  counterpart  of  xvii.  3-6.  The 
brief  mention  of  these  facts,  which  are  of  such  importance,  too,  for 
Judah,  could  scarcely  have  been  wanting  in  Kj.  The  piece,  as 
well  as  V.  4  so  far  as  it  is  old,  and  v.  8,  are  thus  to  be  traced  to 
K.  We,  accordingly,  have  here  and  in  xvii.  6  a  guarantee  that 
in  K  definite  statements  of  numbers  were  already  to  be  found. 

To  the  following  piece,  xviii.  13  to  xix.  37,^  we  have,  as  is  well 
known,  an  almost  verbal  parallel  in  Isaiah,  chaps,  xxxvi.  and 
xxxvii.  The  most  important  difference  between  the  two  recen- 
sions consists  in  this,  that  the  small  section,  2  Kings  xviii.  14-16, 
is  wanting  in  Isaiah.  The  question  as  to  which  of  the  two  texts 
is  the  more  original  ^  would  have  an  interest  for  us  only  if  we 
could  go  on  to  attribute  the  composition  of  the  piece  before  us  to 
the  prophet  Isaiah.  But  that  he  was  the  author  is  impossible, 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  case.  Apart  altogether  from  what 
will  be  further  shown  in  detail,  the  matter  is  already  settled  by 
the  single  fact  that  both  in  the  account  in  the  Book  of  Kings  and 
in  that  in  Isaiah  mention  is  made  of  the  death  of  Sennacherib, 
which  took  place  in  681  at  a  time  when  Isaiah  was  quite  certainly 
no  longer  living. 

The  fact  that  the  piece  is  not  a  unity  takes  us  a  step  further. 
Verses  14-16  stand  out  plainly  from  the  rest  of  the  context  of 
chap,  xviii.  They  supply  a  striking  justification  of  our  whole 
critical  method  of  dealing  with  the  sources  in  connection  with 
the  Old  Testament  historical  narratives.  Even  if  they  were  not 
wanting  in  Isaiah,  too,  the  peculiar  way  of  writing  the  name 

^  See  below,  in  §  70,  in  connection  with  Hezekiah's  reforms. 
2  See  on  this,  Wellh.  Bl^  244  flf.  ;  Stade,  ZA  W.  vi.  172  ff.  ;  Kuen.  §  xxv.  17  ff., 
§  xlv.  ;  DiUm.  Jesaja,  310  ff.  ;  [Cheyne,  Introd.  to  Bk.  of  Isaiah,  212  ff.]. 

^  See  on  this  Dilhn.  Jesaja,  310,  and  especially  Kuen.  §  xlv,  3;  [Cheyne,  212  f.]. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  221 

Hezekiah,!  as  well  as  the  fact  that  the  subjection  of  the  king  to 
Sennacherib  in  vv.  17  ff.,  is  not  referred  to  in  any  way  again,  make 
it  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  a 
fragment  of  an  independent  description  of  the  course  of  events. 
The  Book  of  Isaiah  turns  this  supposition  into  an  absolute  cer- 
tainty. Chap,  xviii.  14-16  is  clearly  an  ancient  and  thoroughly 
trustworthy  account.  Both  form  and  contents  go  to  show  this, 
and  the  Inscriptions  are  in  harmony  with  this  view  of  it.  If  we 
assume  that  the  piece  was  continued  beyond  v.  16,  and  contained 
a  narrative  parallel  to  -y.  17  f.,  in  which  Sennacherib's  unjust  action 
was  made  plain,  then  the  frank  way  in  which  Hezekiah's  humilia- 
tion under  Sennacherib  is  related,  in  v.  14^  cannot  surprise  us  even 
in  A.  We  may  thus  regard  vv.  14-16  as  a  fragment  taken  from  A. 
If  it  is  merely  a  fragment,  then  there  is  scarcely  any  room  for 
doubting  that  it  is  in  its  right  place  where  it  now  stands." 

But  neither  are  we  to  take  it  for  granted  that  what  remains, 
xviii.  13,  17,  to  xix.  37,  was  written  by  one  and  the  same  author. 
Stade  has  acutely  pointed  out^  that  from  xix.  10  onwards  a  version 
of  the  narrative  different  from  that  given  in  what  goes  before  is 
introduced.  In  v.  8  Eabshakeh  returns  to  Sennacherib  because 
his  attempt  to  get  Jerusalem  to  surrender  was  in  vain.  Sennacherib 
hears  that  Tirhakah  is  advancing  against  him,  and  thereupon 
resolves  to  send  a  letter  to  Hezekiah.  And  now  the  scenes  in 
xviii.  27  ff.,  xix.  1  ff.,  5  ff.,  are  repeated  in  a  very  slightly  altered 
form.  This  shows  that  we  have  two  accounts  of  the  same  event. 
In  the  one  case,  the  ambassadors  speak  themselves ;  in  the  other, 
they  bring  a  letter.  Chap.  xix.  9^  and  10^  are  parentheses  due  to 
redaction.  The  second  is  even  wanting  in  the  Lxx.  The  continu- 
ation of  xix.  9%  and  also  the  conclusion  of  the  main  account,  are 
best  looked  for  in  xix.  36.  For  v.  9*  presupposes  the  departure  of 
Sennacherib. 

The  origin  of  the  main  account,  xviii.  13,  17,  to  xix.  9*,  36,  37, 

^  Hizqija,  otherwise  Hizqijahu,  a  point  to  which  Kuenen  was  the  first  to  call 
attention. 

3  This  is  questioned  by  Wellh.  255  f.  ;  Kuen.  §  xxv.  17  ;  Stade,  ZA  W.  vi.  180  f. 

'  ZA  W.  vi.  173  ff.  Cf.  Dillm.  Jes.  320  f.  ;  [Duhm,  Jes.  234  ff.  ;  Cheyne, 
Introd.  Is.  214  ff.]. 


222  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

is  to  be  looked  for  most  naturally  in  K  or  in  one  of  its  documents. 
We  have  certainly  not  so  far  come  upon  any  narrative  here  of 
such  a  detailed  character,  and  for  this  reason  one  might  be  disposed 
to  attribute  it  to  an  independent  narrator  writing  under  prophetical 
influence.  But  the  special  importance  of  the  occurrence,  and, 
in  addition  to  this,  the  circumstance  that  the  author  is  always 
approaching  nearer  and  nearer  to  the  present,  might  have  led  him 
here  to  quote  the  actual  words  of  K  with  greater  detail  than  usual. 
Still  it  is  also  quite  possible  that  D^  took  only  xviii.  14-16  out 
of  K,  and  struck  out  the  rest  of  the  account  in  favour  of  other 
sources  of  information  which  lay  to  hand.  This  would  naturally 
not  interfere  with  the  attribution  of  xviii.  14-16  to  A. 

With  this  the  relative  dates  of  the  two  accounts  would  in  a 
measure  correspond.  Chap,  xviii.  13,  17  ff.,  is  in  any  case  based 
on  good  information,  though  it  is  certainly  not  the  work  of  a 
contemporary.  The  death  of  Sennacherib  is  brought  into  imme- 
diate connection  with  his  return  to  Nineveh,  and  this  does  not 
correspond  with  the  facts.^  Chap.  xix.  10  ff.  brings  us  a  step 
lower  because  of  the  enormous  numbers  given  in  v.  35,  and  also 
because  of  v.  32  ff.,  a  piece  which  is  neither  in  harmony  with  the 
facts  nor  the  composition  of  Isaiah.^  Since,  further,  xix.  32  ff. 
is,  relatively  to  xix.  21-31,  manifestly  a  duplicate,  and  since,  besides, 
xix.  23  does  not  tally  with  the  letter  in  xix.  10  ff.,  but  with  xviii. 
17  ff.,  we  may  reckon  this  good  Isaianic  piece,^  too,  as  belonging 
to  the  documents  used  in  K. 

The  illness  of  the  king,  and  the  embassy  of  Merodach-Baladan, 
constitute  the  close  of  the  history  of  Hezekiah  in  chap.  xx.  A 
parallel  to  the  first  piece  is  found  in  Isaiah  xxxviii.,  which  is  there 
enlarged  by  the  addition  of  a  song  of  Hezekiah's.  The  words  in 
XX.  17  cannot  possibly,  in  their  present  form,  have  come  from 
Isaiah.  Isaiah  has  always  in  his  mind  only  deportation  to  Assyria, 
not  to  Babylon.  So,  too,  xx.  6  forms  a  parallel  with  xix.  34.  The 
chapter  must  thus  be  attributed  to  K  at  the  earliest. 

1  xix.  36,  37.     See  Wellh.  BL"^  255.  =  See  Dillm.  Jes.  330. 

3  Kuen.  §  XXV.  17 ;  Dillm.  Jes,  329 ;  [but  cf.  Cheyne,  Introd.  221  flf.]. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  223 

5.  2  Kings  xxi -xxv.  and  its  Redaction. — From  here  onwards 
we  more  and  more  lose  trace  of  K.  It  is  conceivable  that  the 
nearer  the  author  D-  comes  to  his  own  day,  the  more  he  emanci- 
pates himself  from  dependence  on  his  source,  and  writes  on  his 
own  account.  At  any  rate,  it  is  now  only  in  exceptional  cases 
that  it  is  possible  to  separate  the  two  in  any  measure.  The  last 
mention  of  K  is  found  in  connection  with  Jehoiakim,  xxiv.  5. 
Whether  we  have  any  right  to  assume  that  this  verse  is  an  imita- 
tion ^  by  a  later  writer  of  the  formula  of  D^  is  doubtful.  If  this 
is  not  the  case,  then  597  is  the  earliest  date  we  can  assign  to  the 
history  by  Kj.  He  must,  in  any  case,  have  written  his  history  a 
few  years  after  597  at  the  outside,  since  D^  the  principal  author 
of  our  Book  of  Kings,  as  is  repeatedly  evident,^  did  not  write  after 
588.  K  and  D^  are  contemporaries,  and — the  latter  after  the 
former — composed  their  books  between  597  and  590. 

But  we  have  already  come  on  traces  of  the  fact  that  besides 
D^,  and  later  than  he,  one  or  several  writers  worked  at  the  Book, 
and  these  we  have  simply  called  K  (Kuenen,  Ed^  together  with 
Rd^;  Kamphausen,  Dt^  and  Z  with  Dt).  This  peculiarity  was 
specially  evident  in  chap.  xvii.  We  have  to  take  it  into  con- 
sideration here.  The  very  fact  that  the  book  goes  down  beyond 
586  reminds  us  of  it. 

If  the  fact  mentioned  stood  alone,  Graf's  assumption  that 
xxv.  22  ff.  is  a  later  addition  to  the  Book  of  Kings  would  be 
correct.^  But  if  it  is  closely  connected  with  the  other  fact,  then 
this  explanation  is  clearly  no  longer  satisfactory.^  E  in  the 
body  of  the  book,  and  E  at  the  end  of  it,  match  each  other ;  and 
it  is  evident  that  our  Book,  after  it  left  the  hands  of  D^,  was 
further  worked  over  and  extended.  Its  author,  in  accordance  with 
xxv.  30  and  other  hints,  is  to  be  placed  in  the  middle  or  at  the 
end  of  the  Babylonian  Exile. 

^  So  Kuen.  §  xxvi.  6.     The  assumption  seems  to  me  somewhat  forced. 

-  See  especially  2  Kings  xvii.  18,  21-23;  further,  viii.  22,  xvii,  7,  xvi.  6. 
Even  if  these  utterances  were  actually  contained  in  the  source,  D-  could  not  have 
appropriated  them  if  Judah  was  no  longer  in  existence. 

3  Gesch.  Biich.  110.  •«  See  Kuen.  §  xxvi.  2,  3. 


224  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

It  is  no  longer  possible  to  say  with  certainty  what  individual 
bits  in  chaps,  xxi.-xxv.  belong  to  E  and  what  to  D-.  I  shall 
content  myself  here  with  enumerating  the  undoubtedly  certain 
additions  by  E.  One  of  these  is  to  be  found,  first  of  all,  in  chap,  xxi., 
where  in  vv.  7-15,  in  plain  contrast  to  the  view  of  D-  which  we 
elsewhere  meet  with,  the  peculiar  view  of  the  writer  regarding 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem  is  clearly  apparent.  The  same  is  the  case 
as  regards  xxii.  15-20  ;  xxiii.  26-27.  His  hand  is  seemingly  to  be 
traced  also  in  xxiv.  2-4.  Apparently  K  had  given  an  account  of 
the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  while  D^  had  narrated  the  events  of  the 
reign  of  Jehoiakin  to  its  close,  and  E,  who  in  the  course  of  the 
book  had  here  and  there  made  additions,  continued  the  narrative 
down  to  Jehoiakin's  death. 

§  52.  Chronicles. 

In  our  Biblical  Book  of  Chronicles  (1  and  2  Chron.)^  we  possess 
a  narrative  work  which  runs  parallel  with  the  historical  books 
just  mentioned.  It  is  written  with  the  intention  of  relating  the 
history  of  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem,  and  accordingly  supplies  us 
with  information  regarding  the  Kings  of  Judah  from  David  and 
Solomon  onwards,  and  their  relation  to  the  worship  of  God.  The 
kings  of  the  northern  kingdom,  as  well  as  the  history  of  this  king- 
dom, are  passed  over.  We  get  instead  a  long  series  of  family 
registers,  which  forms  the  lengthy  introduction  to  the  historical 
accounts  given  in  the  book.  It  is  at  once  evident  that  we  have 
to  hail  here  a  specially  welcome  supplement  to  the  older  historical 
books — that  is,  of  course,  if  we  should  be  able  to  prove  that  the 
contents  of  this  book  rest  on  ancient  and  trustworthy  sources  of 
information. 

In  order  to  come  to  a  decision  regarding  this  point,  we  have 

^  See,  on  the  whole  subject,  De  Wette,  Beitrdge  Z.  Einl.  ins.  AT.  i.  1806  ; 
Graf,  Gesch.  BB.  des.  AT.  114  £f.  ;  Bertheau,  Koinm.  im  exeg.  H.Bl  1873; 
Wellh.  Prol.^  177  ff.  (Eng.  Trans.,  p.  171  ff.);  DiUm.  PBE^  iii.  219  ff.  ;  Kuen. 
§  xxviii.  fr.  ;  Ottli,  Komment.  1889;  Corn.  Grundr.  268  fiF.  ;  Driver,  Introd., 
484  ff.  [Konig,  Einl.  §  54  ;  Wildeboer,  De  Letterkunde,  §  25.  On  the  text  and  the 
separation  of  the  sources  see  my  translation  of  the  book  which  is  shortly  to 
appear  in  P.  Haupt's  Sacred  Books  of  0.  T.'\ 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  225 

first  to  settle  the  general  question  of  the  age  of  the  book,  and  then 
the  questions  as  to  the  sources  from  which  the  information  given  in 
it  is  drawn,  and  as  to  the  way  in  which  these  have  been  used  in  it. 

We  are  able  from  the  contents  to  determine  without  difficulty 
the  approximate  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles. 
Cyrus  is  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  22  ff.  as  King  '  of 
Persia/  and  the  descendants  of  David  are  enumerated  in 
1  Chron.  iii.  19  ff.  to  the  sixth  generation  after  Zerubbabel.  This 
brings  us  down  to  the  borders  of  the  Greek  period. 

If  to  this  it  be  added  that  in  the  last-mentioned  place  the  text 
is  uncertain,  and  that  perhaps  originally  eleven  generations  after 
Zerubbabel  were  mentioned,  and  further,  that  in  all  probability  the 
man  who  wrote  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  also  composed 
the  Book  of  Chronicles,  we  have  cogent  reasons  for  fixing  upon  a 
still  later  aoje.  So  far  as  we  are  here  concerned,  it  is  enouorh  to  know 
that  the  book  can  hardly  have  been  written  before  the  year  332,  and 
perhaps  not  till  towards  the  middle  of  the  third  century  B.c.^ 

In  Chronicles  a  large  number  of  writings  is  mentioned  as  the 
sources  from  which  the  material  has  been  drawn,  namely:  (1)  a 
Book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah ;  a  Book  of  the  Kings  of 
Judah  and  Israel ;  a  Book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel ;  a  Midrash  to 
the  Book  of  Kings ;  ^  (2)  the  Words  of  the  Seer  Samuel,  of  the 
Prophet  Nathan,  of  the  Seer  Gad ;  the  Words  of  the  Prophet 
Nathan,  the  Prophecy  of  Ahijah  of  Shiloh,  and  the  Vision  of  the 
Seer  Iddo ;  the  Words  of  the  Prophet  Shemaiah  and  of  the  Seer 
Iddo ;  a  Midrash  of  the  Prophet  Iddo  ;  the  Words  of  the  Prophet 
Jehu  ben  Hanani,  which  are  recorded  in  the  Book  of  the  Kings 
of  Israel;  a  History  of  Uzziah  by  Isaiah;  the  Vision  of  the 
Prophet  Isaiah  in  the  Book  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  and  Israel ; 
the  Words  of  the  Seers.^ 

^  See  Dillm.  PBE.-  iii.  221  ;  Kuen.  §  xxix.  7  ff.  ;  Ottli,  10. 

2  1  Chron.  ix.  1;  2  Chron.  xxvii.  7,  xxxv.  27,  xxxvi.  8;  2  Chron.  xvi.  11, 
XXV.  26,  xxviii.  26,  xxxii.  32  ;  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  18,  xx.  34  ;  2  Chron.  xxiv.  27. 

3  1  Chron.  xxix.  29 ;  2  Chron.  ix.  29 ;  2  Chron.  xii.  15  ;  2  Chron.  xiii.  22  ; 
2  Chron.  xx.  34;  2  Chron.  xxvi.  22;  2  Chron.  xxxii.  32;  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  19 
(according  to  the  corrected  reading  in  the  last  place). 

VOL.  II.  r 


226  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

The  large  number  of  sources  here  mentioned  is,  however,  very 
considerably  simplified  when  we  look  at  them  a  little  more 
closely.  The  whole  of  the  first  category,  which  we  may  briefly 
describe  as  the  historical  sources,  refers  most  probably  to  one  and 
the  same  look,  or  at  the  outside  to  two  books  which  the  author 
of  Chronicles  had  before  him.  The  Book  of  the  Kings  of  '  Israel 
and  Judah '  can  hardly  be  a  different  book  from  that  of  the  Kings 
of  '  Judah  and  Israel.'  Then  again,  since  Chronicles  in  general 
takes  to  do  only  with  the  Kings  of  Judah,  the  Book  of  the  Kings 
of  '  Israel '  cannot  be  a  separate  book  either.  Consequently  we 
have  left  only  the  Midrash,  or  commentary  on  the  Book  of  Kings, 
along  with  this  book  itself.  The  relation  in  which  it  stands  to 
this  book  will  be  seen  when  we  get  to  know  the  nature  of  that 
Book  of  Kings  itself. 

The  Book  of  the  Kings  of  '  Israel  and  Judah '  made  use  of  by 
the  chronicler  is,  in  any  case,  not  to  be  identified  with  the  two 
books  quoted  in  our  Book  of  Kings — namely,  the  Book  of  the 
Annals  of  the  Kings  of  Israel,  and  that  of  the  Kings  of  Judah 
(Ki  and  Kj).^  The  title,  on  the  contrary,  rather  points  to  a  single 
book  in  which  the  matter  contained  in  those  two  had  been,  directly 
or  indirectly,  worked  up  into  a  whole.  The  most  probable  sup- 
position at  first  sight  is  that  this  was  our  present  Book  of  Kings. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  large  number  of  parallel  sections  in  which 
Chronicles  repeats  ^  more  or  less  verbally  the  text  of  the  Book  of 
Kings  or  of  the  Book  of  Samuel,  as  the  case  may  be,  shows  that 
the  chronicler  was  acquainted  with  our  canonical  Book  of  Kings, 
or  with  a  work  which  was  in  many  instances  verbally  the  same. 
Spite  of  this,  it  is  not  probable  that  the  source  cited  by  the  chron- 
icler as  the  Book  of  Kings  was  our  canonical  Book  of  Kings  itself. 
For  that  source,  spite  of  its  close  agreement  with  the  canonical  Book 
of  Kings,  contained  elements  which  are  not  found  in  this  latter.^ 
That  book  was  thus  an  independent   revision   of  the  historical 

1  So  according  to  Keil,  19  f.  ;  Bleeh,'^  289. 
-  See  the  parallel  arrangement  of  them  in  Kuen.  §  xxx, 

^  Cf.  \  Chron.  ix.  1;  2  Chron.  xx.  34;  xxvii.  7;  xxxvi.  8;  xxxiii.  18.  See 
Oraf,  Gesch.  B.B.  189  ff.  (as  against  Movers  and  de  Wette) ;  Kuen.  §  xxxii.  12. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  227 

matter,  having  many  points  of  agreement  with  the  Biblical  Books 
of  Samuel  and  Kings,  but  containing  also  very  considerable  addi- 
tions. Since,  therefore,  in  accordance  with  the  prevailing  usage  of 
language,  by  a  Midrash  was  simply  meant  an  edifying  explanation 
and  reshaping  of  the  actual  Sacred  Writings,^  we  have  to  regard 
the  Book  of  Kings  which  the  chronicler  had  before  him  as  in 
point  of  fact  a  Midrash  to  our  canonical  Books  of  Samuel  and 
Kings.  The  question  raised  above  as  to  the  relation  of  the 
Midrash  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xxiv.  27  to  the  historical  main 
source  used  by  the  chronicler,  is  consequently  settled  without 
further  discussion.  Both  must  have  been  one  and  the  same ;  if 
not,  then  they  must  have  been  very  closely  related  to  one  another. 

The  second  class  of  quotations  has  reference  to  prophetical  ^ 
sources.  Here  too,  however,  it  is  extremely  impossible  that  we 
have  to  do  with  different  and  independent  writings.  Bertheau  ^ 
especially  has  fully  shown  that  all  those  references  are  to  one 
and  the  same  book,  and  that  the  different  designations  refer  to 
the  customary  titles  or  headings  of  the  separate  sections  in  it. 
Thus,  even  in  the  New  Testament,  we  have  the  expression,  '  the 
Scripture  saith  in  Elijah'  (R.V.  Margin)^  in  a  case  in  which  it 
is  plainly  the  section  of  the  Book  of  Kings  dealing  with  Elijah 
that  is  meant.  The  want  of  any  division  of  the  text  according 
to  chapters  and  verses  led  to  the  custom  of  using  the  name  of 
the  leading  person  of  a  period,  or  of  a  section  of  history,  as  a 
catchword  for  that  particular  section.  Prophets  especially  lent 
themselves  to  this,^  and  soon  it  came  to  be  believed  that  each  of 
these  prophets  had  himself  written  the  section  referring  to  him. 
This  is  how  we  must  explain  the  transference  of  the  history  of 
Sennacherib  from  the  Book  of  Kings  to  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  and  ^ 
perhaps  also  the  name  '  prophetae  priores '  as  applied  to  the  older 
historical  books. 

This  book  which  is  thus  quoted  under  the  names  of  different 

1  Otherwise  Ewald,  Geach.  d.  V.  L^r.^  i.  265,  note  1  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  183]. 

-  Chronik,  §  xxxi.  f. 

'^  Rom.  xi.  2.     See  Wellh.  ProL-  235  [Eng.  Trans.  22G,  note]. 

^  See  Josephus,  G.  Ap.  i.  8  :  dKpi^ijs  tCjv  TrpocprjTQp  dtadoxv- 


228  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

prophets,  is  again,  however,  in  reality  no  other  than  that  Midrash 
to  the  Book  of  Kings  upon  which  Chronicles  is  based.  As 
to  the  words,  or  the  history  {debdrim)  of  Jehu  ben  Hanani  and 
the  Vision  of  Isaiah  ben  Amos,  it  is  expressly  said,  as  we  saw, 
that  they  were  component  parts  of  the  Book  of  Kings.^  Owing 
to  the  similarity  between  these  narratives  and  the  others  whose 
origin  in  that  great  Book  of  Kings  is  not  directly  attested,  it  is 
extremely  probable  that  the  others,  too,  belong  to  the  same  source  ; 
and  the  mode  especially  in  which  the  chronicler  is  accustomed  to 
cite  his  authorities,  favours  this  view.  In  the  two  cases  just  re- 
ferred to,  he  calls  the  history  of  the  prophets  a  part  of  the  Book  of 
the  Kings,  and  thus  cites  the  two  together ;  in  all  the  other  cases 
he  cites  either  the  one  or  the  other,  and  yet  in  each  individual 
case  we  do  not  come  upon  any  such  perceptible  difference  between 
the  sections  in  question  as  would  justify  the  expectation  that  we 
are  dealing  with  sections  having  a  different  origin.^ 

It  is  evident  that  we  can  judge  of  the  chronicler's  way  of 
handling  his  sources  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  possible  foi  us  to  get 
acquainted  with  them.  Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  are  ac- 
quainted only  with  the  canonical  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,^ 
and  we  have  already  reached  the  conclusion  that  they  were  not — not 
J  directly  at  least — the  main  sources  used  by  the  author.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  know  from  those  portions  of  Chronicles 
which  run  parallel  with  certain  sections  of  the  canonical  books 
referred  to,  that  the  document  on  which  Chronicles  is  directly 
based  stood  in  a  very  close  relation  to  the  Biblical  Books  of 
Samuel  and  Kings.  The  indirect  connection,  consequently, 
between  Chronicles  too  and  these  canonical  historical  books  is  very 
marked.  We  should  thus,  more  strictly  speaking,  have  two  ques- 
tions to  deal  with :  first,  as  to  the  relation  of  the  main  source  of 
Chronicles  (the  enlarged  Book  of  Kings  referred  to)  to  our 
canonical  historical  books ;  and  next,  the  question  as  to  relation 

1  2  Chron.  xx.  34 ;  xxxii.  32.  2  ggg  Bertheau.  §  xxxi.  ff. 

^  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  in  the  present  connection  to  deal  with  the  question 
as  to  what  the  chronicler,  in  his  introduction,  has  taken  out  of  earlier  books  such 
as  Genesis.     See  on  this  the  commentaries. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  229 

of  Chronicles  to  its  main  source.  If,  however,  the  two  questions 
are  practically  one  so  far  as  the  main  point  is  concerned,  we  have 
not  to  regret  very  much  the  impossibility  of  answering  the  second 
question.  For  even  if  we  take  the  most  favourable  view  of  the 
matter,  and  grant  that  the  chronicler  was  perfectly  faithful  to 
his  source,  and  added  practically  nothing  of  importance  to  it,  still, 
though  lie  certainly  in  that  case  must  have  gone  entirely  '  by  his 
sources,'  we  do  not  thereby  escape  the  duty  of  discussing  the 
sources  of  his  source,  and  the  relation  of  the  latter  to  the  informa- 
tion we  get  elsewhere.  There  could  be  no  more  naive,  and  no 
more  fatal  error  than  to  regard  the  source  and  historical  informa- 
tion in  Chronicles  as  equivalent. 

The  question  as  to  how  Chronicles — whether  it  be  its  author 
or  the  document  on  which  he  directly  drew — deals  with  the  older 
traditional  material,  can  be  answered  in  individual  instances  only 
by  the  comparison  of  the  parallel  texts.  In  more  important 
instances  we  shall  have  to  fall  back,  in  the  descriptive  part,  on 
this  method.  It  may,  however,  be  said  in  a  general  way  here 
that  Chronicles  treats  the  older  material  with  great  freedom, 
reshapes  it,  freely  makes  additions  to  it,  and  leaves  out  parts 
of  the  older  narrative.  At  the  same  time,  there  is  no  mistaking 
the  fact  that  the  alterations  made  on  it  serve  pre-eminently  to 
illustrate  one  and  the  same  thought,  in  which  we  rightly  recognise 
the  leading  thought  of  Chronicles — namely,  that  the  temple  in 
Jerusalem,  the  Levitical  priesthood  of  this  temple,  and  the  pious 
Kings  of  Judah  who  were  devoted  to  the  temple  service,  should 
appear  to  posterity  as  great  and  glorious. 

To  what  extent  Chronicles  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  trushvorthy 
historical  document  will  be  easily  shown  if  we  gather  up  the 
threads  of  the  previous  discussions.  The  book  is  of  very  late 
origin ;  in  all  probability  it  possesses  only  one  source  from  which 
it  takes  its  material ;  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  study  the  relation 
of  the  source  to  the  older  traditional  material,  everything  points 
to  great  freedom,  and  not  seldom  to  actual  arbitrariness,  in  the 
handling  of  tradition — a  handling  which  has  been  prompted  by  a 


230  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

definite  and  frequently  visible  tendency.  It  necessarily  follows 
from  these  facts  that  Chronicles  as  an  historical  source  is  to  be 
used  only  ivitli  the  greatest  caution.  We  may  say  in  advance  that 
tlie  information  it  gives  is  to  be  received  with  distrust  rather  than 
with  trust,  since  the  whole  character  of  the  book  shows  it  to 
be  anything  but  a  purely  documentary  narrative-book.  But 
caution  and  essential  distrust  should  not  lead  us  into  the  error  of 
considering  that  we  are  relieved  from  the  necessity  of  testing 
the  actual  state  of  matters  in  each  individual  case.  Considering 
the  defectiveness  of  the  information  given  in  our  Biblical  Book 
of  Kings,  we  cannot  avoid  supposing  it  possible  that  Chronicles 
has  occasionally  supplied  us  with  more  detailed  information  based 
on  trustworthy  ancient  sources.  Even  in  the  cases  in  which 
Chronicles  *  has  looked  at  and  represented  things  entirely  through 
the  medium  of  Levitical  priestly  ideas,'i  it,  or  its  authority,  may 
quite  well  have  drawn  its  facts  from  older  narratives  which  are 
given  in  the  Biblical  Book  of  Kings  only  in  the  form  of  abstracts 
or  epitomes.  The  decision  on  this  point  must  depend  on  each 
individual  instance ;  still,  no  one  can  say  it  is  unlikely  that,  in  the 
time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  somewhat  more  was  known  about 
the  older  Israelitish  history  than  we  are  able  to-day  to  gather 
from  the  Book  of  Kings.^ 

§  53.  Information  from  Foreign  Sources. 

1.  Palestinian-Phceiiician. — We  do  not  possess  for  this  period 
of  the  history  either,  a  single  document  from  Israelitish  antiquity 
from  which  we  could  get  any  considerable  addition  to  our  know- 
ledge. The  only  ancient  Israelitish  inscription  which  has,  up  to 
the  present,  been  discovered — that,  namely,  found  in  1880  in  the 
so-called  Siloah  aqueduct — is  historically  without  value.^  It  shows 
us,  however,  that  we  should  not  give  up  the  hope  of  finding  still 

^  (3ttli,  Chronik.  14.  ^  See  also  Kamphausen,  Ghronol.  21. 

3  See  on  it  Kautzsch,  in  ZDP  V.  iv.  (1881),  102  flf.,  260  S.  ;  v.  205  ff. ;  and  Guthe, 
ZDPV.  iv.  250  S.,  ZDMQ.  1882,  725  ff.  ;  Driver,  Notes,  xv.  f.  On  the  latest 
fortunes  of  the  Stone,  see  ZDPV.  xiii.  (1891),  286  ff. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  231 

further  and  richer  treasures  in  the  way  of  inscriptions  even  on 
the  soil  of  Israel  And  so,  too,  the  large  number  of  Phmnician 
inscriptions  which  have  been  found — partly  in  the  mother-country 
and  partly  in  the  colonies — yield  very  little  for  the  ascertaining  of 
the  historical  facts.  They  may,  however,  be  consulted  with  profit 
for  our  knowledge  of  the  religious  life  and  thought  of  the 
Canaanites  in  this,  and  especially  in  the  preceding  period.  They 
will  be  found  arranged  in  a  model  fashion  in  the  Corpus  Inscrip- 
tionum  Semiticarum. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  have  succeeded  in  finding  in  the  land 
of  ancient  Moab  an  historical  inscription  in  the  proper  sense  of 
that  term — the  pillar  of  victory  of  King  Mesha'  of  Moab.  It  is 
an  historical  monument  of  the  first  rank,  and  is  all  the  more 
valuable  for  us  that  in  the  Old  Testament  also,  in  2  Kings  iii., 
we  possess  an  account  which  has  reference  to  the  events  mentioned 
in  the  inscription.  It  was  discovered  in  the  year  1868  by  the 
German  clergyman  Klein  on  the  site  of  ancient  Daibon,  and  is 
now  in  the  Louvre  at  Paris.  There  can  no  longer  be  any  doubt 
as  to  its  genuineness.  Its  significance  for  the  historian  is  almost 
outweighed  by  the  value  which  it  possesses  for  the  history  of  the 
Hebrew  language  and  Hebrew  writing.^ 

2.  Egyptian. — Under  Solomon  and  Kehoboam,  Israel  repeatedly 
stood  in  a  close  relationship  with  Egypt,  as  it  did  also  from  the 
time  of  the  Assyrian  wars.  But  with  the  exception  of  the  in- 
scription of  Sheshonq,  which  will  be  mentioned  later,  there  is  no 
mention  whatever  of  the  Israel  of  the  times  of  the  Kings  in 
Egyptian  monuments.  Besides,  the  defectiveness  of  the  Egyptian 
chronology,  and  the  gaps  in  Egyptian  history,  occur  just  in 
the  very  period  in  which  Egypt  is  more  frequently  mentioned  in 
the  Old  Testament.  However  important  it  may  be  that  w^e  should 
be  able  to  bring  in  the  history  of  the  Empire  of  Pharaoh  to  help 
us  in  understanding  the  Israelitish  history  of  the  Kings,  still  the 

1  See  on  it,  Schlottmann,  Die  Siegessdule  Mesas  (1870),  and  in  ZDMG.  1870, 
1871 ;  Ndldeke,  Die  Inschrift  d.  K.  Mesa,  1870;  Driver,  Notes,  Ixxxv.  fif.  The 
best  edition  :  Smend  and  Socin  :  Freib.  1886. 


232  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

yield  which  we  can  expect  from  this  quarter  is  in  the  present 
condition  of  Egyptology  not  particularly  great. 

3.  Assyrio-Bahylonian. — Mesopotamia,  on  the  other  hand,  yields 
us  an  incomparably  richer  supply.  The  history  of  Israel  is  bound 
up  in  the  closest  way  with  the  steady  advance  of  Assyria  in 
Western  Asia.  The  N"orthern  Kingdom  as  well  as  the  Southern 
Kingdom  underwent  one  shock  after  another  at  the  hands  of  the 
Assyrian  kings,  and  so  far  as  Judah  w^as  concerned,  Babylon 
finally  entered  on  the  inheritance  of  Assyria.  It  can,  accordingly, 
not  astonish  us  that,  by  the  deciphering  of  the  Assyrio-Babylonian 
cuneiform  inscriptions,  a  wholly  unexpected  light  has  been  cast 
on  the  history  of  Israel  in  the  time  of  the  Kings.  What  the 
rulers  of  Assyria  and  Babylon  relate  regarding  their  expeditions 
to  Palestine  is  all  the  more  welcome  to  us  the  more  defective 
and  incomplete  we  find  the  native  Hebrew  accounts  to  be  in 
reference  to  such  political  events. 

The  peculiar  nature  of  the  cuneiform  accounts  gives  the 
information  they  supply  a  special  value.^  These  accounts  are  to 
a  large  extent  historical  documents  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the 
term,  and  are  based  on  contemporary  and  official  reports.  Of 
course,  in  spite  of  this,  they  cannot  be  used  without  criticism. 
Exaggeration  of  the  deeds  of  the  king,  omission  or  extenuation 
of  native  defeats  and  misfortunes,  giving  prominence  to,  and 
making  too  much  of,  those  of  foreign  nations,  mistakes  in  writing, 
mistakes  of  memory,  and  errors  of  various  kinds — all  this  plays 
its  part  in  them  as  it  does  in  other  documents.  But  their  real 
worth  is  not  thereby  put  in  question.^  And,  first  of  all,  we  have 
the  splendid  series  of  so-called  Royal  Inscriptions.  These  were 
placed  in  temples  and  palaces  with  a  view  to  extol  the  deeds  of 
the  builders,  or  possessors,  as  the  case  might  be.  They  are  found 
on  clay  vessels  (called  cylinders),  on  prisms,  and  on  the  wall- 
lining  of  the  palaces.  The  Eoyal  Inscriptions  are  not  all  of  the 
same  kind.     The  most  valuable  certainly  are  the  annalist  inscrip- 

1  See  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  i.  148  ff.  ;  Tiele,  Bab. -ass.  Gesch.  18  f. 

2  See  Schrader,  Keilinschr.  und  Geschichts/orschung,  Giessen,  1878, 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  233 

tions,  since  they  give  the  deeds  of  their  heroes  in  historical 
series  and  arranged  according  to  the  years  of  the  reign ;  while 
the  so-called  show-inscriptions,  on  the  other  hand,  arrange 
the  material  in  an  independent  way,  and  naturally  thereby 
make  it  difficult  for  us  to  get  a  view  of  the  real  course  of 
events. 

Besides  these  Eoyal  Inscriptions  the  various  cuneiform  Lists 
have  a  special  importance  for  the  history  of  Israel.  They  serve 
as  the  necessary  basis  of  the  Biblical  chronology.  It  is  true, 
indeed,  that  neither  the  Babylonians  nor  the  Assyrians  had  any 
special  era ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  both  peoples  constructed  lists 
of  their  dynasties  and  rulers,  or  of  their  highest  officials,  and  in 
such  lists  the  names  and  succession  of  these,  together  with  the 
number  of  the  years  of  each  individual  reign,  are  given.  The 
so-called  eponym-lists  which  were  customary  in  Assyria  are  of 
special  importance.  In  Assyria  it  was  the  practice  to  name  each 
year  after  some  high  official  of  the  Empire,  the  Archon-Eponymos 
of  the  year,  and  this  custom  prevailed  from  ancient  times.  The 
names  of  these  officers,  sometimes  accompanied  with  short 
notes  on  the  important  events  of  the  special  year  of  their  ad- 
ministration, are  given  in  continuous  registers,  called  in  the  latter 
case  administration  lists.  An  eclipse  which  took  place  in  the 
year  763  B.C.,  and  which  is  mentioned  in  the  administration  list, 
supplies  the  definite  date  from  which  to  reckon.  It  shows  at 
the  same  time  that  the  dates  supplied  by  the  lists  agree  with 
those  of  the  Ptolemaic  Canon  which  contains  the  names  of 
the  later  Egyptian,  Persian,  and  Babylonian  rulers,  down  to 
Nabonassar.  We  thus  get  the  starting-point  for  the  Hebrew 
chronology. 

It  is  Schrader  especially  who  has  the  merit  of  having  turned 
to  account  the  information  supplied  by  the  cuneiform  inscriptions 
for  the  elucidation  of  Hebrew  history.^ 

^  Die  Keilimchriften  u.  d.  Alte  Test.'^  1883.     KeilinschriftUche  BiUioth.  1889  ff. 
To  this  add  VVinckler,  Keiliiv^chr.  Te.xthuch  z.  A  T.  1892. 


\^ 


234  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

^5Sa.  Supplement.     The  Chronology  of  the  Hehreio  Kings} 

The  Book  of  Kings  supplies  us  with  definite  data  regarding  the 
time  of  the  reign  of  the  individual  kings,  so  that  it  may  appear  as 
if  all  we  have  to  do  is  to  arrange  the  numbers,  in  order  to  get  a 
perfectly  accurate  picture  of  the  chronology  of  the  period  of  the 
Israelitish  kings.  As  a  matter  of  fact  this  is  not  the  case.  The 
mere  addition  of  the  numbers  used  in  connection  with  the  two 
sets  of  kings — those  of  Israel  and  those  of  Judah — leads  to  different 
results,  and  shows  that  we  have  here  quite  a  series  of  difficulties 
to  get  over. 

When  we  look  at  the  matter  more  closely,  we  find  that  the 
Book  of  Kings,  in  fact,  puts  two  kinds  of  numbers  alongside  of 
each  other  which  do  not  directly  fit  in.  In  the  case  of  each  king 
there  is  a  notice  of  the  duration  of  his  reign,  and  also  a  synchro- 
nistic statement  regarding  his  accession  in  relation  to  the  accession 
of  his  contemporary  in  the  other  kingdom.  According  to  the 
result  of  the  examination  of  the  Book  of  Kings  given  in  §  51,  the 
synchronisms  as  well  as  the  statements  regarding  the  duration  of 
the  reigns  of  the  individual  kings,  belong  to  the  framework  of  the 
Book  of  Kings.  All  the  same,  there  is  a  difference  between  them. 
It  has  been  already  shown  that  the  Book  of  Kings  underwent  more 
than  one  redaction.  The  first  revision  of  the  older  material  was 
the  work  of  D^,  and  belongs  to  the  period  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  ;  a  second  (E)  belongs  to  a  later  period.  Wellhausen 
has  shown,  by  convincing  reasons,  that  the  synchronisms  within 
the  Book  of  Kings  cannot  possibly  rest  on  ancient  tradition,  but 
are  on  the  contrary  simply  the  products  of  artificial  reckoning,* 
and  that  in  addition  to  this,  in  their  literary  aspect,  they  belong 

-  See  especially  Brandes,  Ahhandl.  z.  Gesch.  des  Orients  im  Altert.  1874; 
Wellhausen,  in  JDTh.  xx.  607  flf.  ;  Kamphausen,  Die  Chronologie  der  hebr. 
Konige,  1883;  Riehm,  in  the  HWB.  Art.  Zeitrechnung  ;  Kohler,  Bill.  Gesch.  ii., 
i.  460  fif.  ;  Klost.  SaKd,  493  ff.  ;  Strack,  in  the  Handb.  d.  theol.  Wissensch.  i.3  328  ff. 
[A  most  interesting  essay  by  Riihl  on  this  subject,  containing  many  new  points  of 
view,  has  lately  appeared  in  the  Deutsch.  Zeitschr.  fiir  Geschichtswissensch.  1894, 
44  ff.] 

2  See  Ewald,  Gesch.  Isr.'- 1.  242 ;  iii.  464  ;  further,  Wellh.  JDTh.  xx.  612  ff. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  235 

to  the  second  stratum  within  the  framework  of  our  Book  of 
Kings.i 

It  may  further  be  asked  if  the  same  can  be  said  of  the  numbers 
which  specify  the  duration  of  the  separate  reigns.  WelUiausen 
and  others  have  reached  results  regarding  them  similar  to  those 
reached  in  reference  to  the  synchronisms.-  But  this  assumption 
is  not  probable  either  from  the  literary  or  from  the  historical 
point  of  view.  If  we  look  at  the  question  in  its  literary  aspect,  it 
becomes  evident  that  certain  chronological  statements  may  even 
yet  be  traced  back  with  the  greatest  probability  to  the  older 
documentary  works  K  and  A,  which  lie  at  the  basis  of  I)-.^  A 
study  of  the  matter  from  the  historical  point  of  view  confirms  this 
result,  at  least  for  the  numbers  referring  to  the  later  reigns.  From 
Josiah  onwards,  we  can  check  them  by  the  data  supplied  by 
Jeremiah.  We  may  consequently  assume  that  the  numbers  of 
the  other  reigns  were  also  known  to  D-,  and  were  not  merely 
reckoned  by  him  artificially — in  other  words,  that  at  the  end  of  the 
period  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  those  then  living  were  still  in 
possession  of  information  regarding  the  length  of  the  reigns  of  the 
separate  kings. 

It  does  not  of  course  follow  that  tve  still  possess  them.  Various 
circumstances  throw  light  on  this  point.  The  Israelitish  numbers 
and  the  parallel  numbers  referring  to  Judah  do  not  agree  at  the 
points  at  which  we  are  able  to  compare  them.  Besides,  the  well- 
established 'Assyrian  dates  differ  considerably  from  those  deduced 
from  the  Old  Testament.  Both  facts  show  either  that  the  numbers, 
originally  given  accurately,  of  the  Book  of  Kings,  were  in  course  of 
time  altered  by  disturbing  influences  (errors  of  scribes,  misap- 
prehensions of  the  meaning,  etc.),  or  else  that  we  are  no  longer  in 
a  position  to  discover  the  original  method  of  reckoning  according 
to  which   the  sums  of  the  several  items  were  bound  to  agree; 

1  Wellh.  oi?.  cit.  611  ;  Kuen.  §  xxvi.  8. 

2  See  Bleek,''  264  f.  ;  Krey,  Z.  f.  wiss.  Theol.  \%11,  404  ff.  ;  Stade,  Gtsch.  95  f. 
Against  this  view  especially  Kamphausen,  Chronologie. 

^  See  for  example,  1  Kings  vi.  16,  37,  38  ;  vii.  1  ;  xiv.  25  ;  2  Kings  xi.  3,  4 
(xii.  1,2);  xvii.  6;  xviii.  10a,  1,3. 


236  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

or,  finally,  that  both  causes  have  contributed  to  bring  about  the 
present  state  of  things.  The  latter  is  most  likely  the  case.  We 
have  to  reckon  with  two  important  sources  of  error.  The  first 
class  of  errors  can,  of  course,  be  corrected  in  the  majority  of 
instances  in  no  other  way  save  by  that  of  pure  conjecture.  We 
could  remedy  those  of  the  second  class  if  only  we  could  in  any 
way  find  out  how  the  Hebrews  summed  up  the  years  of  their 
kings.  It  has  been  usual  of  late  to  suppose  that  the  system  of 
'post-dating'  was  in  vogue — that  is  to  say,  any  year  begun  by 
a  king  was  reckoned  as  a  full  year  of  his  reign,  while  the 
length  of  the  reign  of  his  successor  was  reckoned  only  from  the 
following  calendar  year.  A  certain  amount  of  evidence  may  be 
adduced  for  this  method  of  reckoning,  especially  as  regards  the 
later  period.^  But  it  is  at  the  same  time  evident  that  everything 
would  depend  on  knowing  when  this  method  of  reckoning  became 
usual.-  Por  certainly  before  it  was  in  use  no  one  ever  thought  of 
indicating  the  time  of  a  king's  reign  otherwise  than  by  its  absolute 
duration.  If  it  was  necessary  to  round  off  the  time,  this  was  not 
done  in  accordance  with  any  system,  but  from  considerations  of 
convenience.  A  considerable  fragment  of  a  year  might  be  reckoned 
as  a  whole  year,  a  small  fragment  might  not  be  counted  at  all. 
There  was  in  any  case  no  occasion  for  reducing  it  to  a  calendar  year. 

It  follows  from  this  that  we  are  on  really  sure  ground  only 
when  the  basis  of  reckoning  is  supplied  from  other  sources,  and 
also  that  if  we  start  from  this  basis  we  are  not  in  a  position,  in 
most  cases,  to  get  beyond  p7'o'bahle  reckonings. 

The  following  are  the  most  important  fixed  dates  got  from 

Assyrian  sources  : —  ^ 

854.  The  Battle  of  Qarqar. 

842.  Jehu's  tribute  to  Salmanassar  11.  . 

739-8.  Azariah-Uzziah  of  Juclah  still  living. 

738.  Menahem  of  Israel  tributary  to  Assyria. 

734.  The  Syrio-Ephraimite  War. 

722.  Samaria's  Fall. 

702.  Sennacherib's  Invasion. 

1  M.  V.  Niebuhr  ;  Wellh.  JDTh.  xx.  620  ff. 

2  See  Riehm,  in  HWB.  1804.  3  gee  above,  p.  232. 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY 


237 


Starting  from  this  it  is  possible,  in  the  first  instance,  to  deter- 
mine in  a  measure  the  period  from  Jehu  upwards.  We  have  to 
assume  that  he  paid  the  tribute  soon  after  his  accession.  As  a 
usurper  he  is  forced  to  buttress  up  liis  throne.  Then  we  have  the 
fact  which  is  chronologically  helpful,  that  by  Ahaziah's  murder 
he  is  the  means  of  raising  a  new  ruler,  Atlialiah,  to  the  throne  of 
Judah  also,  at  tlie  same  time  as  he  himself  becomes  King  of 
Samaria.  Now  the  Book  of  Kings  gives  the  following  numbers 
in  connection  with  the  different  reigns  up  to  the  time  of 
Jehu : — 


Jeroboam  I., 

.     22  years 

Eehoboam, 

.     17  years 

Nadab,        . 

2     „ 

Abijam, 

.       3     „ 

Baasha, 

24     „ 

Asa,    . 

.     41     „ 

Elah, 

2     „ 

Zimri, 

7  days 

Omri, 

12     „ 

Ahab, 

22     „ 

Jehoshaphat, 

.     25     „ 

Ahaziah,     . 

9 

-■         5) 

Joram, 

•       8     „ 

Joram, 

12     „ 

Ahaziah,      . 

.       1     „ 

98  years 

7  days 

95  years 

The  totals  do  not  agree.  If  the  figures  in  the  two  columns  were 
correctly  given,  and  if  we  were  at  the  same  time  able  to  sum  them 
up  as  the  author  did,  they  would,  as  is  self-evident,  necessarily 
agree.  We  cannot  say  where  the  error  is.  Still  it  is  probable 
that  it  is  on  the  Israelitish  rather  than  on  the  Judaic  side,  because 
the  larger  number  of  items  given  in  the  case  of  the  former  leaves 
greater  room  for  error.  It  is  possible  that  each  of  the  double 
years  in  the  case  of  Nadab,  Elah,  and  Ahaziah  would  have  to  be 
reckoned  only  as  a  single  year,  according  to  our  present  mode  of 
calculation.  The  error  may,  however,  lurk  somewhere  else. 
Kamphausen  assigns  one  year  to  Nadab  and  none  to  Elah. 
In  any  case  we  only  get  approximate  numbers.  Still  they 
certainly  impress  us  as  being  throughout  figures  which  have  been 
handed  down  by  tradition.  Taking  them  in  this  sense  we  get  the 
following  numbers  of  years  : — 


238 


HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS 


[Book  III. 


Jeroboam  I. 

937-917 

Rehoboam, 

937-920 

Nadab, 

915-914 

Abijam,    . 

920-917 

Baasha, 

914-890 

Asa, 

917-876 

Elah, 

890-889 

Zimri, 

889 

Omri, 

889-877 

Ahab, 

877-855 

Jehoshaphat,    . 

876-851 

Ahaziah, 

855-842^ 

Joram,      . 

851-843 

Joram, 

854-842 

Ahaziah,  . 

843-842 

A  second  pe] 

iod  extends  to  the  fall  of  Samaria. 

The  numbers 

supplied  by  the  Book  of  Kings  are 

— 

Jehu, 

28  years 

AthaUah,    . 

6  years 

Jehoahaz, 

17    „ 

Joash, 

.     40     „ 

Jehoash, 

16     „ 

Amaziah,     . 

.     20     „ 

Jeroboam  II., . 

41     „ 

Azariah-Uzziah, 

•     52     „ 

Zachariah, 

6  months 

ShaUum, 

...         1       „ 

Menahem, 

10     „ 

Jotham, 

.     16     „ 

Pekahiah, 

2     ., 

Pekah,    . 

20     „ 

Ahaz, 

.     16     „ 

Hoshea,  . 

9     „ 

Hezekiah,    . 

.       6     „ 

143  years  7  months  165  years 

The  difficulties  accumulate  here  at  the  very  first  glance.  Not 
only  does  the  difference  between  Judah  and  Israel  amount  to  over 
21  years,  but  even  the  smaller  of  the  two  totals — that  referring  to 
Israel,  143 J — has  a  surplus  of  more  than  22  years  when  compared 
with  the  number  of  years  given  in  the  Assyrian  lists,  namely, 
842-722  =  121.  Then  besides,  we  have  a  second  palpable  error  in 
v'  the  Bible  accounts.  According  to  2  Kings,  chap,  xviii.  13, 
Sennacherib's  invasion  in  701  coincided  with  the  fourteenth  year 
of  Hezekiah's  reign,  while  in  verse  10  of  the  same  chapter  it  is 
stated  that  the  year  722  was  the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  so 
that  Hezekiah  must  have  begun  to  reign  as  early  as  729,  and 
701  would  thus  represent  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  his  reign. 
One  of  the  two  statements  must  necessarily  be  false.  We  shall 
be  more  inclined  to  conclude  that  it  is  verse  10  which  is  wrong, 
than  to  give  up  the  other  verse,  because  the  former  is  directly  con- 
nected with  the  synchronism  referred  to  (c/.  v.  1).  Hezekiah's 
accession  is  consequently  to  be   assigned   to  the  year  714,   and 


A.  Sources.]  THE  DECLINE  OF  NATIONALITY  239 

we  thus  save  the  first  six  years  of  Hezekiah's  reigo,  at  least  so  far 

as  the  series  belonging  to  Judah  is  concerned.     If  we  go  in  for 

further  reductions  we  are  met,  first  of  all,  by  the  peculiar  relation 

which  exists  between  Azariah-Uzziah  and  his  son  Jotham.     It  is 

necessary,  for  other  reasons,^  to  suppose  that  Jotham  was  regent 

along  with  his  father,  but  the  fact  of  a  regency  does  excellent 

service  here.     Since  the  father  was  still  living  in  739-38,  Jotham 

can  have  been  sole  ruler  only  a  few  years  at  most,  for  Ahaz  was 

king  in   734.     We  can  thus,  without   much   trouble,  win   from 

fourteen  to  fifteen  years  in  the  case  of  Jotham.     On  the  other 

hand,  the  sixteen  years  of  Ahaz  suggest  the  opposite  difficulty, 

namely,  that  they  appear  to  represent  too  short  a  period.     It  is 

possible  that  we  ought  to  assign  twenty  years  to  Ahaz.-     In  any 

case,  however,  since  Ahaz  began  his  reign  in  734,  722  must  be  his 

thirteenth  year.     Here,  too,  we  also  gain  three  years.     How  are 

we  to  get  rid  of  what  still  remains — the  twenty  to  twenty-one 

years  ?     We  are  almost  entirely  driven  to  guess-work.     We  can 

only  say  this  much,  that  the  six  years  of  Athaliah  and  the  forty  of 

Joash  appear  to  be  well-established  on  internal  grounds.     Kamp- 

hausen   wishes,  for   this    reason,  to    take   other   ten   years   from 

Amaziah   and   Azariah.      For   safety's   sake   it    is   necessary   to 

abandon  the  idea  of  coming  to  any  definite  decision.     The  Judah 

series  will  accordingly  run  thus  : — 

Athaliah, 842-836 

Joash, 836-796 

Amaziah, 796-78? 

Azariah-Uzziah,    ....  78?-737 

Jotham, 737-735 

Ahaz,  735-715 

Hezekiah, 715-686 

The  Israelitish  series  takes  a  somewhat  simpler  form    from 

Jehu  to  Hoshea.     Here  the  ten  years  ascribed  to  Menahem  ought, 

on  internal  grounds,  to  be  shortened  by  from  two  to  three  years.^ 

So,  too,  it  is  impossible  to  assign  twenty  and  nine  years  respectively 

to  Pekah  and  Hoshea  before  722,  if  Menahem  paid  tribute  in  738, 

and  if  after  him  Pekahiah  has  still  to  get  two  years.     We  shall  be 

1  See  below,  in  §  67.  ^  See  Kamph.  Chron.  37. 

^  See  below,  §  68,  at  the  beginning. 


/ 


240 


HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS 


[Book  III. 


justified  in  assigning  to  Pekah,  or  Hoshea,  or  both,  a  shorter 
period  for  their  reign.  Since,  however,  the  ninth  year  of  Hoshea 
must  certainly  be  the  year  722,  Hoshea  ought  to  get  his  full 
number.  In  addition  to  this,  Pekah's  death  undoubtedly  took 
place,  734-3.  As  regards  Israel  we  accordingly  reach  the  result 
represented  by  the  following  : — 

842-814 


t^CXIU,           .... 

Jehoahaz, 

814-797 

Jehoash, 

797-781 

Jeroboam  II., 

781-740 

Zachariah-Shallum, 

740 

Menahem, 

740-737 

Pekahiah,      . 

737-735 

Pekah,  .... 

735-734-3 

Hoshea,! 

733-725 

The  last  third  of  the  series  of  the 

king 

s  of  Judah  presents  the 

fewest  difficulties.  The  nearer  we  get,  in  the  matter  of  the 
length  of  the  reigns,  to  the  age  of  the  author  himself,  the  more 
trustworthy  do  the  figures  become.  If  Hezekiah  is  placed  within 
the  period  from  714  to  686,  then,  since  586  is  certainly  the  year 
of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  exactly  a  hundred  years  are  left ; 
while  the  sum-total  of  the  numbers  assigned  to  the  reigns  from 
Manasseh  to  Zedekiah  is,  on  the  other  hand,  one  hundred  and  ten. 
If  this  period  must  be  shortened  somewhere  or  other  by  ten  years, 
the  reign  of  Manasseh  seems  the  one  that  may  most  appropriately 
be  cut  down.2     What  we  Sfet  then  is  this 


Manasseh,     . 

686-641 

Amon,  . 

. 

641-639 

Josiah, . 

639-608 

Jehoahaz, 

608 

Jehoiakim,    . 

, 

608-597 

Zedekiah, 

. 

597-586 

By 

way 

of  conclusion. 

I  add  the 

probable  numbers  for  the  first 

three  kings 

— 

Solomon, 

. 

977-937 

David,  . 

. 

1017-977 

Saul,     . 

• 

1037-1017 

!  On  his  accession  and  Pekah's  death,  see  below,  §  68. 
-  See  Kamph.  Chron.  36. 


B.  THE  HISTOEY  OF  THE  PERIOD. 
CHAPTEE   I. 

EEHOBOAM  AND   JEROBOAM  AND   THEIR   IMMEDIATE   SUCCESSORS. 

§  54.  The  Division  of  the  Kingdom  (937). 

There  was  in  Solomon's  government  an  unsound  element  which 
might  easily  lead  to  a  rupture,  but  there  was  no  actual  necessity 
that  this  should  occur  just  yet.  However,  if  the  man  who  was 
fitted  to  bring  it  about,  and  who  was  resolved  that  it  should  come 
about,  did  appear  on  the  scene,  everything  was  ready  for  the  crisis. 
The  general  feeling  throughout  Israel  had  been  sufficiently  pre- 
pared beforehand  for  this. 

The  transition  from  an  elective  monarchy  to  a  rigidly  despotic 
rule  had  been  accomplished  too  quickly.  The  tribes  of  Israel  had, 
even  in  David's  case,  set  the  crown  upon  his  head  after  a  free 
choice,  just  as  they  had  done  formerly  in  the  case  of  Saul.  Israel 
had  been  a  purely  elective  monarchy.  David's  sons,  however, 
played  in  succession  the  role  of  hereditary  successors  to  the 
throne.  Neither  Absalom,  nor  Adonijah,  nor  Solomon,  thought  it 
necessary  that  he  should  be  first  chosen  by  the  tribes.  According 
to  their  view  of  it,  the  succession  to  the  throne  of  their  father 
belonged  to  them  as  the  sons  of  David.  Israel  had  become  a 
hereditary  monarchy.  This  development  was  a  perfectly  natural 
one  in  the  circumstances.  It  would  have  come  about  even  in  the 
case  of  the  house  of  Saul,  if  Jonathan  had  lived,  or  if  Ishbaal  had 
been  more  capable  and  more  fortunate.  Still  there  was  an 
VOL.  11.  Q 


242  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

increased  danger  just  at  this  time  in  the  way  of  any  such  change, 
since  the  exclusion  of  the  house  of  Saul  had  brought  home  to  the 
tribes,  for  the  second  time,  a  consciousness  of  the  independence 
of  the  popular  will. 

The  change,  however,  could  have  been  successfully  brought  about 
only  if  it  had  been,  meanwhile,  made  possible  actually  to  attach 
the  tribes  of  Israel  to  the  house  of  David.  David  himself  had 
certainly  not  completely  solved  this  problem,  a  specially  difficult 
one  in  the  then  existing  circumstances.  The  northern  tribes  and 
Benjamin  always  showed  a  certain  distrust  of  his  rule.  Still  less 
was  Solomon  equal  to  this  task.  His  despotic  tendencies,  and 
especially  the  oppressive  taxation,  were  certainly  not  calculated  to 
make  the  tribes  forget  that  only  a  short  time  before  this,  not  birth 
but  the  will  of  the  people,  was  what  entitled  a  man  to  sit  on  the 
royal  throne. 

How  widespread  the  ferment  was  amongst  the  northern  tribes 
already  in  the  reign  of  Solomon,  is  plainly  enough  evident  from 
the  fact  that  a  rising  broke  out  even  during  his  lifetime.  It 
was  only  by  force  that  it  was  suppressed,  and  that  the  revolt  of 
the  northern  tribes  from  Solomon  was  postponed.  Jeroboam, 
one  of  the  royal  overseers,  was  the  originator  of  the  rising.^  He 
had  to  flee  to  Egypt,  and,  as  would  seem,  was  received  there  with 
open  arms.  But  Solomon's  government  was  strong  enough  to 
prevent  him  and  his  supporters  from  thinking  of  making  any 
attempt  to  repeat  the  rising,  so  long  as  Solomon  occupied  the 
throne.  It  may  astonish  us  that  an  Israelitish  rebel  should  have 
found  protection  in  Egypt  of  all  places,  seeing  that  a  Pharaoh 
was  the  father  of  one  of  Solomon's  wives.  The  explanation 
of  this  is  that  Shishak,  the  Egyptian  Sheshonq,  was  the 
beginner  of  a  new  dynasty ,2  and  consequently  '  knew  nothing '  of 
Solomon. 

After  Solomon's  death,  which  we  may  put  in  the  year  937,  the 
succession  of  his  son  Eehoboam  appears  at  first  as  something  which 
was  taken  for  granted.     We  cannot  tell  what  gave  him  the  pre- 

1  See  above,  p.  187  f.  2  qj-^  Meyer,  Gtsdi.  Agypt.  332. 


Chap.  L]  I»'.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  243 

ference  over  the  other  sons  ^  of  Solomon.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he 
seems  to  have  mounted  the  throne,  and  to  have  occupied  it  for 
some  time.  But  the  long-suppressed  and  smouldering  discontent 
of  the  northern  tribes  with  Solomon's  rule  plainly  breaks  out,  if 
not  actually  at  his  accession,  at  any  rate  soon  after  it.  There  may, 
indeed,  have  been  many  negotiations  and  attempts  to  smooth  things 
over  before  Eehoboam  finally  resolved  to  treat  with  the  discontented 
in  Shechem.2  Meanwhile  Jeroboam,  too,  had  had  time  to  return 
from  Egypt  and  to  take  up  the  threads  of  the  movement.^ 

The  representatives  of  Israel  point  out  to  Eehoboam  how 
heavily  Solomon  had  burdened  them,  and  demand  a  lightening 
of  the  burdens.  For  a  time  Eehoboam  seems  to  have  been 
inclined  to  yield  to  the  wish  of  the  tribes,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  the  voice  of  reason.  The  older  counsellors,  who  had  most  likely 
known  the  times  of  David  and  the  better  traditions  of  the  earlier 
times  of  Solomon,  advised  him  to  this.  Soon,  however,  Eehoboam, 
after  consulting  with  those  about  him  whom  he  had  himself 
selected  from  amongst  the  '  present '  generation,  resolves  to  dismiss 
the  demand.  His  advisers  are  the  representatives  of  the  younger 
generation  in  Judah,^  who  had  grown  up  under  the  influence  of 
the  main  principles  acted  upon  by  Solomon,  and  who  revere  them 
as  the  pattern  of  royal  prudence  and  the  basis  of  royal  authority. 
Force  and  inflexible  severity  will,  they  believe,  be  sufficient,  as 
was  the  case  under  Solomon,  to  quieten  the  rebels.  They  have 
no  idea  that  they  have  a  man  behind  them  who  has  not  the  power 
and  determination  of  Solomon  to  fall  back  upon. 

^  Spite  of  xi.  1,  only  Rehoboam  is  mentioned. 

-  The  expression,  1vDn7j  xii.  1,  cannot  possibly  signify  here  the  choice  of  a 
king  in  the  ordinary  sense.  (See  the  notes  which  follow.)  It  can  only  refer  to 
the  formal  recognition  of  Rehoboam's  accession  to  the  throne  by  the  northern 
tribes. 

3  1  Kings  xii.  1-3,  See  on  this  above,  p.  205.  Verse  2  should  precede  v.  1, 
for  it  is  Jeroboam's  return  which  is  referred  to  here  (DD  2^*]),  and  which  had 
already  become  an  accomplished  fact  at  the  gathering  in  Shechem.  Verse  3a  is 
to  be  struck  out. 

4  The  designation,  U^"\7\  xii.  8,  10,  makes  the  age  of  forty-one  assigned  to 
Rehoboam  in  xiv.  21  appear  somewhat  doubtful.  Of.  2  Chron.  xiii.  7,  but 
especially  1  Kings  xii.  24a  in  lxx.  cod.  B.  (see  Swete). 


244  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

An  arrogantly  defiant  answer  to  the  earnest  request  of  the 
tribes  is  the  only  act  on  the  part  of  Eehoboam.  And  when  they 
withdraw  their  allegiance  from  him,  he  has  not  the  strength  to 
make  his  threat  good.  An  attempt  made  to  appease  them,  which 
ends  disastrously  for  Eehoboam's  aged  overseer  Adoram,^  miscarries. 
The  people  advance  to  open  rebellion.  The  king's  officer  is  stoned 
to  death.  Eehoboam  is  not  sure  of  his  own  life.  He  prefers  to 
mount  his  chariot,  and  in  hasty  flight  to  make  for  his  capital 
Jerusalem.  Jeroboam  is  quickly  fetched,  and  chosen  as  king  over 
Israel.  Eehoboam  is  actually  dethroned,  and  Jeroboam  is  his 
successor  in  the  kingship.  Only  the  capital  and  his  own  tribe, 
Judah,"  are  left  to  Eehoboam.^  What  David  once  was  in  Hebron 
before  he  became  king  of  Israel,  his  grandson  now  again  is.  The 
national  kingship  has  once  more  become  a  tribal  kingship. 

Truly  a  tragic  destiny  this  which  now  overtakes  Israel ! 
David's  creation  had  lasted  barely  two  generations,  in  order  now 
to  fall  a  sacrifice  to  the  folly  of  his  grandson,  joined  to  the  faults 
of  his  son  and  the  ancient  wranglings  of  the  tribes.  All  the  fair 
beginnings  and  the  promising  prospects  which  the  union  and 
strengthening  of  the  nation  under  David  seemed  to  offer,  and 
which  had  been  barely  recognised  and  enjoyed,  are  already  lost 
again  beyond  hope  of  recovery.  In  their  place  there  rise  before 
our  vision  all  the  countless  sufferings  and  sorrows  which  are  yet 
to  come  upon  Judah  and  Israel  as  the  consequence,  almost  without 
exception,  of  the  unhappy  state  of  rupture. 

What  Israel  could  do  when  it  was  one,  and  was  conscious  of 
its  power,  had  been  plainly  seen.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  accident 
that  even  Egypt  does  not  dare  to  oppose  David's  rule  in  Syria, 
and  that  its  Pharaoh  accepts  the  friendship  of  Solomon.     Egypt 

^  He  had  held  the  same  post  under  Solomon,  and  even  under  David,  2  Sam. 
XX.  24  (see  Wellh.  TBS.) ;  1  Kings  iv.  6  ;  v.  14. 

"  The  mention  of  Benjamin,  vv.  21  and  24  (in  itself  not  very  probable),  rests 
on  a  later  addition.     Verse  20  at  the  end  makes  this  perfectly  plain. 

^  1  Kings  xii.  1-20.  The  account  is,  at  all  events,  old  and  trustworthy  (per- 
haps A).  It  must  in  any  case  belong  to  a  time  not  long  after  the  events.  See 
above,  p.  211.  On  a  considerably  different  representation  of  the  circumstances 
in  the  LXX.,  see  above,  p.  206. 


CiiAP.  I.]  i?.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  245 

by  this  time  had  long  got  past  the  zenith  of  its  power ;  and  even 
supposing  a  time  did  come  again  in  which  Egypt  was  stronger 
and  more  fortunate  than  it  actually  was  at  this  period,  if  Israel 
had  been  united,  and  had  kept  the  undisputed  predominance  in 
Syria  which  it  had  under  David  and  Solomon,  it  would  have 
been,  even  for  this  stronger  Egypt,  an  opponent  well  worthy  of 
respect.  Besides  this,  the  kingdom  of  Damascus  was  only  now 
in  the  course  of  formation.  The  best  part  of  its  strength  was 
drawn  from  the  weakness  and  disunion  of  Israel.  If  Israel  had 
been  united  and  on  its  guard,  Damascus  could  not  have  done  it 
any  harm.  It  may  confidently  be  asserted  that  if  Israel  had 
pursued  the  course  on  which  it  was  started  by  David  and  Solomon, 
its  position  in  Syria  would  have  been  assured  up  till  the  time 
when  it  came  into  contact  with  Assyria. 

We  may,  in  fact,  ask  whether  it  would  not  have  been  better, 
if  the  house  of  David  was  to  lose  the  throne  at  all,  that  it  should 
have  been  entirely  got  out  of  the  way,  and  that  Jeroboam  should 
have  become  kingj  of  all  Israel  ?  We  can  imagine  that  in  this 
case  the  unity  of  the  nation  might  at  all  events  have  been  secured, 
and  the  nation  itself  preserved  as  a  whole.  Besides,  it  would  have 
been  saved  from  wearing  itself  out  in  a  civil  strife  which  lasted 
for  centuries.  But  it  was  soon  to  become  evident  that  the  idea 
of  unity,  and  the  conception  of  a  fixed  and  lasting  order  of  things, 
had  not  taken  that  firm  root  amonost  these  northern  tribes  which 
alone  would  have  enabled  them  permanently  to  assume  the  guid- 
ance of  the  nation.  In  fact,  if  the  government  of  all  Israel  was 
to  be  committed  to  any  one  tribe  at  all,  it  looked  almost  as  if 
Judah  alone  could  be  this  tribe.  And  it  was  the  fate  of  this  tribe, 
after  David  and  Solomon,  not  to  possess  any  man  who  was  fitted 
to  assume  the  leadership  and  to  guide  the  nation  with  power  and 
skill. 

One  thing  certainly  was  left  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  for  this 
reason  a  throne  was  left  to  it,  even  if  it  were  only  that  of  a  tribal 
kingdom.  This  was  Jerusalem,  with  the  Temple  and  the  glorious 
memories  of  David  and  Solomon.     As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  the 


246  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

position  held  by  Jerusalem  as  the  capital,  and  as  the  city  of  the 
Temple,  and  at  the  same  time  as  the  city  which  reminded  the 
Israelites  of  the  glorious  past,  which  alone  made  it  possible  for 
David's  dynasty,  "spite  of  the  smallness  and  weakness  of  the  king- 
dom, to  prolong  its  existence  for  centuries.^ 


§  55.  EeJiohoam.     Abijah.     Asa. 

If  the  spirit  of  his  fathers  had  lived  on  in  Eehoboam  (937-920), 
he  must  necessarily  have  succeeded  in  gathering  together  the 
brave  in  Judah,  and  perhaps  also  many  in  Israel  who  still  clung 
to  the  house  of  David,  and  in  wresting  the  crown  once  more  from 
the  usurper,  as  David  had  done  from  Absalom  and  Sheba,  and 
Solomon  from  Jeroboam.  Instead  of  doing  this,  he  never  gets 
beyond  the  carrying  on  of  a  feeble  feud  with  Jeroboam.  The 
civil  war  drags  on  without  any  real  earnestness  or  result  on  either 
side,  so  long  as  Rehoboam  lives.^  The  statement  in  the  Book  of 
Kings  that  he  once  intended  to  strike  a  decisive  blow  at  the 
usurper  of  his  authority,  but  was  hindered  from  engaging  in  what 
was  a  war  between  brethren  by  a  prophetic  oracle,  sounds  like 
a  friendly  excuse  for  his  inaction  and  indifference.^  For,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  fraternal  quarrel  is  continued. 

The  evil  consequences  of  the  internal  weakening  of  the  king- 
dom become  soon  enough  evident  in  Israel's  relation  to  foreign 
countries.  Egypt,  which  was  suffering  from^  its  own  weakness, 
and  had  not  up  to  this  time  dared  to  disturb  Israel's  powerful 
unity,  suddenly  appears  in  the  character  of  an  enemy.  In  the 
time  of  Solomon  the  Egyptians  had  contented  themselves  with 
offering  a  place  of  abode  to  the  enemies  of  Israel  and  to  refugees 
from  that  country,  and  they  had  done  this  in  one  case  spite  of 
the  close  alliance  between  Solomon  and  the  house  of  Pharaoh.'* 

1  See  on  this  also  above,  p.  157  and  p.  195. 

"^  1  Kings  xiv.  30.     Dififerently,  Wellh.  History  of  Israel  and  Judah,  p.  58  f. 
3  1  Kings  xii.  21-24.     See  on  this  above,  p.  211. 

*  How  this  circumstance  is  to  be  explained  in  both  instances,  see  above,  p.  242, 
and  p.  184,  note  3  ;  also  p.  187  f. 


Chap.  I.]  5.- HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  247 

Scarcely,  however,  is  the  kingdom  split  up,  when  its  power  too 
appears  to  be  shattered.  Pharaoh  Sheshonq  (Hebrew,  Shishaq) 
organises  a  marauding  expedition  against  Judah  and  Israel.  He 
plunders  Jerusalem,  and  carries  off  the  treasures  of  the  Temple 
which  Solomon  had  collected  together  there.^  His  inscription  in 
the  temple  at  Karnak  shows  that  his  expedition  had  not  to  do 
with  Jerusalem  only,  and  that  it  was  not  undertaken  merely  to 
protect  his  former  jproUge,  Jeroboam.^  It  is  an  ordinary  maraud- 
ing expedition,  which  even  this  Pharaoh,  who  had  a  little  more 
experience  of  war  than  his  immediate  successors,  would  hardly 
have  ventured  on  if  the  disastrous  breach  in  Israel  had  not  con- 
tinued. For  we  do  not  hear  of  any  other  warlike  deeds  on  the 
part  of  Sheshonq. 

Sheshonq's  invasion  took  place  in  the  fifth  year  of  Eehoboam. 
He  continued  to  reign  other  twelve  years  after  this,  apparently  in 
the  same  inactive  manner  as  at  the  beginning.  In  Chronicles  we 
are  told  of  some  fortress  building,  and  this  information,  so  far  as 
Judah  is  concerned,  may  probably  rest  on  good  enough  authority.^ 
Eehoboam  is  sharply  blamed,  by  the  redactor  of  the  Book  of  Kings, 
in  reference  to  his  position  in  the  matter  of  religion  and  worship. 
According  to  this  writer,  he  favoured  worship  on  high-places  and 
religious  prostitution. 

It  is,  however,  very  questionable  whether  this  remark  refers  to 
Eehoboam  personally  and  not  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah  generally.* 
That  high-places  with  Ma^Qebas,  and  probably  Ash^ras  ^  as  well, 
still  maintained  their  position  beside  the  Temple,  and  perhaps,  too, 
under  the  influence  of  the  northern  kingdom,  to  some  extent 
became  still  more  prevalent,  is  not  improbable.  Besides,  Eeho- 
boam's  mother  was  a  heathen. 

1  1  Kings  xiv.  25-28,  30. 

2  See  Brugsch,  Geogr.  Inschr.  ii.  58  ff.  ;  Blau,  ZDMG.  15,  233  ff.- ;  Meyer, 
Gesch.  Agypt,  330  ff.  ;  Stade,  Gesch.  i.  353  f.  [See,  further,  Dedekind,  in  the 
Proceedinga  of  the  Stock.  Orient.  Congress,  iv.  191  fF.  ;  also  Conder,  in  Pal.  Expl. 
Fund  Qly.  Stat.  1893,  245  f.]  ^  o  Chron.  xi.  5  ff. 

■*  1  Kings  xiv.  22-24.  Verse  22  f.  at  all  events  seems  to  refer  to  the  sins  of 
Judah  in  general ;  while  v.  24,  on  the  other  hand,  looks  like  an  anticipation  of 
XV.  12.  ^  See  on  this  in  §§  38  and  64. 


248  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

His  son  Abijah  (920-917)  was  his  successor.  He  reigns  three 
years,  and  continues  the  futile  resistance  to  Jeroboam  which  his 
father  had  carried  on.  He  too,  like  Eehoboam,  is  classed  as  a 
king  who  did  evil.^  His  mother  was  Maachah,  the  daughter  of 
Absalom.  Since  the  name  Absalom  is  not  qualified  in  any  way, 
it  can  only  be  the  well-known  bearer  of  this  name — namely,  the 
son  of  David,  who  is  intended  here.  Abijah  is  thus,  both  on  his 
father's  and  mother's  side,  a  great-grandson  of  David.^ 

Abijah,  after  his  early  death,  is  succeeded  by  his  son  Asa.  His 
mother,  too,  is  called  Maachah."^  His  reign  is  supposed  to  have 
lasted  forty-one  years  (917-876).  So  far  as  religious  worship  is 
concerned,  he  seems  to  have  been  more  inclined  to  the  purer 
service  of  Yahve  than  his  father  and  grandfather.  He  permits 
only  the  worship  of  Yahve  even  on  the  high-places  outside  of  the 
Temple.  He  puts  away  the  Kedeshas  who  were  now  known  in 
Judah  also  {i.e.  those  who  prostituted  themselves  in  the  service 
of  Ashtoreth),  and  with  them  the  worship  of  their  goddess  as  well 
as  other  foreign  cults.  How  far-reaching  the  influence  of  these 
foreign  forms  of  worship  which  thus  threatened  the  service  of 
Yahve  already  was  at  this  time  in  Judah,  and  how  thorough  Asa's 
measures  were,  is  evident  from  the  statement  that  Asa  deprived 
his  own  mother  of  the  special  lionour  which  was  due  to  her  as  the 
mother  of  the  king,  because  she  had  taken  a  prominent  part  in 
idolatrous  forms  of  worship.  She  is  said  to  have  set  up  the 
Ashera,  'an  abomination'*  which  was  destroyed  by  Asa,  and 
burned  in  the  Kedron  valley.  On  the  other  hand,  he  gave  greater 
attention  to  the  Temple  and  brought  offerings  into  it.^ 

If  Asa  decidedly  deserves  credit  for  what  he  did  in  the  matter 

^  1  Kings  XV.  1  flf.  ;  2  Chron.  xv.  is  a  later  Midrash. 

-  But  see  2  Sam.  xiv.  27  (xviii.  18).  The  lxx.  in  xiv.  27  has  undoubtedly 
a  false  correction  ;  2  Chron.  xiii.  2  is  a  copyist's  mistake.  Rehoboam's  age  presents 
some  difficulties  too.  Does  6a^  =  grandchild  [cf.  Gen.  xxix.  5),  or  were  Abijam 
and  Asa  brothers?     So  Wellh.  Prol.^  216. 

2  By  an  obvious  error  she  is  also  called  a  daughter  of  Absalom,  xv.  10. 

■*  In  view  of  the  well-known  confusion  of  Ashera  and  Ashtoreth  it  can  only 
be  an  image  of  Ashtoreth,  or  an  Ashera  sacred  to  Ashtoreth,  which  is  referred 
to  here  under  this  phrase.  Perhaps  this  Maachah,  too,  was  a  heathen,  like 
Rehoboam's  mother.  ■''  1  Kings  xv.  9-15. 


CnAP.  L]  5.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  249 

of  the  worship  of  Yahve  and  the  Temple,  such  renown  as  he  gained 
in  the  political  sphere  was,  on  the  contrary,  of  a  doubtful  kind. 
It  is  true  that  our  informant  is  acquainted  with  certain  brave 
deeds  in  war  wliich  Asa  is  said  to  have  done,  and  ^what  he  did 
in  the  way  of  planning  cities  and  fortresses  seems  to  have  brought 
him  renown.i  But  the  detailed  information  regarding  all  this 
is  supplied  only  in  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  and,  in  fact,  in  a  form 
which,  though  it  rests  on  older  traditions,  hardly  deserves  to  be 
implicitly  trusted.-  It  is  specially  mentioned  that  he  gained  a 
brilliant  victory  over  an  otherwise  unknown  Ethiopian  king  called 
Serah.  This  is  perhaps  based  on  some  recollection  of  the  fact 
that  Asa  had  the  good  fortune  to  repel  a  dangerous  raid.  We 
shall,  in  any  case,  be  well  advised  if  we  construct  our  authentic 
picture  of  Asa  from  the  little  which  the  Book  of  Kings  itself,  with 
more  accuracy,  hands  down  to  us  of  his  long  reign.  If,  however 
we  follow  it,  the  judgment  we  have  to  pass  upon  him  is,  that  all 
the  rest  of  his — perhaps  worthy  enough — deeds  are  far  more  than 
counterbalanced  by  the  unpatriotic  short-sightedness  with  which 
he  sought  to  keep  off  his  rival  in  Israel. 

The  old  feud  between  north  and  south,  which  was  inherited 
from  Kehoboam,  still  continues.  They  do  not  seem  yet  to  have 
arrived  at  any  right  settlement  of  it.  Baasha,  who  has  meanwhile 
ascended  the  throne  in  Israel,  takes  up  with  fresh  zeal  the  w^ar 
which  for  a  long  time  had  not  been  carried  on  with  any  real 
earnestness.  He  fortifies  Eamah  on  the  southern  boundaries  of 
Benjamin,  hardly  ten  miles  north  from  Jerusalem,  in  order  thus 
to  keep  Jerusalem  in  check  and  to  cut  it  off  from  intercourse  with 
the  outer  world.  In  this  strait  Asa  has  recourse  to  a  policy  of 
despair.  He  collects  together  all  the  treasures  which  happen  to 
be  in  the  Temple  and  in  his  palace,  and  by  means  of  these  seeks 
to  induce  Benhadad  ben  Tabrimmon,^  King  of  Aram  Damascus, 
to  attack  his  opponent.     Benhadad  responds  to  the  appeal,  invades 

^  1  Kings  XV.  23.  -  2  Chron.  xiv.  6  f.,  8  ff. 

^  This  is  how  a  grandson  of  Hezion  is  styled  ;  or,  perhaps,  we  ought  to  read 
Hezron  =  Pvezon.     )See  Klost.  here. 


250  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

the  kingdom  of  Israel  from  the  north,  and  takes  a  number  of 
towns  from  Baasha,  amongst  which  were  Dan  and  Abel-beth- 
maachah,  and  probably  also  the  whole  of  Naphtali.  Baasha  is 
naturally  forced  to  retire.  Asa  is  free,  and  is  now  able  in  turn, 
with  the  material  collected  by  Baasha,  to  fortify  Geba  and  Mizpah,^ 
by  way  of  protecting  himself  against  his  opponent."^ 

Asa  had  attained  his  end,  but  in  a  way  which  could  not 
possibly  bring  blessing  to  Judah  itself.  Nothing  could  have  been 
more  inglorious  and  humiliating  for  a  great-grandson  of  Solomon 
— even  although  Damascus  had  never  actually  once  been  a  vassal 
state  under  David — than  to  have  been  compelled  to  beg  for 
assistance  from  one  of  the  neighbouring  Syrian  kingdoms.  There 
could  not  possibly  have  been  a  more  ignominious  way  of  escape 
from  a  momentary  pressing  danger  than  this  of  having  recourse 
to  a  foreign  country.  This  is  the  first  time,  but  not  the  only 
time,  that  Judah  called  in  the  aid  of  foreign  help  against  its 
northern  oppressor  allied  to  it  by  ties  of  race,  instead  of  seeking 
to  compose  the  fraternal  strife  in  its  own  house.  It  is  accordingly 
not  to  be  wondered  at  that,  as  is  related  in  Chronicles,  a  prophet 
should  have  sharply  censured  this  action.^  That  with  which,  later 
on,  Isaiah  *  threatened  King  Ahaz,  held  good  already  of  Asa.  In 
the  former  case  it  was  Assyria  which  rendered  a  service  to  Judah, 
only  to  end  by  threatening  the  latter  herself.  For  the  present  it 
is  the  Syrian  interference  in  the  affairs  of  Canaan,  dangerous  to  the 
kingdom  of  Israel — and,  at  the  same  time,  to  Judah  herself — which 
has  thus  been  evoked  by  Asa's  short-sighted  policy.  Judah  will,  by 
and  by,  have  to  repent  this  means  of  strengthening  herself.  And,  in 
fact,  it  is  to  be  Judah's  opponent,  thus  worsted  for  the  time  being, 
who  will  yet  join  with  Judah's  present  friend  in  threatening  her. 

But  we  now  return  to  the  revolted  tribes. 

§  56.  Jeroboam,  Nadab,  Baasha,  Elah,  Omri. 
Whether  it  be  that  Jeroboam  had  from  the  first  a  hand  in  the 
rising  against   Eehoboam,  which   is  certainly  likely  enough,  or 

^  A  part  of  Benjamin  thus  already  belonged  to  Judah. 

2  1  Kings  XV.  16-22.  3  2  Chron.  xvi.  7  ff.  •*  Isaiah  vii.  1  ff. 


Chap.  L]  J5.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  251 

whether  it  be  that  he  hastened  out  of  Egypt  and  looked  on  merely 
as  a  spectator,  in  any  case  he  is  welcomed  by  the  revolted  tribes 
as  being  an  old  and  tried  enemy  of  the  house  of  David,  and  is  by 
them  elected  king.  Jeroboam  and  his  successors  are  entirely 
within  their  rights  in  calling  themselves  kings  of  Israel.  For 
the  kingdom  was  taken  from  the  house  of  David.  The  king  of 
Israel  is  he  whom  the  nation  invites  to  fill  David's  place. 

Eegarding  Jeroboam's  reign  of  twenty-two  years  (937-915)  we 
have  little  trustworthy  information.  How  far  he  was  able  to  main- 
tain Solomon's  authority  we  can  only  conjecture.  He,  too,  at  any 
rate  had  to  submit  to  the  raid  of  Shishak,  king  of  Egypt.  This 
proves  that  he  did  not  possess  any  great  amount  of  military  skill 
or  strong  patriotic  feeling.  We  do  not  even  hear  of  any  attempt 
at  energetic  resistance.  Had  he  been  bold  enough  to  make  any 
such  attempt,  it  would  not,  in  all  probability,  have  been  quietly 
passed  over  in  the  accounts  we  have  of  his  reign.  We  can  gather 
from  his  conduct  in  this  case  how  he  acted  in  other  cases.  Besides, 
we  have  special  means  of  judging.  Jeroboam  had,  during  his  whole 
life,  to  defend  himself  asfainst  Eehoboam  and  his  successors.^  There 
is  no  mention  of  his  having  had  any  real  success  in  his  contest 
with  the  former  of  these,  and  it  is  indeed  not  probable  that  he 
had,  otherwise  the  war  would  not  have  been  handed  on  by  Eeho- 
boam to  his  successors.  On  the  contrary,  at  first,  at  any  rate, 
perhaps  Jeroboam's  opponent  gave  him  serious  trouble.  We  have, 
in  any  case,  to  explain  the  fact  that  he  suddenly  leaves  the  resi- 
dence he  had  built  in  Shechem  and  migrates  to  Penuel,  in  the 
country  east  of  the  Jordan.^ 

As  regards  home  matters,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  one 
measure  which  is  ever  after  referred  back  in  the  most  emphatic 
way  to  Jeroboam.  Solomon's  Temple,  the  building  of  which  can 
hardly  have  been  undertaken  wholly  without  the  design  of  creat- 
ing in  time  a  central  place  of  worship  for  Israel,  had  certainly 

^  1  Kings  xiv.  30  ;  xv.  'Jb. 

^  1  Kings  xii.  25.     Stade  conjectures  that  the  invasion  of  Shishak  was  the 
occasion  of  the  change  of  residence. 


252  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

under  Solomon's  long  and  stern  rule  already  definitely  begun  to 
fulfil  this  aim.  Jeroboam  was  obliged  to  counteract  its  influence. 
The  centre  of  gravity  of  public  life  until  the  time  of  David  and 
Solomon  had  always  been  in  the  northern  tribes  and  in  the  house 
of  Joseph.  If  it  once  more  came  back  to  the  same  place,  nothing 
was  more  natural  than  that  the  centre  of  gravity  of  the  religious 
life  should  also  return  thither.  Israel  possessed  ancient  sanc- 
tuaries within  its  bounds.  It  was  only  necessary  that  they  should 
anew  be  brought  into  remembrance,  under  the  protection  and 
patronage  of  the  kingship  which  had  now  been  transferred  to 
Ephraim,  in  order  soon  to  replace  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem  in  the 
eyes  of  the  nation. 

Bethel  and  Dan — the  former  in  the  south,  the  latter  in  the 
north,  lying  almost  at  the  extreme  boundary  of  the  kingdom — are 
selected  for  this  purpose.  Bethel  is  the  ancient  sanctuary  of  the 
house  of  Ephraim,  and  had  moreover  been  held  in  reverence  by 
the  patriarchs.  Its  holy  stone  had  doubtless  been  an  object  of 
veneration  for  the  Canaanites.  Since  David  and  Solomon,  the 
nearness  of  Jerusalem  may  have  endangered  its  position.  Until 
the  disappearance  of  the  sanctuary  in  Shiloh,  and  thus  until  the 
break-up  of  the  Philistine  rule  by  Saul,  Dan  contained  a  graven 
image,  and  then  after  this  it  seems  to  have  been  disused  as  a 
sacred  place.^  To  both  of  these  once  venerated  temples  Jero- 
boam gives  new  sacred  objects.  These  consist  of  golden  bulls, 
which,  doubtless  in  accordance  with  certain  ancient  Israelitish 
tastes,  were  supposed  to  represent  Jehovah  in  symbolic  form.- 
Jeroboam  therewith  takes  these  old  sanctuaries  under  his 
special  protection.  He  poses  as  the  patron  of  the  ancient  places 
of  worship  which  the  fathers  had  formerly   held  in  reverence.-"^ 

^  Cf.  Judges  xviii.  31,  and  also  Wellh.  'TBS.  176  f.,  and  also  above,  p.  101. 
The  sanctuary  itself  naturally  continues  to  exist.  In  the  most  arbitrary  way 
Klost.  SaKo  alters  the  text. 

'^  See  on  bull-worship  Baudissin,  Stud.  i.  137.  Dillm.  Ex.  Lev.  337.  Kunig, 
Hauptprohl.  53  ff.  ;  Kautzsch  in  PBE.'-  vi.  536  f.     Kohler,  ii.  1,  13  ff. 

^  Bethel  and  Dan  are  certainly  not  the  only  sanctuaries  of  this  kind.  They 
were  specially  preferred  by  Jeroboam  merely  on  account  of  their  geographical 
position.     Cf.  c.y.  Hos.  ix.  15  ;  iv.  13  ff.  ;  and  Kohler,  Gesch.  ii.  2,  15,  46. 


Chap.  I.]  R— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  253 

They    sheltered    'the    God    who    had    brought    Israel    out    of 

Egypt.' ^ 

As  is  well  known,  the  furnishing  of  these  sanctuaries  with 
images  of  Yahve  in  the  form  of  a  bull  came  to  be  reckoned  to 
Jeroboam  as  his  special  sin  ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  that. 
What  Jeroboam  did  may  have  been  an  act  of  political  prudence,  ^ 
and  may  have  meant  a  strengthening  of  the  Northern  Kingdom 
as  against  Judah,  but  the  measures  he  adopted  give  no  proof  of 
any  deeper  understanding  of  the  spirit  which  guided  the  religion 
of  Israel.  They  were,  as  compared  with  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem, 
a  backward  step.  There  had  indeed  been  high-places  for  long 
all  over  the  country;  even  in  Judah  we  find  them  both 
before  and  after  the  building  of  the  Temple.  Nor  did  public 
opinion  in  Israel,  if  we  except  the  few  who  were  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  views  of  the  prophets,  take  any  great  offence 
at  Jeroboam's  bull-worship.  For  the  worship  of  Yahve  under 
the  form  of  an  image  had  long  been  carried  on,  not  in  Dan  only, 
but  in  many  places  ever  since  the  time  of  the  Judges.  Still  it 
was  always  an  abuse,  and  must  have  been  regarded  by  the  best 
in  the  nation  as  such.  And  the  very  fact  that  the  Temple  alone 
amongst  all  the  sanctuaries  throughout  the  entire  land  of  Israel 
had  no  image,  must  have  secured  for  it  a  special  pre-eminence. 

Jeroboam's  crime  was  all  the  greater  that  he,  as  king  of  Israel, 
did  not  treat  the  Temple  with  respect.  For  political  separatist 
interests  he  had  in  this  way  lightly  sacrificed  what  was  a  vital  interest 
for  Israel  as  a  whole.  We  may  hold  what  opinion  we  choose  regard-  ^ 
ing  the  Deuteronomic  redactor  of  our  Book  of  Kings  in  his 
character  as  historian,  but  nothing  witnesses  so  strongly  to  his 
deep  religious  insight  as  the  fact  that  he  cannot  sufficiently 
censute  Jeroboam's  abandonment  of  the  Temple,  and  his  falling 
away  into  the  worship  of  Yahve  under  the  form  of  an  image. 
Eegarding  the  matter  from  this  point  of  view,  nothing  is  more 
probable  than  that  those  circles  which  had   sympathised   with 

^  1  Kings  xii.  25-31.     On  Klostermann's  fantasies  in  connection  witli  this 
section,  r/.  Kohler,  ii.  2,  11  f.,  16  f. 


254  '         HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

Solomon's  temple-building  and  had  been  discontented  with  the 
tolerance  shown  to  foreign  cults,  the  circles  headed  by  the 
prophets  ISTathan,  Gad,  and  Ahijah  of  Shiloh,  now  broke  away 
from  Jeroboam  with  similar  decidedness.^  The  Levites,  too,  who 
were  specially  sought  after  for  priestly  service,  seem  to  have 
repeatedly  transferred  their  services  to  the  Temple,  so  that 
Jeroboam  was  under  the  necessity  of  getting  the  help  of  non- 
Levites,  which  can  hardly  have  been  quite  such  a  serious  fault 
in  the  eyes  of  his  contemporaries  as  it  was  in  the  eyes  of  those 
in  later  days.- 

The  seed  of  rebellion  which  Jeroboam  had  sown,  was  destined 
soon  enouGjh  to  bear  evil  fruits  in  his  own  house.  And  once 
begun,  rebellion  and  king-murder  continue  to  be  an  almost 
permanent  characteristic  of  the  northern  kingdom.  It  must 
have  already  seemed  to  contemporaries  as  if  the  curse  of  God 
rested  on  the  kingdom  which  had,  by  its  own  will,  separated 
itself  from  David  and  his  house.  Conspiracy  and  usurpation 
hardly  ever  cease  at  certain  times.  Dynasty  follows  dynasty; 
while  the  kingdom  of  David,  in  the  midst  of  much  weakness  and 
many  faults,  could  still  give  evidence  of  the  protecting  care  of  Yahve 
in  the  uninterrupted  succession  of  Davidic  kings  for  centuries. 

The  dynasty  already  comes  to  an  end  with  Jeroboam's  suc- 
cessor, his  son  Nadab.  After  a  reign  of  only  two  years  (915-914), 
he  is  murdered  by  Baasha  ben  Ahijah  of  Issachar,  during  the  siege 
of  the  Philistine  town  of  Gibbethon.  Baasha  usurps  the  throne, 
and  in  order  to  secure  himself  he  extirpates  the  whole  race  of 
Jeroboam.^  Baasha  w^as  probably  one  of  ISTadab's  generals.  The 
latter  doubtless  fell  a  victim  to  a  military  revolution.  We  must 
look  for  the  occasion  of  this  in  the  fact  that  wars  with  the 
Philistines  could  recommence.  For,  apart  from  very  considerable 
weakness  on  the  part  of  Israel,  Philistia  was  not,  after  what  had 
happened  under  David,  in  a  position  to  wage  war  with  Israel. 

1  1  Kings  xiv.  1-18.     The  narrative  rests  on  an  historical  basis.     See  above, 
p.  212 

2  1  Kings  xii.  31  ;  xiii.   33.     Of.  also  Kohler,  20  f.     Baudissin  Priestert.  199 
can  hardly  be  right.  ^  1  Kings  xv.  25-31, 


Chap.  L]  5.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PERIOD  255 

A  reign  of  twenty-four  years  is  allotted  to  Baasha  himself 
(914-890).^  The  way  in  which  he  carries  on  operations  against 
Asa,  king  of  Judah,  shows  him  to  us  as  an  energetic  prince  of 
military  skill.  That  he  had  to  beat  a  retreat  without  accomplish- 
ing his  design  was  not  his  fault.  So  when  our  informant 
attributes  to  him  other  brave  deeds,  the  statement  is  most  likely 
founded  on  facts.^  Unfortunately  the  details  have  been  lost.  It 
is  possible  that  he  may  have  been  successful  in  keeping  off  the 
Syrians.  Nadab,  during  his  life,  may  possibly  have  continued  to 
reside  in  Penuel.  Baasha,  however,  transfers  the  royal  residence 
back  to  the  west  again — to  Tirzah,  in  fact.^  In  this,  too,  we  may 
trace  his  more  powerful  hand.  The  prophet  Jehu  ben  Hanani  is 
mentioned  as  his  contemporary.* 

Baasha  is  one  of  the  few  kings  of  Israel  who  die  a  natural 
death.  But  an  untoward  fate  overtakes  his  son  Elah.^  After  a 
reign  of  only  two  years  (890-889),  he  falls  a  victim  to  a  con- 
spiracy. The  circumstances  are  quite  similar  to  those  in  the  case 
of  Nadab.  Gibbethon  has  once  more  to  be  besieged,  and  Elah, 
who  has  doubtless  again  lost  the  Philistine  town,  has  even  taken 
the  field,  but  lies  drunk  at  home  at  a  feast  which  his  palace 
steward  Arza  has  arranged  in  his  honour.  One  of  his  officers, 
Zimri,  murders  him  here,  and  treats  his  house  as  Baasha  had 
formerly  treated  the  house  of  Jeroboam. 

Zimri's  act  would  have  been  a  foolhardy  venture  if  he  had 
not  previously  obtained  the  co-operation  of  the  army  of  Gibbethon 
and  Omri  its  general.  The  latter,  however,  is  not  inclined  to 
recognise  a  subordinate  as  king.  He  gets  himself  called  to  the 
throne  by  the  army,  and  moves  with  it  against  Tirzah.  Zimri 
is  not  able  to  hold  out  here,  and  seeks  his  death  amid  the  flames 
of  his  palace.     His  royal  authority  had  lasted  only  seven  days. 

^  See  on  him,  1  Kings  xv.  32-34 ;  xvi.  1-7  ;  and  also  above,  p.  213. 

^  1  Kings  xvi,  5. 

^  1  Kings  XV.  33.  On  the  situation  of  the  place  see  Gu«irin,  Samarie,  i.  365  ff.  ; 
and  Mlihlau  in  the  H  WB.  Perhaps  Jeroboam  had  resided  here  before  Baasha 
(during  the  later  years  of  his  reign? — see  xiv.  17). 

*  1  Kings  xvi.  Iff.  "^  1  Kings  xvi.  S-14. 


256 


HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 


Nevertheless,  Omri  has  even  yet  to  fight  for  his  throne.  A  certain 
Tibni  ben  Ginath  sets  up  as  a  pretender  to  the  throne  along  with 
him,  and  seems  to  have  gained  a  strong  following  in  the  nation. 
After  what  seems  to  have  been  a  somewhat  long  civil  war,  Omri 
finally  gains  the  upper  hand.^ 

1  1  Kings  xvi.  14-22. 


CHAPTEK   II. 

THE  DYNASTY  OF   OMRI. 

§  57.  The  Assyrians.     Ornri, 

Omki  is  the  first  King  of  Israel  who  is  mentioned  in  the  Assyrian 
inscriptions.  This  points  to  a  new  period.  Assyria  now  comes 
within  the  horizon  of  Israel.  It  becomes  more  and  more  a  factor 
which  has  to  be  reckoned  with.  Soon  enough  it  will  become  the 
factor  which  decisively  determines  the  history  of  Israel. 

Two  hundred  years  before  this  period,  about  the  turning-point 
of  the  twelfth  century,  the  powerful  Tiglathpileser  I.  had  already 
carried  his  ensigns  beyond  the  Euphrates.  He  had  even  pene- 
trated as  far  as  Lebanon.^  If  his  successors  had  followed  up  his 
movements,  the  kingdom  of  David  and  Solomon  would  hardly 
have  been  possible.  But  it  was  a  remarkably  fortunate  arrange- 
ment of  things  that  the  two  great  kingdoms  between  which 
Israel  was  wedged — namely,  Egypt  and  Assyria — were  not  in  a 
position  to  interfere  with  Israel  just  in  those  very  days  when  it 
was  her  lot  to  produce  a  David,  and  a  Solomon.  After  the  power- 
ful forward  step  which  it  had  taken  under  Tiglathpileser  I.,  the 
Assyrian  Empire  had  to  pass  through  a  period  of  weakness  and 
incapacity,^  extending  from  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  to  the 
middle  of  the  tenth  century,  which  certainly  did  not  allow  it  to 
think  of  any  further  extension  of  its  authority  in  Syria. 

1  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  331. 

^  Cf.  the  monolith-inscription  of  Salmanassar  II.  (Col,  ii.  37  f . )  in  Schrader, 
KBihl.  i.  165. 

VOL,  II.  R 


258  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

Nor  at  the  time  of  the  disruption  of  the  kingdom  does  Assyria 
seem  to  have  been  sufficiently  strong  to  be  able  to  oppose  the 
kingdom  of  Aram  Damascus,  which  had  meanwhile  sprung  up, 
and  was  becoming  more  and  more  powerful.  It  was,  apparently, 
Asurnasirpal,  the  contemporary  of  Omri  and  the  father  of  Salma- 
nassar  II.,  who  was  the  first  to  venture  once  more  to  advance 
against  Syria.  He  reigned  884-860,  and  calls  himself  conqueror  of 
the  region  beyond  the  Tigris  and  as  far  as  Lebanon  and  the  Great 
Sea.  By  the  latter  is  meant  the  Mediterranean ;  since  he,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  was  receiving  tribute  from  the  Phoenician  cities 
of  Tyre,  Sidon,  By  bios,  and  others  about  the  year  870,  and  con- 
sequently during  the  reign  of  Ahab.^ 

The  course  was  already  sketched  out  on  which  Assyria  was  to 
advance  further.  This,  however,  meant  for  Israel  the  appearance 
on  the  scene  of  what  must  soon  enough  awaken  a  lively  interest 
in  all  who  had  eyes  to  see  it.  For  the  present,  and  in  the  period 
immediately  following,  the  significance  of  what  was  taking  place 
was  scarcely  realised.  The  Assyrian  hosts  which  crossed  through 
the  northern  part  of  Israel,  even  though  they  laid  Sidon  and 
Tyre  under  tribute — cities  connected  with  Israel  by  ties  of  race 
and  friendship — were  welcome  guests  who  kept  off  the  more 
immediate,  and  therefore  apparently  more  threatening,  danger 
which  came  from  the  side  of  Aram  Damascus.  But  the 
pleasing  delusion  could  necessarily  continue  only  for  a  time.  It 
must  soon  become  apparent  that  the  further  Israel  was  drawn 
into  the  affairs  of  the  big  world,  and  the  nearer  the  greedy  colossus, 
after  having  swallowed  Israel's  neighbours,  approached  her  herself, 
the  greater  was  the  danger  for  her  too. 

The  real  point  of  importance,  however,  in  connection  with  the 
entrance  of  Assyria  within  the  historical  horizon  of  Israel,  is  that 
the  latter  at  the  same  time  stepped  out  of  the  narrow  bounds  of 
her  isolated  existence  and  her  petty  surroundings.  Outwardly,  at 
any  rate,  this  was  certainly  not  to  her  advantage.  So  far  as  her 
outward  condition  was  concerned,  Israel,  by  her  involuntary  entrance 

1  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  409 ;  Tide,  Gesch.  175  f. 


Chap.  II.]  THE  DYNASTY  OF  OMRI  259 

into  world-history,  could  not  possibly  escape  being  crushed  by  the 
powers  with  which  she  was  involved  in  conflict.  Her  appearance 
in  the  great  world-theatre  sealed  her  destiny  as  a  state.  For  which 
of  these  powers  would  her  troops  be  likely  to  defy  ?  At  the  same 
time,  however,  those  marvellous  forces  which  slumber  in  the  depths 
of  the  national  consciousness,  and  which  have  hitherto  manifested 
themselves  merely  in  a  timid  and  transitory  fashion,  begin  now 
to  develop  and  unfold  themselves  step  by  step  until  they  reach 
their  full  and  perfect  strength  and  height.  It  is  in  misfortune 
and  in  the  break-up  of  her  outward  existence  that  Israel's  inner 
life  is  first  to  become  what  it  is  destined  to  be,  and  is  capable  of 
being.  Every  new  blow  will  be  for  her  religion  a  source  of  new 
and  more  complete  advance.  The  nearer  the  state  and  the  nation 
approach  the  abyss  which  must  inevitably  swallow  them  up,  the 
surer  and  more  certain  of  victory  does  the  religious  idea  become 
as  it  gathers  up  its  strength,  the  more  proudly  does  it  float  above 
the  wretchedness  of  the  present. 

Whether  Omri  himself  already  paid  tribute  to  the  Assyrians,  and 
whether  perhaps  he  may  not  even  have  gained  the  throne  by  their 
help,  are  points  on  which  we  have  no  information.  Still  this 
supposition  is  not  altogether  excluded  when  we  consider  the 
extraordinary  niggardliness  of  the  Biblical  account  of  him.^  In 
any  case,  he  and  the  Assyrians  must  have  come  into  contact.  This 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that,  even  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions 
belonging  to  a  considerably  later  date,  Israel  is  still  briefly  styled 
the  house  of  Omri.^  This  circumstance  certainly  proves,  at  the 
same  time,  how  slender  was  the  impression  made  by  Israel  on 
Assyria ;  and,  as  will  be  readily  understood,  the  importance  of  the 
connection  for  the  latter  country  cannot  for  a  moment  be  com- 
pared with  that  which  Israel,  on  its  part,  had  every  reason  to 
attach  to  the  course  of  events  in  Assyria.  It  follows  from  this 
that  the  Assyrian  accounts,  spite  of  all  the  value  we  may  attach 

1  1  Kings   xvi.  23-28. 

-  See  Schrader,  KA  Tr  190  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  179].    On  the  question  as  to  whether 
Omri  put  himself  under  the  protection  of  Assyria,  see  Kamph.  Chronol.  80. 


260  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

to  them,  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  supplying  an  absolute  standard 
by  which  to  judge  of  matters  in  Israel. 

The  little  which  the  Bible  tells  us  regarding  Omri  (889-877) 
allows  us  to  conjecture  that  he  was  a  prudent  and  powerful  ruler. 
That  he  had  a  right  perception  of  what  was  needful  for  his  kingdom 
is  unmistakably  evident  from  his  choice  of  a  new  capital  in  place 
of  Tirzah,  which  owed  more  to  the  pleasantness  of  its  situation  than 
to  any  natural  strength  of  position.  He  transfers  his  residence 
to  Samaria  (Shomron).  The  place  of  his  choice  cannot  have  been 
inferior  to  Tirzah  in  natural  attractiveness.  Isaiah  calls  it, '  The 
^  proud  crown  of  Ephraim  on  the  head  of  a  rich  valley.'^  That  it 
possessed  the  additional  advantage  of  special  strength  is  evident, 
both  from  its  situation  and  its  history.  Samaria  lay  on  a  conical 
hill  rising  more  than  one  hundred  metres  above  a  broad,  deep 
valley.^  It  was,  accordingly,  a  place  which  could  be  easily 
strengthened  and  made  into  an  almost  impregnable  fortress  when 
we  consider  the  conditions  of  warfare  in  ancient  times.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  successfully  came  through  more  than  one  siege 
conducted  by  hostile  forces  superior  in  numbers.  And  when,  at  a 
later  date,  the  Assyrians  conquered  Samaria,  the  possession  of  the 
town  cost  these  masters  of  the  art  of  war  and  besieging  the  labour 
of  a  three  years'  siege. 

How  clamant  was  Israel's  need  of  such  a  capital  which  would 
be  able  to  defy  a  hostile  attack,  is  best  understood  when  we 
consider  the  state  of  things  which  Omri  had  inherited  from 
Baasha.  For,  doubtless,  his  successor  Elah  was  not  able  to  alter 
the  situation  in  any  essential  points.  The  Syrians,  invited  by 
Asa  of  Judah,  still  constantly  harassed  Israel.  Even  Omri  does 
not  seem  to  have  succeeded  in  altogether  shaking  them  off. 
The  fact  that  we  have  so  little  exact  information  on  this  head 
makes  us  again  lament  the  defectiveness  of  what  has  been  handed 
down.     If  we  knew  more  about   Omri,   the  picture   which   we 

^  Isaiah  xxviii.  1. 

2  See  on  its  situation,  Rob.  Pal.  iii.  365  ff.  ;  Badek.3  225  f.     On  the  name,  c/. 
ZA  W.  V.  165  flF. 


Chap.  II.]  THE  DYNASTY  OF  OMRI  261 

would,  in  all  probability,  be  able  to  form  of  him  would  be  that  of 
one  who  sought  by  heroic  struggles  to  get  rid  of  the  burdensome 
legacy  which,  owing  to  Asa's  fault,  he  had  to  take  over  from 
Baasha,  but  did  not  succeed  in  perfectly  freeing  himself  of  it. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  only  gather  from  an  incidental  reference^  y 
that  in  the  war  with  the  Syrians  he  lost  several  towns  and 
was  even  compelled  to  grant  to  the  Syrian  merchants  a  quarter  of 
their  own  in  Samaria. 

Omri  appears  in  the  same  character  of  a  brave  and  frequently  ^ 
victorious  soldier,  in  the  inscription  of  King  Mesha'  of  Moab.^ 
According  to  it,  it  was  he  who  again  brought  the  Moabites  into 
subjection  to  Israel  after  they  had  for  a  long  time  enjoyed  inde- 
pendence. The  region  of  Medeba  is  specially  mentioned  by 
Mesha'  as  having  been  conquered  by  Omri  and  held  for  a  con- 
siderable time  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  land  round  'Atarot 
was  never  lost  by  Israel  at  alh^ 

This  leads  us  to  suppose  that  the  Moabites,  after  that  David 
had  thoroughly  subdued  them,  and,  in  fact,  almost  extirpated  them, 
had  been  able  to  take  advantage  of  the  period  of  disturbance  and 
civil  war  in  Israel  from  the  time  of  Solomon's  death.  Driven 
back  to  the  south-east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  they  had,  though  slowly, 
recovered  themselves,  and,  under  Mesha"s  father  Kemoshmelek,  had 
re-established  their  authority  over  the  southern  half  of  the  eastern 
bank  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Daibon  was  his  capital.  We  may  regard 
Kemoshmelek  as  the  contemporary  of  Baasha  and  Omri.  He  reigns 
thirty  years.^  The  region  of  'Atarot  remained  in  the  hands  of  the 
tribe  of  Gad.  Kemoshmelek,  however,  seems  to  have  extended  his 
authority  as  far  as  Medeba.^  Omri  checks  his  progress  and  confines 
him  to  his  more  southerly  regions;  in  them,  too,  he  is  Omri's  ^ 
vassal.     This  foreign  domination  lasted  forty  years.^ 

^  1  Kings  XX.  .34.  -  On  it,  see  above,  p.  231. 

'^  Cf.  the  Mesha'  stone,  line  4  f.,  10.     Perhaps  this  had  already  taken  place 
under  Baasha.     Kamph.  Chronol.  41.  ^  Mesha',  line  2. 

5  On  the  situation  of  the  plane,  see  the  hand-map  of  Fischer  and  Guthe. 

6  Mesha',  line  8.     On  the  tribute  which  was  paid  till  Aliab's  death,  see  2  Kings 
iii.  4. 


262  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

§  58.  Ahah.     Elijah,  and  Prophecy  in  his  time} 

Omri,  after  having  reigned  for  twelve  years,  is  followed  by  his 
son  Ahab.  Twenty-two  years  are  allotted  to  him  (877-855).  We 
do  not  only  possess  detailed,  and,  in  part,  excellent,  accounts  of 
him  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  and  the 
Moabite  Mesha'-tablet  also  give  us  information  regarding  him. 
According  to  all  these  accounts,  Ahab  appears  as  a  man  who 
worthily  followed  in  his  father's  footsteps  in  the  endeavour  to 
advance  Israel's  independence  and  greatness.  In  the  south-east 
he  kept  down  the  Moabites  in  the  same  way  in  which  Omri  had 
done  before  him.  For  the  time  being  they  do  not  dare  to  move. 
It  is,  at  earliest,  in  the  second  half  of  his  reign,  and  perhaps  not  till 
towards  the  end  of  it,  that  Mesha'  becomes  bold  enough  to  revolt.^ 
And,  what  was  still  more  important,  he  settled  an  old  quarrel  on 
the  one  hand,  and,  on  the  other,  confirmed  anew  an  old  friendship. 
It  is  possible  that  the  two  last  things,  as  well  as  the  first,  were 
owing  to  Omri's  initiative.  The  founder  of  the  dynasty  would,  if 
this  supposition  be  correct,  be  raised  a  stage  higher  so  far  as  his 
historical  importance  is  concerned.  These  measures  were,  at  any 
rate,  first  practically  carried  out  in  the  reign  of  Ahab,  so  far  as  we 
can  judge  from  our  sources  of  information.  Accordingly  we  are 
justified  in  referring  them  to  him. 

Amongst  the  considerations  which  led  Ahab  to  make  friends 
of  his  neighbours,  the  increasing  perception  of  the  danger  which 
threatened  the  kingdom  from  the  side  of  Assyria  was  probably 
one  of  the  most  important.  What  befell  the  Phoenician  cities 
under  Asurnasirpal  could  leave  no  possible  doubt  as  to  what 
was  to  be  expected  in  course  of  time  from  that  quarter.  This 
perception  of  the  coming  danger  reveals  Ahab's  statesmanlike 
insight.  Besides,  Israel  was  still  at  feud  with  Damascus.  This 
state   of  things   had,   without   doubt,   its    influence  with   Ahab. 

1  Cf.  Rosch  in  StKr.  1892,  551  fF ;  [W.  R.  Smith,  Prophets  of  Israel,  75  flf.]. 

2  Mesha',  line  8,  according  to  the  reading  of  Smend  and  Socin.    See  also  Driver, 
Notes,  §  Ixxxviii.  f.     The  '  middle  of  the  days  '  can  hardly  be  understood  literally. 


Chap.  IL]  THE  DYNASTY  OF  OMKI  263 

Accordingly  the  fraternal  strife  between  Israel  and  Judah,  which 
had  gone  on  uninterruptedly,  as  it  would  seem,  from  the  time  of 
the  revolt  of  Jeroboam,  is  at  last  brought  to  a  peaceful  settlement. 
Jehoshaphat  of  Judah,  Asa's  successor,  is  the  first  of  the  kings  of 
Judah  to  bring  himself  to  recognise  as  an  established  fact  the 
state  of  things  which  had  existed  since  Solomon's  death.  Not 
only  is  peace  concluded,  but  the  good  understanding  which  was 
now  beginning  is  sealed  by  a  marriage  alliance  between  the  two 
neighbourly  royal  houses.  Jehoshaphat 's  son  Joram  weds  Ahab's 
daughter  Athaliah. 

The  ancient  alliance  with  the  Phoenicians  had  probably  been 
renewed  before  this  time.  It  had  been  in  abeyance  since  the 
days  of  Solomon.  The  two  kingdoms  in  Israel  had  been  too  much 
occupied  with  their  own  inner  feuds  to  be  able  to  turn  their 
attention  to  foreign  countries.  Besides,  as  they  had  been  weakened 
by  civil  war,  they  were  not  valuable  allies  for  anybody.  Now, 
however,  the  common  danger  which  threatened  from  the  east,  and 
the  recollection  of  their  racial  kinship  and  common  interests,  force 
Israel  and  her  western  neighbour  once  more  together.  Even  before 
the  time  of  David,  Tyre  (Sor)  seems  to  have  taken  the  place  of  the 
more  ancient  Sidon,  and  to  have  exercised,  as  it  did  at  this  period, 
a  predominant  authority  amongst  the  Phoenician  cities.^  Ahab 
enters  into  a  marriage  alliance  with  the  Syrian  king,  Ethbaal,  and 
weds  his  daughter  Jezebel.^  This  points  to  a  friendly  alliance  of 
the  same  kind  as  that  which  existed  between  Israel  and  Judah.^ 
Ethbaal  had,  perhaps,  the  same  name  as  Saul's  son  and  successor ; 
the  Greeks  call  him  Ittobalos.* 

This  alliance  was  destined  to  be  one  fraught  with  dire 
consequences  for  Ahab.  It  is  certainly  not  without  good  reason 
that  our  narrator  mentions  in  connection  with  it  the  measures 

^  See  Pietschmann,  Gesch.  d.  Phon.  294. 

2  1  Kings  xvi.  31.  After  what  has  just  been  said,  it  ought  not  to  surprise  ua 
that  Eshbaal  is  here  called  king  of  the  Sidonians. 

^  Cf.  also  Amos  i.  9  :  'Brotherly  covenant.' 

^  See  Menander  of  Ephesus  in  Josephus,  Ant.  viii.  3,  1-2,  and  C.  Aj).  i.  18* 
Possibly,  according  to  this,  the  original  form  was  Ittoba'al.  Cf.  on  him, 
Pietschm.  Gesch.  298. 


264  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

taken  by  Ahab  for  the  naturalisation  of  the  Phoenician  Baal- 
worship  in  Israel.^  He  builds  a  temple  in  Samaria  to  the  chief 
Phoenician  god.  According  to  what  we  learn  later,  this  temple 
must  have  been  of  very  considerable  extent.^  In  accordance  with 
the  nature  of  the  Phoenician  worship,  it  has  a  Ma^^eba  and  an 
Ashera.^  A  splendid  priesthood  conducts  the  worship  of  the  god, 
who  naturally  has  in  Ahab's  Syrian  wife  his  most  zealous 
champion.  The  worshippers  of  Yahve  seem  actually  to  have  been 
seriously  threatened  and  persecuted,  although  probably  the  perse- 
cutions did  not  attain  the  dimensions  ascribed  to  them  by  our 
documents.*  The  account  we  have  bears  the  mark  of  having  been 
influenced  by  a  strong  feeling  of  the  injustice  practised  by  Jezebel 
and  permitted  by  Ahab,  and  represents  it  as  still  worse  than  it 
appears  in  reality  to  have  been. 

The  proof  that  such  is  the  case  is  supplied  by  the  fact  that 
Ahab  himself,  although  he  tolerated  and  even  patronised  the 
worship  of  Baal  alongside  of  Yahveism,  did  not  renounce  the  latter 
so  far  as  he  himself  personally  and  his  family  were  concerned,  and 
consequently  did  not,  in  all  probability,  renounce  it  so  far  as  his 
kingdom  was  concerned.  He  names  his  children,  Ahaziah,  Joram, 
and  Athaliah,  after  Yahve,  not  after  Baal,  and  has  prophets  of 
Yahve  in  considerable  numbers  about  him.^  We  have  thus  here 
a  kind  of  mixed  religion.  It  was  necessary  that  Baal,  as  being 
the  god  of  the  queen  of  the  kingdom,  and,  above  all,  as  being  the 
chief  god  of  the  closely  allied  neighbour  country,  should  also 
possess  his  temple  and  altar  in  Israel. 

Nothing  was  more  natural  than  that  a  feeling  of  profound 
discontent  with  these  syncretic  tendencies  should  be  roused 
amongst  the  best  in  the  nation.  Granting  that  the  Canaanitish- 
Phcenician  nature-worship  had  long  exercised  its  seductive  charm 
on  many  in  Israel ;  granting  that  others  who  up  to  this  time  had 

1  1  Kings  xvi.  32  f.  20  Kings  x.  18  ff. 

^  2  Kings  iii.  2  ;  1  Kings  xvi.  33.     There  is  no  authority  for  interpreting  this 
as  referring  to  an  image  of  'Ashtart,  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  of  Baal  (Kohl.  72). 
^  1  Kings  xix.  18  ;  but  cf.  viii.  4. 
^  Of.  especially  1  Kings  xxii.  6  flf.,  22  ff. 


Chap.  II.]  THE  DYNASTY  OF  OMRI  265 

clung  to  Yahve,  now  yield,  willingly  or  unwillingly,  to  pressure 
from  above ;  still,  those  who  had  regarded  Jeroboam's  lapse  into 
bull-worship  with  distrust  and  anxiety,  and  whose  influence  at  a 
somewhat  later  period  had  made  itself  felt  from  time  to  time, 
could  not  be  silent  regarding  what  was  now  happening.  It  was 
now  seen  more  clearly  than  had  ever  been  the  case  before,  that  the 
foundations  of  the  Mosaic  religion  were  being  called  in  question. 
Its  religion  was  for  Israel  what  constituted  its  existence  as  a 
nation.  Whatever  else  Ahab  may  have  undertaken  for  the  • 
advancement  of  his  kingdom,  he  was  now  about  to  surrender  the 
national  treasure.  Even  supposing  that  those  who  kicked  against 
this  were  not  aware  of  the  far-reaching  importance  of  what  they 
did,  still,  regarded  in  the  light  of  history,  those  who  were  thus 
zealous  for  Yahve  stand  before  us  as  the  saviours  of  their  father- 
land. We  cannot,  in  fact,  be  sure  what  might  have  become  of 
Israel  had  the  Phcenician  Baal-worship  maintained  itself,  and  if, 
under  the  protection  afforded  by  the  alliance  of  the  two  states,  it 
had  found  its  way  from  Samaria  into  Jerusalem. 

The  representatives  of  that  counter-tendency  are  the  jprojphets} 
called  JSTebiim.  Since  the  days  of  the  powerful  national  movement 
which  led  to  the  elevation  of  Saul  to  the  throne,  and,  in  fact,  to 
the  creation  of  a  new  form  of  life  for  the  nation — namely,  the 
royal  constitution — they  had  not  succeeded  in  any  great  measure 
in  making  their  influence  felt  in  public  life.  It  is  only  now  and 
again  that  one  of  them  appears  on  the  scene  and  shows  that  that 
peculiar  phenomenon  has  not  died  away,  and  that  the  prophets 
are  following  with  a  watchful  interest  the  course  of  things 
in  Israel,  and,  above  all,  that  of  religious  events.  Now,  how- 
ever, as  then,  the  nation  as  a  whole  is  in  danger.  They 
accordingly  reappear  on  the  scene  in  order  to  prepare  themselves 
for  interfering,  in  a  decisive  way,  in  the  affairs  of  their  father- 
land. 

Many  changes  have  in  the  meantime  come  over  the  Nebi'im. 

Formerly  they  had  gone  through  the  land  in  troops  under  ecstatic 

1  [See  W.  R.  Smith,  PropJiets  of  Israel- ;  Cornill,  Der  Israel.  Profetismus,  1895.] 


266  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

influence,  almost  like  madmen,  preaching  a  holy  war,  and  perhaps 
also  the  duty  of  honouring  their  God,  and  sweeping  along  with 
them  in  their  frenzy  whatever  came  in  their  way.  They  still 
continue  to  be  conscious  that  they  have  been  laid  hold  of  by  the 
Divinity.  But,  as  time  has  gone  on,  the  mode  of  their  public 
appearance  has  altered  too.  The  bands  of  wandering  dervishes 
have  become  societies  in  which  the  art  and  gift  of  prophecy  and 
of  announcing  the  will  of  God  are  cultivated  in  a  more  regular 
way ;  but  it  is  the  fostering  of  religious  thought  which  is  specially 
attended  to.  Thus  the  Nebi'im  soon  take  a  place  alongside  of  the 
priests,  and,  at  the  same  time,  a  place  above  them.  The  former  are 
the  soul,  the  latter  the  arm  and  hand,  of  religion. 

The  prophets  are  thus  on  the  point  of  becoming  an  Order — they 
have,  in  fact,  essentially  become  this  already.  As  such,  they  call 
themselves  sons  of  the  prophets — i.e.  disciples  and  companions  of 
a  prophet  of  rank.  Single  individuals  among  them  tower  high 
above  the  mass.  Between  them  and  men  of  the  stamp  of  Amos 
and  Isaiah,  there  is  only  a  step. 

One  of  these  masters  of  the  prophets — the  most  powerful 
perhaps  of  all  Old  Testament  prophets,  because  the  most  original — 
now  crosses  Ahab's  path,  Elijah  of  Tishbe  in  Gilead.  In  him  is 
embodied  the  protest  of  the  national  will  which  was  raising  itself 
in  such  powerful  opposition  against  the  insult  which  was  about  to 
be  done  to  Yahve.  With  a  clear  consciousness  of  the  real  point 
at  issue,  he  takes  the  field  for  Yahve  against  Baal,  does  battle  for 
the  moral  rights  and  freedom  of  the  human  spirit  as  against  the 
tendency  to  abandon  them  in  the  religion  of  Nature,  which  was 
demoralising  and  debasing  to  man ;  and  in  this  he  is  the  genuine 
counterpart  of  Moses,  with  whom  the  New  Testament  ranges  him. 
Elijah  introduced  into  prophecy  that  species  of  categorical  im- 
perative which  distinguishes  him  as  well  as  the  later  prophets ; 
that  brazen  inflexibility,  that  diamond-like  hardness  of  character 
which  bids  them  hold  fast  by  their  moral  demand,  even  should  the 
nation  be  dashed  to  pieces  against  it.  For  ^  him  the  demand 
means,  to  stand  by  Yahve  as  against  Baal.     Their  whole  appear- 


Chap.  II.]  THE  DYNASTY  OF  OMEI  267 

ance  in  history,  though  it  takes  place  within  the  limits  of  the 
national  particularism  of  Israel,  thus  gets  at  the  same  time  the 
character  of  something  that  is  supra-national.  Any  one  who  retains 
so  little  understanding  of  the  peculiar  essence  of  prophecy  in 
Israel  and  its  moral  power,  as  does  Ernest  Eenan,  in  his  History 
of  Israel,  will,  indeed,  see  in  their  general  attitude  merely  wild 
fanaticism  and  senseless  barbarity.^  And  yet  it  is  this  attitude 
alone  that  history  has  to  thank  for  the  preservation  of  the  people 
of  Israel  for  posterity. 

The  history  of  Elijah  is  enveloped  with  miracle,  and  is  at  the  / 
same  time  drawn  from  good  and  ancient  sources.  To  interpret 
it  rationalistically,  as  Hitzig  does,^  is  an  offence  both  against  good 
taste  and  against  the  spirit  of  the  Hebrew  religion.  We  must 
take  it— so  far  as  it  is  well  attested — as  it  is,  and  be  aware  that 
Elijah  is  a  prophet  of  Yahve,  of  grand  originality,  all  afire  with 
zeal  for  his  God,  and  conscious  of  the  divine  power  which  works 
in  him.  Even  one  with  a  scrupulous  historical  conscience  will  / 
not  for  a  moment  allow  himself  to  doubt  that  Elijah  was,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  a  marvellous  man,  who  did  many  marvellous  things ; 
a  strong,  commanding  character,  before  whom  all  willingly  bent, 
and  who  had  at  his  disposal  certain  extraordinary  forces  and 
secret  powers.  To  this  we  have  to  add  his  strange  appearance, 
the  lightning-like  suddenness  of  his  emergence  and  disappearance, 
and,  not  least,  his  bold  religious  idealism.  Nothing  was  easier  than 
that,  to  the  admiring  eyes  of  the  people,  everything  that  Elijah  did 
and  all  that  happened  to  him,  should  in  consequence  appear 
extraordinary.  What  was  more  natural  than  that,  in  the  popular 
accounts  of  his  actions,  legendary  traits  should  be  added  on  to 
what  he  actually  did  ?  It  is  impossible  now  perfectly  to  separate 
these  two  elements. 

One  day  Elijah  appears  before  the  king  with  the  announce- 
ment that,  for  three  years,  neither  dew  nor  rain  would  fall  from 
heaven.     He  had  already  before  this  apparently  foretold  to  king 

^  Gf.  Renan,  Histoire  du  peuple  cV Israel ,  ii.,  iii. 
'^  Hitzig,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel^  i.  176. 


268  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

and  people  the  judgments  of  Yahve  as  the  punishment  of  their 
apostasy/  but  without  effect.  He  himself,  after  having  delivered 
his  message,  retires  again  into  solitude.  At  the  brook  Cherith, 
God  sustains  him  in  life  in  as  wonderful  a  way  as  if  the  birds  of 
the  air  had  carried  food  to  him.  And  when  the  brook  dries  up, 
he  seeks  safety  outside  of  the  land.  In  the  Sidonian  city  of 
Zarephath  he  finds  shelter  in  the  house  of  a  miserably  poor  widow. 
But  Yahv^  blesses  her  in  the  most  wonderful  way  with  abundance 
so  long  as  he  is  her  guest.  And  when  the  son  of  the  widow 
becomes  mortally  ill  and  is  lying  lifeless  on  the  bed,  he  succeeds 
in  calling  him  back  to  life. 

Thus  almost  three  years  pass  away.  Drought  and  famine  press 
on  the  land,  and  Ahab  himself  sets  off,  with  his  palace  overseer,  to 
seek  fodder  for  the  royal  horses.  Then  the  prophet  meets  him 
and  proposes  that  he  should  submit  to  a  divine  ordeal.  He  is  to 
come  to  Mount  Carmel  to  sacrifice  with  the  four  hundred  and 
fifty  prophets  of  Baal.^  There  the  lighting  of  the  altar-fire  will 
decide  who  is  God,  Yahve  or  Baal.  The  prayers  and  practices  of 
the  prophets  of  Baal  avail  nothing.^  The  divine  decision  pro- 
nounces in  favour  of  Elijah  and  Yahve.  The  four  hundred  and 
fifty  prophets  of  Baal  are  conquered,  and  are  consequently  lost. 
Elijah  orders  them  to  be  hewn  to  pieces  at  the  Kishon.* 

The  queen,  when  she  hears  what  has  happened,  broods 
vengeance.  Elijah  is  once  more  banished  from  the  country.  He 
flees  towards  the  south,  and  gets  as  far  as  Horeb.  Here,  at  the 
ancient  mount  of  God,  he  makes  his  complaint  to  the  God  of 
Moses.  He  gets  a  revelation,  and  Yahve  Himself  comforts  him 
by  telling  him  that  a  terrible  vengeance  will  one  day  be  taken  on 
Baal.  Elijah  himself  is  to  appoint  the  instruments  of  the  divine 
judgment — Elisha,  Jehu,  Hazael."' 

^  1  Kings  xviii.  10-17. 

2  The  Ashera  prophets,  xviii.  19,  are  a  gloss.     Cf.  Wellh.  Bl.^  245. 

2  See  on  this  Pietschmann,  Phoniz.  164-220 ;  also  Gutschmid,  Kkine  Schrif- 
ten,  ii,  39. 

■*  1  Kings  xvii.  and  xviii.     See  on  this  above,  p.  211  f. 

^  1  Kings  xix.  Wellhausen  was  the  first  rightly  to  understand  the  grandiose 
passage,  i\  9  ff.     See  BL*  226. 


Chap.  II.]  THE  DYNASTY  OF  OMRI  269 

The  last-mentioned  statement  is,  however,  not  quite  correct. 
It  was  only  Elisha  that  Elijah  himself  appointed  to  the  work. 
The  two  kings  appear  to  have  been  anointed  by  his  successor. 
The  great  famine,  which  is  the  starting-point  of  the  entire 
tradition  about  Elijah,  is  an  historical  fact.  Menander  of  Ephesus 
also  knows  about  it.^  If  he  makes  it  last  one  year,  while  the  Old 
Testament  puts  it  at  three,  the  difference  is  not  really  a  very 
essential  one.  It  simply  proves,  like  the  circumstance  just  now 
touched  upon,  that  the  particulars  mentioned  in  our  Elijah-tradi- 
tion have  not  an  absolutely  historical  character.^  When,  on  the 
other  hand,  Menander  ascribes  the  ending  of  the  distress  to  a 
religious  procession  of  the  Phoenicians,  while  the  Old  Testament 
tells  us  that  it  was  brought  about  by  the  judgment  of  God 
on  Carmel,  there  is  no  need  for  finding  any  contradiction  here.^ 
The  one  may  have  taken  place  as  well  as  the  other. 

Elijah  is  further  instructed  to  announce  vengeance  on  Ahab 
and  on  his  house.  A  tyrannical  act  on  Ahab's  part,  in  connection 
with  a  civic  matter,  affords  the  occasion  for  his  doing  this.  It 
completely  shattered  the  confidence  of  the  nation  in  the  house  of 
Omri,  which  was  already  undermined  by  the  religious  position 
taken  up  by  Ahab,  and  as  a  consequence  smoothed  the  way  for 
the  demand  of  the  prophetic  party,  which  aimed  directly  at  the 
setting  aside  of  the  dynasty. 

We  are  here  in  a  better  position  than  we  have  hitherto  been,  in 
dealing  with  Elijah's  relation  to  affairs,  for  ascertaining  the  real 
state  of  matters  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  our  sources  of  informa- 
tion. Along  with  the  detailed  account,  in  which,  however,  the 
facts  are  treated  in  a  free  manner,  we  have  a  shorter  but  more 
accurate  statement  of  the  course  of  events.^  By  means  of  it  the 
former  account  can  in  several  points  be  supplemented  and  corrected 
in  a  welcome  fashion.  According  to  it,  Ahab  unjustly  appropriated 
the  patrimonial  estate  of  a  citizen  of  Jezreel,  Nahoth  by  name. 

1  See  Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  13.  2.  ~  So  Stade,  Gesch.  i.  527. 

^  See  besides  1  Kings  xxi.,  2  Kings  ix.  25  f. ;  and  on  the  character  and  age  of 
the  latter  passage,  above,  p.  216  f. 


270  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

Because  Naboth  refuses  to  surrender  voluntarily  the  piece  of  land 
desired  by  the  king,  he  is  brought  before  the  court  on  a  trumped- 
up  charge,  and,  in  accordance  with  the  harsh  custom  of  the  time, 
put  to  death  with  all  his  family.  The  field,  as  being  a  property 
without  a  possessor,  goes  to  the  king. 

If  the  religious  feeling  of  the  true  worshippers  of  Yahve  had 
already  been  deeply  outraged  by  the  position  taken  up  by  Ahab 
towards  the  worship  of  Baal,  now  the  whole  nation's  sense  of  justice 
is  in  like  manner  outraged  by  this  base  murder  in  the  name  of  the 
law.  Again  it  is  Elijah  who  gives  clear  and  frank  expression  to 
what  is  exciting  the  mass  of  the  people  so  profoundly.  At  the 
very  instant  when,  on  the  day  after  the  judicial  murder,  Ahab, 
accompanied  by  Jehu  and  Bidkar,  is  just  on  the  point  of  taking 
possession  of  the  field  which  has  by  law  fallen  to  him,  Elijah 
bursts  in  upon  him  with  the  words :  '  Surely  I  have  seen  yester- 
night the  blood  of  Naboth  and  of  his  children :  to  thee  will  I 
requite  it  on  this  field.' 

The  fate  of  the  dynasty  in  the  public  judgment  of  the  nation  is 
thereby  sealed,  if  Elijah  possessed  at  all  the  authority  which  the 
accounts  we  have  ascribe  to  him.  So  far  as  Ahab  himself  was 
concerned,  these  words  were  to  find  their  fulfilment  in  his  last 
battles  with  the  Syrians,  which  end  with  the  death  of  the  king. 

§  59.  Ahah's  Wars  with  Damascus  and  Assyria. 

It  would  appear  that  the  information  we  have  regarding  Ahab's 
relations  with  foreign  countries  is  very  deficient,  in  spite  of  the 
fact,  too,  that  our  Biblical  accounts  are  more  detailed  than  usual. 
Salmanassar  II.  specially  mentions  Ahab  of  Israel  amongst  those 
whom  he  conquered  in  the  year  754 ;  ^  while,  on  the  contrary,  the 
Old  Testament  does  not  make  the  slightest  mention  of  any  hostile 
encounter  between  Ahab  and  Assyria.  To  this  it  has  to  be  added 
that,  according  to  Salmanassar's  account,  Ahab  is  represented  as 
having  gone  to  war,  in  alliance  with  Hadad'ezer  (Daddaidri)  of 

1  See  Schrader,  KAT.''  193  ff.  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  189  flf.,  195  fif.] ;  KBihl.  i.  173  j 
Tiele,  Qesch.  200. 


Chap.  II.]  THE  DYNASTY  OF  OMRI  271 

Syria,  against  Assyria,  while  in  contrast  to  this,  our  Biblical 
accounts  mention  merely  several  hostile  encounters  of  Ahab  with 
the  Syrian  king  called  Benhadad  (IT.)  The  least  of  the  difficulties  is 
presented  by  the  difference  of  the  two  last-mentioned  Syrian  names. 
They  may,  if  we  compare  them  with  the  variations  on  Hebrew 
names,  very  likely  mean  one  and  the  same  man.^ 

Still  we  may  well  ask  how  the  fact  of  a  co-operation,  on  Ahab's 
part,  with  his  opponent  against  Assyria,  can  be  reconciled  with  what 
we  learn  from  the  Old  Testament  of  the  fierce  struggles  with  the 
Syrians.  Following  an  hypothesis  ^  which  has  been  several  times 
put  forward  of  late,  we  have  perhaps  to  seek  for  the  key  to  this  in 
the  statement  made  in  our  Book  of  Kings :  according  to  which, 
Ahab,  after  his  second  victory  over  Benhadad- Hadad'ezer,  con- 
cluded a  treaty  with  the  latter.^  In  this  way  we  get  the  following 
picture  of  Ahab's  campaigns. 

During  Ahab's  last  years  the  old  enmity  between  Israel  and 
Aram  Damascus  is  again  renewed.  We  may  probably  place  the 
revolt  of  Moab,  too,  in  this  period.  Perhaps  Ahab  seeks  to  get  rid 
of  the  degrading  impost  which  Benhadad  I.  had  laid  upon  his 
father.*  After  several  battles  which  proved  unfortunate  for  Ahab,^ 
Hadad'ezer  succeeds  in  advancing  against  Samaria.  Ahab  is  pre- 
pared to  give  up  his  capital,  which  he  considers  as  lost,  on  certain 
moderate  conditions,  as  first  proposed  by  Hadad'ezer.  At  the  last 
moment  Hadad'ezer  changes  his  mind,  and  demands  the  uncon- 
ditional surrender  of  the  city.  The  presumptuous  perfidy  of  the 
other  raises  Ahab's  sunken  courage.  He  risks  a  sally  and  drives 
the  Syrians  out  of  the  land.  They  try  their  luck  once  more  in 
the  following  year.  A  powerful  Syrian  host  encamps  at  Aphek, 
in  the  Kishon  valley ;  Israel  takes  up  a  position  opposite,  on  the 
spurs  of  the  mountains  of  Ephraim.  After  long  deliberation  Ahab 
ventures    to   make   the   attack   and   destroys  the  hostile   army. 

1  See  on  this,  Schrader  KAT.'-  200  f.  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  189] ;  KA  T.  539. 

2  So  Schrader  op.  cit.  ;  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  i.  393;  Stade,  Gesch.  i.  528. 
Otherwise,  Wellh.  JDTh.  xx.  626  ff.  ;  Kamphausen,  Ghronol.  43,  80. 

2  1  Kings  XX.  34.  4  g^e  above,  p.  260. 

^  This  is  not  said,  but  it  may  be  gathered  from  1  Kings  xx.  1  flf. 


272  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

Benhadad-Hadad'ezer  himself  becomes  Ahab's  prisoner.  With 
what  was  apparently  an  excess  of  magnanimity,  Ahab  spares  the 
life  of  this  dangerous  foe  of  Israel.  He  has  to  agree  to  certain 
terms  of  capitulation  with  the  king  of  Israel,  according  to  which 
the  Syrian  is  to  restore  to  Israel  the  conquests  of  his  father,  and 
Ahab's  merchants  are  to  get  a  quarter  for  themselves  in  the 
bazaars  at  Damascus.^ 

Ahab  had  good  reasons  for  sparing  his  opponent  for  the 
present.  He  recognises  the  danger  which  threatens  both  of  them 
from  the  side  of  Assyria,  and  resolves,  in  conjunction  with 
Damascus,  to  oppose  the  dangerous  intruder.  A  number  of 
Syrian  princes,  as  well  as  an  Ammonite  prince,^  are  said  to  have 
been  concerned  in  the  confederacy,  and  Ahab  joins  it  with  10,000 
foot  soldiers  and  2000  cavalry.  A  battle  takes  place  at  Qarqar 
in  Syria.^  Salmanassar  is  master  of  the  field,  but  not  to  such  a 
degree  as  to  permit  of  his  reaping  at  this  time  the  fruits  of  his 
victory. 

Both  things  together,  the  provisional  check  to  the  further 
advance  of  Salmanassar,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  the  allies  had 
been  weakened,  must  have  again  loosened  the  confederacy.  Pro- 
bably too,  Benhadad-Hadad'ezer,  trusting  to  this,  was  slow  in 
fulfilling  his  obligations  in  connection  with  the  surrender  of  his 
conquests  to  Ahab.  In  any  case,  hostilities  break  out  afresh 
three  years  after  the  foregoing  war.  The  point  in  dispute  is  as 
to  Ahab's  claim  to  the  possession  of  Eamah  in  Gilead.  The 
approaches  which  Ahab  had  probably  already  before  this  made  to 
Judah,  lead  now  to  the  formation  of  a  formal  alliance.  Perhaps 
the  marriage  alliance  between  the  two  royal  houses  dates  from  this 
period.  .  Notwithstanding  that  one  prophet  at  least,  Micah  ben 
J^Jimla — it  is  true,  in  opposition  to  the  great  mass  of  his  com- 
panions— predicts  misfortune,  the  two  kings  venture  on  war.     An 

^  1  Kings  XX.  .34.     The  whole  account  is  contained  in  1  Kings  xx.  and  xxii. 
See  on  this  above,  p.  215. 

2  Also  Musri  =  Egypt?     See  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  413.     Tiele,  Gesch.  190. 
(Otherwise,  Meyer,  450;  and  Gesch.  Agyj)t.  333.) 

3  See  the  description  on  Salmanassar's  monolith-inscription,  Col.  ii.  87  ff, 


Chap.  II.]  THE  DYNASTY  OF  OMRI  273 

artifice  by  which  Ahab  seeks  to  make  himself  unrecognisable  to 
the  enemy,  brings  him  little  advantage.  Spite  of  his  disguise  a 
hostile  shot  reaches  him.  Mortally  wounded,  he  keeps  standing 
in  his  chariot  until  night  puts  an  end  to  the  battle.  Ahab  him- 
self has  fallen  as  a  hero.  But  he  was  not  able  to  secure  victory 
for  his  side.  His  heroic  death  doubtless  made  the  people  forget 
many  of  the  wrong  things  he  had  done,  and  allowed  much  of 
the  brighter  side  of  his  character  to  come  out  more  clearly.  The 
accounts  of  Ahab's  wars  show  this. 

If  it  cannot  be  denied  that  this  account  affords  what  is,  on  the 
whole,  a  satisfactory  picture  of  the  course  of  events,  still  it  appears 
to  me  that  a  further  possibility  which  presents  itself  ought  by  no 
means  to  be  rejected.  It  is  reasonable  to  think  that  Salmanassar — 
or,  at  any  rate,  the  scribe  who  wrote  the  tablet — was  not  more 
accurately  informed  regarding  the  name  of  the  king  of  Israel  who 
opposed  Syria  at  Qarqar,  than  regarding  the  relationship  of  Jehu 
and  other  Israelitish  kings  to  Omri.^  In  this  case  the  co-operation 
of  Israel  with  Damascus  would  be,  so  far  as  Israel  was  con- 
cerned, the  involuntary  consequence  of  the  unfortunate  battle  at 
Eamah,  and  the  king  of  Israel  who  was  conquered  by  Salmanassar 
would  thus  be,  not  Ahab,  but  Jehoram.  Without  wishing  to 
pronounce  any  final  decision,  I  give  the  preference  to  this  sup- 
position, for  reasons  which  will  be  explained  in  connection  with 
the  history  of  Jehoram. 

I  adduce  some  further  reasons  against  the  ordinary  assump- 
tion : — 

(1)  In  the  Book  of  Kings  we  possess  information  of  a  very 
detailed  character  regarding  Ahab,  and  especially  information 
which  tells  against  him.  It  must  be  regarded  as  all  the  more 
inexplicable  that  such  an  important  fact  as  a  decisive  defeat 
experienced  by  him  at  the  hands  of  Assyria,  should  have  been 
passed  over  in  silence.     In  the  case  of  Jehoram,  on  the  contrary, 

1  See  below,  §  63  (Jehu  '  son  of  Omri ' ;  c/.  also  2  Kings  viii.  26,  *  the  daughter 
of  Omri ').  The  number,  too,  of  the  enemy  who  fell  in  battle  is  not  definitely 
fixed  in  Assyrian  tradition.     See  Schrader,  KGF.  47. 

VOL.  11.  S 


274  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

the  silence  of  the  Bible  cannot  astonish  us,  since  we  have  hardly 
any  information  at  all  about  him. 

(2)  Spite  of  1  Kings  xx.  24,  a  military  alliance  with  Syria  is 
hardly  explicable  in  the  case  of  Ahab,  when  we  consider  all  that 
had  gone  before  and  all  that  followed.  The  attempts  to  make 
it  intelligible  remind  one  of  the  old  harmony-process ;  it  is  quite 
natural  in  the  case  of  Jehoram  as  the  involuntary  consequence  of 
the  death  of  Ahab. 

(3)  Jehoram's  twelve  years  are  thus  kept  intact. 

§  60.  Ahaziah  hen  Aliah.     Jehoram  ben  Ahat. 

It  was  an  evil  inheritance  that  Ahab's  son  Ahaziah  (855-854) 
got  from  his  father.  It  is  self-evident  that,  after  the  issue  of  the 
last  battle,  Eamah  in  Gilead  remained  in  the  possession  of  Aram. 
But  without  doubt  the  matter  did  not  stop  there.  We  can  merely 
inquire  what  was  the  extent  of  the  dependence  into  which  Israel 
was  brought  relatively  to  Syria,  and  how  far  this  condition  of 
dependence  was  taken  advantage  of  by  the  Syrians  in  the  period 
immediately  following.  The  answer  to  this  will  depend  on  the 
decision  come  to  regarding  the  question  as  to  whether  it  was  Ahab 
or  Jehoram  who  took  part  in  the  battle  of  Qarqar. 

Naturally  the  altered  state  of  things,  which  such  a  misfortune 
necessarily  brought  with  it,  makes  itself  felt  soon  enough  on  the 
other  boundaries  of  the  kingdom.  The  Moabites  are  at  once 
prepared  to  make  use  of  the  fact  that  Ahab's  troops  have  been 
beaten,  and  that  his  hand  no  longer  holds  the  reins  in  Israel. 
After  having  already,  during  Ahab's  lifetime,  thrown  off  the  heavy 
yoke  which  they  had  borne  for  practically  forty  years,  and  advanced 
northwards  beyond  the  limits  assigned  to  them  by  Omri,  they 
seem  immediately  after  Ahab's  death  to  have  organised  a  new 
attack  on  Israel.^  Doubtless  Ahaziah  was  not  able  to  check 
them. 

1  This  is  possibly  the  sense  in  which  we  are  to  take  2  Kings  iii.  5  (i.  1)  ;  (/. 
Mesha',  line  7,  'and  to  his  house.' 


CuAP.  II.]  THE  DYNASTY  OF  OMRI  275 

lu  addition  to  all  these  disasters,  a  severe  misfortune  befell 
Ahaziah  soon  after  his  accession.  He  fell  from  the  upper  room  of 
his  royal  palace  through  the  window,  and  appears  to  have  received 
such  dangerous  injuries  that  he  never  recovered.  After  a  reign  of 
only  two  years  he  succumbed  to  his  sufferings.  Elijah  is  said  to 
have  prophesied  his  end.  However,  it  is  a  question  if  the  prophet 
was  still  in  life.  The  fact  that  in  connection  with  the  consulta- 
tion before  Ahab's  expedition  against  Eamah,  Micah  ben  Jimla 
takes  the  place  of  Elijah,  is  opposed  to  the  idea  that  he  was. 
Besides,  the  narrative  bears  many  traces  of  being  a  late  com- 
position.^ 

Ahaziah's  successor  is  his  younger  brother  Jehoram.  The 
Book  of  Kings  assigns  him  twelve  years  (854-842).  Whether  or 
not  it  is  correct  in  doing  this,  depends  once  more  on  how  we 
decide  the  question  as  to  the  name  of  the  king  of  Israel  who 
fought  against  Salmanassar  at  Qarqar.  If,  in  accordance  with 
the  Assyrian  accounts,  it  was  Ahab,  then  Jehoram  can  have 
reigned  only  about  eight  years.^  But  if  those  accounts,  on  the 
other  hand,  are  incorrect,  and  if  the  king  referred  to  was  really 
Jehoram,  then  the  Bible  statement  with  regard  to  his  twelve  years' 
reign  would  be  right.  It  is  obvious  that  we  have  here  an  additional 
reason  for  our  assumption. 

The  condition  of  things,  besides,  in  Israel  suits  very  well  with 
this  hypothesis.  If  the  battle  of  Eamah  brought  Israel  into  a 
state  of  dependence  on  Damascus,  the  inevitable  consequence  of 
this  would  be  that,  on  the  occasion  of  the  next  encounter  of  the 
Syrians  with  Assyria,  Ahaziah  or  Jehoram  would  be  forced  to  join 
the  army  of  their  conquerors.  Still  we  have  no  means  of  coming 
to  any  definite  decision  in  this  matter.  It  is  sufficient  to  note  that, 
when  we  consider  everything  which  throws  light  on  the  relation 
in  which  Israel  stood  at  this  time  to  foreign  countries,  the  weak- 
ness of  the  position  of  the  Northern  Kingdom  since  Ahab's  unfor- 
tunate end  comes  out  with  perfect  clearness. 

^  1  Kings  xxii.  52-54 ;  2  Kings  i.  ;  cf  above,  p.  214. 
2  See  Stade,  Geach.  534,  note  I. 


276  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III 

The  proof  of  this  is  afforded  first  of  all  by  Jehoram's  unsuccess- 
ful undertaking  against  Mesha'  of  Moab.  It  will,  of  course,  be 
understood  that  Jehoram  could  not  quietly  endure  the  revolt  of 
Moab  from  Israel,  which  had  become  an  accomplished  fact  after 
the  death  of  Ahab.  An  attempt  must  accordingly  be  made  to 
bring  the  Moabites  once  more  into  subjection.  It  is  to  this 
attempt  that  we  owe  the  Mesha'-stone,  an  altar  stone  which  the 
Moabitish  king  Mesha'  dedicated  to  his  god  Chemosh  in  remem- 
brance of  his  victorious  wars  wdth  Israel.^  In  addition  to  this  we 
possess  in  2  Kings  iii.  an  account  of  Jehoram's  expedition 
against  Mesha'.  It  appears  from  the  latter  that  Jehoshaphat  of 
Judah,  even  at  this  period,  still  maintains  the  alliance  entered 
into  with  Ahab.  He  gives  Jehoram  assistance,  and  also  summons 
the  Edomites  who  were  subject  to  Judah.^  The  plan  of  invading 
the  Moabitish  territory  from  the  south  was  certainly  the  right 
one,  from  what  Mesha'  himself  tells  us  of  his  defensive  measures 
towards  the  north.  Nor  in  the  event  of  a  retreat  southwards  was 
any  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  the  side  of  the  Syrians.  On 
the  march  the  army  suffers  severely  from  want  of  water.  Elisha 
suggests  a  plan  by  which  water  is  got.  The  Moabites  attempt  a 
sudden  attack,  relying  on  a  false  rumour  of  dissensions  which 
were  supposed  to  have  broken  out  in  the  army  of  the  allies. 
They  are  driven  back  and  reduced  to  great  extremities.  Mesha' 
escapes  with  his  men  to  Kirharoseth.  He  is  besieged,  and,  after 
an  unsuccessful  sally,  in  his  sore  straits  he  has  recourse  to  a  plan 
of  despair.  In  full  view  of  the  besiegers,  he  sacrifices  on  the  city 
wall  his  first-born  to  Chemosh.  This  final  expedient  inspires  his 
troops  with  new  courage  and  new  faith  in  the  help  of  their  god. 
They  break  out  and  are  free.     Israel  is  compelled  to  retire. 

Mesha'  had  every  reason  for  being  proud  of  the  result  of  his 
plan. 

The  siege  of  Samaria  by  the  Syrians  is  also  usually  placed  in 

^  See  M^sha',  line  3.  Jehoram's  name  is  not  mentioned.  But,  according  to 
lines  7,  8,  Ahab  is  evidently  dead  and  his  house  is  reigning. 

"  The  expression  'king,' 2  Kings  iii.  9,  is,  judged  by  1  Kings  xxii.  48  f,,  in- 
accurate.    It  can  only  be  a  vassal  prince  who  is  referred  to. 


i 


Chap.  II.]  THE  DYNASTY  OF  OMRI  277 

Jehoram's  reign.  And  it  certainly  is  placed  in  immediate  con- 
nection with  his  history  in  our  Book  of  Kings.  Still  Kuenen  has 
shown  it  to  be  very  probable  that  that  unnamed  king  of  Israel  is 
not  Jehoram  ben  Ahab,  but  Jehoahaz  ben  Jehu.^  Besides,  for 
other  reasons  than  those  successfully  urged  by  Kuenen,  it  suits 
better  with  Jehoahaz  than  with  Jehoram.  It  is,  indeed,  not  very 
probable  that  the  Syrians  had  the  time  and  the  strength  just  then 
to  ensfacje  with  Israel,  allied  as  it  was  with  Judah,  in  such  a 
protracted  war  as  it  is  here  taken  for  granted  to  have  been.  If, 
shortly  after  the  battle  of  Qarqar,  they  had  to  endure  three 
successive  inroads  of  Salmanassar  II.  in  the  years  850,  849,  and 
846,  they  could  hardly  have  had  sufficient  breathing  time  to  be 
in  a  position  to  attack  Israel  in  the  period  between  849  and  846, 
as  they  are  generally  supposed  to  have  done. 

It  is,  however,  quite  probable  that  Israel  itself  had  meanwhile 
so  far  recovered  from  the  blows  inflicted  at  Eamah  and  Qarqar,  as 
well  as  from  the  defeat  by  Mesha',  as  to  be  able  to  profit  by  the 
critical  state  of  Syria.  Jehoram  would  gradually  come  to  think 
of  the  possibility  of  reconquering  the  Gileadite  towns,  for  the 
possession  of  which  Ahab  had  vainly  fought.  Thus  it  happens  that 
Eamah  in  Gilead  is  besieged  anew,  a  siege  which  was  destined  to 
have  grave  consequences  for  affairs  in  Israel. 

^  See  above,  p.  216. 


CHAPTEE    III. 

JEHU   AND   HIS   DYNASTY,      THE   KINGDOM   OF   JUDAH, 
§  61.  JeJuCs  Revohdion. 

In  Israel  the  service  of  Baal  is  still  carried  on  alongside  of  the 
worship  of  Yahve.  Neither  Ahaziah  nor  Jehoram  made  any 
alteration  of  importance  in  the  state  of  affairs  in  this  respect. 
And  yet  the  times  in  Israel  were  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  such  as 
to  allow  people  to  forget  the  curses  which  Elijah  had  formerly 
hurled  against  Ahab  and  his  house.  So,  too,  the  outrage  committed 
against  Naboth  and  his  family  was  undoubtedly  still  fresh  in 
every  one's  memory  and  called  for  vengeance.  This  was  reason 
enough  for  the  friends  of  Elijah,  and  those  like-minded,  to  look  for 
the  time  when  the  hour  of  retribution  would  at  last  strike  for  the 
wicked  house. 

At  the  head  of  the  Nebi'im  and  of  the  prophetic  circles 
attached  to  them,  now  that  Elijah  has  disappeared  from  the  scene 
of  his  earthly  activity,  stands  his  old  disciple  and  servant  Elisha 
(Elisa).  The  great  master  had  been  snatched  away  in  a  thunder- 
storm ;  suddenly  and  violently  had  Yahve  caught  him  up  to  him- 
self, in  a  way  corresponding  to  his  manner  of  moving  about  on 
this  earth.^  Elisha,  too,  like  his  powerful  predecessor,  seems  to 
have  been  a  man  of  special  gifts  and  to  have  exercised  an  extra- 
ordinary influence  on  his  nation.  If  he  is  perhaps  wanting  in  the 
original  force  which  marked  his  master,  he  has  all  his  fire  and  all 
his  unbounded  zeal  in  the  cause  of  Yahv^  against  Baal.    The  marvel- 

1  2  Kings  ii. 

278 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    279 

lous  deeds  which  are  ascribed  in  such  large  numbers  to  him,  give 
eloquent  testimony  to  the  deep  and  lasting  influence  which  this 
striking  figure  exercised  upon  his  contemporaries.  Without  doubt, 
bold  fiction  and  popular  tradition  are  here  mixed  with  what 
is  true.  It  is,  however,  much  more  difficult  than  in  the  case  of 
Elijah  accurately  to  separate  the  two  elements.^  We  find  the 
figure  of  Elisha  standing  most  clearly  in  the  light  of  history  in 
connection  with  the  event  which  will  immediately  occupy  our 
attention,  the  dethronement  of  the  dynasty  of  Ahab.  In  this 
matter  he  plainly  shows  himself  as  the  heir  of  Elijah  and  of  his 
thoughts.  He  faithfully  and  resolutely  carried  out  the  policy  of 
annihilating  Baal  and  all  belonging  to  him,  which  was  Elijah's 
great  legacy  to  the  nation.  Besides  this,  many  of  the  other  deeds 
ascribed  to  him  may  well  stand  the  test.  It  is,  at  least,  very 
possible,  although  not  absolutely  certain,  that  he  followed  in  the 
train  of  Jehoram  during  the  campaign  against  Mesha'  and  gave 
his  counsel  for  the  good  of  Israel.  It  is  not  inconceivable  either 
that  Elisha's  counsel  and  help  were  asked  even  by  a  heathen, 
namely  the  Syrian  general  Naaman.  At  any  rate,  the  narrative^ 
in  which  we  are  told  about  this  is  thoroughly  in  keeping  with  the 
state  of  things  in  the  time  of  Elisha.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
difficult  to  say  how  far  Elisha  had  a  share  in  the  displacement  of 
Benhadad-Hadad'ezer  of  Syria  by  Hazael.^  This  is  ascribed  in 
another  place  to  Elijah.*  Besides,  the  relations  between  Israel 
and  Aram,  just  at  the  time  when  this  transference  of  the  throne 
took  place,  yere  apparently  not  of  such  a  kind  as  would  lead  us 
to  expect  that  Elisha  could  have  been  in  Damascus  and  have  had 
the  entry  of  the  court.  Moreover,  the  narrative  is  otherwise  not 
altogether  probable. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Jehoram  ben  Ahab  in  Israel, 
his  fate  at  last  overtakes  Benhadad-Hadad'ezer,  the  man  who  for 
long  years  had  been  the  opponent  of  Israel.  He  must  have  been 
a  brave  ruler  and  a  man  of  note.     If  he  had  engaged  in  many  a 

^  See  the  particulars  about  this  (Pr^)  above,  p.  214  f. 

2  2  Kings  V.  =  2  Kings  viii.  7  ff.  "1  Kings  xix.  15. 


280  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

fray  with  Israel — though,  indeed,  with  very  varying  fortune — and  if 
he  had  to  endure  many  an  attack  from  Assyria  which  cost  him 
blood,  still  he  had  always  succeeded  in  keeping  himself  at  the  liead 
of  his  people.  At  last  old  age  seems  to  have  laid  him,  too,  on  a 
sick-bed.  There  he  ends  his  life  by  the  hand  of  a  murderer. 
One  of  his  palace  officials,  Hazael,  according  to  our  Biblical 
tradition,  was  supposed  to  have  smothered  him.^ 

Jehoram  apparently  at  once  makes  use  of  the  change  of  throne 
in  order  to  assert  his  old  claims  in  Gilead.  The  alliance  with 
Judah  is  still  maintained ;  and  this,  spite  of  many  ups  and  downs 
which  it  brought  with  it  for  Judah.  If  Israel  had  not  itself  been 
weak  enough,  one  might  have  been  inclined  to  regard  Judah  as  a 
vassal.  Ahaziah  of  Judah  marches  with  the  army  of  Israel  to  Eamah, 
as  Jehoshaphat  had  done  before.  At  the  storming  of  t?ie  town 
Jehoram  is  wounded  ^  so  that  he  is  forced  to  return  home  to 
Jezreel.  Ahaziah  is  at  this  time  on  a  visit  to  Jehoram  in 
Jezreel.  The  command  of  the  troops  which  remained  behind  in 
Eamah,  is,  in  the  king's  absence,  taken  by  Jehu  ben  Jehoshaphat 
ben  Nimshi.^ 

Then  Elisha  suddenly  sends  one  of  the  disciples  of  the  prophets 
to  Jehu  armed  with  a  commission  to  anoint  him  king  in  the 
name  of  Yahv^.  The  army  acknowledges  his  authority,  and  Jehu 
is  proclaimed  king.  At  once  Jehu  takes  the  road  to  Jezreel. 
He  leaves  the  army  behind  in  Eamah.  On  hearing  of  Jehu's 
approach,  the  two  kings  go  to  meet  him  in  their  chariots.  Not 
far  from  the  field  of  Naboth,  Jehu  and  Jehoram  meet.  To  the 
king's  question,  whether  he  brings  peace,  Jehu  replies :  '  What 
peace  ?  the  apostasy  of  thy  mother  Jezebel  and  her  many 
idolatries  are  still  amongst  us.'  Jehoram  perceives  treachery, 
and  turns  to  flee.  Nevertheless,  an  arrow  of  Jehu's  has  already 
reached  him.  Eemembering  the  words  which  he  had  formerly 
heard  from  the  mouth  of  Elijah,  Jehu  has  his  body  thrown  by  his 

1  2  Kings  viii.  7  flf. 

^  We  have  here  to  do  with  a  wound  to  Jehoram  personally,  and  not  with  a 
reverse  ;  c/.  2  Kings  viii.  28  with  v.  29. 

^  See  in  connection  with  this  and  with  what  follows,  2  Kings  viii.  28,  29  ;  ix. 
10  ;  and  on  it  above,  p.  216  f.  • 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY- KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    281 

shield-bearer,  Bidkar,  on  to  the  field  of  Naboth.  Nor  does 
Ahaziah  of  Judah  meet  with  any  better  fortune.  Jehu  pursues 
him  in  hot  haste  and  inflicts  on  him  a  mortal  wound,  so  that  he 
soon  after  dies. 

There  is  nothin"  now  to  hinder  Jehu's  entrance  into  Jezreel, 
Here  Jehoram's  motlier,  Jezebel,  Ahab's  widow,  is  still  residing. 
In  accordance  with  the  character  of  the  whole  movement,  she 
must  first  fall  before  the  restoration  of  Yalivi'*  to  His  old  rights 
can  begin.  She  sees  that  the  hour  of  vengeance  is  coming.  But 
she  does  not  stoop  to  ask  favour  of  the  murderer  of  her  son.  Like 
the  proud  child  of  a  king,  and  clothed  in  royal  array,  will  she 
fall.     She  meets  her  death  at  the  hand  of  a  eunuch. 

The  capital  however  is  now,  as  before,  in  Samaria.  There  is 
the  king's  palace,  properly  so  called,  in  which  the  members  of  the 
royal  family  dwell.  They  too  must  be  secured  before  Jehu  can 
enjoy  his  throne,  and  in  fact  before  one  of  the  sons  of  Jehoram  is 
actually  chosen  king.  Jehu  succeeds  in  getting  the  holders  of 
power  in  the  capital,  and  also  the  heads  of  the  families  and  the 
tutors  of  the  royal  princes,  to  declare  for  him,  and  to  promise  that 
they  will  execute  his  commands.  His  demand  is,  the  heads  of 
the  seventy  royal  princes.  They  fall,  and,  packed  in  baskets,  are 
sent  to  Jezreel.  Jehu,  in  face  of  the  terrified  mob,  boasts  that  he 
has  the  word  of  l^ahve's  promise. 

But  enough  blood  has  not  been  shed  even  yet.  All  in  Jezreel 
who  held  to  the  house  of  Omri  are  slain.  Then  he  makes  his 
entry  into  Samaria.  There,  too,  blood  and  murder  mark  his  steps 
amongst  those  who  were  loyal  to  Ahab.  Already  before  his 
arrival,  he  is  said  to  have  slaughtered  forty-two  princes  of  the 
house  of  David  whom  he  comes  across  on  the  way.  This  bit  of 
information  does  not  sound  very  probable,  after  Ahaziah's  death 
had  become  known.^  Still  the  statement  made  in  conjunction 
with  this,  regarding^  the  close  connection  which  Jehonadab  ben 
Eechab  has  with  Jehu  and  the  whole  movement,  appears  to  be 
trustworthy.     Arrived  in  Samaria  itself,  Jehu  prepares  a  horrible 

1  See  on  x.  12  ff.  Stade,  ZA  W.  v.  275  fif. 


282  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

blood-batli  for  the  worshippers  of  the  Tyrian  Baal.  The 
separate  details  are  not  clear,  but  there  is  hardly  any  room  for 
doubting  the  fact  that  they  were  surrounded  and  slaughtered  in 
their  own  temple.  Baal-worship  is  rooted  out  with  fire  and 
sword,  never  to  return  again.  Still  the  streams  of  blood  which 
had  flowed,  and  the  frightful  cruelties  practised,  in  the  name 
of  Yahve,  must  have  deeply  shocked  the  nation.  Traces  of  the 
excitement  are  still  perceptible  a  whole  century  after.^ 


§  62.  Jehosliaphat  of  Judah  and  his  sons.     Athaliah. 

It  is  time  for  us  to  direct  our  attention  back  to  Jerusalem. 
The  son  and  successor  of  that  Asa  who  had  called  in  the  help  of 
the  Arameans  of  Damascus  to  save  him  from  his  opponents  in 
Israel  of  his  own  kin,  is  Jehoshaphat  (876-851).  We  are  already 
acquainted  with  several  important  events  of  his  reign.  Spite  of 
what  had  happened,  he  is  prepared  to  enter  into  an  alliance  with 
Ahab  of  Israel.  This  is  ratified  by  the  marriage  of  his  son 
Jehoram  with  Athaliah,  the  daughter  of  Ahab,  and  the  consequence 
is  that  Jehoshaphat  takes  part  in  the  expedition  of  Ahab  against 
Eamah  in  Gilead,  and  soon  after  Ahab's  death,  in  that  of  Jehoram 
of  Israel  acjainst  Moab.  It  has  been  shown  above  ^  what  were 
the  reasons  which  moved  Ahab  of  Israel,  whom  we  have  to  regard 
as  the  more  powerful  of  the  two  parties,  to  enter  into  this  alliance 
with  Judah.  Perhaps  we  have  to  add  to  these  considerations  the 
fact,  that  for  the  moment  Judah,  in  consequence  of  Asa's  policy, 
was,  relatively  to  Israel,  in  a  favourable  position,  and  one  which, 
as  matters  then  stood,  might  easily  prove  dangerous  to  Ahab. 

Certainly  in  these  undertakings  Jehoshaphat  did  not,  any  more 
than  his  allies,  succeed  in  effecting  anything  of  importance.  And 
he  has  no  better  success  in  connection  with  another  affair 
mentioned  in  the  meagre  account  of  his  reign  given  in  the  Book 
of  Kings.^  Jehoshaphat,  as  Solomon  had  done  before  him,  takes 
advantage  of  Edom's  continued  subjection  to  Judah  in  order  to 

^  Hosea  i.  4.  -  See  above,  p.  262.  ^  1  Kings  xxii.  41-51. 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOISI  OF  JUDAH     283 

make  use  of  the  entrance  to  the  Eed  Sea,  which  was  m  his  hands, 
for  the  purpose  of  developing  a  profitable  carrying  trade.^  He 
has  a  Tarshish  clipper  built ^ — that  is,  a  vessel  of  the  kind  used  by 
the  Phoenicians  for  the  Tartessus  traffic — in  order  to  fetch  gold 
from  Ophir/"*  This  vessel  is,  however,  wrecked  in  Ezion-Geber, 
and  therefore  before  it  has  started  on  its  journey.  Ahaziah  ben 
Ahab  of  Israel  encourages  him  to  make  a  second  attempt,  but 
Jehoshaphat  has  no  desire  to  try  it  again  after  the  failure  of  the 
first  venture. 

If,  in  the  Book  of  Kings,  Jehoshaphat  appears  as  a  man  who 
does  not  accomplish  anything  particular  in  any  direction,  neither 
in  Avar  nor  in  peace,  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  on  the  other  hand, 
has  a  great  deal  more  to  tell  us  about  him,  and  a  great  deal  more 
to  his  favour.  According  to  Chronicles,  not  only  did  Jehoshaphat 
attain  to  quite  unusual  power  and  collect  extraordinary  wealth,'* 
but  he  is  also  credited  with  a  magnificent  victory  over  foreign 
foes  of  which  the  Book  of  Kings  makes  but  the  barest  mention.'"' 
The  whole  manner  in  which  Chronicles  relates  the  details  shows 
that  both  accounts  are  traditional  elements  belonging  to  a  very 
late  date.  Still  it  is  possible  and  probable  that  Jehoshaphat, 
during  the  long  period  over  which  his  reign  extended,  had  to 
engage  in  many  a  battle  with  his  southern  and  eastern  neighbours 
besides  what  is  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Kings.^  If  in  one  of 
these  wars  he  gained  a  victory  of  which  the  Book  of  Kings  does 
not  tell  us,  still  we  cannot  now  look  for  the  original  representa- 
tion of  the  actual  state  of  matters  in  the  present  form  of  the 
account  in  Chronicles. 

We  may  much  more  readily  implicitly  trust  the  accuracy  of 
what  Chronicles  tells  us  regarding  a  measure  of  Jehoshaphat  for 

1  On  the  text  of  1  Kings  xxii.  48  f.  see  Stade,  ZA  W.  v.  178. 

-  If  the  reading  3''Vp  instead  of  1^}  is  correct,  this  was  done  by  his  governor. 

"  Chronicles  has  made  actual  Tarshish-jourueys  out  of  this  (starting  from 
Ezion-Geber  !)— an  evident  misunderstanding  of  what  is  here  said.  See  on  Ophir, 
above,  p.  189, 

4  2  Chron.  xvii.  1  fF.,  10  ff.  '2  Chron.  xx.  1-30. 

^  Of.  in  1  Kings  xxii.  4G,  the  reference  to  the  rest  of  his  mighty  deeds  and 
wars. 


284  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

the  extension  of  'the  Law'  in  Judah.  According  to  this, 
Jehoshaphat  sent  certain  of  the  heads  of  the  people  and  some 
Levites  round  the  country  with  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  Yahv^ 
in  order  to  make  the  people  acquainted  with  it.^  This  piece  of 
information,  too,  has  been  for  the  most  part  called  in  question. 
But  if  it  be  granted  that  writings  containing  laws  were  in  exist- 
ence- as  early  as  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  there  is  no  reason 
against  supposing  that  a  king  of  Judah  did  actually  issue  a 
regulation  of  the  kind  referred  to.  And  if  we  have  no  idea  of 
the  date  of  this  statement  found  in  Chronicles,  still,  when  we 
take  into  consideration  the  extraordinary  brevity  of  the  account 
of  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  in  the  Book  of  Kings,  we  cannot  draw 
from  its  silence  regarding  this  matter  any  argument  against  the 
historical  accuracy  of  what  is  related.  We  are  consequently 
driven  to  fall  back  entirely  on  inner  reasons.^ 

A  further  difficulty  is  presented  by  the  account  in  Chronicles 
of  an  organisation  of  the  courts  of  justice  carried  through  by 
Jehoshaphat.  According  to  it,  Jehoshaphat  set  up  courts  of  law  in 
all  the  fortified  towns  in  Judah,  and  in  Jerusalem  a  supreme 
court  under  the  presidency  of  the  high  priest  and  the  prince  of 
Judah.^  Wellhausen  has  made  the  brilliant  conjecture  that  the 
author  of  Chronicles  is  here  transferring  the  organisation  of  justice 
belonging  to  his  own  age  back  to  the  past,  and  thinks  the  reference 
is  to  the  provincial  tribunals  and  the  Jerusalem  Sanhedrin.^  It 
can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  Chronicles  has  actually  taken  from 
these  the  colours  for  the  finishing  off  of  the  picture  it  gives. 
How  far,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are  to  look  for  an  historical  kernel 
in  the  rest  of  the  narrative,  is  a  point  which  must  be  left  un- 
decided. 

Jehoshaphat's  successor  in  Judah  is  his  son  Joram.  The 
Book  of  Kings  assigns  him  eight  years  (851-843).  As  the  husband 
of  the  Samaritan  princess,  Athaliah,  he  is  Ahab's  son-in-law.    The 

^  2  Chron.  xvii.  7-9.  2  gee  on  this  above,  i.  94,  244. 

3  Cf.  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  AT.^  §  200.  *  2  Chron.  xix.  5-11. 

'  Wellh.  ProV-  198  S.  [Eng.  Trans.  191  flf.]. 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    285 

statement  in  the  Book  of  Kings  that  he  favoured  in  Judah  also 
the  foreign  worship  introduced  by  Ahab  into  Samaria,  is  thus 
a  perfectly  credible  one.  So  far  as  regards  his  foreign  politics, 
Joram  ben  Jehoshaphat  seems  to  have  met  with  little  success. 
For  the  Edomites,  who  in  the  period  immediately  preceding  were 
always  spoken  of  as  the  vassals  of  Judah,  follow  the  example  of 
Moab  after  the  death  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  attempt  to  regain  their 
independence.  Joram,  it  is  true,  undertakes  a  campaign  against 
them,  but  he  is  surrounded,  and,  although  he  succeeds  in  breaking 
through  ^  the  enemy's  hosts,  his  army  cannot  be  got  to  stay  any 
longer,  and  makes  for  home.^  According  to  Chronicles,  which  we 
can  quite  well  trust  as  regards  this,  he  died  of  a  tedious  and  severe 
illness.^  This  explains  the  shortness  of  his  reign.  His  successor 
is  Ahaziah,  Joram's  son,  borne  to  him  by  Athaliah,  '  bat  Omri.' 
He  can  in  any  case  have  reigned  only  for  a  short  time  ;  according 
to  our  sources,  only  one  year  (843-842).  We  have  described  above 
how  he  was  involved  in  the  fate  of  the  dynasty  of  Omri,  and  lost 
his  life  at  Jehu's  hand.  It  appears  almost  as  if  his  participation 
in  the  campaign  of  Jehoram  ben  Ahab  against  the  Syrians  was 
the  only  noteworthy  act  of  the  reign  of  Ahaziah  ben  Joram.* 

The  position  of  the  mother  of  the  ruler  in  an  Oriental  kingdom  is 
well  known.  By  the  sudden  death  of  her  yet  youthful  son,  Athaliah 
is  suddenly  deprived  of  her  authority  and  influence  as  the  queen- 
mother.  A  daughter  of  the  proud  Jezebel,  she  was  not  disposed 
to  vacate  her  place  with  any  readiness.  The  road  to  the  mainten- 
ance of  it  undoubtedly  lay  over  the  bodies  of  her  own  grand- 
children and  relations.  But  the  ambitious  king's  daughter  does 
not  allow  herself  to  be  frightened  from  taking  even  this  step. 
Athaliah  has  all  the  princes  of  the  house  of  David  murdered, 
and  then  places  herself  on  the  throne  thus  left  without  an 
occupant.     It  is  the  only  case  in  which  a  woman  occupied  the 


1  It  cannot  well  be  a  question  of  a  victory  (Reuss,  §  198). 
"  2  Kings  viii.  16-24.  ^  2  Chron.  xxi.  18  ff. 

^  2  Kings  viii.  25-29.      The   usual  formula  even  is  wanting  :  '  and  what  more 
there  is  to  tell,'  etc. 


286  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

throne  in  Israel.  Athaliah  is  able  to  maintain  her  authority  in 
Jerusalem  for  six  years  i  (842-836). 

It  is  not  accidental  that  her  fall  is  brought  about  by  the  priest- 
hood of  the  Temple.-  If  in  the  Northern  Kingdom  the  house  of 
Omri  had  been  wiped  out,  and  Baal-worship  along  with  it,  it  was 
impossible  that,  at  the  seat  of  the  greatest  sanctuary  of  Yahve,  the 
warning  note  sounded  from  Samaria  should  in  the  long-run  fail  to 
have  its  due  effect.  And  even  if  what  we  are  told  regarding  the 
religious  motives  of  those  who  took  part  in  the  movement  against 
Athaliah  is  drawn  from  relatively  late  sources,^  it  can  hardly,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  be  a  pure  fabrication. 

The  princess  Jehosheba,  a  sister — a  half-sister  probably — of  King 
Ahaziah,  succeeds  in  getting  his  young  son  Joash  put  into  a  place 
of  safety  before  the  execution  of  the  bloody  command  of  the  queen. 
For  six  years  the  boy  is  kept  hidden  in  the  Temple  with  the  high 
priest  Jehoiada.  With  every  appearance  of  correctness.  Chronicles 
calls  the  princess  Jehosheba  the  wife  of  the  priest  Jehoiada.^  At 
last,  in  the  seventh  year  of  Athaliah's  reign,  Jehoiada  considers 
that  the  time  for  action  has  come.  He  lets  the  captains  of  the 
bodyguard  into  the  secret.  His  plan  is  based  on  the  fact  that 
one  part  of  the  royal  bodyguard  guards  the  Temple  and  the  other 
the  palace,  and  that  on  the  Sabbath  the  Temple  guard  is  relieved 
by  the  palace  guard.  It  is  thus  possible  on  the  Sabbath  to  empty 
the  palace  of  troops  for  a  time,  and  to  collect  them  all  together  in 
the  Temple.^  One  Sabbath  Jehoiada  makes  use  of  the  favourable 
opportunity  afforded  by  the  presence  of  the  whole  bodyguard. 
He  suddenly  presents  the  youthful  Joash  to  the  troops  as  their 
real  king,  and  gets  them  to  do  him  homage.  Then  Joash  is 
conducted  to  the  palace  and  is  placed  on  the  royal  throne. 
Athaliah,  on  the  other  hand,  is  surprised  in  the  palace  and  cut 

1  2  Kings  xi.  1  £f.     See  on  the  text,  Wellh.  Bl.^  257  f. 

2  Otherwise,  but  incorrectly,  Renan,  Hkt.  ii.  323,  409. 

3  See  on  this  Stade,  ZA  W.  v.  279  ff.  ;  and  above,  p.  217. 

4  2  Chron.  xxii.  11. 

^  Wellh.  Bl.'^  258,  has  thrown  light  on  the  circumstances  in  2  Kings  xi.  4  flf. 
Cf.  too,  Klost.  on  this  passage,  and  Kohler,  ii.  2,  21 1  ff. 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY-KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    287 

down.  After  she  is  dead,  Joasli  binds  the  people  down  to  serve 
Yahvc,  and  has  the  temple  of  Baal  destroyed,  and  his  priest  Mattan 
slain. 

It  is  little  enough  that  we  can  learn  of  the  long  reign  of 
Joash,!  a  reign  which,  according  to  the  Book  of  Kings,  lasted  forty 
years  (836-796),  still  it  is  more  than  we  have  in  the  case  of  many 
another  king.  At  first,  as  was  indeed  made  necessary  by  his 
youth,  he  must  have  been  under  the  guardianship  of  his  priestly 
uncle.  That  at  this  period  he  was  specially  devoted  to  the 
worship  of  Yahve,  and  strongly  sided  with  the  efforts  of  the 
priests,  may  be  easily  imagined.^  But  at  a  still  later  time,  too,  he 
appears  to  have  given  special  attention  to  the  Temple. 

For  reasons  which  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Kings, 
and  which  are  merely  indicated  in  Chronicles  in  a  very  un- 
satisfactory way ,2  the  Temple  was  in  need  of  repair.  Joash 
arranges  that  all  the  money  collected  at  the  Temple-treasury  is  to 
be  the  property  of  the  priests,  who,  on  the  other  hand,  are  to  be 
responsible  for  the  necessary  repairs  on  the  Temple  buildings,  and 
are  to  pay  for  these  out  of  their  income.  After  the  lapse  of  some 
time  it  appeared  that  the  priesthood  spent  the  money  which  came 
in  on  themselves,  without  complying  with  the  aforesaid  obligation. 
Joash  now  hits  on  an  arrangement  whereby  the  moneys  bestowed 
by  the  people  on  the  Temple  are  not  to  go  to  the  priests.  On  the 
contrary,  a  chest  is  to  be  placed  at  the  entrance  to  the  Temple. 
The  gifts  of  the  people  are  to  be  placed  in  it.  From  time  to 
time  the  chancellor  is  to  empty  the  chest,  and  deliver  its  con- 
tents to  the  workmen  who  have  charge  of  the  direct  upkeep  of  the 
Temple  buildings.* 

According  to  this  account,  Joash  until  the  twenty-third 
year  of  his  reign  gives  proof  of  his  ardent  zeal  for  the  worship  of 
Yahve  and  for  the  Temple,  and  therefore  it  may  well  astonish  us 
when  we  find  that  Chronicles  tells  us  of  a  relapse  which  occurred 

^  [Cf.  Farrar  on  Joash  in  Expositor,  1894,  p.  81  ff.] 

2  Cf.  2  Kings  xii.  3.  '■''  -  Chron.  xxiv.  7. 

^  2  Kings  xii.  5  ti".     Cf.  above,  p.  217. 


288  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

in  his  later  days.  After  the  death  of  Jehoiada,  Joash  is  said  to 
have  given  himself  up  to  idolatry.  He  is  even  said  to  have  had 
Jehoiada's  son,  the  priest  Zechariah,  executed  because  he  reproved 
him  for  this  crime.^  But  the  whole  style  in  which  Chronicles 
remodels  -  the  previous  history  of  this  king,  is  decidedly  a  pretty 
strong  argument  against  its  trustworthiness  in  this  particular 
case. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  statement  that  Joash  suffered  severely 
from  an  inroad  of  the  Syrians  seems  to  rest  on  good  authority. 
This  invasion  is  doubtless  closely  connected  with  the  miseries 
of  all  kinds  inflicted  at  this  time  by  the  Syrians  on  the  Northern 
Kingdom.  During  one  of  his  expeditions  Hazael  makes  as  though, 
starting  from  Gath,^  he  would  penetrate  as  far  as  Jerusalem,  and 
Joash  is  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  purchasing  his  departure  by 
means  of  a  large  tribute.^  Joash  meets  his  death  in  a  conspiracy. 
It  is  very  possible  that  Chronicles  is  right  in  connecting  this  with 
his  shameful  subjection  to  Hazael. 

His  successor  appears  to  have  been  his  son  Amaziah  (796-78  ?). 
He  has  the  murderers  of  his  father  executed.  And,  indeed,  he 
appears  to  have  been  the  first  who,  in  connection  with  a  judicial 
proceeding  of  this  kind,  broke  with  the  old  principle  of  club-law, 
according  to  which  the  avenger  of  blood  does  not  only  punish  the 
murderer  himself,  but  extirpates  his  whole  race.  Deuteronomy 
has  codified  this  new  form  of  justice  in  opposition  to  the  ancient 
usage.^ 

Amaziah  succeeded  in  again  reducing  to  subjection  the 
Edomites  who  had  been  in  a  state  of  revolt  since  the  death  of 
Jehoshaphat.  But  it  is  certainly  a  question  as  to  what  extent 
this  was  done,  since  Amos,  by  the  way  in  which  he  speaks  of  the 
Edomites,  does  not  convey  the  impression  that  at  this  time  the 
whole  of  Edom  was  tributary  to  Judah.^     It  would  seem  that 

1  2  Chron.  xxiv.  15-22.  2  2  Chron.  xxiii.  ;  xxiv.  1-14. 

^  Cf.  on  the  fate  of  Gath,  Amos  vi.  2. 

4  2  Kings  xii.  18  f.     Gf.  2  Chron.  xxiv.  23  fF. 

5  2  Kings  xiv.  1  flf.  Gf.  Deut.  xxiv.  16  ;  further,  Jos.  vii.  24  f.  ;  2  Kings  ix. 
26 ;  2  Sam.  xxi.  1  ff.  «  See  Stade,  Gesch.  i.  567  f. 


CiiAr.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    289 

Amaziah,  by  his  victory,  got  hold  mainly  of  the  land  west  from 
Arabia,  with  the  capital  Sela  (  =  Petra)  and  the  port  Elath.^ 

His  end  is  the  same  as  that  of  his  father.  A  conspiracy  is 
formed  to  get  him  out  of  the  way.  He  flees  towards  Lachish ;  is 
however  delivered  up  there,  and  then  slain  by  the  rebels.  We  can 
easily  guess  the  occasion  of  the  rising.  Amaziah  had  had  to 
expiate  with  ignominy  a  thoughtless  challenge  to  war,  which  he 
sent  to  his  Ephraimitish  neighbour  Joash.^  The  thread  of  the 
narrative  itself  leads  us  at  this  point  back  to  the  Northern 
Kine^dom. 


§  63.  Jcliu  and  his  successors  until  Jeroboam  II. 

The  war  which  Joram  ben  Ahab  of  Israel  engaged  in  against 
the  Syrians,  for  Eamah  in  Gilead,  was  fraught  with  grave  con- 
sequences both  to  himself  and  to  the  whole  dynasty  of  Omri.  But 
the  fact  that  the  war  came  to  be  undertaken  at  all,  has  supplied  us 
with  proof  that  Israel,  under  Joram's  rule,  had  gradually  come  to 
feel  itself  sufficiently  strong  again  to  be  able  to  offer  some  resist- 
ance at  any  rate  to  the  Syrians.  And  indeed  it  was  feasible  only 
in  connection  with  the  severe  attacks  to  which  Damascus  was 
constantly  exposed  at  the  hands  of  the  Assyrians.  Israel  could 
not  venture  to  oppose  Assyria  itself,  especially  after  her  late 
experiences.  Accordingly,  we  find  amongst  the  princes  who,  in 
the  year  842,  submit  to  the  powerful  Assyrian  conqueror  Salman- 
assar  II.  (860-824),  the  name  of  Jehu,  'the  son  of  Omri.' 
Israelitish  ambassadors  are  represented  on  Salmanassar's  obelisk 
in  the  act  of  bringing  Jehu's  tribute  to  Assyria,  consisting  of  bars 
of  gold  and  silver,  golden  vessels,  and  such  like.^ 

When  we  consider  the  position  in  which  Israel  had  recently 
stood  in  relation  to  Damascus,  it  is  only  too  easy  to  understaud 
that   Jehu   (842-814)   should   make   use   of  the   occasion   of  an 

^  2  Kings  xiv.  7  ;  cf.  v.  22,  and  in  addition  below,  §  67,  at  the  beginning. 
^  See  below,  §  63. 

3  See  on  this  Schrader,  KAT.-  208  f.  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  200];     KBxhl.  i.   151 
[cf.  1-iI,  note  1) ;  in  addition,  the  illustration  in  Stade,  562  fif. 

VOL.  II,  T 


290  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

expedition  of  Salmanassar  against  his  enemy,  Hazael,  in  order  to 
gain  the  friendship  of  Assyria.  Considering  the  state  of  things  in 
his  own  kingdom,  he  had  without  doubt  double  need  of  some 
strong  support.  For  we  can  hardly  be  wrong  in  supposing  that 
Salmanassar's  expedition  against  Syria  in  the  year  842  occurred  at 
a  time  when  the  traces  of  the  bloody  deeds  by  which  Jehu  had 
purchased  his  throne  were  still  visible  everywhere  in  Israel.  Jehu 
must  have  mounted  the  throne  a  short  time  before. 

It  must  have  been  all  the  more  unfortunate  for  Jehu  that 
Salmanassar's  campaign  against  Syria  had  by  no  means  the  result 
that  was  expected.  The  great  king  does  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
succeed  in  taking  Damascus.  At  this  time,  as  well  as  three  years 
later  when  Salmanassar  made  a  new  attack  on  Syria,  Hazael 
succeeds  in  maintaining  his  ground.  The  Assyrian  had  to  retire 
from  Damascus  without  effecting  his  purpose.  The  natural 
consequence  of  their  deliverance  is  that  the  Syrians  throw  them- 
selves on  Israel  with  redoubled  fury.  And  now  begins  for  Israel 
a  period  of  severe  affliction  and  humiliation  at  the  hands  of  the 
Syrians.  The  unfortunately  extremely  meagre  accounts  in  our 
Book  of  Kings  suggest  the  idea  that  a  story  told  of  the  prophet 
Elisha  rests  on  a  thoroughly  good  foundation.  Elisha  is  in 
Damascus,  and  has  held  out  to  Hazael,  who  was  later  on  to  be 
Benhadad's  successor,  the  prospect  of  the  sick  king's  death.  There- 
upon the  prophet  bursts  into  bitter  tears  before  Hazael's  eyes. 
AVhen  asked  the  reason  of  his  weeping,  he  answers  Hazael  thus : 
*  I  foresee  the  suffering  that  thou  wilt  inflict  on  Israel.  Its 
fortresses  wilt  thou  set  on  fire,  its  young  men  wilt  thou  slay  with 
the  sword,  its  sucklings  wilt  thou  dash  in  pieces,  and  rip  up  its 
women  with  child.'  ^ 

Our  Book  of  Kings,  which  enters  so  much  into  detail  regarding 
the  vengeance  taken  by  Jehu  on  the  house  of  Omri,  describes  his 
relation  to  Damascus  with  astonishing  brevity  in  these  few  words : 
'  In  those  days  began  Yahve  to  cut  off  parts  of  Israel ;  and  Hazael 
smote  them  in  the  whole  region  of  Israel ; '  ^  and  a  later  addition 

^  2  Kings  viii.  12.  2  2  Kings  x.  32. 


I 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    291 

tells  us  that  the  whole  of  the  country  east  of  the  Jordan  as  far  as 
the  Arnon,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Syrians.^  In  all  probability 
the  retreat  of  the  Assyrians  from  Damascus  was  followed  on  the 
part  of  Hazael  by  a  series  of  retaliatory  campaigns  against  Jehu. 
The  extent  to  whicli  the  Syrians  ravaged  Israel  is  not  only  shown 
by  the  words  put  into  the  mouth  of  Elisha  quoted  above,  but,  at 
a  somewhat  later  time,  Amos  refers  with  similar  distinctness  to 
the  cruel  revenge  taken  by  Aram  on  Israel :  '  They  have  threshed 
Gilead  with  threshing  instruments  of  iron.'  -  In  addition  to  this, 
Israel's  day  of  need  was  shamefully  taken  advantage  of  by  its  ever 
greedy  and  revengeful  neighbours.  The  Philistines,  the  Tyrians, 
the  Edomites,  and  the  Ammonites,  make  plundering  expeditions 
into  Israel,  especially  in  the  east  Jordan  country,  so  hardly  treated 
already  by  Aram,  and  carry  off  captives.-*^ 

The  same  state  of  things  must  have  continued,  though  partly 
perhaps  in  an  even  worse  form  than  under  Jehu,  throughout  the 
reign  of  his  son  Jehoahaz  (814-797).  Amos,  in  the  first  chapter  of 
his  Book,  has  his  time  also  in  his  mind.  Even  in  the  reign  of 
Joash  we  still  hear  of  plundering  hordes  from  Moab  which  burst  in 
upon  Israel,  and  these  forays  are  mentioned  as  things  of  quite 
common  occurrence  at  that  time.* 

In  the  reign  of  Jehu's  son,  Jehoahaz,  according  to  our  Israelitish 
documents,  a  change  of  throne  occurs  in  Damascus.  Benhadad  III. 
takes  the  place  of  his  father  Hazael.  Jehoahaz  suffers  such  a 
severe  humiliation  at  the  hands  of  one  of  these,  that  he  has  only 
fifty  horsemen,  ten  war-chariots,  and  ten  thousand  foot-soldiers 
left.^  Owing  to  the  laconic  brevity  with  which  tlie  Book  of  Kings 
relates  the  facts,  it  is  not  at  all  clear  which  of  the  two  Syrian 
kings  it  was  who  placed  such  a  restraint  on  the  independence  of 
Jehoahaz.  For  it  is  obvious  that  by  this  humiliation  he  has 
become  simply  a  vassal  of  the  king  of  Damascus.  It  looks  as  if 
the  narrator  shrank  from  revealing   Israel's   disgrace  any  more 

1  2  Kings  X.  33.     See  besides  Stade,  in  ZA  W.  v.  279. 

-  Amos  i.  3.  3  Amos  i.  6-15.  ^  2  Kings  xiii.  20  f. 

^  2  Kings  xiii.  3,  7.    See  also  Stade,  iu  ZA  W,  v.  295  S.    Cf.  further,  cv.  22,  24. 


292  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

than  was  absolutely  required  to  carry  on  the  thread  of  the  history. 
We  may,  however,  reasonably  suppose  that  here  we  have  the 
conclusion  of  a  long  series  of  unfortunate  wars  which  Jehoahaz 
waged,  first  with  Hazael,  and  later  on  with  his  successor. 

It  is  very  probable  that  an  episode  in  these  wars,  which  was 
different  from  the  others  in  having  resulted  favourably  to  Israel, 
has  been  preserved.  Its  issue  supplied  a  sufficient  reason  for 
giving  it  in  detail ;  while  many  other  events  regarding  which  we 
should  have  been  glad  to  have  known  something,  were,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  our  narrator,  only  fit  to  be  forgotten. 

We  know  in  fact  that  the  prophet  Elisha  was  contemporary 
with,  and  a  witness  of,  these  calamitous  wars  of  Israel  with  Aram. 
He  lives  on  for  a  time  under  Joash,  the  son  of  Jehoahaz.  And 
both  with  king  and  people  he  holds  the  rank  of  a  true  counsellor 
and  comforter.  He  receives  no  less  a  title  than  '  Israel's  chariots 
and  horsemen.'  And  it  is  not  without  reason  that  Kuenen^  has 
proposed  to  transfer  a  narrative  belonging  to  a  period  of  the  Syrian 
wars  which  the  Book  of  Kings  includes  in  the  history  of  Joram 
ben  Ahab — although  it  does  not  well  accord  with  Jehu  and  his 
time  2 — to  the  time  of  Jehoahaz  ben  Jehu. 

After  Benhadad  had  beaten  Israel  in  a  battle  he  succeeded  in 
penetrating  with  his  army  to  the  gates  of  Samaria.  He  lays  siege 
to  the  city.  Within  the  walls,  however,  a  severe  famine  prevails 
and  is  gradually  getting  worse.  The  populace  is  on  the  verge  of 
despair.  Mothers  slay  their  own  children  in  order  to  prolong 
life.  The  king,  in  deep  distress,  wears  on  his  naked  body  a  dress 
of  sackcloth,  the  sign  of  mourning.  He  vents  all  his  wrath  on 
Elisha,  who  hitherto  had  many  a  time  given  him  advice  and  help, 
and  who  had  in  this  time  of  distress,  too,  counselled  him  to  trust  to 
Yahvd.  Nor  even  now  does  the  prophet's  hope  in  his  God  play 
him  false.  On  the  next  day,  he  promises  the  distress  will  be  at 
an  end.  Some  lepers  who  are  living  outside  the  gates  of  the  city 
summon  up  courage,  before  abandoning  themselves  to  death  by 
starvation,   to   slip   into   the   enemy's  camp  that  same   evening. 

1  §  XXV.  12,  13.  '  2  Kings  vi.  24 ;  vii.  20.     See  above,  p.  277,  apd  p.  216, 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    293 

They  find  it  empty,  and  bring  into  the  city  the  news  of  what  they 
have  seen.  The  spies  whom  the  king  despatches  confirm  the 
tidings.     Samaria  is  saved. 

We  cannot  clearly  determine  what  occasioned  the  sudden 
break-up  of  the  siege  by  the  Syrians.  The  narrator  himself 
informs  us  that  the  enemy  heard  an  unexpected  noise  in  the  air 
which  in  their  dread  they  took  to  be  the  advance  of  Egyptian  and 
Hittite  troops.  The  presence  of  such  a  relieving  army  is  hardly 
historically  probable.^  But  when  the  narrator  thus  expresses 
himself  in  what  is  historically  an  inaccurate  way,  we  can  only 
conclude  that  he  is  treating  his  subject  in  a  purely  popular  fashion, 
and  is  not  well  acquainted  with  the  important  events  in  the  world 
outside.  Still,  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  conclude  further  that  the 
whole  episode  of  which  he  tells  us  was  not  based  on  any  historical 
event.  Whether  or  not  we  are  justified  simply  in  puttiug  the 
Assyrians  in  place  of  those  Egyptians  and  Hittites,  is  a  point  that 
may  be  left  undecided.^  Assyrian  inroads  into  Syria  certainly 
took  place  in  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz  too.^  Thus,  about  that  period, 
Eammannirar  III.  brought  the  whole  of  the  Syrian  West,  including 
Israel  and  Damascus  under  King  Mari,  into  subjection.^  Still, 
even  apart  from  the  difference  in  the  Syrian  kings'  names,  it  is 
well  to  exercise  caution  in  making  such  conjectures.  There  may 
have  been  other  Assyrian  inroads  besides  the  expeditions  of 
Assyrian  kings  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  And  leaving  them 
out  of  account,  when  we  consider  the  unsettled  state  of  these 
times  there  were  plenty  of  reasons  which  might  induce  an 
Aramaean  army  to  beat  a  hasty  retreat  from  a  beleaguered  town. 

In  any  case,  the  renewal  of  the  Assyrian  campaigns  against 

1  Though  we  have  to  consider  that  the  Chatti  are  still  mentioned  as  enemies 
of  Assyria  as  late  as  the  reign  of  Rammamiirar  III.  (Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  415), 
and,  besides,  that  Egyptian  history  just  at  this  time  is  still  completely  wrapped  in 
obscurity. 

*-  So  Stade,  Gesch.  i.  539.     Cf.  Wellh.  Ahr.  31. 

'^  There  is  hardly  room  for  doubt  that  he,  and  not  Joram  ben  Ahab,  is  referred 
to  under  the  designation  'son  of  a  murderer'  (2  Kings  vi.  32). 

^  About  800.  Cf.  Meyer,  416  ;  Schrader,  KAT-.  215  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  205J  ; 
KBihl.  191. 


294  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  HI. 

Syria  by  Eammrmnirar  III.  relieved  Israel  once  more.  Thus  we 
find  the  son  and  successor  of  Jehoahaz,  Joash  of  Israel  (797-781), 
immediately  after  engaging  in  a  successful  war  with  Syria.  Elisha 
is  still  living  under  Joash,  the  grandson  of  Jehu,  far  advanced  in 
years,  and,  after  what  had  happened  in  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz, 
revered,  with  double  reason,  as  a  father  by  the  king.  Before 
departing  this  life,  he  is  said  to  have  promised  to  the  down-hearted 
king  that  he  would  yet  be  victorious  over  Aram.^  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  Joash  ben  Jehoahaz,  according  to  the  account  in  our  Book  of 
Kings,  succeeds  in  again  taking  from  the  Syrians  under  Benhadad 
the  towns  of  which  they  had  robbed  his  father  Jehoahaz.^ 

This  Joash  ben  Jehoahaz  seems  otherwise  to  have  been  a  man 
who  had  a  firm  grip  of  his  sword,  and  whose  heart  was  in  the 
right  place.  At  anyrate  this  is  the  aspect  under  which  he  appears 
in  the  solitary  circumstance  recorded  of  him.  Amaziah  of  Judah, 
who  was  his  contemporary  (from  796  onwards),  may  well  have 
looked  with  a  jealous  eye  on  the  freedom  from  the  Syrian  yoke 
which  the  Northern  Kingdom  was  at  last  once  more  enjoying.  In 
addition  to  this,  some  fortunate  undertakings  had  increased  his 
self-confidence.  He  accordingly  breaks  with  the  traditions  of 
peaceful  relationship  between  the  two  neighbouring  kingdoms 
which  had  held  good  for  more  than  a  century.  The  account  of 
the  way  in  which  he  and  Joash  respectively  conducted  themselves 
may  have  an  Ephraimite  colouring.  Still,  the  fact  may  be  correctly 
enough  stated  that  Amaziah  wished  for  war  and  brought  it  on. 
Joash  advances  into  Judah.  At  Bethshemesh  Amaziah  is  dis- 
gracefully beaten  and  taken  prisoner.  Jerusalem  itself  is  forced 
to  open  its  gates  and  to  submit  to  being  plundered.  Hostages  are 
given  to  Joash,  and  in  addition  to  this  he  is  allowed  to  tear  down 
a  considerable  portion  of  the  city  wall.^ 

1  2  Kings  xiii.  10  ff.,  14-21. 

-  2  Kings  xiii.  24  f.  It  is  not  clear  in  what  relation  the  Benhadad  III.  of  the 
Bible  stands  to  the  Mari  of  the  Assj'rian  accounts.  Perhaps  in  the  same  relation 
in  which  Benhadad  II.  stands  to  Hadad'ezer;  in  this  case  they  would  be  one 
person.  Besides,  we  have  to  remember  that  the  Old  Testament  authors  are  not 
quite  clear  themselves  in  what  they  say  about  our  Benhadad.  Cf.  2  Kings  xxiii. 
3,  with  vv.  22,  24.  '^  2  Kings  xiv.  8- 14  (A).     See  above,  p.  218. 


CiiAP.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    295 

In  a  still  greater  degree  than  Joash,  his  son,  Jeroboam  II.,  was 
favoured  with  good  fortune  and  success.  His  reign  which,  accord- 
ing to  the  Book  of  Kings,  lasted  forty-one  years  (781-740),  seems 
to  have  brought  to  Ephraim  a  renown  such  as  it  had  not  enjoyed 
for  many  a  day.  What  the  Book  of  Kings  tells  us  on  this  head 
is  brief  but  significant.  '  He  restored  the  coasts  of  Israel  from 
the  neighbourhood  of  Hamatli  unto  the  Sea  of  the  Plain  (Dead 
Sea).'  1  That  he  found  it  possible  to  do  this  is  not  due  to  his  own 
merits  only,  but  is  to  a  large  extent  the  consequence  of  favourable 
circumstances.  The  decisive  blow  struck  by  Assyria  at  Damascus 
in  the  reic^n  of  Rammannirar  III.  must  also  have  been  of  service  to 
him.  Further  attacks  followed  on  this  one  in  the  days  of 
Salmanassar  III.  (782-772)  and  Assurdan  III.2  (772-754),  which, 
as  it  would  seem,  so  completely  crippled  Damascus  for  the  time 
being  that  it  could  scarcely  be  any  longer  regarded  as  a  serious 
opponent.  Besides,  if  Jeroboam  wished  to  call  the  southern  half 
of  the  land  east  of  the  Jordan  his  own  too,  he  would  have  to 
subdue  the  Moabites,  who,  from  the  time  of  Joram  ben  Ahab,  had 
occupied  it.     He  seems  to  have  succeeded  in  doing  this  too. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  if  our  Book  of  Kings  gives  a  true  account 
of  things  at  all,  the  boundaries  of  the  kingdom  were  once  more 
extended  almost  as  far  as  David  had  put  them.  In  addition  to 
this,  Israel  was  powerful  and  was  not  attacked  by  any  enemy,  a 
condition  of  things  which  had  not  existed  since  the  days  of 
Solomon.  Still  we  ought  not  to  forget,  at  the  same  time,  that 
Jeroboam's  successes  were  possible  only  in  so  far  as  Assyria 
allowed  him  a  free  hand.  This  certainly  appears  to  have  been  the 
case  as  early  as  the  time  of  Assurdan  III.,  and  still  more  in  the 
reign  of  the  peaceful  and  inactive  ^  Assurnirar.  In  fact,  it  looks  as 
if  Jeroboam,  in  alliance  with  Azariah-Uzziah  of  Judah,  could 
venture  at  this  time  to  extend  his  authority  in  Syria,  even  at  the 
direct  cost  of  the  Assyrians.*    With  merely  the  brief  statement  in 

1  2  Kings  xiv,  25.    Cf.  also  Amos  vi.  14.    V.  28  appears  to  be  hopelessly  corrupt. 

2  See  Meyer,  Gesdi.  d.  Alt.  416. 

3  See  on  him,  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  419. 
*  See  on  this  below,  in  §  67. 


296  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

the  Book  of  Kings  to  go  upon,  we  should  indeed  scarcely  venture 
to  draw  the  picture  of  Jeroboam  and  his  time  in  any  clearly 
defined  way  if,  besides  the  Book  of  Kings,  we  had  not  at  our 
disposal  a  source  of  information  which  gives  us  perfect  confidence 
in  attempting  this,  and  which,  besides,  fills  in  the  bare  sketch  of 
the  Book  of  Kings  with  strong,  deep  colours — the  Books  of  the 
prophets  Amos  and  Hosea. 

We  shall  have  to  deal  with  these  farther  on. 


§  64.  Culture  and  Religion  in  the  period  after  Solomon} 

1.  Mode  of  life  and  customs. — The  occupation  of  the  people  in 
times  of  peace  continues  to  be  agriculture.  Handicrafts  and  art 
have  developed  very  little.  Anything  beyond  what  was  required 
for  ordinary  domestic  use  was  got  from  abroad.  There  was 
doubtless,  however,  often  opportunity  for  making  use  of  the 
services  of  foreigners  since  the  commercial  connections  formed  by 
Solomon  had  brought  money  into  the  land.  Even  the  unfortunate 
times  which  followed  his  reign  did  not  ever  quite  dry  up  the 
springs  of  wealth  opened  by  him.  And  single  mishaps,  such  as 
that  under  Jehoshaphat,  merely  prove  how  much  the  people  were 
set  on  making  use  of  the  favourable  position  of  Canaan  for 
commerce.  The  Syrian  merchants  have  their  own  quarter  in 
Samaria,  the  Israelitish  merchants  had  theirs  in  Damascus  from 
the  time  of  Ahab.^  They  had  certainly  established  themselves  in 
other  countries  and  principal  towns  likewise,  sometimes  in  greater, 
sometimes  in  smaller  numbers.  There  must  have  been  active 
commercial  intercourse  with  Egypt  since  the  days  of  Solomon, 
as  is  specially  proved  by  the  history  of  the  patriarchs  in  E, 
where  the  narrator  shows  that  he  is  familiar  with  things 
Egyptian. 

The  retention  of  the  monarchical  government,  the  constant 

^  [See  now  too  the  sections  dealing  with  this  in  Nowack's  and  Benzinger's 
ArchdoL,  and  also  in  Smend's  AT.  Relig.  yesch.] 

-  1  Kings  XX.  34.     Of.  also  the  description  in  Amos  viii.  4  ff. 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    297 

necessity  for  war,  and  the  further  development  of  commerce,  all 
work  together  in  an  equal  degree  to  promote  toivn  life.  Besides 
the  royal  cities  of  Jerusalem,  Tirzah,  and  Samaria,  we  meet,  as 
time  goes  on,  with  a  whole  series  of  fortified  towns,  and  new  ones 
are  added  to  the  old,  such  as  Shechem,  Penuel,  Eamah,  and 
Lachish.^  Jezreel  becomes  under  Ahab  a  kind  of  second  residence 
of  the  kings  of  Israel.  Town  life  produces  a  well-to-do  set  of 
burghers  and  officials,  and  at  the  same  time  the  old  simple  customs 
in  a  large  measure  disappear.  Big  fortunes  make  their  appearance, 
and  with  them  social  contrasts  begin  to  show  themselves.  Bribery 
and  violence  press  hard  on  the  lower  classes  ;  usury  and  the  buying 
up  of  family  holdings  increase  the  possessions  of  the  upper  orders, 
and  accentuate  the  contrast.  The  pursuit  of  pleasure  and  luxury, 
and,  in  addition  to  this,  moral  corruption,  are  the  natural  con- 
sequences of  this  state  of  things.^  We  can  thus  understand  how 
the  prophets  often  do  not  preach,  merely  as  preachers  of  repentance, 
against  the  immorality  of  the  people,  but  as  social  agitators  against 
the  whole  present  arrangement  of  society.  The  present  is  utterly 
corrupt ;  only  an  entirely  new  future  can  bring  relief. 

Naturally,  the  great  mass  of  the  people  retained  their  simple 
ways  and  life,  especially  in  the  country  and  in  small  towns.  The 
soil  of  Israel  was  indeed  not  rich  enough  for  anything  else. 
Alongside  of  the  freestone  houses,  the  cedar  and  ivory  palaces  of 
the  great  with  their  soft  damask  pillows  for  luxurious  revels,^  we 
find  the  simple  style  of  house  of  the  ordinary  man  who  might  also 
be  a  man  of  means ;  and  alongside  of  the  overdone  love  of  dress 
which  marked  the  gay,  fashionable  ladies  of  the  capital,*  we  have 
the  simple  dress  of  the  olden  time.  The  history  of  Elisha  gives  us 
a  good  idea  of  the  arrangement  of  a  middle-class  house.  The  one- 
story  house  of  the  poorer  sort  is  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  an 
upper   story  ;^    in  the  rooms  we  have  table,  chair,  bed,  and  a 

1  1  Kings  xii.  25;  xv.  21  f.;  2  Kings  xiv.  19;  xviii.   14.      [Probably  Akzib 
also,  which  is  shown  to  have  been  a  fortress  by  Micah  i.  14.] 

-  See  below,  in  §  65  and  66. 

2  1  Kings  xxii.  39  ;  Amos  iii.  12,  15  ;  iv.  1  ;  v.  ii.;  vi.  1  f,  4  ff. 

*  Isaiah  iii.  16  ff.     Cf.  Amos  iv.  1.  ''2  Kings  iv.  10  ;  i.  2. 


298  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

Hght ;  ^  the  latter  seems  to  have  been  kept  constantly  burning  in 
every  house.^  In  the  better  houses  there  was  a  special  bed-chamber, 
probably  in  some  retired  part  at  the  back.^  Many  are  not  satisfied 
merely  with  preserving  the  simple  ways  of  the  olden  time.  The 
enthusiast  Elijah  goes  about  in  a  hairy  mantle,  perhaps  in  what  was 
merely  the  skin  of  the  animal ;  *  the  Nazarites  refrain  from  wine, 
and  will  not  allow  any  razor  to  touch  their  heads ;  ^  the  sect  of 
the  Eechabites  do  not  only  despise  wine,  the  supreme  product 
of  culture,  but  living  in  built  houses  and  the  tilling  of  the  earth 
are  an  offence  in  their  eyes.^  The  retention  of  the  nomad  life 
is,  in  their  view,  the  only  guarantee  for  the  preservation  of  the  old 
customs  of  Israel  which  are  pleasing  to  God.  They  supply  the 
logical  protest  against  all  the  mischiefs  of  culture,  while  the 
protest  of  the  older  prophets  and  the  Nazarites  is  of  the  modest 
kind. 

The  great  narrative  books  originating  in  this  period  supply 
us  with  certain  information  regarding  the  family  life  at  this 
date  and  in  the  time  previous  to  this.  The  histories  of  the 
patriarchs  especially  may  be  drawn  upon  here,  since  they  are 
pre-eminently  family  histories.  Naturally,  we  have  to  subtract 
what  is  said  of  the  nomadic  life  and  anything  else  that  only 
suits  with  quite  ancient  times.  With  the  exception  of  the 
king,  part  of  whose  brilliant  court  consists  of  a  numerous  harem, 
the  ordinary  Israelite  seems,  as  a  rule,  to  have  only  one  wife. 
Still  it  is  not  considered  in  the  least  objectionable  to  marry  a 
second  wife,  or  to  have  a  concubine  in  addition  to  the  wife 
proper.  And  especially  in  the  case  where  the  couple  are  child- 
less, the  wife  looks  on  it  as  her  duty  to  bring  one  of  her  slaves 
to  her  husband.  Examples  of  what  is  here  alleged  may  easily 
be  got  from  the  history  of  Abraham,  Jacob,  and  Samuel.  The 
wife,  so  far  as  her  position  is  concerned,  although  she  is  essentially 
the  property  of  the  man,  is  nevertheless  held  in  high  respect, 

^  2  Kings  iv.  10.  -  Jer.  xxv.  10.     See  Stade,  367. 

='  2  Kings  xi.  2.     CJ.  Amos  vi.  10.  ^  2  Kings  i.  8. 

^  Judges  xiii.  and  1  Sam.  i.  may,  in  accordance  with  their  date,  be  brought  in 
here.  ^  2  Kings  x.  15 ;  Jer.  xxxv.  1  ff. 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY-KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    299 

and  is  altogether  more  free  than  the  majority  of  women  in  the 
East  in  the  present  day.  The  children  are  regarded  as  the 
property  of  their  father.  The  paternal  authority  is  evidenced, 
so  far  as  the  daughter  is  concerned,  specially  in  the  mode  of 
betrothal,  and  both  in  the  case  of  son  and  daughter  it  may  go 
so  far  as  to  include  the  right  of  sacrificing  the  child,  as  may 
be  proved  from  the  action  of  Abraham  and  King  Ahaz,  not  to  / 
speak  of  Jephthah.^  The  father  may,  without  further  ado,  kill 
the  rebellious  son.^  Man-servants  and  maid-servants  are  not 
treated  as  slaves  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word.  If  they, 
and  especially  the  latter,  are  entirely  the  private  property  of 
their  master,  still  they  are  protected  by  ancient  established 
usage  from  being  exploited  and  harshly  treated.  Tliey  belong 
to  the  family.  Abraham's  servant  Eliezer  is  the  type  of  a  faith- 
ful and  highly  valued  slave.  We  can  see,  both  from  the  history 
of  Abraham  and  from  that  of  Elisha,  how  the  rites  of  hospitality 
are  practised,  and  how  guests  are  held  in  honour.^ 

2.  Constitution  and  social  organisation. — The  nature  of  these 
is  essentially  determined  by  the  acquisition  of  the  royal  power 
which  had  been  definitely  introduced  since  the  days  of  Saul. 
The  old  family  and  tribal  bonds  naturally  lose  more  and  more 
the  importance  they  had  at  the  beginning  of  the  kingdom. 
They  are  not,  indeed,  even  yet  wholly  discarded.  The  great  main 
tribes  of  Judah  and  Ephraim  have  taken  the  place  of  the  separate 
tribes  of  Deborah's  song  and  Jacob's  blessing,  and  have  given 
their  names  to  the  two  kingdoms.  The  old  tribal  constitution 
is  certainly  essentially  replaced,  or  at  any  rate  broken  through, 
by  the  division  of  the  land  into  provinces  which  have  probably 
been  the  outcome  of  Solomon's  taxation  districts.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  '  Elders ' — that  is,  the  heads  of  families  and  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  noble  families — still  continue  to  play  a  certain 
role  in  the  individual  communities,  as,  for  instance,  in  Samaria 

^  Perhaps  1  Elings  xvi.  34  is  also  connected  with  this. 

-  From  the  time  of  Deuteronomy  after  consultation  with  the  elders  of  the 
town. 

^  Gen.  xviii.  ;  2  Kings  iv.  10 ;  cf.  Judges  xix.  11  ff. 


300  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

and  Jezreel.^  In  fact,  they  still  constitute  as  the  popular  assembly 
('eda)  the  representative  body  of  the  whole  nation,  and  in  certain 
circumstances  not  only  elect  the  king,^  but  hold  an  important 
place  as  advisers  alongside  of  the  king.^  They  share  this  in- 
fluence, however,  with  the  royal  officials,  who  were  naturally, 
as  a  rule,  taken  from  the  ranks  of  the  nobility,  though  often 
enough  they  might  owe  their  position  to  other  considerations. 
The  most  powerful  man  after  the  king  is  the  commander-in-chief,* 
and  this  was  the  case  already  in  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon. 
In  the  Northern  Kingdom  it  was  easy  for  a  resolute  man  in  this 
position  to  seize  the  crown  for  himself.  Besides  the  chancellor, 
the  scribe,  the  priest,  the  palace  overseer,  and  master  of  works, 
who  were  doubtless  introduced  in  the  time  of  Solomon,^  special 
mention  is  made  of  the  king's  confidential  adjutant,  'the  noble 
on  whose  arm  he  leans.' ^  Inside  of  the  palace,  as  was  the  case 
everywhere  in  the  East,  the  eunuchs  play  an  important  part.'^ 
At  the  head  of  the  provinces  there  are  governors  whose  armour- 
bearers  formed  a  kind  of  select  troop  in  war.^  They  had  pro- 
bably to  supply  definite  contributions  for  the  army  out  of  the 
revenue  of  their  provinces.  A  special  dignity  attaches  to  the 
mother  of  the  king.^ 

The  king  himself,  in  accordance  with  the  way  in  which  the 
kingdom  first  originated,  is,  mainly  in  the  Northern  Kingdom, 
in  the  first  place  a  soldier.  His  special  care  is  the  organisa- 
tion of  military  matters  in  consequence  of  the  continual  wars. 
Fighting  at  a  distance  with  bow  and  arrow  against  chariots  and 
horsemen  has  taken  the  place  of  the  old  hand-to-hand  combat 
with  sword  and  spear.      The  history  of  Menahem   supplies  us 

^  1  Kings  xxi.  8  ;  2  Kings  vi.  32  ;  x.  1.  On  the  significance  of  the  family,  see 
Wellh.  I^)\  and  Judah,^  75.  "  1  Kings  xii.  20. 

3  1  Kings  XX.  7  f.  Isaiah  iii.  2 ;  ix.  14  ;  cf.  Exod.  iii.  18  ;  iv.  29,  and  elsewhere 
frequently. 

^  2  Kings  iv.  13 ;  ix.  1  IT.  '^  Cf.  e.g.  2  Kings  xxiii.  ;  1  Kings  xviii.  3. 

^  2  Kings  vii.  2,  17 ;  ix.  25 ;  x.  15  (called  '  friend  of  the  king '  in  Solomon's 
time,  1  Kings  iv.  5). 

^  2  Kings  viii.  6 ;  ix.  32.  »  j  Kings  xx.  25. 

^  See  mainly  1  Kings  xv.  13 ;  2  Kings  x.  13. 


CHAr.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    301 

with  some  information  regarding  the  organisation  of  the  army. 
According  to  it,  the  landed  proprietors  had  to  bear  the  burden 
of  military  service.  Naturally  there  must  have  been  certain 
permanent  troops  at  the  disposal  of  the  king.^  The  kernel  of 
this  standing  army  was  the  bodyguard,  which  could  on  occasion 
play  an  important  part.2 

In  peace  the  most  important  duty  of  the  king  is  the  giving 
of  judgment.  As  was  the  case  in  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon, 
so  even  at  this  time,  the  common  people  come  to  the  king  to 
get  justice.^  But  the  king  is  probably  only  appealed  to  in 
specially  important  and  difficult  cases.  For  ordinary  cases  the 
primary  court  is  constituted  by  the  '  elders '  of  families  and  the 
royal  officials — by  the  possessors  of  power,  in  short.^  Any  one 
who  had  sufficient  power  did  not,  in  ordinary  matters  of  law, 
require  any  judge :  he  got  justice  for  himself,  took  the  law  into 
his  own  hands.^  However  frequent  the  perversion  of  justice 
may  be  amongst  judges  and  magnates,  a  strict  feeling  of  justice 
is  not  wanting  in  Israel.  Even  the  king  is  not  independent 
of  it.  It  was  largely  owing  to  his  disregard  for  it  that  Ahab 
brought  about  the  fall  of  his  house.  How  regular  legal  judicial 
procedure  was  conducted  is  illustrated  by  the  proceedings  against 
Naboth,  and  it  shows  at  once  how  little  the  king  was  lord  of 
the  possessions  and  lives  of  his  subjects  in  the  usual  fashion 
of  Oriental  despots.^  Far  into  the  time  of  the  kings  there  was 
always  a  feeling  that  in  Israel,  too,  things  had  once  been  diff'erent 
in  this  respect.  '^  We  can  see  in  the  case  of  Jehu  and  Joash  ^ 
what  happened  when  there  was  a  change  of  throne,  and  especi- 
ally when  it  was  brought  about  by  force.     In  the  case  of  any 

'   1  Kings  XV.  20.    See  belo\v,  §  G7,  in  connection  with  the  history  of  Menahem. 

-  2  Kings  X.  25;  xi.  4  (Kari  =  Kreti  ?).  [The  second  after  the  king,  1  Sam, 
xxiii.  17,  2  Chron.  xxviii.  7,  is  perhaps  a  special  office  in  the  kingdom  (c/.  Joseph).] 

=5  2  Kings  vi.  26  fT.  ;  viii.  5  f.    Cf.  2  Sam.  xiv.  1  fF.  ;  xv.  1  ff.     1  Kings  iii.  IG  ff. 

*  1  Kings  xxi.  8,  11  ;  Isaiah  i.  10,  17,  etc.  ;  Exod.  xyiii.  (E) ;  cf.  2  Sam.  xiv.  7, 
and  especially  Deuteronomy. 

^  2  Kings  iv.  1  ;  Amos  ii.  6. 

^  Cf.  besides  1  Kings  xxi.  1  fif.  also  xvi.  24. 

7  Cf  1  Sam.  viii.  10  flf.  ;  Deut.  xvii.  14  ff. 

8  2  Kings  ix.  1  ff.,  13 ;  xi.  12.     Cf  1  Kings  i.  38  fl. 


302  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBKEWS  [Book  IIL 

one  intentionally  inflicting  a  mortal  blow  in  time  of  peace, 
recourse  is  still  had  to  blood-revenge/  and  at  first  the  punish- 
ment takes  the  rude  form  of  the  extirpation  of  the  whole  house 
of  the  guilty  person.^  From  the  time  of  King  Amaziah  onwards 
it  is  restricted  to  the  actual  doer  of  the  deed.^ 

3.  Literature.  —  The  general  character  of  the  period  after 
Solomon  leads  us  to  expect  that  literature,  too,  will  play  an 
important  part.  Nor  are  we  deceived  in  this  expectation.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  we  here  enter  on  the  Golden  Age  of  Hebrew 
authorship.  David  and  Solomon  had  made  history:  they  had 
made  Israel  feel  for  the  first  time  that  it  was  a  nation.  The 
less  posterity  was  able  to  preserve  their  great  creation  in  actual 
reality,  the  more  it  strives  to  hold  it  firm  in  memory  and  thank- 
fully to  rejoice  over  the  fair  past.  And  when  once  the  interest 
in  Israel's  past  is  awakened,  the  thoughts  of  the  nation  are 
carried  farther  and  farther  back,  first  to  the  predecessors  of  the 
great  kings,  to  Saul  and  the  men  of  the  heroic  age  of  Israel — 
Jerubbaal-Gideon,  Jephthah,  Barak— and  afterwards  to  the  great 
liberator  of  Israel  who  led  them  out  of  Egypt,  and  the  patriarchs 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob. 

We  accordingly  possess  three  or  four  narrative-books  belong- 
ing to  the  beginning  of  this  period  which  are  of  first-rate  import- 
ance for  our  knowledge  of  the  Israel  of  the  older  royal  period. 
These  are  the  writings  already  designated  by  the  abbreviations 
Je,  S,  Da,  So.*  The  three  first,  in  all  probability,  originated  in 
the  very  first  years  after  the  disruption  of  the  kingdom.  They 
are  histories  of  the  first  ttvo  kings,  written  for  the  most  part  in 
an  easy  and  diffuse  style  and  entering  into  details,  but  they  have 
also  partly  the  character  of  brief  and  matter-of-fact  annals.  The 
authors  treat  the  main  figures  in  their  history  as  the  heroes  of 

^  In  the  case  of  involuntary  manslaughter,  and  for  manslaughter  in  war,  it  had 
already  been  abrogated  at  an  earlier  period.     Exod.  xxi.  13  ;  2  Sam.  iii.  28. 

2  Cf.  2  Kings  ix.  26 ;  Jos.  vii.  24 ;  also  1  Kings  xv.  29. 

^  2  Kings  xiv.  6 ;  cf.  Deut.  xxiv.  16. 

^  See  on  these  writings  above,  pp.  33  f. ,  45-48,  and  the  explanations  at  the 
end  of  Kautzsch's  Old  Testament. 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    303 

a  great  national  drama,  which  has  been  played  before  the  eyes 
of  their  fathers  and  grandfathers.  Wliat  they  write  is,  with  a 
few  exceptions,  anything  but  what  we  look  for  in  annals,  though 
at  the  same  time  it  is  not  history  with  a  purpose.  It  is  heroic 
history,  an  epic  in  prose.  S  and  Da  are  perhaps  one  and  the 
same  writing,  which  treats  of  the  rise  of  the  monarchy  up  to  the 
time  of  Solomon's  accession. 

Of  another  kind,  and  probably  of  somewhat  later  date — written 
perhaps  in  the  days  of  Jehoshaphat — is  the  work  on  Solomon 
(So),  to  which,  next  to  the  annals  of  that  king,  we  owe  most 
of  the  information  we  possess  regarding  Solomon.  It  supplies 
us  with  the  first  example  of  an  historical  work,  in  the  higher 
sense,  which  we  possess  in  the  Old  Testament.^  The  epic  narra- 
tive has  become  a  pragmatic  working  up  of  the  material.  We 
are  able  to  estimate  the  spiritual  elevation  of  the  author  by  the 
freedom  with  which  he  treats  his  material. 

The  composition  of  a  further  historical  work  on  the  oldest 
period  of  the  kings  is  to  be  assigned  to  the  time  between  this  and 
the  days  of  Jeroboam  II.,  though  parts  of  it  may  have  been  written 
as  late  as  the  time  of  Hezekiah.  It  tells  the  story  of  Saul's  good 
fortune  and  of  his  end,  in  the  form  of  didactic  narrative  which  was 
calculated  to  make  posterity  reflect.  The  monarchy,  introduced  in 
opposition  to  God's  will  and  against  the  advice  of  the  prophet, 
cannot  bring  blessing  to  Israel  in  so  far  as  it  does  not  take  Yahve 
and  His  word  as  its  supreme  standard.  The  kernel  of  this  Samuel- 
Saul  history  (SS)  was  written  in  the  time  and  in  the  spirit  of 
Hosea.2 

In  addition  to  all  these  works  by  patriotic  narrators  dealing 
with  the  past,  we  have  the  official  records  of  the  royal  annals  of 
the  two  kingdoms  running  on  from  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon.^ 
Even  if,  as  will  be  easily  understood,  they  were  not  accessible 
to  every  one,  still  what  was  in  them  could  hardly  have  reasonably 
been   kept   hidden.      And  when  once  the   historical   sense  was 

1  See  above,  pp.  54,  57  f .  -  See  above,  pp.  34,  45. 

''  See  further,  pp.  208,  209. 


304  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

awakened  and  active,  it  could  not  but  be  that  many  a  narrator 
should  set  himself  to  put  together  and  hand  down  to  posterity 
what  he  had  got  out  of  them.  It  is  from  this  same  impulse  to 
supply  more  definite  information  regarding  Israel's  past,  that  the 
histories  of  the  heroes  sprung  which  constitute  the  chief  basis  of 
our  present  Book  of  Judges.^  They  do  not  form  a  unity,  and  some 
of  them  originated  in  the  earliest  part  of  the  royal  period,  while 
others  belong  to  the  more  recent  portion  of  it. 

The  two  great  books  on  the  primitive  history  of  Israel  which 
have  already  been  described  in  detail  in  a  previous  section  under 
the  names  of  E  and  J,  and  which  are  in  a  very  special  degree 
ornaments  of  Hebrew  literature,  first  saw  the  light  in  this  period.^ 
Without  going  back  here  again  on  the  much  debated  question  of 
their  relative  date,  I  simply  remark  that  the  development  of 
Israelitish  literature  up  to  this  time  in  the  form  in  which  we 
have  just  become  acquainted  with  it,  is  most  in  harmony  with 
the  result  previously  gained,  according  to  which  the  two  books 
of  the  primitive  history  originated  in  the  time  of  Kings  Ahab  and 
Jehu — the  one  in  Israel,  the  other  in  Judah.  To  come  any  farther 
down  seems  to  me  still  to  be  hazardous  in  the  case  of  E,  on  account 
of  the  great  ndivetd  with  which  the  old  holy  places  of  Israel  are 
treated.     This  implies  a  certain  distance  from  Amos  and  Hosea. 

4.  Religious  Life. — The  split  in  the  kingdom  divided  the  reli- 
gious Israel,  as  it  did  the  political,  into  two  camps.  In  the 
Northern  Kingdom  Jeroboam  [could  appeal  to  the  fact  that  the 
divine  worship  which  he  gave  to  his  kingdom  was,  both  as 
regards  locality  and  the  form  in  which  it  was  celebrated,  in 
harmony  with  the  past  traditions  of  a  considerable  part  of  Israel. 
Bethel  and  Dan  were,  as  sanctuaries  of  Yahv^,  far  older  than 
Jerusalem ;  and  though  He  had  not  necessarily  been  worshipped 
hitherto  under  the  symbol  of  bulls,  still  the  worship  of  images 
had  not  been  anything  particularly  rare.^  Thus  the  cry,  '  These 
are  thy  gods  which  have  brought  thee  out  of  Egypt,'  was  intended 

1  See  my  essay  in  StKr.,  1892,  44  flf. 

-  See  vol.  i,  pp.  81-90.  (The  time  of  Amos  and  Hosea  is  inaccurately  specifiecl 
at  pp.  SI  f.)  ^  See  above,  §  50,  3  ;  c/.  also  p.  99. 


I 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY-KINGBOM  OF  JUDAH    305 

to  remind  Israel  that  what  Jeroboam  offered  them,  did  not  pre- 
tend to  be  anything  new,  but  was  a  return  to  something  widely 
practised  long  ago  in  Israel. 

We  can  therefore  scarcely  go  wrong  in  supposing  that  the 
worship  of  the  Kingdom  of  Ephraim  occupied  the  same  level  as 
the  worship  on  the  high-places  and  the  'serving'  of  images  in  the 
age  before  the  kings,  and  in  the  early  years  of  the  period  of  the 
kings.  The  brief  and  very  general  terms  in  which  our  Book  of 
Kings  refers  to  religious  matters  in  the  Northern  Kingdom  makes 
it  difficult  for  us  to  form  a  definite  picture  of  them.  Still  it  is 
possible  to  fix  some  of  its  features.  Bethel  and  Dan  are  merely 
the  principal,  but  not  the  only  sanctuaries  of  the  Northern  King- 
dom ;  1  the  former  possesses  a  splendid  temple  which  is  under  the 
special  patronage  of  the  king.-  The  same  was  probably  the  case 
with  Samaria.^  Besides  these,  the  sanctuaries  of  Gilgal,  Beersheba, 
Mizpah,  and  those  on  Mount  Tabor  and  Mount  Carmel  ^  are  held 
in  special  veneration,  and,  very  probably,  too,  places  such  as 
Shechem,  Penuel,  and  Succoth.^  So  far  as  its  priesthood  was 
concerned,  Levitical  descent  is  not  considered  an  absolutely  neces- 
sary qualification  for  office.^  There  is  no  want  of  sacrifices  and 
crowded  festivals.  Sabbaths  and  new  moons  ^  are  strictly  cele- 
brated, the  tithe  is  dutifully  rendered  to  Yahve.^ 

Side  by  side  with  the  worship  of  the  bull,  the  worship  of 
Yahve  by  means  of  the  Ephocl  and  the  adoration  of  the  Teraphim, 
which  had  been  previously  practised,  still  go  on.  Hosea  mentions 
them  as  parts  of  the  ordinary  divine  service  ^^  in  the  Northern 

^  1  Kings  xiii.  ,32  ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  19. 

-  1  Kings  xii.  31  ;  Amos  vii.  13 ;  cf.  ix.  1.  ^  Cf.  2  Kings  x.  18  ff. 

■*  Amos  iv.  4;  v.  5 ;  Hos.  ix.  15;  iv.  15;  xii.  12;  Amos  v.  5;  viii.  14;  Hos. 
V.  1  ;  1  Kings  xviii.  30  (Micah  vii.  14?). 

5  Gen.  xii.  6  f.,  etc.  ;  xxxii.  25  ff.  ;  xxxiii.  17  [Lachish  also,  according  to 
Micah  i.  13,  is  apparently  to  be  classed  amongst  these]. 

«  1  Kings  xii.  31  ;  xiii.  33  ;  cf.  Elias  xviii.  30  ff. 

'  1  Kings  xii.  32  ff.  ;  xviii.  26  ff. ;  2  Kings  iii.  20 ;  Amos  iv.  4  f.  ;  v.  22, 
Hos.  vi.  6 ;  viii.  13 ;  Amos  v.  23 ;  viii.  10. 

8  Amos  V.  23 ;  viii.  10 ;  Isa.  i.  13;  2  Kings  iv.  23.  ^  Amos  iv.  4. 

i*^  Hos.  iii.  4.  This  does  not  mean  that  he  approves  of  them.  The  kingly 
office  is  also  referred  to  in  this  passage  spite  of  Hosea's  plainly  expressed  opinion 
regarding  it  in  xiii.  10. 

VOL.  II.  "U 


306  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

Kingdom  in  his  day,  and  the  narrative  piece,  Judges  xvii.  f.,  which 
belongs  to  the  beginning  of  our  period,  mentions  them  without  a 
trace  of  disapproval.^  The  older  accounts,  too,  of  Saul  and  David 
have  very  little  to  find  fault  with  in  them.  Beside  the  altar  of 
Yahvd,  if  not  invariably,  at  any  rate  generally,  stands  the  sacred 
pillar  which  had  come  down  from  Canaanitish  times,  called 
MaggehaP-  Hosea  mentions  the  Mac^'oeba  in  the  same  way  as  the 
Ephod  and  the  Teraphim,  and  in  the  two  books  of  stories  which 
deal  with  the  primitive  history  of  the  nation,  it  is  mentioned  with 
the  same  enthusiasm  as  marks  their  references  to  the  altars  which 
Abraham  and  Jacob  long  ago  set  up.^  Of  all  the  sacred  symbols 
of  the  Canaanites  it  appears  to  have  been  the  most  innocent,  and 
the  one  which  could  most  readily  be  tolerated  together  with 
Yahveism.  As  a  simple  symbol  of  the  presence  of  the  Godhead, 
it  had  a  very  close  resemblance  to  the  Ark,  and,  like  it,  could  be 
employed  also  in  connection  w^ith  a  form  of  worship  in  which 
images  were  not  used.  That  to  have  the  Ma99eba  alongside  of 
the  altar  could  in  any  way  be  displeasing  to  Yahve,  is  an  idea 
that  never  occurs  to  J  and  E,  any  more  than  the  thought  that 
there  is  anything  wrong  in  having  several  sanctuaries  at  the 
same  time.  It  is  all  the  more  worthy  of  notice  that  the  adoration 
of  Yahve  by  means  of  an  image,  or  the  erection  of  an  image  of 
Yahve,  is  never  ascribed  to  the  patriarchs. 

The  Ashera,  too,  the  sacred  post,  which  was  for  the  Canaanites 
a  symbol  of  fruitfulness,  their  chief  female  divinity,  is  entirely 
absent  from  the  list  of  the  means  of  worship  ascribed  by  J  and  E  to 
the  patriarchs.  Spite  of  this,  the  Ashera  was  evidently  in  use  in  the 
Northern  Kingdom.  It  is  true  that  the  Book  of  Kings  mentions 
it   here   almost    exclusively   in    connection   with    Baal-worship,^ 

1  See  above,  p.  20,  and  §  50,  3. 

-  So  Stade,  ZA  W.  i.  345.  Both  in  the  references  to  the  patriarchs  as  well  as 
in  the  Book  of  Kings  (Jeroboam,  Elijah),  and  also  in  Judges  and  Samuel,  the 
Mac§eba  is  often  enough  absent  where  the  altar  is  mentioned. 

2  Hos.  iii.  4  ;  X.  1  f.  ;  Micah  v.  12 ;  Gen.  xxviii.  18  f.  ;  xxxi.  13 ;  Ex.  xxiv. 
4,  etc.,  and  above,  vol.  i.  p.  88.  Deut.  xvi.  22;  xii.  3.  In  2  Kings  iii.  2;  x.  27 
(the  text  is  doubtful  here)  the  reference  is  to  Baal -worship.  Isa.  xix.  19  is  hardly 
in  point  here.  •*  1  Kings  xvi.  33  ;  2  Kings  x.  26  ;  perhaps  also  xxiii.  15. 


CHAr.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    307 

but  the  fact  that  we  find  it  again  under  ^  a  king  belonging  to 
the  dynasty  of  Jehu,  who  had  suppressed  Baal-worship,  shows 
that  the  sacred  pillar  of  the  Phoenicians  had  been  also  transferred 
to  Yahve.  Still  stronger  evidence  is  afforded  of  this  by  the 
analogy  of  the  Kingdom  of  Judah,  and  by  the  energetic  protest 
of  the  prophetic  and  Deuteronomic  writers  against  the  Asheras.- 
How  near  the  worship  of  Northern  Israel  had  been  brought  to 
Canaanitish  heathendom  by  all  these  things  is  shown  in  the 
plainest  way  in  what  is  said  about  them  by  Amos  and  Hosea, 
whose  utterances  for  this  very  reason  very  frequently  leave  us  in 
the  dark  as  to  whether  they  are  thinking  of  actual  heathenism,  or 
of  a  Yahveism  which  resembles  heathenism.^  From  this,  in  fact, 
to  the  introduction  of  actual  heathenism  into  Israel,  there  was  only 
a  step.  Ahab,  under  the  influence  of  his  Phoenician  wife,  actually 
admits  it.  In  Samaria,  and  probably  in  Jezreel  also,  there  is  a  splen- 
did temple  of  Baal  ^  in  which  naturally  Asheras  and  the  Ma^^eba 
are  found.^     Personally,  Ahab  seems  to  have  held  fast  to  Yahve.^    ^ 

Spite  of  all  this,  we  cannot  believe  that  the  times  of  David 
and  Solomon  had  gone  past  without  leaving  any  trace  in  Northern 
Israel,  or  that  the  remembrance  of  them  had  been  wholly  blotted 
out.  Our  document,  hardly  without  good  reason,  recalls  the  fact 
that  Jeroboam  dreaded  the  influence  of  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem 
on  his  countrymen.  Amongst  the  prophets  trained  in  the  school 
of  Samuel  and  Nathan  the  worship  of  Yahve  without  images,  as 
it  was  practised  in  connection  with  the  Ark,  was  held  in  high 
esteem.  As  Elijah  and  Elisha  raised  their  voices  in  protest 
against  Ahab's  innovations,  it  is  possible  that  the  prophets  of  the 
time  of  Jeroboam  may  not  have  kept  silence  in  face  of  his  new 
departure.  It  is  all  the  more  striking  that  such  a  man  as  Elijah 
should  not  have  uttered  a  single  word  by  way  of  blame  against 

^  2  Kings  xiii.  6.  Incorrectly,  Kohl.  ii.  2,  44.  In  this  case  xxiii.  15  may  also 
refer  to  a  Yahve-ashera. 

-  Micah  V.  13  ;  Judges  iii.  7  ;  vi.  25  ff.  ;  Deut.  vii.  5  ;  xii.  3,  etc.  ;  Isa.  xvii.  S 
is  uncertain. 

3  See  below,  §§  65  and  66. 

*  1  Kings  xvi.  32  ;   2  Kings  x.  18  fif.,  27  ;  cf.  v.  11. 

5  1  Kings  xvi.  33  ;  2  Kings  iii.  2  ;  x.  26  (27  ?) ;  xiii.  6.        ^  See  above,  p.  •_'64. 


308  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

bull-worship.  In  view  of  this  fact  no  one  can  contest  the  possi- 
bility of  the  view  that  Elijah  and  the  prophets  of  his  day  may 
have  regarded  bull-worship  as  inoffensive.  But  there  is  a  more 
likely  supposition,  namely,  that  Elijah  and  Elisha,  in  combating 
the  actual  idolatrous  worship,  may  have  kept  in  the  background 
their  opinions  regarding  the  adoration  of  Yahve  under  the  symbol 
of  a  bull.  If  it  was  a  question  as  to  whether  Yahve  or  Baal  was 
to  be  the  God  of  Israel,  the  worship  of  Yahve  by  the  help  of 
an  image  would  seem  to  them  by  far  the  lesser  evil  of  the  two. 
The  position  taken  up  by  J  and  E  in  Exodus  xxxii.  in  reference 
to  bull-worship,  adds  force  to  this  supposition. 

We  are  little  better  informed  regarding  the  Kingdom  of 
Judah  at  this  period  than  we  are  regarding  that  of  Israel.  It  was 
its  good  fortune  to  have  the  Temple  and  its  worship  of  Yahve 
without  any  image,  which  it  continued  to  preserve  although 
perhaps  not  without  some  curtailment,  after  the  separation  from 
Ephraim,  Its  priesthood  is  in  the  hands  of  the  family  of  Zadok, 
who  retained  it  until  the  time  of  the  Exile.  As  Solomon  did  him- 
self, his  successors  claimed  the  right  to  offer  sacrifices  without  the 
intervention  of  the  priesthood.^  At  a  later  period  great  offence  was 
taken  at  this,  but  it  is  very  questionable  if  their  contemporaries  too 
objected  to  it.  Besides  Jerusalem,  there  are  here  and  there  in  the 
country  local  sanctuaries,  called  Bamoth,  where  Yahve  is  wor- 
shipped without  protest. 

The  head  of  the  numerous  priesthood  of  the  Temple,  as  was 
already  the  case  under  David  and  Solomon,  is  classed  amongst  the 
highest  dignitaries  of  the  kingdom.  The  prominent  position 
occupied  by  a  high  priest  of  this  kind  is  clearly  illustrated  by  the 
case  of  Jehoiada,  who  brinies  about  the  revolution  a^rainst  Athaliah 
and  raises  the  young  prince  Joash  to  the  throne.  At  the  end  of 
the  period  of  the  kings  a  '  second  priest '  is  mentioned  alongside  of 
the  high  priest ;  the  Temple  guards,  too,  are  priests  of  higher  rank.^ 
This  points  to  the  existence  of  a  large  number  of  individuals  con- 

1  2  Kings  xvi.  12  f.  ;  r/.  2  Chron.  xxvi.  16  fT. 

"  2  Kings  xxiii.  4  (see  Baudissin,  Prientert.  216) ;  xxv.  18 ;  Jer.  lii.  24. 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    309 

nected  with  the  Temple  service  and  arranged  in  hierarchical 
gradation.^  Corresponding  to  these  there  were  also  various  subor- 
dinate officials  engaged  in  the  service  of  the  sanctuary.^  All  these 
priests  are  essentially  royal  servants.  The  way  in  which  Joash 
and  Ahaz  act,  shows  how  freely  the  king  can  act  as  regards  his 
priest.^  We  do  not  hear  anything  of  any  regular  order  of  sacrifices, 
althouGfh  this  must  have  existed.  Both  in  Israel  and  Judah  the 
people  themselves  take  part  in  the  sacrificial  service  with  the 
liveliest  zeal.*  We  find  mention  of  regular  morning  and  evening 
sacrifice  in  addition  to  the  special  sacrifices  of  the  king  and  those 
of  private  persons  in  the  time  of  Ahaz  ;•  and  in  the  time  of  Joash  we 
hear  of  dedicatory  and  expiatory  offerings  given  to  the  Temple,  as 
well  as  of  money  payments,  by  which  other  duties  were  commuted 
in  the  shape  of  a  tax.^  Isaiah  is  acquainted  with  yearly  festivals, 
especially  with  the  Passover-night,  and  with  joyous  festival  songs, 
Prayer  too  is  for  him  a  part  of  divine  service.^ 

But  spite  of  this,  Judah  did  not  escape  heathen  or  half-heathen 
influences  any  more  than  Israel.  The  remembrance  of  the  time 
before  the  carrying  back  of  the  Ark  by  David  must  inevitably 
have  had  an  effect  on  people's  minds,  if  not  in  Jerusalem,  the  seat 
of  the  Ark,  at  least  in  the  various  sanctuaries  in  the  land.  Besides, 
Solomon  himself,  although  his  religious  position  in  other  respects 
cannot  be  very  clearly  ascertained,"^  gave  an  example  in  this  respect 
which  was  not  greatly  to  the  advantage  of  the  Temple.  Finally, 
we  must  not  underrate  the  importance  of  the  influences  which  came 
from  the  Northern  Kingdom.  Even  if  they  proceeded  from  a 
kingdom  which  was  frequently  at  feud  with  Judah,  on  the  other 
hand  they  were  in  harmony  with  certain  ancient  tendencies  of 
Israel  which  had  not  yet  quite  died  out  even  in  Judah. 

We  need  not,  accordingly,  be  astonished  when  we  find  the 
author  of  the  Book  of  Kings  mentioning  that  already  in  the  time 

1  Cf.  the  name  '  elders  of  the  priests.'     2  Kings  xix.  2 ;  Isa.  xxxvii.  2. 

2  Jos.  ix.  23.  2  2  Kings  xii.  5  flf.  ;  xvi.  11  tf. 
*  Isa.  i.  11  ff;  cf.  Micah  vi.  6.                                =  2  Kings  xii.  5,  17  ;  xvi.  15. 

^  Isa.  xxix.  1  ;  xxx.  29;  xxxiii.  20;  i.  13  f. 
7  See  above,  p.  200,  note  6, 


310  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

of  Eehoboam  there  were  large  numbers  of  high-places  in  Judah 
which  were  provided  with  Mag^ebas  and  Asheras,  and  at  which 
religious  prostitution  was  practised  in  the  service  of  Astarte.^  In 
Asa's  reign  even  Abijam's  widow  Maachah  has  to  be  deprived  of  her 
rank  as  queen-mother,  because  the  heathenism  which  had  already 
a  strong  hold  on  the  country,  and  especially  the  lascivious  Astarte- 
worship,  could  appeal  to  her  authority.^  Even  if  Asa  checked  for 
a  time  the  practice  of  heathen  customs  which  had  already 
begun  to  get  a  footing  in  Judah,  still  here  too  favourable  circum- 
stances were  all  that  were  wanted  to  allow  of  heathenism  at  once 
springing  into  life  again.  The  high-places  still  continue,  and 
images,  Mag^ebas,  and  Asheras,  which  had  been  done  away 
with,  are  soon  enough  to  return  again.  The  brazen  serpent,  a  relic 
of  ancient  animal- worship,  continues  to  be  adored  without  protest 
till  the  days  of  Hezekiah.  It  can  hardly  have  been  the  only  thing 
of  its  kind.  We  have  no  proof  that  before  the  time  of  Ahaz 
Asheras  were  used  in  Judah,  in  the  service  of  Yahv^  in  the  Temple 
at  any  rate,  and  no  certain  proofs  of  the  employment  of  Maqqebas, 
although  in  the  history  of  the  patriarchs  the  presence  of  the  latter 
would  not  seem  to  be  anything  out  of  place.  The  marriage 
alliance  between  the  House  of  David  and  the  family  of  Ahab  gave 
the  favourable  opportunity  referred  to ;  and  we  hear  directly  of  a 
temple  of  Baal  in  Jerusalem  with  all  its  belongings,  its  own  priest, 
representations  of  Baal,  and  altars.^ 

Spite  of  this  the  Temple-service  even  under  Athaliah  seems  to 
have  gone  on  unhindered.  On  the  contrary,  the  Temple  of  Jeru- 
salem and  the  worship  of  God  practised  in  it  constantly  gain 
ground  not  only  in  Judah  itself,  but  beyond  its  boundaries  too. 
The  way  in  which  Amos  speaks  to  Israel,  and  that  in  which  Hosea, 

^  Cf.  however  in  connection  with  this  and  witli  what  follows  what  is  given 
above  at  pp.  247,  248. 

2  1  Kings  xiv.  23,  24;  xv.  12,  13. 

2  We  should  have  evidence  of  this  in  Isaiah  xix.  19  if  it  could  be  proved  that 
a  Mac9eba  for  use  in  divine  worship  is  referred  to,  and  also  in  2  Kings  xii.  10,  if 
with  Stade  {ZA  W.  v.  289  f.)  we  could  read  nn^D.l  h^H,  Only,  the  Heb.  V  is 
always  rendered  by  a  and  not  by  ^  in  the  lxx.    (See  also  Kohler,  ii.  2,  219>. 

*  2  Kings  xi.  18.     See  on  this  above,  p.  287. 


Chap.  III.]    JEHU  AND  HIS  DYNASTY— KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH    311 

although  a  citizen  of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  expresses  himself 
regarding  Judah  and  the  House  of  David,^  is  the  best  proof  of  this. 
And  even  if  Isaiah  has  many  complaints  to  utter  regarding  the 
numerous  images  ^  which  are  drawing  away  Judah  from  the  pure 
worship  of  God — and  these  did  not  certainly  represent  idols  only — 
still  it  was  to  be  his  special  duty  more  than  that  of  any  other,  to 
point  out  that  Yahve  highly  esteems  his  holy  dwelling  in  Zion  and 
is  ready  to  protect  it  both  against  friend  and  foe. 

^  See  below,  §  66. 

2  Isa.  ii.  8, 18,  20 ;  xxx.  22  ;  xxxi.  f.  [c/.  further  i.  29  ;  x.  4  (Baltis  and  Osiris  ?) ; 
xvii.  4  (Adonis  ?) ;  see  Isaiah  in  a  forthcoming  part  of  Paul  Haupt's  Old  Testament 
(Hebrew  text  revised,  and  English  translation).] 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE  INTEEVENTION   OF   PROriiECY. 

§  65.  Prophecy  from  the  Eighth  Century} 

The  further  the  history  proceeds  the  more  meagre  the  information 
becomes  in  the  Book  of  Kings.  It  is  only  in  exceptional  instances 
that  we  get  a  more  detailed  account.  If  we  had  only  the  narrative 
in  that  Book  to  go  to  for  information  regarding  the  period  of  Jehu 
and  Athaliah  downwards,  we  should  be  badly  equipped.  It  is  of 
inestimable  value  for  our  knowledge  of  Israel's  past  that  just  when 
the  information  in  the  Book  of  Kings  begins  to  fail,  a  source  of 
fresh  information  is  opened  up  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets.  The 
dry  skeleton  of  the  narrative  in  Kings  is  quickened  into  life  by  the 
fresh  air  of  natural  feeling  which  breathes  from  their  utterances. 
It  gets  flesh  and  blood  and  all  the  freshness  of  natural  colour. 
The  prophets  are  moved  to  the  very  depths  of  their  nature  by  what 
goes  on  in  their  nation ;  its  troubles  send  a  throb  through  their 
heart;  its  cares  eat  into  their  soul;  its  sins  burn  in  their  con- 
science. And  what  thus  inwardly  moves  them  and  lays  hold  of 
them,  finds  natural  expression  in  spontaneous  and  unadorned  words. 
We  thus  get  a  picture  of  the  condition  of  things  in  Israel 
and  Judah  as  this  presents  itself  to  Amos  and  his  successors  from 
the  reign  of  Jeroboam  ii.  onwards.  It  is  the  holy  wrath  of  genuine 
patriots  that  wields  the  brush  here  ;  the  colours  are  now  of  a  lurid 

^  See  in  general  Duhm,  Theol.  d.  Prof.  ;  Wellh.  Ahriss.  49  fF.  ;  Stade,  Gescli.  1, 
550  ff.  ;  Kuenen,  Hibhert  Lectures  for  1882,  91  flf.,  Ill  ff.  ;  Ondr-  §  39  (for 
bibliography).  [Also  Schultz's  OT.  Theology  (E.  T.  1894),  and  especially  Dill- 
mann's  Alttest.  Theologie,  ed.  Kittel  (1895) ;  besides  W.  R.  Smith,  art.  Prophecy 
in  Encycl.  Brit.  ;  Prophets  of  Israel-  (1895);  Cornill,  Profetismus,  1895.] 
312 


Chap.  IV.]  THE  INTERVENTION  OF  PROPHECY  313 

glow,  now  darkly  sombre,  such  as  we  see  when  an  abyss  is  lit  up 
by  the  play  of  the  lightning  flash. 

The  moral  sense  is  blunted,  the  moral  conditions  are  corrupted. 
The  many  wars  have  done  their  work.  And  even  the  better  days 
which  the  reigns  of  Jeroboam  and  Uzziah  brought  with  them  for 
the  kingdom  cannot  blind  us  to  the  damage  which  has  been  done. 
They  have  at  most  increased  the  evil.  Insolent  pride  and  wanton 
immorality  have  followed  barbarity  and  violence.  Amos^  com- 
plains that  father  and  son  go  together  to  visit  harlots ;  and  Isaiah 
reproaches  Samaria  as  well  as  Jerusalem  thus:  'They  reel  from 
wine  and  stagger  from  strong  drink  ...  all  tables  are  full  of  filthy 
vomit,  so  that  there  is  no  more  room.'^  The  injustice  in  trade 
and  business  cries  aloud  to  heaven ;  the  right  of  the  stronger  has 
taken  the  place  of  the  divine  law.  There  seems  to  be  no  longer 
any  administration  of  justice,  and  the  social  question  is  solved  by 
the  exploiting  of  the  weak.  '  They  sell  the  righteous  for  money, 
the  poor  for  a  pair  of  shoes.  They  pant  after  the  dust  of  the  earth 
on  the  head  of  the  poor,  and  twist  justice  in  their  dealings  with  the 
wretched.'  ^  '  Woe  to  those,'  continues  Isaiah,*  '  who  join  house  to 
house,  who  lay  field  to  field,  till  there  is  no  single  bit  of  room  left ; 
and  woe  to  those  who  are  strong  to  drink  wine  and  heroes  in  the 
mingling  of  strong  drink,  who  acquit  the  transgressor  for  a  bribe, 
and  withhold  from  the  righteous  their  right.' 

The  religious  life  is  in  no  better  condition.  Here,  too,  the 
earnestness  of  the  prophetic  call  to  repentance  tears  up  without 
regard  to  consequences  all  deceptive  and  dazzling  outward  show. 
On  the  one  side  we  see  zeal  for  Yahve  based  on  the  naive  delusion 
that  quantity  is  everything,  and  that  outward  performance  can 
cover  inner  defects  which  had  indeed  only  too  often  plainly  come 
to  the  surface  already.  On  the  other  side  there  is  open  apostasy 
to  foreign  gods,  or,  at  any  rate,  a  worship  of  the  God  of  Israel 
which  is  very  like  heathenism. 

^  Amos  ii.  7.  "  Isa.  xxviii.  7  flf.  ;  cf.  i.  ff. 

3  Amos  ii.  6  f.  (earth  on  the  head  siguities  mourning) ;  cf.  viii.  4  fi. 

4  Isa.  V.  8.  22  f. 


314  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

Not  that  all  this  has  come  into  existence  for  the  first  time  in 
the  days  of  Jeroboam  and  Uzziah.  The  mischief  may  have  grown 
with  the  time,  but  in  essence  it  has  been  there  for  long.  The  new 
thing  that  our  time  brings  with  it,  does  not  lie  in  the  circumstances 
themselves,  but  in  the  light  which  suddenly  falls  upon  them. 
People  in  Israel  spent  their  days  in  a  careless  fashion,  thinking 
only  of  the  immediate  present.  The  Syrian  wars  and  many  other 
troubles  of  the  time  had  indeed  brought  anxieties  with  them.  But 
then  there  was  always  some  kind  of  help  or  other  at  hand.  Yahve 
had  never  quite  forsaken  His  people.  But  now  a  lurid  flash 
suddenly  lightens  up  the  sky  and  shows  to  the  startled  glance 
of  Israel  that  she  is  walking  close  to  a  yawning  abyss.  The 
lightning  flash  came  from  the  east,  from  Assyria. 

We  have  already  several  times  come  across  Assyria  since  the 
days  of  Omri.  The  kings  of  Israel  have  also  more  than  once  made 
terms  with  her.  But  from  the  time  of  Jeroboam  things  have  taken 
a  decisive  turn.  The  consequences  of  this  become  at  once  evident 
in  the  reigns  of  the  next  kings  in  Israel  and  Judah.  The  Syrian 
kingdom  of  Damascus,  even  if  its  existence  is  prolonged  for  a 
time,  has  now  after  a  long  struggle  received  its  death-blow. 
Assyria  is  Israel's  neighbour.  Israel  might  have  been  long  enough 
worried  by  Damascus  ;  in  Assyria,  which  chastised  Aramean  neigh- 
bours, she  might  often  enough  have  beheld  a  welcome  deliverer, 
but  any  one  who  saw  into  the  heart  of  things  could  not  be  blinded 
by  all  this  to  the  real  facts.  With  Assyria  as  Israel's  neighbour, 
with  this  mighty  conquering  kingdom  ever  gaining  ground  by  the 
sword  and  brute  force,  regardless  of  consequences,  placed  close  to 
the  puny  Israel,  the  issue  of  things  could  not  possibly  be  doubtful. 
What  had  happened  to  Damascus  and  Hamath  must  with  unfail- 
ing certainty  come  upon  Israel  some  time  or  other.^  Her  inde- 
pendence was  at  an  end,  monarchy  and  people  were  irretrievably 
doomed  to  destruction,  if  God  did  not  work  a  miracle. 

The  fact  that  many  in  Israel  did  not  see  this,  did  not  make  the 
situation  any  better.     A  calamity  is  always  the  greater  the  less 

1  Isa.  X.  9. 


Chap.  IV.]  THE  INTERVENTION  OF  PROPHECY  316 

it  is  expected.  It  was  Israel's  good  fortune  and  her  salvation — so 
far  as  salvation  was  here  possible — that  she  had  at  least  some  men 
who  did  not  allow  themselves  to  be  carried  away  by  the  general 
infatuation.  These  were  the  Prophets.  They  alone  looked  facts 
in  the  face.  And,  as  servants  of  their  God,  they  found  courage  to 
utter  the  terrifying  things  which  they  saw  before  king  and  people 
in  the  most  direct  way.  Thus  they  penetrated  the  very  centre  of 
the  national  life.  They  became  the  intellectual  leaders  of  tlieir 
nation,  it  might  be  in  harmony  with  the  ruling  powers,  or  it  might 
be  in  opposition  to  them.  At  any  rate,  Israel  could  not  put  aside 
this  guidance  so  long  as  it  had  any  political  existence.  And  even 
long  after  its  political  annihilation,  the  people  which  grew  out  of 
the  old  Israel  stood,  and  one  may  say  still  stands,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  this  the  most  unique  and  powerful  manifestation  to  which 
a  national  life  ever  gave  birth.  In  Israel's  prophets  the  genius  of 
the  Israelitish  spirit  is  represented  in  its  purest  and  grandest  form. 
Incomparable  in  themselves,  and  as  unique  in  their  performances, 
these  religious  heroes  saw  into  the  innermost  recesses  of  the  soul 
of  this  people.  Prophecy  may  not  have  been  of  Israelitish  origin, 
but  the  prophets  soon  attained  the  truest  feeling  of  what  Israel 
in  its  inmost  being  was  and  could  be. 

If  we  wish  to  understand  prophecy  in  its  new  form,  our  glance 
involuntarily  turns  backwards.  We  do  not  now  hear  for  the  first 
time  the  name  prophets  :  Nebi'im.  Samuel  and  Nathan,  and,  after 
them,  Elijah  and  Elisha,  bore  the  title.  What  is  the  new  element 
in  the  prophecy  of  the  present  ?  We  must  guard  against  laying 
too  much  stress  on  anything  outward,  even  if  much  has  been 
altered,  and  if  gradually  many  new  developments  have  shown 
themselves  in  the  outward  appearance  and  mode  of  action  of  the 
Nebilm.  The  fact  that  what  the  prophets  have  to  say  to  the 
people  is  now  partly  written  down  and  presented  to  the  public 
in  the  form  of  books  or  fly-sheets,  certainly  presents  them  out- 
wardly in  a  different  aspect.  Still,  in  reality,  this  is  nothing  but 
the  natural  consequence  of  the  changed  times.  Israel  has  entered 
upon  the  period  of  literature.     Was  it  likely  that  the  guiding 


316  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

spirits  of  the  nation  would  deny  themselves  the  use  of  the  most 
obviously  effective  means  of  bringing  their  thoughts  under  the 
notice  of  men,  as  soon  as  the  employment  of  this  medium  had 
become  the  regular  practice  ? 

True,  the  bands  of  ecstatic  enthusiasts  whom  we  see  parading 
the  country  in  the  times  of  Samuel  belong  to  a  long  vanished 
past.  Already,  in  the  days  of  Elijah,  their  place  had  been  taken 
by  the  societies  of  the  prophets,  the  calm,  clarified  product  of 
those  loosely  formed  associations.  These,  too,  have  now  lost  much 
of  their  significance.  It  has,  however,  been  left  as  a  permanent 
reminiscence  of  them  that  the  prophets  form  a  kind  of  close  order, 
a  corporate  body.^  Whoever  in  the  guild  is  distinguished  by  the 
possession  of  special  prophetic  endowment,  naturally  comes  to  the 
front  He  takes  the  place  of  the  Master,  in  this  resembling  the 
later  Eabbi,  who  gathers  round  him  his  intimate  pupils,  and  forms 
them  into  a  narrower  circle  of  disciples.^  But  any  one,  who 
through  the  inner  impulse  of  the  Spirit  of  God  feels  within  him- 
self the  call  to  be  a  prophet,  can  put  himself  forward  as  a  man  of 
God  without  being  a  member  of  the  prophetic  order,  or  the  son 
of  a  prophet.  It  is  not  membership  of  the  order  or  society  which 
makes  the  prophet,  at  least  not  the  prophet  of  standing.  The 
individual  acts  on  his  own  responsibility,  and  comes  forward  on 
his  own  account  in  the  name  of  Yahve ;  what  gives  him  authority 
is  the  might  of  the  Spirit  which  breathes  from  him.  It  may, 
indeed,  be  that  personality  comes  more  to  the  front  now  than 
formerly ;  still  we  cannot  assert  that  at  an  earlier  period  it  was 
merged  in  the  society,  and  so,  in  this  respect  too,  it  is  evident  that 
the  advance  of  time  does  not  mean  any  absolute  change. 

The  same  holds  good  of  the  psychological  form  of  the  expres- 
sion of  the  prophetic  spirit.  The  being  directly  laid  hold  of  by 
God — an  experience  which  is  often  independent  of  the  will  of  man, 
and  which  not  seldom  takes  the  form  of  an  ecstatic  and  visionary 
seizure — forms  the  main  feature  here  as  it  did  before.     If,  on  the 

^  See  Kuen.  §§  39,  12.     On  the  older  prophecy,  see  above,  p.  265  and  p.  109  f. 
2  Isa.  viii.  lU ;  Amos  vii.  14. 


Chap.  IV.]  THE  INTERVENTION  OF  PROPHECY  317 

one  hand,  the  original  connection  with  the  *  mantikos '  is  more 
and  more  discarded,  and  if,  on  the  other,  the  visionary  element 
retires  more  into  the  background  as  time  goes  on,  still,  the  con- 
sciousness the  prophet  has  that  he  did  not  call  himself,  but  that 
God  compelled  him  and  imposed  His  word  upon  him,  always 
remains. 

It  is  only  one  thing  that  is  entirely  new,  namely,  the  direct 
interference  of  Assyria  in  the  fortunes  of  Israel,  and  the  mode  in 
wliich  this  is  reflected  in  the  soul  of  the  prophets.  To  their  vision 
is  revealed  the  yawning  abyss  at  the  edge  of  which  Israel  is  stand- 
ing ;  tliey  see  the  horrible  picture  of  a  national  body  whose  exist- 
ence is  shaken  to  the  very  core,  and  already  catch  the  sound  of 
the  death-rattle,  the  sign  that  the  life  is  approaching  its  end. 
But  the  life  of  a  nation  such  as  Israel  shall  not  and  must  not  come 
to  an  end,  even  suppose  a  world-empire  were  its  enemy.  The 
thought  irresistibly  forces  prophecy  out  of  its  national  limits,  and 
leads  it  to  regard  Israel's  goal  and  destiny  in  the  light  of  what  is 
supra-national,  in  the  light  of  universal  history.  In  the  light  of 
universal  history  Israel  has  left  behind  it  Assyria  and  all  the 
world-empires  which  did  violence  to  it.  The  prophets  perceived 
that.     And  what  they  perceived  they  effected. 

Two  questions  weigh  upon  the  souls  of  the  men  of  God — a 
question  of  knowledge  and  a  question  of  action.  The  one  makes 
them  teachers  without  a  rival,  restorers  of  their  country's  faith  ;  the 
other  makes  them  patriots  without  a  rival,  and  reformers  of  conduct. 

How,  so  runs  the  one  question,  how  was  what  was  being 
accomplished  before  their  eyes  at  all  possible  ?  Was  not  Yahve 
Israel's  God  from  of  old,  who  must  protect  it  against  all  danger  ? 
How  then  could  God  thus  deliver  His  people  into  the  hands  of 
the  Assyrians  ?  If,  nevertheless,  He  did  this,  then  either  He  was 
no  longer  Israel's  God,  or  Israel  was  no  longer  His  people.  He 
did  it.  And  since  Yahvc's  faithfulness  and  power  could  not 
waver,  then  the  logical  conclusion  of  the  prophetic  preaching  was 
inevitable.  Israel  is  no  longer  what  it  was,  it  is  a  rebellious 
nation,  the  people   are  degenerate   sons   who  have  broken  faith 


318  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

with  their  Lord.  It  is  Israel's  gidlt,  it  is  its  sin  which  is  being 
avenged  on  it,  which  its  God  is  avenging  by  the  hand  of  the 
enemy.  Thus  the  condition  of  Israel  hitherto,  its  religious  as  well 
as  its  moral  and  social  condition  with  its  manifold  evils,  suddenly 
appears  in  a  new  light.  It  is  because  of  these  evils  that  the  all- 
powerful  enemy  is  allowed  to  knock  at  Israel's  gates.  Ay,  and 
Yahve  himself  thus  suddenly  appears  in  a  new  light ;  it  is  He 
Himself  who,  in  His  moral  holiness,  has  decreed  Israel's  ruin, 
who  has  made  its  enemies  its  scourge. 

The  moral  holiness  of  Yahve  is  not  new.  Moses  had  long  ago 
recognised  the  moral  character  of  Yahve. ^  Nathan  had  clearly 
and  inexorably  given  expression  to  it  in  what  he  said  to  David, 
and  Elijah  in  what  he  said  to  Ahab.  It  is,  however,  something 
new  indeed  that  Yahve's  moral  holiness  does  not  only  punish 
Israel,  but  may  even  let  it  go  to  ruin.  The  fiery  spirit  of  a 
Moses  and  an  Elijah  comes  to  life  again  in  Amos  and  Isaiah,  but 
in  a  new  form,  no  longer  confined  within  the  narrow  circle  of  the 
nation.  If  Yahve,  through  Elijah  and  Elisha,  had  threatened  to 
destroy  with  fire  and  sword  what  stood  in  His  way  that  he  might 
continue  to  be  Israel's  God,  in  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah,  the  God 
of  the  world  has  decreed  the  breaking  in  pieces  of  His  own  people 
that  He  may  maintain  justice  in  the  world  by  means  of  His  moral 
ivorld-order.  But  even  if  the  prophets  of  this  period  were  not  the 
first  to  discover  the  moral  character  of  Yahve,  theirs  must  ever 
be  the  merit  of  having,  with  an  energy  and  consistency  before 
unheard  of,  made  the  moral  element  in  the  character  of  God  the 
central  point  of  all  thought  about  Him.  They  thus  give  com- 
pletion to  the  thoughts  which  constitute  the  Mosaic  religious 
creation,  and  elevate  that  into  ethical  monotheism.  The  theological 
question  was  thereby  solved. 

And  thus  the  second  question,  the  question  of  action,  pressed 
aU  the  more  strongly  on  the  teachers  of  the  period.  It  was 
impossible  to  stop  short  at  Israel's  ruin,  which  was  demanded  and 
announced  beforehand  by  the  moral  order  of  the   world.     The 

^  See  on  this  above,  vol.  i.  pp.  242  f. ,  247  f . 


CiiAr.  IV.]  THE  INTERVENTION  OF  PROPHECY  319 

prophets  could  not  have  been  patriots,  and  they  could  not  have 
been  men  of  God  and  the  religious  guides  of  their  nation,  had  they 
not  sought  after  harmony  in  the  discord,  after  a  harmonious  ending 
to  the  great  tragedy.  What  then  was  to  be  done?  There  was 
only  one  way ;  the  present  state  of  things  must  pass  away,  now  or 
at  some  future  time.  The  religious,  moral,  and  social  evils  in  the 
nation  are  the  cause  of  the  divine  wrath ;  if  once  they  disappear, 
the  divine  wrath  will  cease  too.  With  a  radicalism  which  recalls 
some  of  the  most  uncompromising  manifestations  of  socio-political 
and  religious  agitation  in  history,  they  loudly  proclaim  this 
fundamental  principle :  whatever  exists  in  Israel  is  fit  only  to  be 
destroyed !  Only  a  thorough  renovation  of  all  the  conditions  of 
life  on  a  perfectly  new  basis  can  avail.  Often  hopes  were  enter- 
tained of  reaching  this  new  state  of  things  even  yet  by  conversion 
and  true  repentance.  But  this  hope  is  soon  seen  to  be  deceptive. 
The  state,  the  whole  present  order  of  society,  the  present  perverted 
practice  of  religion  itself,  must  first  pass  away.  Yahv^  Himself, 
as  sure  as  He  is  Israel's  God,  will  effect  the  needed  renewal 
through  the  King  of  the  future  the  Messiah.  Under  him  Israel 
will  be  a  kingdom  of  God,  a  holy  nation,  well-pleasing  to  God. 
Justice  and  morality  will  be  in  accordance  with  the  demands  of 
God,  the  practice  of  religion  will  be  in  accordance  with  His  will. 

Did  the  prophets  attain  what  they  here  desire  ?  In  the 
eyes  of  their  own  nation  and  age  they  often  enough  occupied  the 
position  of  betrayers  of  the  Fatherland  to  the  enemy ;  in  the  light 
of  history  they  appear  as  the  patriots  to  whom  Israel  owes  it  that 
she  came  forth  from  the  storms  which  swept  over  the  land — 
weakened  indeed  and  humiliated,  but  not  broken.  Into  the  hand 
of  their  nation,  which  was  too  weak  to  fight  with  the  sword 
against  the  world-powers,  they  pressed  the  banner  of  faith  and 
hope.  With  it  Israel  has  gained  the  victory.  It  has  not  only 
outlasted  the  world-powers,  it  has  inwardly,  spiritually,  laid  them 
at  its  feet.  And  as  regards  action,  both  moral  and  religious, 
what  they  say  does  indeed,  in  the  first  instance,  meet  with  no 
response.     But,   nevertheless,   under    the   weight   of   the   divine 


320  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

judgments,  Israel  more  and  more  inclined  its  ear  to  them.  Israel 
has  received  a  certain  bent  towards  the  doing  of  the  divine  will, 
which  it  never  again  let  go,  and  which  very  soon  gave  the  national 
life  a  new  direction. 

§  66.  Amos.     Rosea. 

We  cannot  in  the  case  of  all  the  prophets  of  this  kind  succeed 
in  getting  any  certain  information  in  regard  to  the  time  of  their 
appearance.  The  first  of  them  to  whom  we  can  with  certainty 
assign  a  date  is  Amos.^  A  Judsean  by  birth,  born  in  the  little  town 
of  Tekoa  near  Bethlehem,  he  makes  his  appearance  in  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  in  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.  preaching  coming 
disaster.  What  leads  him  thus  to  preach  is  not  that  he  is  of  the 
prophetic  order  and  calling,  nor  is  it  long  and  diligent  preparation 
within  the  circle  of  the  'sons  of  the  prophets':  his  station  is  that 
of  a  herdsman  and  planter  of  sycomores.  No ;  the  call  of  Yahve 
which,  like  an  all-powerful  natural  force,  irresistibly  lays  hold  of 
men,  has  opened  his  mouth : 

'  Shall  two  walk  together  except  they  have  agreed  ? 
Will  a  lion  roar  in  the  forest  when  he  hath  no  prey  ? 
Will  a  young  lion  cry  out  of  his  den  if  he  hath  taken  nothing  ? 
The  lion  hath  roared — who  will  not  fear  ? 
The  Lord  God  hath  spoken — who  can  but  prophesy  ?  '^ 

What  he  has  to  say  in  the  name  of  Yahve  is  nothing  less  than 
this,  that  it  is  all  over  with  the  state,  the  people,  the  royal  house 
of  Israel.  Yahve,  who  has  made  heaven  and  earth  and  guides  the 
stars,  is  a  just  God,  but  the  measure  of  Israel's  sins  has  long  been 
full,  the  judgment  day  of  Yahve  is  dawning,  the  ripe  fruit  is 
dropping.^  One  hears  the  voice  of  the  herdsman  from  Bethlehem's 
pastures  and  Judah's  desert,  when  he  exclaims  : 

'  As  the  shepherd  rescueth  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  lion 
Two  legs,  or  a  piece  of  an  ear, 
So  shall  the  children  of  Israel  be  rescued 
That  sit  in  Samaria 

In  the  corner  of  a  couch,  and  on  the  silken  cushions  of  a  bed  '^  ('  damask 
pillow,'  so  Kittel). 

1  Cf.  also  Oort  in  Th.  Tijdschr.  1891,  121  fif.  =  Amos  iii.  3,  4,  9  (R.V.). 

3  Cf.  Amos  viii.  1,  2.  ■*  Amos  iii.  12  (R.V.). 


Chap.  IV.]  THE  INTEKVENTION  OF  PROPHECY  321 

Woe  unto  you  that  desire  the  day  of  the  Lord  ! 

Wherefore  would  ye  have  the  day  of  the  Lord  ? 

It  is  darkness,  and  not  light. 

As  if  a  man  did  flee  from  a  lion, 

And  a  bear  met  him  ; 

Or  went  into  the  house  and  leaned  his  hand  on  the  wall. 

And  a  serpent  bit  him.'^ 

Not  as  though  the  great  harvest  day  which  Yahve  intends  were 
the  first  judgment  on  His  people.  Guilt  and  sin  were  there  long  ago, 
and  so  too  was  God's  punishment.  But  little  blows,  such  as 
failure  of  crops  and  dearth,  drought,  canker,  and  the  plague  of 
locusts,  even  pestilence  and  earthquake,  such  as  were  experienced 
in  recent  times,  no  longer  produce  any  effect.^  All  that  can  be 
done  now  is  that  Yahve  should  let  Israel  itself  perish,  in  order  to 
reach  His  end.  Already  Amos  sees  the  funeral  procession  and 
hears  the  lamentation  for  the  dead,  already  he  begins  himself  to 
sing  the  death-song  over  his  nation  : 

'  The  virgin  of  Israel  is  fallen  : 
She  shall  no  more  rise  : 
She  is  cast  down  upon  her  land  : 
There  is  none  to  raise  her  up.'^ 

'  Wailing  shall  be  in  all  the  broad  ways ;  and  they  shall  say  in  all  the 

street,  Alas  !  alas  ! 
And  they  shall  call  the  husbandman   to   mourning,  and   such  as    are 

skilful  of  lamentation  to  wailing. 
And  in  all  vineyards  shall  be  wailing  :  for  I  will  pass  through  the  midst 

of  thee,  saith  the  Lord.'* 

The  cause  of  all  this  calamity  is  evident.  Unrighteousness 
and  dishonesty,  heartless  oppression  of  the  poor,  shameless  cor- 
ruption of  the  judges,  open  exploiting  of  the  weak,  and  at  the 
same  time  luxury,  debauch,  and  a  life  of  ease  and  pleasure  lived 
by  the  help  of  these  ill-gotten  gains,  are  to  be  met  with  every- 
where.    Debtors  who  cannot  pay  go  into   slavery  for  the  sake 

1  Amos  v.  18,  19  (R. v.). 

2  Amos  iv.  6  ff.  The  earthquake,  according  to  i.  1  [cf.  Zech.  xiv.  7),  is  to  be 
placed  two  years  after  the  first  public  appearance  of  Amos.  It  accordingly 
occurred  in  the  period  between  this  and  the  writing  down  and  editing  of  his 
book. 

3  Amos  V.  1  (R.V.).  ^  Amos  v.  16  £f,  (R.V.) ;  cf.  vi.  9  f.,,  H 
VOL.  II.  X 


322  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

of  a  wretched  pair  of  shoes ;  in  their  greed  of  unjust  gain  some 
can  hardly  wait  till  the  holy  days  of  rest,  the  Sabbath  and  the 
new  moon,  are  past,  in  order  that  they  may  practise  usury  and 
cheat  with  false  weights  and  measures.^  Men  and  women  have 
an  equal  share  in  all  this  wrong-doing,  in  fact  the  women  incite 
the  men  to  a  base  pursuit  of  gain — '  Make  money  that  we  may 
carouse.'  ^  They  understand  how  to  make  use  of  the  money  thus 
unjustly  acquired  in  other  ways  besides  in  carousals.  Splendid 
freestone  buildings  with  costly  ivory  panelling,  town-dwellings 
for  the  winter,  and  country-seats  for  the  summer,  gardens  and 
vineyards,  luxurious  pillows  for  their  riotous  banquets,  balm,  the 
music  of  stringed  instruments  and  song,  all  help  to  sweeten  life 
in  Samaria  and  lead  men  to  forget  the  affliction  of  Joseph.^ 

But  still  worse  than  these  things  is  the  open  apostasy  from 
Yahve.  There  is  no  want  of  zeal  in  honouring  God  outwardly. 
But  will  Yahve,  like  Israel's  judges,  be  bribed  by  presents  ?  Is 
He  to  be  gained  over  by  feasts  and  sacrifices,  by  songs  and  the 
music  of  the  harp  ?  ^  It  is  true,  if  only  this  were  at  least  done 
in  a  right  way,  it  would  be  something.  But  what  Israel  practises 
is  really  nothing  but  idolatry.  Its  holy  places,  Bethel,  Gilgal,  Beer- 
sheba,  are  the  places  of  idols,  its  altars  have  become  places  of  sin, 
which  must  fall.  It  is  sacrilege  to  swear  by  the  God  of  Dan  and 
by  the  pilgrimage  to  Beersheba.^  Not  as  if  they  practised  a  real 
foreign  worship,  the  worship  of  Baal  perhaps.  The  dynasty  of 
Jehu  owed  its  throne  to  the  fight  against  Baal,  and  in  the  time 
of  Amos,  as  was  indeed  always  the  case  in  the  Northern  Kingdom, 
Bethel  is  the  royal  sanctuary.  The  religious  views  of  Jeroboam  II. 
are  not  likely  to  have  been  different  from  those  of  his  namesake 
or  of  Jehu.  But  prophecy  has  meanwhile  taught  a  different  view 
of  these  things.  The  image-worship  of  Bethel  and  Dan,  which 
Elijah  had  tolerated,  whose  seats  are  still  held  in  honour  and 
glorified  by  E  and  J,  has  now  become  a  worship  of  idols,  while 

^  Amos  ii.  6  ff.  ;  v.  10  ;  viii.  4  ff .  ^  Amos  iv.  I. 

3  Amos  iii.  12-15 ;  iv.  16 ;  v.  11  ;  vi.  1  ff.,  4  ff.  ^  ^mos  v.  21  ff. 

5  Amos  iii.  14 :  iv.  4  f .  :  v.  4  f .  :  vii.  9 ;  viii.  14. 


Chap.  IV.]  THE  INTERVENTION  OF  PROPHECY  323 

its   holy   places  have   become   the   same   as   the   high-places   of 
Baal. 

But  if  Yahv6  has  sworn  that  Israel  will  for  the  present  be 
destroyed,  this  does  not  mean  that  it  will  disappear  from  the 
earth.  The  grace  of  God  is  greater  than  the  guilt  of  man.  The 
House  of  Israel  shall  indeed  be  shaken  out  amongst  all  the  nations 
as  one  shakes  corn  in  a  sieve.  But  in  the  far  future  Yahve  is 
again  to  set  up  the  dwellings  of  David  which  have  been  cast  down, 
so  that  they  will  be  glorious  as  in  former  days.  Then  a  time  of 
blessing  will  come  upon  Israel.  '  The  mountains  shall  drop  sweet 
wine  and  the  hills  shall  melt.  And  I  will  plant  them  upon  their 
land,  and  they  shall  no  more  be  plucked  up  out  of  their  land 
which  I  have  given  them,  saith  the  Lord  thy  God.'  i 

It  cannot  astonish  us  when  we  find  that  the  sharp  words  of 
Amos  made  him  few  friends  in  Samaria.  When  in  Bethel  he 
had  prophesied  the  destruction  of  the  sanctuaries  of  Israel  to- 
gether with  that  of  the  House  of  Jeroboam,  he  was  arraigned  before 
the  king  by  the  priest  Amaziah  on  a  charge  of  blasphemy,  and 
expelled  the  country.^  What  became  of  him  we  do  not  know ; 
it  is  sufficient  that  he  has  left  us  his  book. 

But  the  sowing  of  Amos  was  not  in  vain.  A  short  time  after 
him,  and  while  Jeroboam  II.s  is  still  reigning,  a  man  appears  on 
the  scene  amongst  the  Ephraimites  themselves,  who  takes  up 
afresh  the  preaching  of  Amos  against  Ephraim:  Hosea  ben 
Be'eri. 

It  is  a  personal  experience  ^  which  turns  him  into  a  prophet. 
His  wife,  whom  he  tenderly  loves,  is  unfaithful  to  him.  How 
could  Yahve  send  this  sorrow  on  him  ?  His  own  trial  and  his 
wife's  degeneracy  blend  in  his  thoughts  with  what  he  daily  sees 
amongst  his  own  people.  The  one  becomes  for  him  a  picture  of 
the  other,  and  thus  it  becomes  clear  to  him  that  what  he  has 
come  through  has  happened  that  he  may  feel  in  his  own  experi- 

1  Amos  ix.  9  ff.  15  (R.V.).     CJ.  on  r.  11  Hofifmann  in  ZA  W.  iii.  125. 

2  Amos  vii.  9  fF.  ^  On  Hosea  i.  1,  see  Kuen.  §  66,  5-8. 

^  On  the  different  attempts  to  explain  this,  see  besides  the  Commentaries 
especially  Kuen.  §  66,  9  ff.  ;  [and  W.  K.  Smith,  Prophets  of  hrael,  179  ff.]. 


324  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

ence,  and  teach  others  to  declare  how  Israel  is  treating  its  God, 
and  how  God  is  treating  Israel.  The  nation  has  committed 
adultery  against  its  Lord.  The  recognition  of  this  fact  makes 
Hosea  a  prophet.  It  continues  to  be  throughout  the  central 
point  of  his  prophecy.  But  does  not  he  himself,  spite  of  all  that 
has  happened,  still  love  the  wife  of  his  choice  ?  And  so  Yahv^ 
does  indeed  reject  His  unfaithful  people,  but  He  cannot  with- 
draw His  love  from  them.  He  must  once  more  bring  them  back 
to  Himself. 

Israel  is  like  the  adulterous  wife,  Yahve  is  like  the  faithful 
loving  husband;  and  thus  two  conceptions  are  introduced  into 
the  Old  Testament,  which,  from  this  time  onwards,  were  never 
again  absent  from  it.  Hosea  is  the  prophet  of  the  Divine  love ;  no 
Old  Testament  writer  has  spoken  of  it  with  more  fervour  and 
depth  of  feeling  than  he.  In  utterances  which  are  harsh,  com- 
pressed, and  which  often  break  off  abruptly,  but  which  are  full 
of  bold  flights,  and  rich  in  grotesque  images  and  turns,  he  pours 
forth  his  whole  heart.  Hosea  does  not  shrink  from  being  bizarre 
and  almost  repulsive.  He  is  not  afraid,  in  the  interests  of  Yahve 
and  of  His  great  cause  in  Israel,  to  lay  open  to  the  gaze  of  the 
whole  world  the  depths  of  his  inner  life  and  the  secrets  of  his 
house  and  heart. 

It  is  his  endeavour  above  all  to  set  forth  the  sins  of  Israel  in 
their  true  form,  and  in  all  their  offensiveness.  The  main  evil  from 
which  Hosea  sees  his  nation  to  be  suffering,  is  that  Israel  has  for- 
saken the  true  God.  It  is  all  the  same  to  him  whether  they  run 
after  Baal  and  other  idols,  or  whether  they  worship  Yahve  in  a 
way  which  is  not  worthy  of  Him — it  is  idolatry.  Israel  is  for- 
saking her  own  husband  and  running  after  strange  men.  He 
appeals  to  the  sons  of  Israel  thus :  ^ 

'  Plead  with  your  mother,  plead  ; 
For  she  is  not  my  wife,  neither  am  I  her  husband  : 
And  let  her  put  away  her  whoredoms  from  her  face, 
And  her  adulteries  from  between  her  breasts  ;  .  .  . 

1  Hosea  ii.  2,5,  8  (R.V.). 


Chap.  IV.]  THE  INTERVENTION  OF  PROPHECY  325 

For  their  mother  hath  played  the  harlot :   she  that  conceived  them 

hath  done  shamefully  : 
For  she  said,  I  will  go  after  my  lovers, 
That  give  me  my  bread  and  my  water,  my  wool  and  my  flax,  mine  oil 

and  my  drink.  .  .  . 
For  she  did  not  know  that  I  gave  her 
The  corn,  and  the  wine,  and  the  oil. 
And  multiplied  unto  her  silver  and  gold. 
Which  they  used  for  Baal.' — ('From  which  they  made  a  Baal'— so 

Kittel.) 

The  great  part  of  the  prophecies  of  Hosea,  and  probably  the 
composition  of  his  book  generally,  belongs  to  the  time  after  the 
death  of  Jeroboam  II.  With  the  fall  of  the  dynasty  of  Jehu,  the 
worship  of  strange  gods  had  doubtless  again  penetrated  anew  into 
Israel.  Before  this,  bull-worship  and  worship  on  high-places  had 
roused  the  prophet  to  utter  denunciations,  because  this  material 
representation  of  God  was  a  denial  of  the  holy  character  of  Yahve, 
and  because,  besides  this,  the  lascivious  orgies  of  the  Canaanitish 
nature-worship  often  went  along  with  it.  It  must  have  all  the 
more  kindled  his  anger  when  he  saw  that  this  very  nature- 
worship  itself  had  again  begun  in  an  undisguised  form  to  get  a 
lodgment  in  Israel : 

'  Whoredom  and  wine  and  new  wine  take  away  the  understanding. 
My  people  ask  counsel  at  their  stock,  and  their  staff  declareth  unto 

them.  .  .  . 
They  sacrifice  upon  the  tops  of  the  mountains,  and  burn  incense  upon 

the  hills. 
Under  oaks  and  poplars  and  terebinths,  because  the  shadow  thereof 

is  good : 
Therefore  your  daughters  commit  whoredom,  and  your  daughters-in-law 

commit  adultery. 
I  will  not  punish  your  daughters  when  they  commit  whoredom, 
Nor  your  daughters-in-law  when  they  commit  adultery, 
For  they  themselves  go  apart  with  whores. 
And  they  sacrifice  with  the  harlots.'  i— ('Consecrated  harlots' =  Kedeshas 

— so  Kittel). 

But,  indeed,  the  calf  and  image-worship  is  itself  wickedness 
enough.     It  is  bringing  about  the  fall  of  Israel  once  more,  after 

iHoseaiv.  llff.  (R.V.). 


326  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

the  revolt  from  Baal  and  the  return  to  Yahve  under  Jehu  had 
again  exalted  it : 

'  When  Ephraim  spake,  there  was  trembling  ; 
He  exalted  himself  in  Israel : 
But  when  he  became  guilty  in  Baal,  he  died. 
And  now  they  sin  more  and  more,  and  have  made  them  molten  images 

of  their  silver, 
Even  idols  according  to  their  own  understanding, 
All  of  them  the  work  of  the  craftsmen  ; 
They  say  of  them  : 
Let  the  men  that  sacrifice  kiss  the  calves.'^ 

Israel's  guilt  is  added  to  also  by  the  open  immorality  in  which 
high  and  low,  and,  above  all,  the  accredited  leaders  of  the  nation, 
the  priests  and  prophets,  have  a  share.^  Usurpation,  tyranny,  and 
anarchy,  such  as  had  been  the  order  of  the  day  since  the  death  of 
Jeroboam,  could  not  possibly  improve  matters.^  Kor,  in  Hosea's 
judgment,  can  Menahem's  attempt  to  gain  over  the  Assyrians 
who,  since  the  fall  of  Syria/^have  been  standing  close  to  the  borders 
of  Israel,  avert  destruction,  any  more  than  the  efforts  made  pro- 
bably about  the  same  time  to  turn  Egypt  into  Israel's  friend.* 
They  only  confuse  the  judgment  and  turn  men's  eyes  from  Him 
who  alone  is  able  to  help,  if  He  willed  to  be  gracious.  But 
though  for  the  present  He  has  rejected  His  people,  and  given 
them  up  to  misery.  His  love  cannot  allow  Him  to  abandon  them 
for  ever.  Israel  must  fall  together  with  its  monarchy,  which  from 
the  first  was  contrary  to  Yahve's  will.  But  when  that  has  hap- 
pened, the  judgment  will  have  purified  it,  and  God  will  then  have 
pity  on  it : 

'  It  is  thy  destruction,  0  Israel,  that  thou  art  against  me,  against  thy 
help. 
Where  now  is  thy  king,  that  he  may  save  thee  in  all  thy  cities  ? 
And  thy  judges,  of  whom  thou  saidst,  Give  me  a  king  and  princes? 
I  have  given  thee  a  king  in  mine  anger, 
And  have  taken  him  away  in  my  wrath,  .  .  . 

^  Hoseaxiii.  1-2  (R.V.). 

2  Hosea  iv.  1  fi.,  5  ff.  ;  v.  1  ;  vi.  8  flf.  ;  vii.  1  ff.  ;  Ix.  15 ;  x.  9  j  xii.  9. 

^  Cf.  Hosea  vii.  7  ;  viii.  3  f . ;  x.  3,  15  ;  xiii.  10  f. 

-*  Cf.  Hosea  v.  13;  vii.  11 ;  viii.  9;  x.  6;  xii.  2;  xiv  4. 


CiiAP.  IV.]  THE  INTERVENTION  OF  PEOPHECY  327 

O  decith,  where  are  thy  plagues  ? 

0  Sheol,  where  is  thy  destruction  ?  ("pestilences,"  so  Kittel). 
Repentance  shall  be  hid  from  mine  eyes.  .  .  . 

They  shall  fall  by  the  sword, 

Their  infants  shall  be  dashed  in  pieces, 

And  their  women  with  child  shall  be  ripped  up.'  ^ 

But  uow  tlio  picture  changes.     God's  merciful  love  opens  up  a 

path  for  itself : 

'  I  will  betroth  thee  unto  me  for  ever  ; 
Yea,  I  will  betroth  thee  unto  me  in  righteousness,  and  in  judgment,  and 

in  loving-kindness,  and  in  mercies,  .  .  . 
And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  I  will  answer,  saith  the  Lord, 

1  will  answer  the  heavens,  and  they  shall  answer  the  earth, 
And  the  earth  shall  answer  the  corn,  and  the  wine,  and  the  oil ; 
And  they  shall  answer  Jezreel  (  =  Israel).  .  .  .^ 

I  will  heal  their  backslidings,  I  will  love  them  freely  ; 
For  mine  anger  is  turned  away  from  him.  .  .  . 

0  Ephraim,  what  have  I  to  do  any  more  with  idols  ? 

1  have  answered,  and  will  regard  him  : 
I  am  like  a  green  fir  tree  : 

From  me  is  thy  fruit  found.' ' 

Still  more  than  Amos,  the  man  of  Judah,  did  Hosea  direct  his 
glance  hopefully  to  the  'fallen  dwellings  of  David.'  Judah  is 
indeed  far  from  beino-  free  from  sin,*  still  it  is  at  least  better 
than  Israel,  and  the  future  belongs  to  it  and  to  its  royal  house. 
Sometime  those  belonging  to  the  Northern  Kingdom  will  return  to 
Judah  from  which  they  have  revolted,  and  again  recognise  David  as 
their  rightful  king.^  This  can  hardly  astonish  us.  And  there  is 
accordingly  no  occasion  for  declaring  such  passages  to  be  spurious 
additions.^^     If  once  Ephraim's  worship  of  God,  'the  calf  of  Bethel 

1  Hosea  xiii.  9-11,  14^ ;  xiv.  lb  (R.V.).  ^  Hosea  ii.  21,  23  f. 

'^  Hosea  xiv.  5,  9  (R.V.).  *  Cf.  Hosea  v.  10,  13,  14 ;  vi.  4;  viii.  14. 

•''  Hosea  iii.  5;  ii.  2  ;  x.  11  ;  cf.  iv.  15. 

^  So  Wellhausen,  Stade,  Cornill.  See  also  against,  Kuen.  §  66,  8  ff.  The 
passages  are  no  more  to  be  disputed  than  Amos  ix.  11.  If  Hosea  shows  himself 
to  be  acquainted  with  the  thoughts  in  1  Sam.  viii.  {cf.  xiii.  10  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  viii.  4  may  very  well  refer  to  usurpers  such  as  Shallum  and  jSIenahem,  and 
ix.  9,  on  account  of  x.  9,  may  refer  to  Judges  xix.  ff.),  no  objection  whatever  can 
be  drawn  from  his  fundamental  dislike  of  the  monarchical  constitution  against 
the  fact  of  his  actual  preference  for  the  Davidic  dynasty.  Cf  further,  Oort  in 
T»  Tijd.  1890,  345  fi".  ;  [Cheyne,  Introd.  to  new  ed.  of  W.  R.  Smith's  Prophets, 
p,  xxviii.  f.]. 


328  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

and  Samaria/ 1  were  recognised  as  'vanity/  a  prophet's  love  of 
his  fatherland  could  not  hinder  him  from  casting  his  eye  towards 
Jerusalem  and  its  Temple.  Judah  and  Jerusalem  appeared  to 
him  clothed  in  fresh  splendour,  and  their  House  of  David  in  its 
security  which  defied  the  centuries,  stood  exalted  high  above  the 
kingdom  of  Ephraim,  which  was  slowly  consuming  itself. 

It  is  only  in  the  form  of  a  supplement  that  I  venture  here  to 
say  a  word  on  Joel.  The  age  of  this  prophet  is  still  a  subject  of 
keen  controversy.  If  previously  Joel  was  regarded  as  the  oldest 
of  the  prophets  who  wrote  down  their  prophecies,  from  year  to 
year  the  number  of  those  is  increasing  who  assign  him  to  the 
latest  period  of  prophecy .^  Still  there  are  not  wanting  even  in 
the  present  day  defenders  of  the  earlier  date.^  So  far  as  my  own 
opinion  goes,  the  latter  seems  more  and  more  doubtful,  still  I 
recognise  the  weight  of  the  reasons  which  can  be  alleged  in  its 
support 

If  we  could  with  reason  maintain  that  Joel  is  older  than  Amos, 
then  a  good  deal  of  what  has  been  ascribed  to  Amos  above  would 
have  to  be  referred  to  Joel.  The  history  of  prophecy  would  in 
this  case  be  altered  in  more  than  one  direction.  The  literary 
activity  of  the  prophets  would,  according  to  this  view,  have  begun 
at  least  a  half  a  century  earlier  than  we  have  hitherto  supposed. 
The  ideas  of  the  unity,  the  spirituality,  and  the  moral  righteous- 
ness of  Yahv6  ^  would,  in  this  case,  have  been  expressed  all  this 
earlier,  with  the  same  clearness  with  which  they  are  stated  by 
Amos  and  Hosea.  We  have  no  right  whatever  to  assert  that  in 
itself  all  this  is  impossible.  Still,  even  granting  this,  we  cannot 
but  allow  that  the  time  of  Jeroboam  11.  and  of  the  prophets  Amos 
and  Hosea,  with  the  prospect  which  it  offered,  was  suited  as  no 
other  was,  for  giving  a  central  position  to  those  thoughts  in  the 
religion  of  Israel. 

1  See  e.g.  Hosea  viii.  5,  6 ;  x.  5. 

2  Best  worked  out  in  Kuen.  §  68,  1.  In  addition,  see  Holzinger,  ZA  W.  ix. 
89  ff.  ;  Cornill,  Grundr.  174  fif.  ;  Driver,  Introd.  287  ff. 

3  To  these  belongs  also,  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  A  T."-  257  fif. 

4  Cf.  Joel  ii.  27  ;  iii.  1  ff.  ;  chap.  iv. 


CHAPTEE    V. 

THE   END   OF   THE   NORTHERN  KINGDOM. 

§67.  Azariah-UzziaJi.     Menalicm. 

The  successor  of  that  Amaziah  of  Judah,  who  in  all  probability 
had  to  pay  by  his  death  for  his  arrogant  co^iduct  towards  Israel, 
was  his  son  Azariah.  In  Isaiah  and  Chronicles^  he  is  called 
Uzziah.  This  latter  name  has  also  to  a  certain  extent  got  into 
the  Book  of  Kings,  but  it  is  not  original  there.^  The  relation 
between  the  two  names  is  not  very  clear.  However,  the  Assyrian 
inscriptions  seem  to  point  to  the  fact  that  as  king  he  bore  the 
name  of  Azariah.^  It  is  possible  that  he  may  have  changed  his 
name  when  he  ascended  the  throne.* 

The  Book  of  Kings  dwells  very  briefly  on  his  long  reign,  put 
by  it  at  fifty-two  years  (78-  ?-737).^  The  only  bit  of  information 
given  regarding  his  deeds  refers  to  the  fortifying  of  Elath,  which 
is  ascribed  to  him.  This  is,  in  any  case,  closely  connected  with 
his  father's  successful  campaigns  against  Edom.  From  the  state- 
ment that  he  restored  Elath  to  Judah,  we  may  perhaps  conclude 
that  this  town  had  already  been  taken  by  his  father,  and  that  it 
had  been  lost  after  his  death,  so  that  Azariah  had  to  get  possession 
of  it  again.^  In  any  case,  the  possession  of  this  important  sea- 
port on  the  Bed  Sea  points  to  a  revival  of  trade  and  to  new  pros- 

^  With  the  exception  of  1  Chron.  iii.  12. 

2  Cf.  Lxx.  in  2  Kings  xv.  13,  30,  32,  34. 

3  See  Schrader,  KA  T.^  223  ff.  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  215  ff.].     But  see  below,  p.  336, 
note  1. 

*  Another  possibility  supported  by  Wellhausen ;  see  in  Stade,  Gesch.  i.  5G9, 

note  1. 

5  2  Kings  XV.  1-6 ;  cf.  xiv.  21  f.  ^  See  above,  §  62,  at  the  end. 

329 


330  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

perity.^  Besides  this,  the  Book  of  Kings  mentions  only  Azariah's 
illness  and  death.  '  And  Yahve,'  it  is  said,  '  sent  a  plague  upon 
the  king,  so  that  he  was  leprous  unto  the  day  of  his  death.'  ^  As 
he  was  no  longer  able  to  carry  on  the  affairs  of  government,  his 
son  Jotham  appears  to  have  exercised  a  kind  of  regency  during 
the  king's  lifetime.  The  text  of  the  Book  of  Kings  points  at  any 
rate  to  this,  when,  although  it  mentions  the  formal  accession  of 
Jotham  only  after  Azariah's  death,  it  at  the  same  time  tells  us 
that  Jotham  had  already  during  the  king's  illness  carried  on  the 
most  important  part  of  the  work  of  government,  namely,  the  giving 
of  decisions.  It  is  only  by  means  of  this  assumption  that  the 
serious  chronological  difficulties  presented  by  the  relation  in  which 
the  two  kings  Azariah-Uzziah  and  Jotham  stand  to  one  another 
can  be  in  a  measure  got  over.  It  is  extremely  probable  that 
Jotham's  regency,  entirely  or  in  great  part,  coincides  with  his 
reign.  The  year  of  Azariah's  death  must  be  very  close  to  that 
of  Jotham.2 

Chronicles  is  able  to  give  us  more  detailed  information  regard- 
ing Azariah,  whom  it  calls  Uzziah,  than  the  Book  of  Kings. 
According  to  it  Uzziah  had  no  inconsiderable  success  in  his  under- 
takings against  Judah's  neighbours  to  the  south,  the  west,  and  the 
east — a  success  which  won  for  him  a  respected  name.  His  later 
illness,  on  the  other  hand,  is  connected  in  the  Book  of  Chronicles 
with  a  conflict  which  he  had  with  the  Temple  priesthood.  His 
successes  in  war,  it  is  said,  puffed  up  his  heart,  so  that  he  presumed 
to  enter  the  Temple  with  the  burnt-offering.  In  vain  did  the 
priests  seek  to  prevent  him  from  committing  this  act  of  presump- 
tion ;  but  for  this  he  was  smitten  with  leprosy  as  a  punishment 
from  Yahve.4 

I  cannot,  on  internal  grounds,  entirely  reject  the  first  of  these 

1  Cf.  Isa.  ii.  16. 

-  2  Kings  XV.  5.  Regarding  the  place  of  his  residence,  cf.  Stade,  ZA  W.  vi. 
156  fF.  ;  also  Klost.  Sa.Ko.^  on  this  passage. 

^  See,  on  this  and  generally  on  the  chronology  of  the  period  of  the  Kings, 
above,  §  53  a 

^  2  Chron.  xxvi.  1-15,  16-23. 


Chap.  V.]        THE  END  OF  THE  NORTHERN  KINGDOM  331 

narratives.  What  Isaiah  says  presupposes,  in  the  time  before  the 
outbreak  of  the  Syro-Ephraimitish  war,  a  certain  measure  of 
prosperity  and  military  strength  in  Judah.  After  the  mournful 
defeat  at  the  hands  of  Israel,  with  which  Amaziah  ended  his  reign, 
the  description  given  by  Isaiah  of  the  times  of  Uzziah  and  Jotham 
is  not  intelligible  unless  Azariah  had  meanwhile  succeeded,  in 
some  way  or  other,  in  making  good  the  damage  again.  Successes 
on  the  part  of  Judah  against  the  Northern  Kingdom  are  not 
probable  so  long  as  Jeroboam  II.  lived.  On  the  contrary,  the 
perfect  silence  of  our  accounts  regarding  any  conflict  between  the 
two  kingdoms  during  this  period,  points  in  all  probability  to  the 
fact  that  Judah  was  to  a  certain  extent  in  subjection  to  Israel. 
The  more  Israel,  under  Jeroboam  II.,  was  able  to  act  independently 
with  reference  to  the  Syrians,  the  less  would  it  be  disposed  to 
allow  the  success  it  had  gained  against  Amaziah  to  remain  unused. 
All  this  goes  to  prove  that  the  account  in  Chronicles  of  certain 
successes  of  Azariah  on  the  other  borders  of  his  kingdom  is  based 
on  historical  reminiscences.  It  was  at  the  price  of  an  involuntary 
alliance  with  the  Northern  Kingdom  that  Azariah  was  free  to 
proceed  unhindered  against  his  neighbours.  We  have,  in  fact,  good 
grounds  for  supposing  that  Azariah  directly  supplied  a  contingent 
to  Jeroboam  II.  in  connection  with  his  Syrian  conquests,  and  that, 
after  Jeroboam's  death,  he  advanced  into  Syria  on  his  own 
account.^  If  he  was  in  a  condition  to  do  this,  he  must  have  had 
strength  enough  to  advance  against  his  nearest  neighbours. 

Nor  ought  we  to  reject  straight  off  the  other  account  in 
Chronicles  of  an  encounter  between  Azariah  and  the  Temple 
priesthood  which  was  fraught  with  serious  consequences  for  him. 
When  we  consider  what  an  influence  the  priest  Jehoiada  was 
able  in  the  time  of  Athaliah  to  exercise  on  the  destinies  of 
the  royal  house,  we  shall  see  that  here  too  the  inner  reasons  are 
not  wholly  wanting  which  make  it  probable  that  Azariah's  removal 
from  the  government  had  a  close  connection  with  a  conflict  in 
which  he  had  been  involved  with  the  Temple  priesthood. 

^  See  on  this  below,  p.  335  fif. 


332  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

Under  Azariah's  son,  Jotham^  (737,  rel.  751-753),  according  to 
the  Book  of  Kings,  the  first  attacks  on  Judah  by  the  united 
Syrians  and  Ephraimites  took  place.  These  form  the  beginning  of 
the  so-called  Syro-Ephraimite  war,  which  will  have  to  occupy 
our  attention  again.  With  the  exception  of  certain  services 
rendered  in  connection  with  the  Temple  fabric,  our  source  is 
not  able  to  supply  any  further  information  regarding  Jotham.^ 

In  the  Northern  Kingdom,  with  the  death  of  Jeroboam  II.,  the 
star  of  the  dynasty  of  Jehu  sinks,  and  at  the  same  time  that  of 
the  kingdom.  Usurpers  follow  one  another  in  quick  succession. 
The  sword  of  the  one  removes  the  other,  until  finally  the  last  one, 
and  with  him  the  kingdom,  becomes  the  prey  of  a  mightier  power. 
Of  the  few  kings  of  the  kingdom  of  Ephraim  who  died  a  natural 
death,  Jeroboam  II.  is  the  last.  He  is  followed  by  his  son 
Zachariah,^  who,  after  a  reign  of  only  six  months  (740),  is  mur- 
dered by  Shallum  *  ben  Jabesh,  the  head  of  a  conspiracy  formed 
against  him. 

The  murderer  himself  holds  possession  of  the  throne  only  for  a 
month.  Menahem  ben  Gadi^  (740-737)  marches  'from  Tirzah ' 
against  him,  takes  Samaria,  and  there  deprives  him  of  his  life. 
This  shows  that  Shallum  had  never  been  undisputed  king.  We 
are  at  the  same  time  able  to  get  a  glimpse  of  the  seething  anarchy 
after  the  death  of  Jeroboam  II.  Tirzah  had  formerly  been  the 
capital  of  the  Northern  Kingdom.  It  is  still  a  strong  fortress,  and 
is  in  fact  in  the  possession  of  Menahem — in  any  case  in  the  time 
of  Shalkim,  and  probably  also  in  the  reign  of  Zachariah.  This 
means  that  after  Jeroboam's  death  Menahem  ben  Gadi  was  able 
to  get  hold  of  the  one  half  of  the  kingdom,  and  Shallum  ben 
Jabesh  of  the  other.  Shallum  may  have  been  the  more  prompt  of 
the  two,  and  so  he  succeeds  in  getting  Zachariah  out  of  the  way, 
and  thus,  for  the  moment,  secures  the  throne  for  himself.     But  he 

1  2  Kings  XV.  32-37. 

^  Chronicles  tells  us  further  of  a  war  against  Amnion  (2  Chron.  xxvii.),  which 
is  to  be  judged  of  in  the  same  way  as  the  wars  of  Uzziah. 

3  2  Kings  XV.  8-12.  4  2  Kings  xv.  13-16. 

5  2  Kings  XV.  17-22 ;  cf.  14,  16. 


Chap.  V.]        THE  END  OF  THE  NORTHERN  KINGDOM  333 

has  to  reckon  with  his  rival  who  is  in  possession  of  the  strong 
Tirzah,  and  from  this  as  his  headquarters  he  fiercely  attacks  with 
fire  and  sword  all  who  do  not  submit  to  him,^  and,  after  a  month, 
he  gets  Samaria  itself  into  his  power.  But  even  this  does  not  end 
the  civil  war.  It  is  extremely  probable  that  even  as  early  as  this 
the  two  neighbouring  great  powers,  Egypt  and  Assyria,  played  a 
certain  role  in  Israel.  The  one  party  appears  to  have  favoured  a 
junction  with  Egypt,  the  other,  a  junction  with  Assyria. 

We  can  easily  understand  what  an  overwhelming  impression 
must  have  been  made  on  contemporaries  by  the  state  of  things  of 
which  we  here  get  a  glimpse  in  the  Book  of  Kings.  However 
modest  the  circumstances  of  Judah  might  be,  still  it  had  the 
advantage  of  a  fixed  dynasty,  which  put  it  out  of  the  reach  of 
commotions  of  this  kind  which  endangered  the  very  existence  of 
the  kingdom.  The  extent  to  which  the  seed  of  rebellion,  out  of 
which  the  Northern  Kingdom  had  grown,  represented  at  the  same 
time  the  curse  of  this  whole  kingdom,  had  never  before  been  shown 
in  such  a  vivid  form.  It  came  to  be  more  and  more  clearly 
recognised  that  it  was  radically  diseased  and  could  not  possibly  be 
healed.  Anarchy  and  usurpation  were,  and  continued  to  be,  its 
mark  of  Cain.  'They  chose  kings,'  cries  Hosea,  'without  me 
rulers  of  whom  I  knew  nothing.  .  .  .  They  all  glow  like  an  oven 
and  devour  their  judges  ;  all  their  kings  fall,  not  one  among  them 
calleth  unto  me.'^  And  Isaiah,  with  clear  reference  to  these 
times  of  the  civil  war,  says  of  Ephraim :  '  Each  eats  the  flesh  of 
his  own  arm,  Manasseh  Ephraim  and  Ephraim  Manasseh/  ^ 

The  consequences  of  this  self-laceration  are  soon  evident.  '  In 
his  day,'  says  the  Book  of  Kings  in  reference  to  Menahem,  '  the 
Assyrian  king  Pul  came  into  the  land,  and  Menahem  gave  Pul 
one  thousand  talents  of  silver,  in  order  that  he  might  stand  by 
him  and  confirm  his  authority.'  ^  Tliis  is  the  first  occasion  on  which 
Assyria  sets  foot  on  the  native  soil  of  Israel. 

^  2  Kings  XV.  16.    The  text  must  be  altered  in  accordance  with  the  LXX.    See 
in  part  Stade,  ZA  W.  vi.  160,  and  also  Kamph.  in  Kautzsch's  translation. 

-  Hosea  viii.  4  ;  vii.  7.  Cf.  also  above,  pp.  326,  327,  and  note  6.    ^  Isa.  ix.  19,  20. 
■*  2  Kings  XV.  19.     The  beginning  of  the  verse  is  to  be  restored  as  in  the  lxx. 


334  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III, 

An  encounter  between  Israel  and  Assyria  in  Israel's  own  land 
was,  of  course,  inevitable.  After  the  opposition  of  Damascus  had 
been  actually  broken  down,  it  was  only  a  question  of  time.  But 
it  is  certainly  no  mere  accident  that  it  takes  place  just  at  this 
time.  Tyranny  and  civil  war  have  weakened  the  kingdom ;  no 
one  party  is  able  by  its  own  strength  to  become  master  in  the 
country.  The  one  side  seems,  as  Hosea  tells  us,^  to  have  sought 
support  in  Egypt,  the  other  in  Assyria.  Menahem  too  does  not  yet 
feel  secure  upon  his  throne.  Civil  strife  still  goes  on.  Even  if 
Menahem  had  had  uncontested  possession  of  his  throne,  it  would 
have  been  an  easy  matter  for  Assyria,  after  what  had  happened,  to 
have  undertaken  an  invasion  of  Israel.  If  we  in  the  first  instance 
allow  the  Old  Testament  to  speak  for  itself,  the  supposition 
suggests  itself  that  Pul,  invited  by  Menahem  and  his  party,  was 
able  to  make  good  use  of  the  disturbed  state  of  things  in  Israel  in 
order  to  organise  an  expedition  for  the  conquest  of  Samaria.  It  will 
also  be  seen  to  be  probable  that  Pul  had  other  reasons  for  advancing 
against  Israel.  Menahem  secures  the  withdrawal  of  the  enemy  and, 
at  the  same  time,  purchases  the  safety  of  his  throne  against  the 
attacks  of  his  opponents  at  home,  by  paying  a  shameful  tribute. 

The  means  employed  by  Menahem  to  raise  the  tribute  claim 
our  attention.  The  sum  required  is  assessed  on  those  bound  to 
bear  arms.-  This  is  only  intelligible  if  those  bound  to  bear  arms 
are  at  the  same  time  the  holders  of  property.  It  would  thus  seem 
that  at  this  period  the  old  custom  was  still  in  vogue  in  Israel, 
according  to  which  those  who  had  no  property  were  exempt  from 
military  service.  The  possessors  of  landed  property  share  the 
burdens  of  the  state  and  also  military  service  amongst  themselves. 
If  we  reckon  the  talent  at  3000  shekels,^  the  result  we  arrive  at, 
on  the  basis  of  an  assessment  of  50  shekels  for  each  individual 
proprietor,  is,  that  in  the  time  of  Menahem  there  were  in  the 
Northern  Kingdom  60,000  families  who  possessed  heritable  lands. 

1  See  above,  §  66,  p.  826. 

-  2  Kings  XV.  20.     See  also  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  449. 

3  See  Schrader  in  the  HWB,,  under  Talent  and  Sekel, 


Chap  V.]        THE  END  OF  THE  NORTHERN  KINGDOM  335 

We  are  now  in  the  favonrable  position  of  being  able  to  throw 
some  further  light  on  this  expedition  of  the  Assyrian  king  Pul 
against  Menahem  of  Israel,  by  the  aid  of  the  Assyrian  monuments. 
It  was  for  a  long  time  supposed,  and  it  has  now  been  proved 
with  certainty/  that  Pul  was  no  other  than  Tiglathpileser  III.,^ 
one  of  the  most  powerful  of  the  Assyrian  conquerors  (745-727). 
He  informs  us  in  his  Annals  that  he  exacted  tribute  from  Mena- 
hem of  Samaria,  as  he  did  from  Hiram  of  Tyre  and  Eezin  of 
Damascus.^  We  gather  at  the  same  time  from  the  Assyrian 
accounts  that  this  paying  of  homage  by  Menahem  to  the  Assyrian 
king  is  to  be  placed  in  the  eighth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiglath- 
pileser, and  so  in  the  year  738  B.C.* 

In  order,  however,  to  reach  the  inferences  which  we  are  able 
to  draw  from  our  present  standpoint  in  connection  with  Israelitish 
history,  mention  must  be  made  here  of  another  event  in  the 
history  of  Tiglathpileser  to  which  our  attention  is  called  solely 
by  what  we  find  in  the  Assyrian  accounts.  In  the  annals  of 
Tiglathpileser  III.  we  find  two  important  fragments,^  which,  spite 
of  the  defectiveness  of  the  text,  make  this  much  at  least  per- 
fectly clear,  namely,  that  Azariah  of  Judah  is  here  mentioned 
as  the  opponent  of  Tiglathpileser,  and  in  fact  as  being  at  the 
head  of  a  coalition  of  Syrian  towns  formed  against  Assyria,  which 
'  in  their  wickedness  and  sin  had  attached  themselves  to  the 
party  of  Azariah.'^  These  events  too  must  be  referred  to  the 
year  738,  or  to  a  time  a  little  previous  to  this.^ 

It  is  preferable  to  examine  these  last-mentioned  accounts 
first.  Azariah  of  Judah  cannot  possibly  be  any  other  than  the 
king  long   known   to   us  as   Azariah-Uzziah.      All   attempts   to 

1  See  especially  Schrader,  KGF.  422  ff.  ;  KAT."  227  ff.  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  219  ff.]  j 
Tiele,  Gesdi.  227. 

"  He  is  the  third,  and  not,  as  was  supposed  until  recently,  the  second  of  this 
name.     See  Schrader,  KBihl.  ii.  2,  note  1. 

3  See  Schrader  KAT.''  223  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  215] ;  KBihl  ii.  31. 

^  See  Schrader,  KAT.-  222  f.  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  214  flf.] ;  Tiele,  Gesch.  231. 

5  See  Schrader,  KAT.-  218  ff.  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  209] ;  KBihl.  ii.  25  ff. 

6  See  especially  iii.  R.  9,  Nr.  2,  Z.  3,  4  (8  ?),  10,  and  iii.  R.  9,  Nr.  3,  Z.  23,  31. 

7  Schrader,  KAT."-  223  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  215];  Tiele,  Gesch.  229  f. 


336  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

combat  this  identification/  partly  on  the  ground  that  according 
to  our  established  chronology,  Azariah  must  at  this  time  have 
been  long  since  dead,  partly  on  the  ground  that  the  Bible  accounts 
do  not  lead  us  to  suppose  that  Azariah  mixed  himself  up  with 
affairs  in  Northern  Syria,  are  of  no  avail.  However  unlikely 
it  may  seem  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Bible  account,  still,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  Azariah  must  have  been  involved  in  some  way 
or  other  in  the  battles  in  the  region  of  Hamath,  and  our  task 
simply  is  to  bring  the  sudden  appearance  of  this  king  in  Syria 
into  connection  with  what  we  otherwise  know  regarding  him. 

If  we  recollect  that  Jeroboam  II.  is  supposed  to  have  extended 
the  borders  of  Israel  as  far  as  Hamath,^  further,  that  Azariah- 
Uzziah  in  all  probability  stood  in  some  kind  of  relation  of 
dependence  to  Jeroboam,^  we  may  find  in  this  the  key  to  the 
understanding  of  these  further  accounts  of  Azariah.  Azariah 
supplied  Jeroboam  with  a  contingent  in  the  wars  of  the  latter 
against  the  Syrians  of  Damascus  already  weakened  by  Assyria. 
At  the  time  of  the  decline  of  the  Assyrian  Empire  under 
Assurnirar,  they  succeeded  in  extending  their  own  authority  in 
Northern  Syria  at  the  cost  of  the  Assyrians.  After  Jeroboam's 
death  (about  740)  Azariah  takes  advantage  of  the  disturbances 
in  the  kingdom  of  Ephraim  in  order  to  continue  on  his  own 
account  in  Syria  the  policy  hitherto  pursued  in  common  with 
Israel.  The  change  of  throne  in  Assyria  seemed  to  supply  a 
favourable    opportunity.      Hamath   makes    common   cause   with 

1  Gutschmid,  Neue  Beitr.  z.  Gesch.  d.  alt.  Orients,  55  ff.  ;  Wellh.  JDTh.  xx. 
632;  Klost.  Sa.Ko.  496.  [If  I  had  to  write  on  this  subject  now,  the  treatment 
of  it  would  necessarily  differ  considerably  from  that  given  in  the  text,  written 
three  years  ago.  Since  then  an  unexpectedly  new  light  has  been  cast  on  this 
question  by  the  discovery  of  the  ancient  Aramrean  inscriptions  of  Sendschirli 
{Mittheilungen  aus  den  Orient.  Sammlunrjen  der  Konigl.  Museen  zu  Berlin,  xi. 
1893)  in  which  likewise  a  land  Jaudi  plays  a  part.  This  renders  it  again  doubt- 
ful if  the  king  mentioned  in  the  cuneifonn  writings  is  really  our  Azariah-Uzziah. 
If  the  view  that  they  are  one  and  the  same  becomes  untenable,  then  of  course 
the  conclusions  based  on  this  identification  go  too.  I  hope  very  soon  to  be  able 
to  take  up  a  definite  position  with  regard  to  the  whole  question.  Meanwhile 
compare  Winckler,  Altor.  Forsch,  i.  1  ff .  ;  M 'Curdy,  Hist.  Proph.  and  the 
Momiments,  i.  413-415.] 

2  2  Kings  xiv.  25.     See  above,  p.  295.  2  g^e  above,  p.  331. 


Chap.  Y.]         THE  END  UE  THE  JNOKTHEKJN   KlJNtiDOM  337 

Azariah  against  Assyria,  and  perhaps  Damascus  also.  Bat  the 
powerful  Tiglathpileser  was  not  the  man  to  look  calmly  on 
plottings  of  this  kind:  in  739  or  738  Hamath  is  reduced  to 
subjection,  after  its  army,  together  with  that  of  Azariah,  had 
been  beaten. 

The  only  difficulty  still  remaining  has  reference  to  the  rela- 
tionship between  Azariah-Uzziah  and  his  son  Jotham.  Judging 
from  the  Biblical  accounts  we  would  necessarily  expect  that 
at  this  time  Jotham  had  for  a  long  period  been  occupying  the 
place  of  his  sick  father.  If  we  do  not  wish  to  put  Azariah's 
illness  so  far  down,  we  can  still  fall  back  on  the  possibility  that 
Azariah  is  mentioned  only  as  the  nominal  king  of  Judah,  while, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  Jotham  was  regent.  The  same  view  may  be 
taken  of  the  statements  in  Isaiah.^ 

As  soon  as  Hamath  is  reduced  to  subjection,  Tiglathpileser 
(738)  turns  against  the  rest  of  Syria.  Israel,  too,  in  which  the 
Egyptian  party  represented  at  once  the  party  of  Jeroboam  IL, 
and  the  party  opposed  to  Menahem,  is  to  be  punished  for  the 
encroachments  of  Jeroboam.  Assyria's  interference  may  have 
been  welcomed  by  Menahem's  party ,2  which  was  the  Assyrian 
party,  since  it  propped  up  Menahem's  still  shaking  throne.  But 
it  was  in  truth  merely  a  miserable  momentary  success.  It  appears, 
further,  that  Tiglathpileser  advanced  as  far  as  Samaria. 

§  68.  Tlic  Sijro-Eplimimitish  War.     Isaiah's  first  appearances. 

Menahem  cannot  have  long  survived  his  disgrace.  For  in 
734  we  already  find  his  second  successor  on  the  throne.  He 
must  thus  have  died  soon  after  738.  For  this  reason  it  is  not 
probable  that  the  ten  years'  reign  assigned  to  him  in  the  Book 
of  Kings  ^  corresponds  to  the  actual  facts.  His  successor  is  his 
son  Pekahiah,*  who,  however,  after  a  short  reign — of  two  years 

1  Isaiah  vi.  1.     See  also  above,  at  the  beginning  of  this  paragraph. 

-  For  Hosea's  judgment  on  this  see  above,  p.  326. 

3  2  Kings  XV.  17.     See  on  his  and  Pekah's  times  above,  §  53a. 

■*  2  Kings  XV.  23-26.     The  text  in  v.  25  is  corrupt.    See  Stade,  ZA  W.  vi.  160. 

VOL.  II.  Y 


338  MlSiOlti:  OJ^'  THE  HJK±5KE\\^S  [Book  III. 

(737-735),  according  to  the  Book  of  Kings — was  slain  by  his 
charioteer  Pekah  ben  Eemaliah  (735-734/3).  He  is  said  to  have 
broken  into  the  royal  palace,  at  the  head  of  a  band  of  Gileadites. 

Pekahiah's  dethronement  was  undoubtedly  the  consequence 
of  the  disgraceful  agreement  which  his  father  had  made  with 
the  Assyrians.  For  if  those  in  Syria  were  not  entirely  smitten 
with  blindness,  it  must  have  been  seen  that  the  sole  hope  of 
resisting  the  renewed  and  reckless  advance  of  Assyria  lay  in  a 
close  combination  of  all  the  Syrian  states.  If  that  succeeded, 
then  there  was,  at  any  rate,  some  hope  of  Syria  being  able  once 
more,  as  it  had  done  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  earlier,  to 
meet  the  assault  of  the  enemy.  Naturally  enough,  the  Egyptian 
party  also  renewed  its  activity,  Pekah  was  probably  its  tool 
even.  Only,  as  things  were  at  that  moment  in  Egypt,  no  help 
was  to  be  looked  for  from  that  quarter.  The  national  Egyptian 
rulers  had  used  every  endeavour  to  keep  off  the  Ethiopians,^  who 
were  constantly  making  new  assaults  on  them.  However  much 
they  may  have  been  interested  in  warding  off  the  Assyrian  danger, 
it  was  little  that  they  could  contribute  in  the  way  of  help. 

We  can  thus  understand  how  in  Syria  use  was  made  of  the 
first  opportunity  which  presented  itself  of  abandoning  the  ancient 
feuds,  in  order  with  united  strength  to  keep  off  the  all-powerful 
foe.  During  the  years  737-735  Tiglathpileser  is  occupied  in  the 
far  East,2  and  he  would  certainly  have  had  occasion  for  remain- 
ing longer  there  if  he  had  not  been  called  back  to  Syria  by  the 
pressing  state  of  things  in  that  region.  Here  in  his  absence  two 
old  enemies  have  come  to  an  agreement.  The  common  danger 
makes  Pekah  of  Israel  and  Piezin  of  Damascus  forget  the  quarrel 
between  the  two  kingdoms,  which  was  centuries  old.  The  two 
principal  Phoenician  cities.  Tyre  and  Sidon,  join  them,  as  does 
also  an  Arabian  queen,  Shamsi. 

Only,  on  the  other  hand,  a  not  inconsiderable  portion  of  Syria 
will  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  confederation.  Its  fate  was  thus 
sealed  beforehand,  if  it  did  not  succeed  in  compelling  the  waverers 

1  See  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  428.  -  Tiele,  Gesch.  231. 


Chap.  V.^        THE  END  OF  THE  NORTHERN  KINGDOM  339 

to  join.  To  tliese  belong,  on  the  one  side,  the  Northern  Phccnicians, 
and  especially  the  Hittites ;  and  on  the  other,  the  countries  of 
Southern  Palestine :  Judah,  Ammon,  Moab,  Edom,  and  the  Philis- 
tines.i    To  win  them  over  is  necessarily  the  grand  aim  of  the  allies. 

In  Judah  King  Jotham  is  reigning  about  this  time  (±736) 
either  by  himself  or  as  regent  for  his  invalid  father  Azariah.^  The 
Book  of  Kings  informs  us  that  at  this  time  Yahve  stirred  up  the 
two  kings,  Kezin  of  Aram-Damascus  and  Pekali  of  Israel,  against 
Judah.^  If  it  is  at  all  allowable  to  take  the  meagre  statements 
in  our  Bible  sources  in  connection  with  world-events,  then  we 
are  justified  in  regarding  the  common  attack  of  Kezin  and  Pekah 
on  Judah  as  a  consequence  of  the  refusal  of  Jotham  to  join  the 
confederacy  against  Assyria.  The  Book  of  Kings  connects  the 
account  of  Jotham's  death  ^  with  the  statement  referred  to,  and 
does  this  in  a  fashion  which  suggests  the  thought  that  Jotham 
died  soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  war.  This  is  in  harmony 
with  the  picture  which  we  are  otherwise  able  to  form  of  the 
course  of  events.  According  to  it,  the  war  must  have  been  con- 
tinued into  the  reign  of  Ahaz  of  Judah. 

The  strife  which  thus  broke  out  in  Palestine  itself  is  known 
in  history  as  the  Si/ro-Ujjhraimitish  War.  We  have  three  different 
sources  of  information  regarding  the  events  in  it — the  Book  of 
Kings,  Tiglathpileser,  and  the  prophet  Isaiah.  And  we  cannot 
speak  of  it  without  thinking  of  this  last-mentioned  powerful  man, 
who  for  some  years  had  been  taking  part  in  public  life,  and  who 
impressed  the  stamp  of  his  character  on  his  whole  age. 

Isaiah  ben  Amoz  ^  is  a  native  of  Judah,  but  his  thoughts  are 
not  occupied  with  Judah  alone.  From  the  days  of  Uzziah  to  the 
the  end  of  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  and  consequently  for  more  than 

1  Sec  on  tliese  points  Tiele,  Gesch.  233  ;  and  in  addition,  3  R.  10,  Nr.  2,  12  ff. ; 
2  R.  67,  57  ff.  However,  see  now  on  the  Plia-nician  cities,  Winckler,  Ge-^ch.  Bah. 
333.  "  See  on  this  above,  pp.  330,  331,  332.  ■'  2  Kings  xv.  37. 

■•  2  Kings  XV.  38.  Verses  37  and  38  form  together  a  supplement  to  the  history 
of  Jotham.     Cf.  v.  36. 

5  See  Duhm,  Theol.  d.  Prof.;  Guthe,  Das  Zukunftsbild  des  Prof.  Jesaja; 
Driver,  Isaiah :  His  Life  and  Times  ;  Dillmann,  in  the  Exeg.  Handb. ;  Kuen. 
§41ff. 


340  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

a  generation,  he  closely  followed  all  the  events  of  any  consequence 
which  happened  in  the  nation,  and  dealt  with  them  in  his  pro- 
phetic utterances.  He  lived  through  the  Syro-Ephraimitish  war, 
the  fall  of  Samaria,  the  threatening  of  Jerusalem  by  Sennacherib, 
and  in  all  these  changes  of  fortune  he  represented  the  voice  of 
Yahve  to  his  nation.  His  thoughts  are  not  entirely  new.  He 
stands  on  the  shoulders  of  his  predecessors,  Amos  and  Hosea. 
But  he  far  surpasses  them  both  in  manysidedness,  depth  and  force 
of  thought,  and  in  the  energy  and  breadth  of  his  religious  views  of 
things.  His  language  is  sustained  and  lofty,  frequently  full  of 
colour  and  highly  poetic  ;  his  imagination  is  rich  in  striking  com- 
parisons and  appropriate  images.  Isaiah  is  a  master  of  eloquence, 
and  excels  in  producing  an  overpowering  effect. 

But,  above  all,  Isaiah  is  the  type  par  excellence  of  a  prophet  of 
God  in  Israel.  What  holds  good  of  the  prophets  of  Israel  generally 
is  true  of  him  in  a  very  special  degree.  He  is  eminently  a 
religious  personality}  wholly  steeped  in  the  great  religious  thoughts 
supplied  by  the  religion  of  Yahve,  and  by  them  he  is  borne  onward 
to  the  highest  flights  of  enthusiasm  and  hope.  Like  Moses  and 
Elijah,  he  belongs  to  the  religious  heroes  of  his  nation,  in  whom 
the  really  peculiar  and  deepest  side  of  the  national  character  of 
Israel,  and  its  world-historical  mission  to  the  nations  of  the  world, 
found  their  most  complete  expression.  The  figure  of  Isaiah  stands 
out  as  a  landmark,  visible  far  and  wide,  in  the  history  of  his  nation, 
He  was,  in  fact,  one  of  those  lamps  which  spread  their  light  far 
beyond  the  limits  of  this  one  people.  His  thoughts  have  become 
history.  They  breathed  new  breath  into  the  expiring  Israel,  and 
new  life  into  generations  long  after.  He  who  recognises  and 
reveres  the  traces  of  God  in  history,  will  not  fail  to  see  in  a  figure 
such  as  that  of  Isaiah,  the  man  of  God.^ 

Isaiah's  first  appearance  in  public  life  was  in  the  last  year  of 
Uzziah.     Perhaps  at  the  time  of  his  first  utterances  Uzziah  had 

^  See  on  this  above,  §  65. 

2  [See  my  little  work  :  Aus  dem  Lehen  des  Prof.  Jesaja  (Akademische  Kanzel- 
reden)  1894.] 


Chap.  V.]        THE  END  OF  THE  NORTHERN  KINGDOM  341 

not  yet  been  humiliated  by  Tiglathpileser ;  at  any  rate,  Jotham 
does  not  seem  to  be  as  yet  threatened  by  the  two  allies.  The 
power  of  Judah  is  still  unbroken :  '  their  land  also  is  full  of  silver 
and  gold,  neither  is  there  any  end  of  their  treasures  ;  their  land  also 
is  full  of  horses,  neither  is  there  any  end  of  their  chariots.'  ^  But 
behind  the  dazzling  outside,  Isaiah  sees  the  corruption  within  ; 
injustice  and  oppression  of  the  poor,  the  frivolous  pursuit  of 
pleasure,  along  with  superstition  and  shameless  apostasy  : 

'  Woe  unto  them  that  join  house  to  house. 
That  lay  field  to  field,  till  there  be  no  room. 
And  ye  be  made  to  dwell  alone  in  the  midst  of  the  land  !  .  .  . 
Of  a  truth  many  houses  shall  be  desolate. 
Even  great  and  fair,  without  inhabitant !  .  .  . 
Woe  unto  them  that  rise  up  early  in  the  morning,  that  they  may  follow 

strong  drink  ; 
That  tarry  late  into  the  night,  till  wine  inflame  them  ! 
And  the  harp,  and  the  lute,  the  tabret  and  the  pipe,  and  wine,  are  in 

their  feasts  : 
But  they  regard  not  the  work  of  the  Lord,  neither  have  they  considered 

the  operation  of  his  hands. 
Therefore  my  people  are  gone  into  captivity,  for  lack  of  knowledge  : 
And  their  honourable  men  are  famished,  and  their  multitude  ["revellers," 

so  Kittel]  are  parched  with  thirst.'^ 

A  terrible  judgment  must  accordingly  come  upon  Judah.  The 
Holy  One  of  Israel  does  not  suffer  himself  to  be  mocked.  A  *  day 
of  Yahve  of  Hosts  '  is  about  to  come  on  all  the  still  existing  glory 
of  Judah : 

'  Upon  all  the  cedars  of  Lebanon,  that  are  high  and  lifted  up,  and  upon  all 

the  oaks  of  Bashan  ;  .  .  . 
Upon  all  the  ships  of  Tarshish,  and  upon  all  pleasant  imagery  [  "  costly 

curiosities,"  so  Kittel].  .  .  . 
And  the  idols  shall  utterly  pass  away. 
And  men  shall  go  into  the  caves  of  the  rocks,  and  into  the  holes  of  the 

earth. 
From  before  the  terror  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  majesty, 
When  he  ariseth  to  shake  mightily  the  earth.'  ^ 

As  soon,  however,  as  the  threatening  clouds  show  themselves 

1  Isaiah  ii.  7  (R.V.).  -  Isaiah  v.  8,  9,  11-13  (R.V.). 

'•"  Isaiah  ii.  13  f.,  16,  18  f.  (R.V.). 


342  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBKEWS  [Book  III. 

on  the  horizon  of  Judah,  and  it  becomes  evident  that  the  alliance 
between  Ephraim  and  Aram  threatens  Judah  first  of  all,  Isaiah 
straightway  takes  up  a  new  position.  The  judgment  of  Judah 
will  not  fail  to  arrive  ;  but  what  threatens  here  is  not  the  scourge 
of  God,  but  the  work  of  man :  a  torch  which  is  already  burned  out 
has  only  smoke,  not  fire.  Ephraim's  policy,  and  all  its  doings,  have 
for  years  been  marked  by  blind  infatuation ;  its  destiny  is  a  chain 
of  divine  judgments  which  has  not  yet  reached  it  end.  They 
said : 

*  The  bricks  are  fallen,  but  we  will  build  with  hewn  stone  : 
The  sycomores  are  cut  down,  but  we  will  change  them  into  cedars. 
Therefore  the  Lord  hath  set  up  on  high  against  him  the  adversaries  of 

Kezin  [  "  oppressors,"  so  Kittel]  and  hath  stirred  up  his  enemies  : 
The  Syrians  on  the  east,  and  the  Philistines  on  the  west,  and  they  have 

devoured  Israel  with  open  mouth.  .  .  . 
Yet  the  people  hath  not  turned  unto  him  that  smote  them.  .  .  . 
Therefore  the  Lord  hath  cut  oflf  from  Israel  head  and  tail,  palm-branch 

and  rush,  in  one  day.   .  .  . 
For  all  this  his  anger  is  not  turned  away,  but  his  hand  is  stretched  out 

still.' 1 

And  Ephraim's  ally,  Damascus,  will  fare  no  better  than 
Ephraim  itself.  If  Ephraim's  fortresses  must  become  like  the 
long  desolate  and  ruined  dwelling-places  of  the  Hivites  and 
Amorites  who  once  fled  before  Israel,  the  same  lot  is  in  store  for 
Damascus  and  its  inland  towns.  '  They  shall  be  for  flocks,  which 
shall  lie  down,  and  none  shall  make  them  afraid.  The  fortress 
also  shall  cease  from  Ephraim  and  the  kingdom  from  Damascus  ; 
and  the  remnant  of  Syria  shall  be  as  the  glory  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts.'  2 

This,  perhaps,  was  how  Isaiah  judged  of  things  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  war,  while  Jotham  still  lived  and  the  traditions  of 
Azariah's  successes  had  still  an  influence  on  people's  minds.  But 
Jotham  dies,  and  then  what  Isaiah  had  already  anticipated  takes 
place.     '  I  will  give  children  to  be  their  princes,  and  babes  shall 

^  Isaiah  ix.  10  fF.  (R.V.).  See  on  the  only  correct  interpretation  of  the 
passage,  Dillmann  in  his  Commentary. 

2  Isaiah  xvii.  2,  3  (R.V.).     Cf.  v.  9,  and  for  the  text  the  Commentaries. 


Chap.  V.]        THE  END  OF  THE  NORTHERN  KINGDOM  343 

rule  over  them.  0  my  people  !  children  are  their  oppressors,  and 
women  rule  over  them.'  ^  Jotham's  place  is  taken  by  his  still 
youthful  son,  Aliaz.^  Judah,  which  at  this  time  so  urgently 
needed  a  strong  and  resolute  man  to  guide  it,  falls  into  the  hands 
of  a  youth  of  twenty,  who  possessed  neither  experience  of  life  nor 
the  moral  force  and  stability  which  come  from  a  firm  faith  in  God. 
The  whole  burden  of  looking  after  the  good  of  the  land  rests,  as  it 
so  often  did,  on  the  shoulders  of  prophecy — the  best  proof  of  the 
peculiar  significance  and  importance  of  this  unique  phenomenon 
in  Israel. 

It  is  highly  probable  that  it  was  the  death  of  Jotham,  and  the 
accession  of  the  youthful  Ahaz  who  succeeded  him,  which  spurred 
on  the  allies  to  make  a  fresh  attempt  to  win  over  Judah  to  their 
side.  In  any  case,  their  main  action  in  the  matter  occurs  in  the 
reign  of  Ahaz.  Eezin  undertakes  an  expedition  in  a  southern 
direction  which  costs  Judah  the  possession  of  Elath,  the  source  of 
the  wealth  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  under  Azariah  and  Jotham. 
It  goes  back  to  its  old  possessors,  the  Edomites.  But  the  allies 
next  prepare  to  make  a  direct  attack  on  Ahaz.  With  their  united 
forces  they  move  towards  Judah  in  order  to  capture  Jerusalem, 
and,  if  possible,  to  dethrone  the  obstinate  Ahaz.^ 

When  matters  took  this  turn,  Judah  did  not  know  what  to  do. 
The  Assyrian  party  in  Jerusalem  and  at  the  court  of  Ahaz  could 
point  to  the  example  of  Menahem,  for  whom,  in  his  sore  straits, 
Tiglathpileser  had,  a  few  years  before,  proved  himself  a  deliverer. 
In  that  instance,  as  in  the  present  one,  those  against  whom  Judah 
had  appealed  to  Assyria  were  the  enemies  of  the  latter.  On 
receipt  of  the  bare  news  of  the  advance  of  the  enemies  against 
Judah,  Ahaz  and  all  Jerusalem,  in  their  dismay,  lost  their  heads,"* 
and   the   king   seems  to  have  formed  his  resolution  before  the 

1  Isaiah  iii.  4,  12  (R.V.).  2  o  Kings  xvi. 

^  2  Kings  xvi.  5,  6  ;  Isaiah  vii.  2,  5  f.  The  events  of  2  Kings  xvi.  6  may- 
precede  those  of  v.  5,  since  a  fresh  beginning  is  made  in  each  verse. 

^  Isaiah  vii.  2.  Perhaps  Ahaz  on  this  occasion  ofiFered  up  his  son.  Cf.  2  Kingis 
xvi.  3.  Stade,  p.  596,  places  the  event  slightlj'  later ;  but  the  text  of  Isaiah 
viii.  6  is  much  too  uncertain. 


344  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

prudent  among  his  counsellors  could  check  him  by  their  advice. 
He  sends  ambassadors  to  Tiglathpileser,  and,  in  humble  language, 
submits  himself  to  the  great  king.  His  humble  prayer  for  help 
against  his  enemy  is  backed  up  by  the  despatch  of  the  whole  store 
of  silver  and  gold  which  was  laid  up  in  the  Temple  treasury  and 
the  royal  exchequer.^ 

In  following  this  short-sighted  policy,  Ahaz  had  the  public 
opinion  of  Jerusalem  on  his  side.  Modern  historians,  too,  have 
taken  him  under  their  protection.  Ahaz,  it  seems,  did  what  any 
other  in  the  circumstances  would  have  done.^  Isaiah's  judgment 
is  different,  and  he  knows  that  it  is  in  harmony  with  the  counsel 
and  will  of  Yahve.  While  Ahaz  is  at  the  aqueduct  leading  from 
the  upper  pool,^  superintending  the  preparations  which  it  was 
most  needful  to  make  in  the  event  of  the  capital  being  besieged, 
Isaiah  seeks  him  out  with  the  words  :  '  Take  heed,  and  be  quiet ; 
fear  not,  neither  let  thine  heart  Ibe  faint,  because  of  these  two  tails 
of  smoking  firebrands,  for  the  fierce  anger  of  Eezin  and  Syria,  and 
of  the  son  of  Remaliah.  ...  It  shall  not  stand,  neither  shall  it  come 
to  pass.  For  the  head  of  Syria  is  Damascus,  and  the  head  of 
Damascus  is  Rezin ;  and  the  head  of  Ephraim  is  Samaria,  and  the 
head  of  Samaria  is  Eemaliah's  son.  If  ye  ivill  not  believe,  sicrely  ye 
shall  not  he  cstahlishecV  ^ 

What  the  prophet  in  these  words  preached  to  the  king  is 
faith,  trust  in  God.  Isaiah  was  hardly  fool  enough  to  imagine 
that  a  hostile  attack  could  be  met  with  folded  arms  and  eyes 
directed  to  heaven.  But  as  things  now  stood,  his  conviction 
undoubtedly  is  that  nothing  can  help  Judah  save  God  alone.  If 
He  does  not  help,  then  Judah  is  lost — wherever  it  may  turn  to 
among  men  for  help.  And  there  is  only  one  means  of  getting  this 
help,  to  be  quiet  and  trust  in  God.  The  issue  proved  that  Isaiah 
was  right.     In  the  present  distress  his  advice  was  undoubtedly 

1  2  Kings  xvi.  7-9.  2  gt^de,  Gesch.  Isr.  i.  595. 

2  On  this  locality  see  Dillm.  Isaiah,  p.  65  f. 

^  Isaiah  vii.  3  f.,  8  f .  (R.V.).  86  is  a  gloss.  [The  assonance  of  the  original 
Hebrew  is  so  far  preserved  in  the  German — ^  Glaubet  ihr  nicht  so  hleihet  ihr 
nicht.'    We  might  perhaps  say,  '  If  ye  will  not  confide,  ye  shall  not  abide.' — Tr.] 


Chap.  V.]        THE  END  OF  THE  NOKTHERN  KINGDOM  345 

the  right  one.  Jerusalem  could  hold  out  against  a  siege  for  a 
time.  Meanwhile  Tiglathpileser,  if  he  had  the  interests  of  his 
empire  at  heart,  had  on  his  own  account  to  march  against  the 
allies,  whose  cause  was  lost  from  the  first,  seeing  that  all  Syria 
did  not  unite.  In  this  case  the  Assyrian  had  no  occasion  for 
troubling  himself  about  Judah  at  all,  and  Ahaz  preserved  for  the 
present,  at  any  rate,  that  measure  of  independence  which  his 
father  had  handed  down  to  him. 

Isaiah  accordingly,  so  long  as  there  is  still  time,  works  with  all 
his  mio'ht  to  convince  the  kimi  how  disastrous  for  Judah  the 
interference  of  Assyria  must  necessarily  be.  He  sees  in  spirit 
the  Assyrian  troops  on  the  one  side  and  the  Egyptian  on  the 
other,  spreading  themselves  over  the  fields  of  Judah,^  and  he  sees 
how  Judah  is  already  playing  the  role  of  the  unfortunate  apple  of 
contention  between  the  two  world-powers,  if  Ahaz  means  volun- 
tarily to  tear  down  the  last  bulwark  that  still  separates  Assyria 
and  Egypt.  Isaiah,  certain  of  what  he  says,  and  full  of  belief  in 
his  God,  has  recourse  to  a  last  expedient.  He  offers  even  to  work 
a  miracle  for  the  king,  in  order  to  prove  that  he  is  speaking  the 
truth.  But  even  this  does  not  move  the  feeble  Ahaz  ;  he  will  not 
tempt  God. 

And  so  the  die  is  cast ;  the  ambassadors  are  not  brought  back ; 
Isaiah's  words  and  trouble  are  all  in  vain.  Isaiah  sees  what  must 
be  the  inevitable  result,  and  he  lets  it  be  known.  Judah's  terrible 
fate  and  its  mournful  ruin  are  clear  to  him.  But  now  as  a  proof 
that  faith  is  no  empty  delusion,  he  rises  in  the  very  midst  of  these 
so  depressing  circumstances  to  the  loftiest  heights  of  hope  and 
trust.  If  for  the  present  only  misery  and  wretchedness  are  the 
lot  of  Judah,  and  if  the  house  of  David  itself  has  sunk  down  to 
the  ground,  the  '  if  ye  will  believe  ye  shall  be  established '  must 
nevertheless  retain  its  truth.  A  new  generation,  which  will  spring 
from  the  tearful  sowing  of  the  present,  will  know  this  in  its  own 
experience.  It  will,  with  a  strong  arm,  drive  the  enemy  out  of 
the  land,  and  will  see  a  new  king  of  the  stock  of  David  at  its 

^  Isaiah  vii.  18  f. 


346  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

liead — but  it  will  no  longer  be  a  kingdom  of  war  and  of  this 
world,  but  a  kingdom  of  God,  a  kingdom  of  peace  and  of 
righteousness. 

The  hoiir  in  which  Isaiah  parted  from  Ahaz  gave  to  the  world 
the  thought  of  the  Messiah. 

'  Hear  ye  now,  0  house  of  David  :  Is  it  a  small  thing  for  you 
to  weary  men,  that  ye  will  weary  my  God  also  ?  Therefore  the 
Lord  himself  shall  give  you  a  sign :  Behold,  a  maiden  shall  con- 
ceive, and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  him  "  God-with-us " 
('Immanu'cl).  Curds  and  honey  shall  he  eat  when  ["until,"  so 
Kittel]  he  knoweth  to  refuse  the  evil  and  to  choose  the  good. 
For  before  the  child  shall  know  to  refuse  the  evil  and  choose  the 
good,  the  land  whose  two  kings  thou  abhorrest  shall  be  forsaken. 
The  Lord  shall  bring  upon  thee,  and  upon  thy  people,  and  thy 
father's  house,  days  that  have  not  come,  from  the  day  that  Ephraim 
departed  from  Judah.'  i  Assyria  will  afflict  the  land  and  make  it 
desolate,  so  that  it  soon  will  be  the  haunt  of  cattle  and  sheep,  and 
its  inhabitants,  instead  of  bread  and  wine,  shall  live  on  milk  and 
wild  honey.  But  the  time  of  distress  will  pass  away ;  the  child 
with  the  name  so  full  of  promise  is  growing  up,  and  founds  in 
Zion  a  new  kingdom  of  David : 

'  For  unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given  ; 
And  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder  ; 

And  his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  Mighty  God,  Everlasting 
Father,  Prince  of  Peace.'  ^ 

When  and  where  the  ambassadors  of  Ahaz  fell  in  with  Tiglath- 
pileser,  we  do  not  know.  It  is  not  impossible  that  he  was  already 
on  the  way  to  Syria,  which  he  meant  once  more  to  reduce  to 
subjection  without  the  co-operation  of  Ahaz.  At  any  rate,  we  find 
the  great  king  actually  present  in  Syria  in  the  year  734,  with  the 
intention  of  chastising  the  rebels.  As  Isaiah  had  foreseen,  the 
work  was  not  one  of  particular  difficulty,  owing  to  the  disunion 
amongst  the  smaller  states.  Damascus  alone  seems  to  have  offered 
an  energetic  resistance. 

1  Isaiah  vii.  13-17  (R.V.).  -  Isaiah  ix.  6  (R.V.). 


Chap.  V.]        THE  END  OF  THE  NORTHEllN  KINGDOM  347 

The  Book  of  Kings  relates  that  Tiglathpileser  took  away  from 
Pekah,  Ijon,  Abel-beth-Maachah,  Janoah,  Kedesh,  and  Hazor, 
also  Gilead,  Galilee,  and  all  the  land  of  Naphtali,  and  carried  their 
inhabitants  away  to  Assyria.^  With  this  agrees  both  what  we 
learn  from  Isaiah/  and  what  the  great  king  himself  tells  us.^ 
Samaria  itself  was  saved  for  this  time  from  capture  and  destruc- 
tion, owing  to  the  fact  that  the  party  opposed  to  Pekah  promptly 
murdered  him,  and  presented  his  murderer,  Hoshea,  to  the  great 
king  as  his  successor  (734/3).*  After  Israel  is  thus  chastised  and 
Jerusalem  delivered,  Tiglathpileser  (733)  turns  his  attention  to 
Damascus.  The  Bible  briefly  relates  that  he  conquered  Damascus, 
carried  off  its  inhabitants,  and  slew  Eezin.^  From  the  information 
supplied  by  the  great  king  himself,  on  the  other  hand,  we  gather 
that  the  siege  and  capture  of  the  strong  Syrian  capital  occupied 
him  for  two  years.^ 

Ahaz  has  attained  his  immediate  end ;  his  two  opponents  have 
been  slain  by  the  sword,  and  their  lands  wholly  or  in  part  have 
fallen  to  the  enemy.  But  amongst  other  things,  a  narrative  in  the 
Old  Testament  which  proves  that  the  matter  was  not  ended  by  the 
paying  of  tribute  once,  shows  us  at  what  a  price  Ahaz  bought  the 
advantage  of  being  a  j^'^^otegS  of  the  great  king.  The  great  king 
expected  further  acts  of  homage,  and  it  was  taken  for  granted  that 
Ahaz,  as  his  loyal  vassal,  would  henceforth  take  Assyrian  customs 
and  usages  as  the  pattern  to  copy,  both  in  the  affairs  of  daily  life 
and  in  matters  of  worship.  Accordingly  Ahaz,  after  the  capture  of 
Damascus,  waits  on  Tiglathpileser  in  that  city.  There  he  happens 
to  see  an  altar,  a  model  of  which  he  sends  straight  to  his  priest 
Uriah  in  Jerusalem,  and  has  one  made  the  same  for  the  Temple. 

1  2  Kings  XV.  29.     But  see  also  Stade,  ZA  W.  vi.  160. 

2  Isaiah  viii.  23. 

3  See  on  this  Schrader,  KAT.''  258  ff.  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  251  ff.] ;  KBill.  30  fiF.  ; 
Tiele,  Gesch.  234  f.  There  also  on  the  chronology.  It  will  not  do  to  identify  the 
names,  3  R.  10,  2,  17,  with  Gilead  and  Abel-Maaehah. 

■*  2  Kings  XV.  30  =  3  R.  10,  2,  28  f.  The  Assyrian  date  determines  the  end 
of  the  reign  of  Pekah.  ^  2  Kings  xvi.  9. 

^  See  the  Eponym  lists  with  the  notices  attached  under  733  and  732,  and  ou 
Lay.  72  f.,  see  KBihl.  ii.  31  f.,  note. 


348  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

The  new  altar  takes  the  place  of  what,  up  to  this  time,  had  been 
the  altar  of  burnt-offering.^  This  does  not  mean  in  the  least  that 
the  worship  of  Yahve  was  displaced.  It  can  hardly  have  been  an 
altar  of  Kezin's  that  is  referred  to.^  As  soon  as  Damascus  came 
into  the  possession  of  the  Assyrians,  they  would  introduce  their 
own  form  of  worship.  Ahaz  sees  the  Assyrian  chief  altar  in 
Damascus,  and  thinks  he  will  gain  the  favour  of  the  great  king  by 
imitating  it.  Ahaz  otherwise  does  not  show  any  very  particular 
regard  for  the  Solomonic  Temple.^  Most  of  the  measures  drawn 
up  by  him  in  this  connection  are  to  be  attributed  to  the  necessity 
he  was  under  of  getting  money,  while  we  undoubtedly  have 
incidental  references  which  suggest  the  view  that  Ahaz  introduced 
the  star-  and  sun-worship  of  Assyria  into  Jerusalem,  and  had  even 
sacred  horses  of  the  sun  at  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem.* 


§  69.  Samaria  s  End. 

Both  kingdoms — Israel  and  Judah — could  have  enjoyed  for  the 
immediate  future  undisturbed  peace  under  the  protection  of 
Assyria,  if  they  had  kept  quiet  and  rested  content  with  the  actual 
condition  of  things.  Ahaz  took  this  way,  and  succeeded  in  keeping 
his  throne  for  many  years.  In  Israel,  on  the  other  hand,  things 
do  not  calm  down.  Since  732  Tiglathpileser  has  been  occupied  in 
the  east,  and  in  727  he  quits  the  scene.  Salmanassar  IV.  takes 
his  place  (727-722).  The  absence  of  the  great  king,  and,  still 
more,  the  change  of  throne  in  Assyria,  inspire  the  independent 
party  in  Samaria  with  new  hope. 

Egypt  does  its  best  to  nourish  these  hopes.  For  the  further 
Assyria  had  in  recent  years  penetrated  into  Syria,  the  more  the 
kingdom  of  Pharaoh  must  have  felt  that  the  position  it  had 
hitherto  held  was  being  seriously  threatened.    It  was  simply  aiming 

1  2  Kings  xvi.  10-16.  2  g^  ^ts,^e^  Gesch.  59S. 

2  2  Kings  xvi.  17,  18  ;  text  and  translation  are,  however,  doubtful, 

^  2  Kings  xxiii.  11-12.  Ahaz,  in  any  case,  is  to  be  included  amongst  the 
'Kings  of  Judah' who  are  there  mentioned;  whether  or  not  still  earlier  kings 
are  referred  to  is  a  point  which  may  be  left  undecided. 


CiiAr.  v.]        THE  END  OF  THE  NORTHERN  KINGDOM  340 

a  blow  at  itself  if  it  did  not  do  all  that  was  in  its  power  to  check 
Assyria  and  incite  the  Syrian  states  to  resist  the  great  king.  It 
was  high  time  that  Egypt  was  abandoning  its  old  policy  of  in- 
activity which  it  had  been  compelled  to  adopt  owing  to  the  state  of 
affairs  at  home.  The  victory  of  the  Ethiopian  Sabako  by  which, 
after  long  struggles  inside  the  country,  Egypt  was  at  last  delivered 
into  the  hands  of  the  Ethiopian  ruler,  brought  with  it  for  a  time  at 
least  an  orderly  state  of  things  for  Egypt,  and  consequently  made  it 
possible  to  pay  some  attention  to  affairs  in  Syria.^  We  accordingly 
find  Sabako  in  alliance  with  the  Syrian  states ;  and  from  this  time 
till  the  days  of  Assarhaddon,  Egypt  continues  to  be  the  constant 
disturber  of  the  peace  who  labours  to  stir  up  the  Syrian  states 
against  their  oppressor.  Hanno  of  Gaza,  who  had  remained  for  a 
while  as  a  fugitive  in  Egypt,  returns  home  either  immediately  after 
the  death  of  Tiglathpileser,  or  some  years  later,  in  order,  under  the 
influence  of  Egypt,  to  urge  the  Syrian  states  to  revolt ;  and  the 
Old  Testament  informs  us  that  Hoshea  of  Israel,  in  consequence  of 
an  understanding  with  King  Seve  of  Egypt,^  had  given  up  paying 
the  tribute.^  One  is  inclined  to  identify  Seve  with  Sabako  ;  but  if 
they  were  not  one  and  the  same,  then  Seve  must  have  been  an 
under-king  of  Sabako's.* 

Salmanassar  could  not  look  calmly  on  at  the  revolt  of  Samaria, 
because  the  Assyrian  supremacy  over  all  Syria  was  at  stake.  He 
must  have  set  out  soon  after  his  accession,  possibly  in  the  second 
year  of  his  reign.  For  if  the  statement  that  Hoshea  reigned  nine  years 
is  correct,  then  Salmanassar  must  have  come  against  him  as  early  as 
725.  He  seems  to  have  surrendered  at  discretion  to  the  great  king 
on  the  latter's  advance.     Hoshea  is  taken  captive,  and  very  likely 

1  See  Meyer,  Gesch.  Arjyi^t.  343  fF. 

2  The  MT.  gives  it,  though  in  all  probability  erroneously,  So  ;  cf.  Ass.  Sab'i. 
^  Cf.2  Kings  xvii.  3-6.     The  whole  section,  although  possibly  originating  with 

K,  or  going  back  to  it,  gives  us  nevertheless  a  very  inexact  account.  (See  Stade 
600,  note  1.)  We  can  for  this  reason  hardly  infer  from  v.  3  that  there  was  an 
earlier  expedition  of  Salmanassar  against  Hoshea.  The  verse  merely  says  that 
Hoshea  did  homage  to  Salmanassar,  first  of  all,  on  his  accession. 

4  So  Winckler,   Unters.  z.  odtorienL  Gesch.  91  ff.     Cf.  Schrader,  KAT.-  2G9  f. 
[Eng.  Trans,  i.  261  ff.]. 


350  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  HI. 

shared  the  fate  of  the  other  prisoners.  His  capital,  Samaria,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  not  disposed  to  yield  on  such  cheap  terms  to 
Assyria.  Salmanassar  has  to  set  about  a  regular  siege  ;  and,  owing 
to  its  strong  position,  Samaria  succeeds  in  holding  out  for  three  full 
years.  Salmanassar  himself  is  not  fated  to  live  to  see  the 
capture  of  the  city.^  According  to  the  well-authenticated  Assyrian 
accounts,  Samaria  fell  into  the  hands  of  his  successor  Sargon 
(722). 

During  the  time  of  Salmanassar's  advance  and  the  siege  of 
Samaria,  Judah,  as  will  be  readily  understood,  has  been  earnestly 
directing  her  gaze  towards  her  northern  neighbour.  It  was  doubt- 
less owing  to  Isaiah's  influence  that  Ahaz  kept  quiet,  and  resisted 
all  the  attempts  which  were  undoubtedly  made  to  allure  him  to 
revolt.^  Had  he  acted  otherwise,  it  would  probably  have  been  all 
over  with  Judah  at  this  time.  But  Isaiah  is  convinced  that 
Samaria,  too,  will  gain  little  this  time  by  her  foolhardy  attempt. 
Her  measure  is  full.  But  Judah  may  learn  a  lesson  from  what  it  sees 
being  accomplished  here.  'Woe  to  the  crown  of  pride  of  the 
drunkards  of  Ephraim,'  he  cries,  in  reference  to  Samaria, '  and  to  the 
fading  flower  of  his  glorious  beauty,  which  is  on  the  head  of  the 
fat  valley  of  them  that  are  overcome  with  wine !  Behold,  the 
Lord  hath  a  mighty  and  strong  one ;  like  a  tempest  of  hail,  a 
destroying  storm,  as  a  tempest  of  mighty  waters  overflowing,  shall 
he  with  violence  cast  it  down  to  the  earth.  The  crown  of  pride  of 
the  drunkards  of  Ephraim  shall  be  trodden  under  foot.'  ^ 

About  the  same  time,  besides  Isaiah,  there  rises  up  in  Judah 
a  like-minded  prophet — perhaps  a  pupil  of  Isaiah's — Micah  ben 
Moresheth.  He  too  is  certain  about  Samaria's  downfall  and 
destruction  : 

'  Behold,  the  Lord  cometh  forth  out  of  his  place, 
And  will  come  down,  and  tread  upon  the  high  places  of  the  earth. 
And  the  mountains  shall  be  molten  under  him, 

^  Incorrectly  2  Kings  xviii.  10. 

-  Perhaps  the  statement  about  Judah's  subjection  by  Sargon  in  the  inscrip- 
tion from  Nimrud  refers  to  this.  See  Tiele,  Gesch.  258 ;  [but  cf.  Cheyne,  Introd. 
Is.  p.  4].  2  Isaiah  xxviii.  Iff.  (R.V.). 


Chap.  V.]        THE  END  OE  THE  NORTHERN  KINGDOM  351 

And  the  valleys  shall  be  cleft 

As  wax  before  the  fire, 

As  waters  that  are  poured  down  a  steep  place. 

For  the  transgression  of  Jacob  is  all  this, 

And  for  the  sins  of  the  house  of  Israel. 

What  is  the  transgression  of  Jacob  ?  is  it  not  Samaria  ? 

What  are  the  high  places  of  Judali?  are  they  not  Jerusalem  1 

Therefore  I  will  make  Samaria  as  an  heap  of  the  field, 

And  as  the  plantings  of  a  vineyard  : 

And  I  will  pour  down  the  stones  thereof  into  the  valley, 

And  I  will  discover  the  foundations  thereof.'  ^ 

Micah  has  no  fear  that  for  the  present  Jerusalem  will  be  de- 
stroyed.2  For  as  it  did  not  oppose  Assyria,  there  was  no  ground  for 
any  quarrel.  But  it  was  easy  to  see  that  the  waves  which  swept 
Samaria  away  would  not  leave  Judah  wholly  unharmed.  More- 
over, Judah's  sins  were  like  those  of  Ephraim  ;  if  Yahve  were  again 
to  swing  His  scourge,  the  end  would  have  come  for  Judah  too.^ 
The  blows  which  strike  Ephraim  are  not  deadly  for  Samaria  only  : 
'  They  come  even  unto  Judah,  and  reach  unto  the  gate  of  my 
people,  unto  Jerusalem.' 

It  is  only  to  a  limited  extent  that  we  can  say  with  certainty 
what  became  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  conquered  country.  Part  of 
them,  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  the  Syrian  and  Babylonian 
kings  which  we  hear  of  first  in  connection  with  Tiglathpileser, 
were  carried  away  from  their  homes.  According  to  Sargon's 
inscriptions,*  he  carried  into  captivity  27,290  of  the  inhabitants  of 

^  Micah  i.  3  ff.  (R.  V.).  The  prophecy  must  clearly  be  put  before  722,  and  with 
this  the  indication  of  the  date  of  the  Book  of  Micah  in  i.  1  agrees.  For  this 
reason,  only  ch.  iii.  (see  v.  12)  can  be  claimed  for  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  to  which 
Kuenen,  on  account  of  Jer.  xxvi.  18  f.,  would  refer  it.  There  is  no  unanimity 
of  opinion  regarding  the  original  extent  of  the  Book  of  Micah.  See  Stade, 
ZA  W.  i.  165  fif.  ;  iii.  1  flf.  ;  iv.  291  ff.  ;  Nowack,  ZA  W.  iv.  277  S.  ;  Ryssel, 
Unterss.  ilber  Texf'jestalt  und  Echtheit  d.  B.  Micha,  1887  ;  Kuen.  §  73  f.  An 
essential  part  of  the  question  is  as  to  the  position  of  the  prophecy  on  the  Mayyebas 
and  Asheras  [rf.  v.  12),  regarding  which  it  is  difficult  to  come  to  any  satisfactory 
conclusion,  owing  to  the  small  number  of  instances  in  which  they  arc  certainly 
mentioned.     But  cf.  above,  §  64,  and  below,  p.  357. 

-  Micah  iii.  12  (against  Kuen.  §  74,  3)  (R.V.).  ^  Micah  i.  8  fif. 

**  See  Winckler,  Die  Keilschrifttexte  Sargons  (1889),  (not  accessible  to  me). 
Further,  Schrader,  KAT."^  266  ff.  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  260  fif.];  KBihl  ii.  35  tf., 
especially  55. 


352  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  TIL 

Samaria,  while  he  left  the  remainder  in  the  country  under  an 
Assyrian  governor.  Those  carried  away  doubtless  represented  the 
leading  element  in  the  state :  officials  and  proprietors,  army  and 
priesthood.  According  to  our  Bible  Book  of  Kings,  they  were 
transplanted  to  Assyria;  amongst  other  places,  the  Habor,  a 
tributary  of  the  Euphrates,  and  the  'towns  of  the  ]\Iedes/  are 
mentioned  as  their  new  place  of  abode.^ 

Those  who  remain  behind,  and  who  naturally  form  the  great 
mass  of  the  people,  are  Assyrian  subjects ;  while  the  country  from 
being  a  tributary  vassal-state  has  become  a  regular  Assyrian 
province.  But  it  does  not  reconcile  itself  to  this  fate  without  once 
more  attempting  to  find  deliverance  in  revolt.  The  Old  Testament 
tells  us  nothing  about  it,  but  it  is  mentioned  in  Sargon's  inscrip- 
tions.2  According  to  them,  it  appears  that  immediately  after 
Sargon's  departure  from  Syria  the  opposition  to  Assyria  was 
organised  anew.  Ilubi'di  of  Hamath  headed  the  party  of  resistance. 
Almost  all  Syria  to  the  north  of  Samaria  joined  in  the  rising. 
Samaria  itself,  willingly  or  not,  was  drawn  into  the  movement.  In 
the  south,  Hanno  of  Gaza  and  the  Egyptian  Seve  (Sab'i)  support 
the  confederates.  Judah  belongs  to  the  few  exceptions  who  prefer 
to  remain  on  the  side  of  Assyria.  In  the  year  720  Sargon  is  accord- 
ingly once  more  back  in  Syria.  He  does  not  allow  his  opponents 
to  unite.  Ilubi'di  is  promptly  beaten  at  Qarqar.  Thereupon  the 
great  king  proceeds  towards  the  south,  and  defeats  the  united 
Philistines  and  Egyptians  at  Eapihi,  doubtless  the  place  which  was 
afterwards  the  Eaphia  of  the  Greeks,  not  far  from  Gaza  on  the 
Egyptian  frontier.  Samaria's  resistance  is  thus  finally  broken  ;  at 
all  events,  the  Assyrian  accounts  tell  us  nothing  further  of  any 
attempt  to  shake  off  the  foreign  yoke. 

Probably  in  consequence  of  these  disturbances  Sargon,  at  this 
time  and  on  other  occasions  later  on,  settled  foreign  colonists  in 

^  2  Kings  x\di.  6  ;  xviii.  2.  See  on  each  of  the  places  Schrader,  KAT^  275  f. 
[Eng.  Trans,  i.  267  fF.] ;  and  Siegfr.  and  Stade  in  their  Lex.  It  is,  however,  worthy 
of  notice  that  the  lxx.  gives  what  is  partly  a  different  text.  {Cf.  also  Ainsworth, 
Proc.  Soc.  Bihl.  Arch.  1892,  p.  70  flf.  (The  two  Captivities)], 

'  Tiele,  Gescli.  259  f.,  and  KBibL  ii.  55,  57. 


CHAr.  v.]        THE  END  OF  THE  NORTHERN  KINGDOM  353 

Samaria.  Thus  Sargon  himself  mentions  '  prisoners  from  different 
lands/  whom  he  had  transported  to  Syria/  and  he  mentions  in 
particular  some  Arabian  desert-tribes,  who  had  refused  to  pay  tribute 
to  him,  and  who  were  accordingly  transplanted  from  their  home.2 
Along  with  them  the  Old  Testament  mentions  some  Babylonian 
towns,  the  inhabitants  of  which  Sargon  transferred  to  Samaria.^ 
These  may  be  the  same  as  those  who,  according  to  Sargon's  own 
account,  were  transferred  to  the  land  of  the  Hittites  in  consequence 
of  the  disturbances  in  Babylon.^  Some  decades  later,  in  the  reign 
of  Assarhaddon,  a  new  addition  of  foreign  elements  was  made  to 
that  already  existing.^ 

The  Northern  Kingdom  has  now  reached  its  end.  Even  if  the 
great  majority  of  the  inhabitants  remain,  still  the  vital  pith  of 
the  nation  is  gone,  and  the  last  shadow  of  freedom  has  disappeared 
for  ever.  A  foreign  nationality  and  a  foreign  religion  mingle 
with  those  of  Israel.  Assyrian  governors  and  officials  bear  rule 
in  the  land;  Assyrian,  Babylonian,  and  Arabian  blood  destroys 
the  purity  of  the  old  native  families,  and  foreign  gods  are  wor- 
shipped at  the  sanctuaries.  At  first  the  Israelites  struggle 
against  them  as  well  as  they  can.  Bethel  for  some  time  longer 
preserves  its  ancient  character  as  a  sanctuary  of  Yahv^,  indeed 
it  even  seeks  to  exercise  an  influence  on  the  heathen  colonists.*^ 
To  a  certain  extent  it  must  have  succeeded  too,  for  the  altar  of 
Bethel  ^  is  still  standing  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  and  the  pre-exilic 
narrator  in  the  Book  of  Kings  passes  a  not  exactly  unfavourable 
judgment  on  the  religious  worship  practised  there.^  Indeed,  when 
the  inhabitants  of  Judah  return,  they  find  here  a  people  who  had 

1  In  his  Annals,  1.  16,  cf.  Winckler,  Keilinsclir.  Texth.  27-  On  the  time,  see 
Tiele,  Bah. -ass.  Gesch.  258. 

-  Schrader,  KBihl.  ii.  43  (cylinder  inscription,  1.  20). 

^  2  Kings  xvii.  24. 

"  Schrader,  KAT:-  276  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  276]. 

5  Cf.  Ezr.  iv.  2  {KAT.-  373  f.).  In  Ezra  iv.  10  tlie  reference  is  clearly  to 
the  same  event. 

•^  2  Kings  xvii.  26  flf.     Cf.  Jer.  xli.  4  fif. 

^  2  Kings  xxiii.  15;  r/.  19  ff. 

^  2  Kings  xvii.  24-28,  41.  See  on  this,  and  generally  on  chap.  xvii.  above, 
p.  219. 

VOL.  II.  Z 


354  HISTOKY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

clung  to  the  worship  of  Yahv(^.  But  those  who  returned  no 
longer  recognise  them  to  be  flesh  of  their  flesh,  nor  do  they 
recognise  their  God  to  be  the  old  Yahvc  of  the  prophets.  They 
separate  themselves  from  the  Samaritans.  Foreign  rule  and 
foreign  influences  have  made  them  into  something  different  from 
what  they  were.  And  if  they  themselves  wished  to  be  sons  of 
ancient  Israel  also,  still  it  was  hardly  pure  pride  on  the  part  of 
the  returned  exiles  that  they  could  barely  discover  in  them  the 
features  of  ancient  Israel."^ 

^  See  further  on  the  Samaritans  in  Kautzsch,  PREr  xiii.  340  ff. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

THE   ASSYRIANS   IN   JUDAII.      JUDAH'S    END. 

§  70.  HezeUah  (715-686). 

In  the  fierce  storms  which  burst  over  Samaria  and  had  swept 
it  away,  Ahaz  of  Judah  had  succeeded  in  escaping  untouched. 
He  had  made  a  prudent  calculation  of  all  circumstances,  and  had 
firmly  supported  the  Assyrian  rule,  and  he  consequently  kept 
his  throne  until  the  end  of  his  life,  and  at  his  death  handed  it 
over  to  his  son  Hezekiah,  The  change  of  throne  took  place  pro- 
bably in  the  year  715.i  Hezekiah  began  to  rule  while  still 
undoubtedly  very  young,  perhaps  while  barely  a  youth.2  It  was 
his  good  fortune  to  have  men  like  Isaiah  and  Micah  at  his  side. 

It  is  to  their  influence  that  we  have  to  trace  certain  measures 
taken  by  Hezekiah  for  the  improvement  of  the  worship  of  Yahve, 
which  our  narrator  tells  us  about — and  probably  rightly  ^ — in 
connection  with  his  accession.  Hezekiah  did  not  only,  according 
to  this  account,  break  in  pieces  a  brazen  image  of  a  serpent, 
called  Nehushtan — a  relic  of  ancient  serpent- worship^ — which  had 
had  divine  honours  paid  to  it  in  Jerusalem  since  ancient  times,  but 
the  suppression  of  the  high-places  as  well  as  of  the  Maggebas  and 
Asheras  is  also  ascribed  to  him.^ 

^  See  above,  p.  238  ;  and  on  Mic.  iii.  12  above,  p.  351,  note  1. 

-  See  Kamphausen,  Chronol.  37. 

3  Differently  Rob.  Smith,  Prophets  of  I sr.  363  ;  Stade,  Gesch.  608,  623  ;  Renan, 
Hist.  ii.  518  ;  [Clieyne,  Introd.  to  Isaiah,  365].  Isaiah  xxx.  22  has  not  reference  to 
public  sanctuaries,  but  to  household  images  which  had  been  still  preserved. 

^  Cf.  the  snake-stone  in  Jerusalem,  above,  p.  178.  Perhaps,  too,  Nehushtan 
was  connected  with  it.  '"  2  Kings  xviii.  4  ;  cf.  22. 

855 


356  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

This  account  in  our  Book  of  Kings,  so  far  as  it  deals  with 
high-places,  Ma^gebas  and  Asheras,  has  of  late  been  described 
in  certain  quarters  as  unhistorical.  Grammatical  as  well  as 
historical  arguments  have  been  advanced  against  its  genuineness.^ 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  mode  of  expression  in  this  verse  cannot 
possibly  be  made  to  harmonise  with  the  laws  of  the  older  Hebrew 
language.2  There  can  accordingly  hardly  be  any  doubt  but  that 
the  sentence  in  its  present  form  was  not  written  by  a  pre-exilic 
narrator.  Nor  is  the  circumstance  that  the  abolition  of  high- 
places  is  presupposed  in  '?;.  22  necessarily  conclusive  for  the 
historicity  of  this  fact.  For  it  is  evident  that  if  this  bit  was 
written  by  a  later  author,  things  may  very  probably  be  put  into 
Eabshakeh's  mouth  that  he  never  actually  said.  It  is  further 
urged  that  neither  Isaiah  nor  any  other  prophet  of  the  eighth 
century  declaimed  against  the  high-places,  MaQ^ebas  and  Asheras, 
which  it  is  here  presumed  were  suppressed  by  Hezekiah.  We 
are,  it  is  argued,  precluded  from  supposing  that  Hezekiah  went 
further  than  prophecy  itself. 

Spite  of  this  I  do  not  think  that  the  information  regarding 
Hezekiah's  reform  should  be  rejected.  The  account,  of  which 
f.  22  forms  part,  leaving  out  of  view  the  incorrect  supposition  in 
reference  to  Sennacherib's  death,  seems  based  on  sound  informa- 
tion, and  nowhere  shows  traces  of  post-exilic,  or  in  fact  of  any 
specially  late  origin.^  We  are  justified  in  doubting  the  correct- 
ness of  its  statements  only  if  they  are  contradicted  by  really 
weighty  facts.  These,  however,  I  am  not  able  to  find.  That 
Isaiah  does  not  directly  declaim  against  high -places  is  correct 
enough;  but  his  contemporary  Micah  certainly  did  it.  If  the 
former  did  not  show  any  interest  in  their  suppression,  the  latter 

1  See  Wellh.  Bl."^  255  ;  ProL'  26  [Eng.  Trans.  23] ;  Stade,  ZA  W.  iii.  8  ff.  ; 
vi.  170  ff.  ;  Gesch.  607  f. 

2  See  an  attempt  in  Kohler,  ii.  2,  263.  But  the  example  in  2  Sam.  vii.  8-10 
offers  no  analogy  to  our  text.  There  we  have  perfect  tenses  which  reach  down 
to  the  present ;  here  we  have  not,  since  the  Alagcebas  and  Asheras  return  again. 
So,  too,  the  instances  adduced  by  Driver,  Notes  on  1  Sam.  i.  12  (c/.  also  2  Sam. 
xvi.  5)  are  all  of  a  different  kind.     Cf.  further  Gesen.-Kautzsch,  Grammr^  325  f, 

^  See  above,  p.  221  f. 


Chap.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  357 

undoubtedly  did.^  But  Isaiah  would  in  this  case  be  guilty  of  a 
want  of  thoroughness  which,  though  certainly  intelligible  enough 
in  J  and  E,  which  are  not  acquainted  with  the  peculiar  importance 
of  Zion,  would  hardly  be  intelligible  in  his  case.  He  declaims 
against  images  and  stands  up  for  Zion ;  but  what  are  the  altars 
in  the  land  without  their  images  as  compared  with  Zion  ?  If 
they  fall,  the  altars  must  fall  too.  Apart  from  Yahv^'s  unity, 
His  spirituality  has  no  meaning.  If  thus  2  Kings  xxii.  4  in 
its  present  form  is  also  late,  this  by  no  means  proves  that 
it  is  unhistorical.  The  reviser  appears  to  have  enlarged  the 
verse  because  of  v.  22. 

If,  then,  Hezekiah  abolished  the  sanctuaries  of  Yahve  outside 
Jerusalem,  he  must  at  the  same  time  have  felt  it  necessary  to 
remove  the  old  Canaanitish  sacred  symbols — the  Ma^^ebas  and 
Asheras  ^ — which  were  attached  to  them.  We  may  indeed  assume 
that  it  w^as  because  of  these  appendages  that  the  altars  were  put 
down.  And  supposing  that  even  in  recent  years  they  made  their 
way  into  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem;'^  Hezekiah  w^as  bound,  when 
he  once  began  to  put  away  the  heathen  and  half-heathen  rubbish, 
to  remove  them  twice  over.  This  lay  in  the  nature  of  the  case. 
Probably,  therefore,  we  have  no  occasion  to  deny  that  the  Micah 
from  whom  we  have  complaints  respecting  the  high-places  also 
spoke  against  MaQQebas  and  Asheras.^  And  if  we  find  no  such 
denunciation  in  Isaiah,  there  may  be  accidental  reasons  for 
this;  but  even  supposing  it  proved  that  Isaiah  allowed^  the 
Ma(^^ebas,  though  not  the  Asheras,  it  would  be  more  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  Micah,  followed  by  the  king,  went  a  step  further 

^  Mic.  i.  5.  The  explanation  given  of  this  passage  in  vol.  i.  p.  108,  note  4, 
is  now  purposeless.  I  have  meanwhile  come  to  the  conviction  that  the  reading 
of  the  MT.  is  correct  as  opposed  to  the  lxx.  The  Lxx.  gives  merely  a  simpli- 
fication. 

2  The  text  in  v.  4  mentions  only  one  Ashera,  while  the  translations,  on  the  con- 
trary, have  the  plural.  If  the  singular  is  correct,  the  reference  must  be  to  an 
Ashera  which  had  found  its  way  into  the  Temple  in  the  time  of  Ahaz. 

^  See  the  foregoing  note,  and  above  in  §  64,  4. 

4  Mic.  V.  12  f.  See  on  this  Stade,  ZA  }V.  iii.  8  fF.  ;  iv.  291  ff.  ;  Nowack, 
ZA  W.  iv.  277  ff. ;  Ryssel,  Micha,  on  this  passage  ;  Kuen.  §  74  ,  6  ;  and  above,  p.  351. 

^  Isa.  xix.  19.     But  the  interpretation  is  uncertain. 


S58  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

than  Isaiah,  than  to  claim  the  right  of  correcting  him  in  accord- 
ance with  Isaiah. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  intention  of  Hezekiah  and 
those  who  supported  him  in  thus  Hmiting  the  worship  of  Yahve 
to  Jerusalem.  Samaria's  fall  so  loudly  proclaimed  Yahve's 
destroying  wrath,  that  they  felt  compelled  to  try  and  turn  it 
away.  Priests  and  prophets  were  at  one  in  maintaining  that 
Israel's  apostasy  from  the  Yahve  in  Zion,  who  had  no  image,  had 
been  its  destruction .  The  same  fate  awaited  Judah  and 
Jerusalem  if  they  did  not  thoroughly  repent.^  The  youthful 
king  listened  to  them  more  readily  than  his  father  had  done.  If 
Judah  wished  to  escape  Israel's  fate,  it  was  necessary  that  her 
worship  of  God  should  be  kept  free  of  those  elements  which  had 
brought  about  Israel's  fall.  But  this  end  could  be  perfectly 
attained  only  if  all  the  other  sanctuaries  outside  of  Zion  were 
put  down.  For  even  if  in  favourable  cases  it  was  Yahve  who 
was  worshipped,  still  there  was  always  a  great  danger  that  the 
Yahve  of  Hebron  or  Beersheba  should  be  regarded  as  different 
from  the  Yahve  of  Zion,^  and  in  this  case  polytheism  and 
heathenism  would  be  once  more  secured  in  all  their  rights.  But 
it  is  just  the  very  greatness  and  far-reaching  significance  of  this 
thought  which  supplies  the  explanation  of  the  defective  way  in 
v/hich  it  was  carried  out  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  The  revolution 
which  was  now  aimed  at  was  too  great  to  allow  of  its  being 
carried  through  all  at  once.  The  axe  was  laid  at  the  root  of  the 
tree,  the  decisive  blows  which  brought  it  down  followed  later  on. 
But  it  does  not  follow  that  because  the  first  blows  did  not  at 
once  lay  it  flat  with  the  ground  that  they  were  not  given. 

Hezekiah  resembled  his  father  Ahaz  in  few  points.  One  might 
rather  say  that  in  many  points  he  fell  back  on  the  fundamental 
principles  of  his  great-grandfather  Uzziah.  He,  like  Uzziah,  takes 
certain  measures,  the  object  of  which  is  to  secure  the  military 

^  Of,   Mic.   iii.    12.     Some  of  the  threatenings  of  Isaiah  may  belong  to  this 
period. 

-  Wellh.  Proir-  27  [Eng.  Trans,  p.  24]. 


Chap.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  359 

safety  of  his  country,  and  especially  of  his  capital :  as,  in  Uzziah's 
time,  Judah's  treasuries  and  arsenals  are  now  also  well  filled; 
like  Uzziah,  he  ventures  to  take  up  a  hostile  attitude  towards 
Assyria.  We  have  unfortunately  very  little  information  regarding 
the  chronology  of  the  events  of  his  long  reign.  We  neither  know 
when  he  was  victorious  over  the  Philistines/  nor  at  what  period  of 
his  reign  the  aqueduct  ascribed  to  him  was  constructed.  Perhaps 
the  war  with  the  Philistines  was  a  legacy  left  him  by  his  father 
Ahaz  as  a  consequence  of  Judah's  refusal  to  join  the  rising  under 
Hanno  of  Gaza.  And  since  we  know  that  Hezekiah's  revolt  from 
Assyria  had  been  prepared  long  beforehand,  we  may  reasonably 
suppose  that  the  construction  of  his  aqueduct^  is  to  be  referred  to 
the  earlier  years  of  his  reign. 

His  object  in  making  the  aqueduct  was  doubtless  to  add  to  the 
defence  of  Jerusalem  in  the  case  of  a  siege.^  Jerusalem  does  not 
possess  any  flowing  water  inside  the  city  walls.  The  only  important 
spring  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  city  is  the  Gihon  on 
the  eastern  declivity  of  the  ridge  on  which  the  ancient  fortress  of 
David  had  been  built,  and  on  which  the  royal  palace  now  stood. 
The  project  readily  suggested  itself  of  conducting  the  water  of  the 
Gihon  inside  the  city  wall  in  order  to  be  perfectly  protected 
against  the  possibility  of  a  want  of  water  in  any  circumstances 
that  might  arise.  If  at  first  an  attempt  was  perhaps  made  to  have 
the  aqueduct  above  ground,  reasons  were  soon  forthcoming  for 
making  the  connection  underground.  It  was  thus  that  aqueducts 
originated  of  the  same  sort  as  the  conduit  from  the  Gihon,  the 
Maria-spring  of  the  present  day,  which  leads  to  the  Pool 
of  Siloah,  regarding  the  construction  of  which  the  old  Hebrew 
inscription'^  found  in  it  in  1880  gives  us  some  information. 
Unfortunately  the  inscription  tells  us  nothing  of  the  time 
when  the  cutting  through  the  Temple  hill  was  made.  But 
since  the  Book  of  Kings  tells  us  that  Hezekiah  *  made  the  pool 

1  2  Kings  xviii.  6  ;  cf.  also  below,  p.  371. 

2  2  Kings  XX.  20 ;  cf.  2  Chron.  xxxii.  30. 

3  Cf.  the  statement  in  2  Chron.  xxxii.  5,  which  certainly  rests  on  a  correct 
reminiscence.  ^  See  on  it  also  above,  p.  230. 


360  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

and  the  conduit,  and  brought  water  into  the  city,'  and  Chronicles 
expressly  connects  this  statement  with  the  Siloah  conduit,  there  is 
scarcely  any  room  for  doubting  that  Hezekiah  is  the  constructor 
of  that  very  Siloah  conduit  and  of  one  of  the  Siloah  pools.^ 

If  the  youthful  Hezekiah  was  thus  intent  from  the  beginning 
of  his  reign  on  strengthening  his  defences  and  making  sure  of  his 
military  equipment,  we  may  gather  from  this  that,  as  in  religious 
matters,  so  also  in  political  life,  a  new  spirit  had  entered  Judah 
with  the  change  in  the  throne.  The  party  which  was  under  the 
influence  of  Egypt  and  hostile  to  Assyria,  the  party  of  the 
'  Patriots '  who  were  strong  for  a  revolt  from  Assyria,  must  very 
soon  have  gained  the  ear  of  the  young  king.  The  fact  that  the 
breach  did  not  take  place  a  great  deal  sooner  than  it  actually 
did  is  apparently  to  be  ascribed  wholly  to  the  influence  of 
Isaiah. 


§  71.  Sennacherib  in  Palestine. 

As  soon  as  Sargon  had  withdrawn  from  Palestine  after  the 
battle  at  Kaphia,  the  opposition  to  Assyria  was  again  reorganised. 
Ashdod  now  formed  the  centre  of  the  movement,  taking  the 
place  of  Gaza,  which  had  been  suppressed.  Its  king  Azuri,  rely- 
ing on  help  from  Egypt,  seems  to  have  succeeded  in  getting  the 
South-Palestine  nationalities,  and  amongst  them  Judah,  to  band 
together  to  resist  Assyria.  This  is,  at  all  events,  Sargon's^  account ; 
while,  on  the  contrary,  the  Old  Testament  is  silent  as  regards 
Hezekiah's  share  in  the  undertaking  of  Ashdod.  Probably  when 
Sargon  sent  his  army  to  Palestine  the  allies  abandoned  Azuri  in 
time  to  save  themselves,  so   that  the   Assyrian  general,   called 

^  Cf.  the  plan  of  Jerusalem  as  it  is  to-day  in  Ebers  and  Gunthe,  Pal.  i.  ; 
further  Riehm,  HWB.  Art.  Jerus.,  N^".  10  and  JSiloah  ;  Bcideker,^  102.  Differently 
Stade,  Gesch.  593  f.  He  considers  the  Siloah  conduit  to  be  older,  chiefly  on 
account  of  Isaiah  viii.  6.  But  there  may  quite  well  have  been  a  '  water  of  Siloah  ' 
before  this,  as  the  name,  'Ain  Silwan,  still  attached  to  the  place,  seems  to  indi- 
cate.    See  also  Dillm.  on  Isaiah  viii.  6. 

2  See  the  fragment  in  Winckler,  Keilinschr.  Texthuch,  31.  [Cheyue,  Iiiirod. 
Is.  20.] 


CiiAP.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  361 

Tartan,  had  practically  only  Aslidod  to  deal  with.  The  siege  of 
Ashdod  ended,  as  was  to  have  been  expected,  in  the  capture  of 
the  town.     Its  inhabitants  were  carried  away  into  captivity,  711.^ 

In  this  case,  too,  Egypt's  blandishments  had  had  a  very 
decided  influence.  We  are  not  left  in  any  doubt  as  to  Isaiah's 
opinion  about  them,  which  is  expressed  in  one  of  the  few  utterances 
of  his  to  which  we  can  with  certainty  assign  a  date.  In  chap,  xx., 
on  the  occasion  of  the  siege  of  Ashdod,  he  prophesies  the  speedy 
downfall  of  the  Egyptians  and  Ethiopians  at  the  hands  of  Assyria, 
an  event  which  is  to  happen  within  three  years.  And  to  Judah, 
which  relies  upon  the  untrustworthy  friend,  Egypt's  downfall  will 
brincj  shame  and  confusion.  'When  this  has  been  the  fate  of 
those  in  whom  we  hoped,  to  whom  we  fled  for  help  and  deliver- 
ance from  the  king  of  Assyria,  how  can  wc  possibly  escape  ? ' 
That  will  be  in  brief  the  cry  of  Judah  and  of  the  rest  of  Palestine.^ 

From  the  first  Isaiah  was  thus  determinedly  opposed  to  any 
junction  with  Assyria,  but  he  was  now  quite  as  much  against  any 
thought  of  a  revolt.  If  Assyrian  protection  inevitably  involved 
many  humiliations  for  Judah,  the  least  of  which  was  perhaps 
after  all  the  yearly  tribute,  still,  the  friendship  of  Egypt  appeared 
to  him  to  be  as  little  disinterested,  and,  as  regards  what  it  could 
actually  offer  in  the  way  of  help,  to  be  far  more  unsafe. 

After  the  fall  of  Ashdod,  so  long  as  Sargon  lived,  no  Assyrian 
army  again  entered  Palestine.  Sargon  was  uninterruptedly 
occupied  in  the  north  and  east  until  the  end  of  his  life.  After  a 
reign  of  seventeen  years,  which  was  rich  in  memorable  deeds,  and 
was  crowned  with  unparalleled  successes,  Sargon  died  in  705, 
apparently  by  the  hand  of  an  assassin.  He  was  succeeded  by  his 
son  Sennacherib,  more  correctly  Sanherib  (705-681).  If,  as  will 
readily  be  understood,  the  long  absence  of  the  Assyrian  armies 
from  the  west  had  inspired  the  Syro-Palestine  peoples  anew  with 
the  thought  of  regaining  their  independence,  the  murder  of  Sargon, 
and  the  confusion  in  Assyria  and  Babylon  which  resulted  from  it, 

1  Of.  the  Khorsabad  inscription,  line  90  flf.,  in  Schiadcr,  KBihL    ii.   65   ff. 
{RP.  ix.  11.]  2  iga.  XX.  1-6. 


362  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

probably  supplied  the  occasion  desired  for  the  formal  renewal  of 
the  old  offensive  and  defensive  alliance  against  Assyria. 

The  circumstances  just  at  this  time  appeared  specially  favour- 
able for  the  carrying  out  of  such  a  project.  In  Egypt,  where  the 
defeat  of  Sabako  at  Eaphia  and  the  fall  of  Ashdod  were  naturally 
followed  by  unfortunate  results  so  far  as  the  internal  state  of  the 
country  was  concerned,  the  usurper  Tirhaqa  secured  the  throne 
just  about  the  time  of  Sargon's  death.  He  energetically  resumed 
the  policy  of  combating  Assyrian  influence  in  Syria,  doubtless  in 
the  hope  of  thereby  strengthening  his  throne.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  appeared  once  more  in  Babylon  one  who  was  a  dangerous 
opponent  for  the  Assyrians,  the  Chaldean  Merodach-Baladan.^ 
Sargon  had  already  had  many  a  brush  with  Merodach-Baladan. 
On  Sargon's  accession  he  got  himself  elected  king  in  Babylon,  and 
he  had  succeeded  in  maintaining  his  position  alongside  of  Sargon 
for  twelve  whole  years.  It  was  not  till  towards  the  end  of  his 
reign  (710  or  709)  that  Sargon  succeeded  in  becoming  Merodach- 
Baladan's  master.  He  fled  to  Elam.  But  scarcely  had  Sargon 
closed  his  eyes,  when  the  indefatigable  Merodach-Baladan  again 
appears  on  the  scene.  In  702  he  succeeds  in  regaining  his  king- 
ship in  Babylon  by  force. 

Merodach-Baladan  seems  to  have  spent  his  long  life  in  constant 
conflict  with  Assyria.  The  fact  that  he  is  found  seeking  alliance 
in  the  far  West  with  Assyrian  opponents  proves  what  a  serious 
view  this  tenacious  and  enterprising  warrior  took  of  his  life's  task. 
The  Bible  Book  of  Kings  has  preserved  the  recollection  of  this  in 
the  statement  that  Merodach-Baladan  sent  an  embassy  to  Hezekiah 
to  congratulate  him  on  his  recovery  from  a  severe  illness,  and  that 
Hezekiah  showed  his  well-stocked  treasures  and  arsenals  to  the 
ambassadors.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  main  end  of  the 
embassy,  regarding  which,  indeed,  the  Bible  narrator  is  silent,^ 

^  See  on  him  Winckler,  Unters.  z.  altorient.  Gesch.  47  ff. 

2  The  narrative  will  be  found  in  2  Kings  xx.  12  ff.  ;  it  is  preceded  by  that  of 
the  king's  illness  and  recovery.  It  is  clear  from  the  position  of  chap.  xx.  after 
xviii.  13-19,  37,  that  the  Bible  narrator  (see  above,  p.  222)  no  longer  understands 
the  proper  purpose  and  connection  of  these  events.  Still,  both  narratives  rest  on 
historical  recollection.     [Cf.  Cheyne,  Introd.  to  Isaiah,  287  ff.] 


CHAr.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAIT— JUDAH'S  END  303 

was  to  urge  Hezekiah  to  enter  into  the  confederacy  against 
Assyria.  We  thus  get  the  date  both  of  the  embassy  and  of 
Hezekiah's  illness  and  recovery.  Both  occurred  shortly  before 
Hezekiah's  breach  with  Assyria. 

When  Egypt  in  the  south  and  Babylon  in  the  east  were 
urging  active  measures  and  promised  their  help,  it  was  certainly 
not  easy  for  the  Palestinian  States  to  remain  quiet.  Who  could 
tell  whether  they,  too,  might  not  succeed  in  doing  what  Merodach- 
Baladan  had  now  for  the  second  time  been  successful  in  doing  in 
Babylon.  They  had  only  to  remain  unanimous  and  seize  the  right 
moment.  In  the  north,  Sidon  specially  seems  to  have  been  the 
centre  of  the  movement ;  in  the  south,  now  that  the  power  of 
Gaza  and  Ashdod  had  been  broken,  the  Philistine  cities  of 
Ashkelon  and  Ekron  seem  to  have  occupied  a  similar  position. 
It  would  appear  that  great  importance  was  attached  to  the  co- 
operation of  Hezekiah  in  the  movement,  as  is  proved  both  by  the 
embassy  and  by  the  leading  place  which  he  seems  later  on  to 
have  taken  within  the  confederacy. 

We  are  not  able  to  say  how  far  ^Hezekiah  was  from  the  first 
disposed  to  listen  to  those  who  were  urging  on  a  breach  with 
Assyria.  As  we  saw,  the  attitude  he  had  so  far  taken  up  makes 
it  probable  that  he  needed  very  little  persuasion.  Besides,  the 
war-party  was  without  doubt  strongly  represented  in  Jerusalem 
and  at  the  court.  It  had  an  easy  task  with  the  unthinking  mob, 
as  the  party  of  the  extreme  patriots  always  has.  On  the  other 
side,  however,  stood  the  party  of  the  moderates  and  cautious- 
minded.  It  was,  of  course,  as  is  always  the  case,  in  the  minority, 
and  at  its  head  stood  Isaiah.  In  the  breach  with  Assyria  he  sees 
simply  the  seed  of  fresh  disaster  which  will  come  upon  Judah, 
and  his  recognition  of  this  is  not  connected  with  friendly  feelings 
towards  Assyria — this  he  had  shown  under  Ahaz — but  springs 
from  a  clear  insight  into  the  actual  condition  of  things. 

Thus,  soon  after  Sargon's  murder,  Isaiah,  reflecting  upon  the 
fate  of  Gaza  and  Ashdod,  had  declared  to  the  Philistines  that 
Philistia  should  not  too  readily  congratulate  itself  that  the  stick 


364  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

which  had  beaten  them  was  broken ;  from  the  serpent  an  adder 

will  spring,  and  its  fruit  shall  be  a  dragon.^     And  now,  while  the 

plan  of  the  rising  is  getting  ripe  for  being  carried  into  execution, 

he  shows  Jerusalem  the  fate  which  threatens  it.     Perhaps  he  will 

even  yet  succeed  in  preventing  them  from  taking  the  decisive 

step.     Apparently  a  whole  cycle   of  Isaiah's   utterances,  chaps. 

xxix.-xxxii.,2  belongs  to  this  period  of  deliberation  and  planning. 

He  employs  all  the  force  of  his  eloquence  to  keep  king  and  people 

to  the  path  of  reason  and  prudence. 

'  Woe  to  the  hearth  of  God,  hearth  of  God,  the  city  where  David  encamped  ! 
Add  ye  year  to  year,  and  let  the  feasts  come  round, 
Then  will  I  distress  the  hearth  of  God,  and  there  shall  be  mourning  and 

lamentation. 
And  she  shall  be  unto  me  as  a  hearth  of  God  ! 
And  I  will  camp  against  thee  round  about. 

And  will  lay  siege  against  thee  with  a  fort,  and  I  will  raise  siege  works 
against  thee.'  ^  .  .  . 

The  alliance  with  Egypt  is  a  subject  of  special  anxiety  for 
Isaiah.  He  speaks  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Pharaohs  with  the 
utmost  contempt.  He  hopes  for  no  blessing  for  Judah  from  it, 
and  only  dreads  further  complications. 

*  Woe  to  the  rebellious  children,  saith  the  Lord, 
That  take  counsel,  but  not  of  me, 
And  make  a  league,  but  not  of  my  spirit.  .  .  . 
That  walk  to  go  down  to  Egypt.  .  .  . 

To  strengthen  themselves  in  the  strength  of  Pharaoh  ("  To  shelter  your- 
selves in  the  shelter  of  Pharaoh  " — so  Kittel) 
And  to  trust  in  the  shadow  of  Egypt.  .  .  , 
Through  the  land  of  trouble  and  anguish, 
From  whence  come  the  lioness  and  lion,  the  viper  and   fiery  flying 

serpent  ("  flying  dragon" — so  Kittel), 
They  carry  their  riches  upon  the  shoulders  of  young  asses. 
And  their  treasures  upon  the  bunches  of  the  camels 
To  a  people  that  shall  not  profit  them  ! 
For  Egypt  helpeth  in  vain  and  to  no  purpose. 

Therefore  have  I  called  her,  Rahab,  that  sitteth  still '  *— ('  Monster,  that 
sitteth  still'— so  Kittel). 

1  Isa.  xiv.  29-32.     Perhaps  v.  32  refers  to  the  envoys  of  Merodach-Baladan, 
who  had  come  to  Philistia  too.     [Cf.  Cheyne,  Intr.  Is.  p.  82.] 

^  See  e.g..  Driver,  Isaiah,  55  fi".,  and  now  also  Guthe  in  Kautzsch.     Somewhat' 
differently,  Dillmann  in  his  Comm.  ^  Isa.  xxix.  1-3  (R.V.) 

^  Isa.  XXX.  1,  2,  6,  7  (R.V.);  cf.  Isa.  xxxi.  1  ff. 


Chap.  VL]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH-JUDAH'S  END  365 

The  last-mentioned  utterances  of  Isaiah  against  Egypt  show 
that  the  prophet's  efforts  were  in  vain.  Hezekiah's  ambassadors 
are  already  on  the  way  to  Egypt,  naturally  laden  with  rich  presents. 
Isaiah  can  at  most  only  hope  that  they  will  be  recalled,  and  that 
the  alliance  will  be  broken  off.  But  neither  does  this  take  place. 
The  anti-Assyrian  party  in  Jerusalem,  the  party  friendly  with 
Egypt,  seems  more  and  more  to  have  gained  the  upper  hand. 
Hezekiah  has  made  up  his  mind  not  to  let  the  favourable  moment 
slip  past,  in  order  to  re-establish  Judah's  independence,  and  per- 
haps even  the  throne  of  David.  He  unreservedly  joins  the 
general  rising,  and,  in  fact,  he  appears  to  have  taken  a  prominent 
position  amongst  the  confederates;  King  Padi  of  Ekron,  who 
remains  true  to  Assyria,  is  vanquished  by  Hezekiah  and  taken 
prisoner.! 

For  the  second  time  Isaiah  appears  here  in  all  his  religious 
greatness.  Even  at  this  stage,  although  he  sees  his  nation  taking 
the  wrong  road,  he  does  not  give  up  hope.  Spite  even  of  its  folly 
Judah  cannot  yet  perish.  Yahve  will  not  forsake  the  House  of 
David,  nor  abandon  His  holy  place.  But  certainly  deliverance 
will  not  come  from  the  quarter  in  which  Judah's  leaders  are 
seeking  for  it,  and  least  of  all  from  Egypt.  Yahve  alone  will  be 
Judah's  help.  Those  great  thoughts  which  Isaiah  had  formerly 
cherished  regarding  Judah's  future  he  still  firmly  clings  to,  even 
in  this  the  time  of  supreme  distress.  The  glorious  future  appears 
to  his  vision  to  be  almost  nearer  than  before.  But  it  is  no  longer 
to  issue  from  Judah's  destruction.  The  misery  of  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem  by  Assyria  appears  to  him  in  the  light  of  the  purifying 
judgment  from  which  Judah,  gloriously  delivered,  will  come  forth 
as  a  purified  and  new  race,  well  pleasing  to  God.  It  will  be  only 
the  sinners  whom  the  judgment  will  sweep  away ;  the  city  and 
temple  of  Yahve  will  stand  in  the  judgment.  Zion  is  a  sure 
corner-stone,  against  which  every  hostile  power  shall  be  dashed 
to  pieces.- 

^  Cf.  Sennacherib's  prism-inscription,  col.  ii.  70-72  (Schrader,  KBibl.  ii.  93). 
-  [Difierently,  Cheyne,  Inlr,  Is.  pp.  83,  169.  j 


366  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

Sennacherib  himself  certainly  acted  with  prudence  in  taking 
no  notice  at  first  of  the  Palestinian  rising,  although  it  was  backed 
up  by  Egypt.  He  makes  it  his  aim  to  deal  with  the  evil  at  its 
root,  and  that  lay  in  Babylon.  The  old  rebel  Merodach-Baladan 
must  first  be  overcome.  Sennacherib  succeeds  in  crushing  him  in 
702,  and  now  he  is  free  to  turn  his  attention  to  the  West  in  701. 
According  to  Sennacherib's  own  detailed  accounts,^  his  campaign 
in  Syria  divided  itself  into  several  sections.  He  is  first  of  all 
occupied  in  reducing  to  submission  the  Phoenician  cities  from 
Sidon  to  Akko.  In  Sidon  Sennacherib  places  a  certain  Eshbaal 
on  the  throne,  and  hands  over  to  him  by  way  of  counterpoise  to 
Tyre  a  certain  number  of  Phoenician  towns.  He  does  not  seem 
to  have  succeeded  in  capturing  Tyre.  From  here  he  turns  south- 
ward to  attack  the  Philistine  cities  of  Ashkelon  and  Ekron.  King 
Sedeq  (Sidqa)  is  conquered  and  is  sent  a  prisoner  to  Assyria. 
Simultaneously  with  the  advance  of  the  Assyrians  against  Ekron 
a  body  of  Egyptian  and  Ethiopian  troops  comes  to  the  relief  of 
Ekron.  A  battle  takes  place  at  Altaqu  (Eltekeh).  Sennacherib 
boasts  of  having  gained  a  great  victory  here.  In  any  case,  the 
Assyrians  hold  the  field,  and  the  road  to  Ekron  is  now  open  for 
Sennacherib.  The  town  falls  into  Sennacherib's  hands,  who 
executes  a  cruel  judgment  on  the  rebels,  and  later  on  compels 
them  to  accept  the  banished  Padi  once  more  as  king. 

Meanwhile  most  of  the  other  rebels  had  preferred  to  yield  to 
Sennacherib,  and  this  was  what  Ammon,  Moab,  and  Edom  did. 
Judah  alone  persists  in  her  attitude  of  resistance.  The  last  stage 
of  the  whole  campaign  is  occupied  with  the  measures  taken  against 
Hezekiah.  The  Bible  accounts  come  in  here.  It  is  astonishing 
that  Sennacherib  did  not  follow  up  his  victory  at  Eltekeh,  and  that 
he  thus  gave  the  Egyptians  an  opportunity  for  rallying  again. 
This  leads  us  to  suppose  that  the  victory  did  such  serious  damage 
to  Sennacherib  himself  that  Hezekiah  could  venture  to  persist 
in  his  resistance.     The  Bible  accounts,  if  we  understand  them 

1  See  Schrader,  KAT."-  285  ff.  [Eng.  Trans,  i.  278  ffi] ;  KBiU.  ii.  91  ff.,  and  in 
addition  Tiele,  Gesch,  289  ff.,  314  ff. 


Chap.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  367 

correctly,  are  iu  harmony  with  this  view.^  They  tell  us  that 
Sennacherib  advanced  against  all  the  fortified  towns  of  Jiulah 
and  took  them.  There  would  have  been  no  occasion  for  this 
unless  we  suppose  that  Hezekiah  had  not  yet  consented  to 
abandon  his  attitude  of  resistance.  It  is  only  now  that  Hezekiah 
resolves  to  submit  to  Sennacherib.  Hezekiah's  ambassadors 
announce  his  resolve  in  Lachish  in  the  Shephela,  the  Assyrian 
headquarters.  Sennacherib  demands  a  tribute  of  300  talents  of 
silver  and  30  talents  of  gold.  After  making  the  utmost  exertions, 
Hezekiah  is  able  to  deliver  it  to  him.  The  Temple  and  the 
treasuries  of  the  king  have  to  yield  up  their  best  in  order  that  the 
sum  may  be  got  together.  It  was  on  this  occasion  that  Hezekiah 
handed  over  Padi  of  Ekron,  whom  he  had  kept  a  prisoner,  to 
Sennacherib,  who  restored  him  to  his  throne.  But  Sennacherib  is 
not  satisfied  with  the  tribute.  After  he  has  it  in  his  hands,  he 
demands  the  cession  of  the  capital.  He  sends  a  part  of  his  army 
to  Jerusalem  under  Eabshakeh,  doubtless  a  general,-  to  compel 
Hezekiah  to  yield  the  city  up.  Negotiations  entered  into  between 
Eabshakeh  and  Hezekiah's  chief  officials,  the  palace  governor, 
Eliakim  ben  Hilkiah,  the  State-recorder  Shebna,  and  the  chan- 
cellor Joah  ben  Asaph,  came  to  nothing.  Eabshakeh  prepares  to 
besiege  the  city.^ 

In  Jerusalem  the  unfavourable  result  of  the  negotiations 
produces  a  feeling  of  dismay.  Hezekiah  rends  his  clothes  and 
appeals  to  Isaiah  to  plead  for  him  unto  Yahve.  But  even  at  this 
juncture  Isaiah  is  certain  of  the  issue.  '  Behold,'  he  is  reported  to 
have  said  to  Hezekiah  in  a  divine  oracle  pronounced  regarding 
Sennacherib,  'I  will  put  a  spirit  in  him,  and  he  shall  hear  a 

1  The  two  accounts,  2  Kings  xviii.  H-IG  and  2  Kings  xviii.  13,  17-19,  9a, 
may,  in  accordance  with  the  explanation  given  above,  p.  220,  be  used  as  com- 
plementary parallel  narratives. 

-  See  on  him  Tide,  Gesch.  497.  In  a  gloss  the  Book  of  Kings  further  men- 
tions Tartan  (the  commander-in-chief)  and  Rabsaris(see  on  him  Winckler,  Unters. 
z.  altor.  Gesch.  138). 

2  This  is  not  actually  said,  but  is  the  evident  meaning  of  2  Kings  xviii.  26-37. 
He  certainly  advances  with  an  army.  This  disposes  of  Stade's  assumption 
(p.  G21)  that  there  never  was  an  actual  attack. 


368  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  HI. 

rumour,  and  shall  return  unto  his  own  laud,  and  I  will  cause  him 
to  fall  by  the  sword  in  his  own  land'  (E.V,).  On  hearing  of 
Sennacherib's  departure  from  Lachish,  Eabshakeh  seems  for  the 
moment  to  have  raised  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  doubtless  with  the 
intention  of  returning  again  later  on.  But  the  breaking  up  of  the 
headquarters  at  Lachish  must  itself  have  been  connected  with  the 
news  of  Tirhakah's  advance  against  Sennacherib.  According  to  one 
account  in  the  Bible  Book  of  Kings,  the  same  news  not  only  leads 
Sennacherib  to  resolve  not  to  resume  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  but 
to  beat  a  retreat  from  Palestine  altogether.  He  may  have  been 
haunted  by  the  doubtful  result  of  the  battle  of  Eltekeh.^  At  the 
same  time  the  disturbing  news,  too,  which  reached  him  from  the 
East,  without  doubt  led  Sennacherib  to  decide  on  retiring.  One 
can  easily  understand  how  the  Old  Testament  had  not  more 
definite  knowledge  regarding  these  rumours.  There  is  a  second 
account  in  our  Book  of  Kings,  the  one  which  Herodotus  ^  also 
adopted,  according  to  which  a  great  pestilence  breaks  out  in  the 
Assyrian  camp,  with  the  help  of  which  the  angel  of  Yahve  destroys 
in  one  night  185,000  Assyrians.  It  is  very  possible  that  it  too  is 
historical,^  and  that  all  these  circumstances  contributed  to  the 
result. 

There  is  hardly  any  room  to  doubt  that  the  account  here  given 
corresponds  in  all  essential  points  with  the  actual  facts.  For  those 
very  portions  of  it  which  we  might  expect  to  find  again  in  the 
Assyrian  accounts,  agree  in  a  remarkable  way  with  it.  These  are 
the  references  to  Sennacherib's  attack  on  Judah,  the  submission  of 
Hezekiah,  and  the  siege  of  Jerusalem.  Sennacherib  *  informs  us 
that  he  took  from  Hezekiah  of  Judah,  who  would  not  submit  to 
him,  forty-six  strong  towns,  and  countless  fortresses  and  small  places, 
and  captured  200,150  prisoners  of  every  age  and  station.     'Him 

1  See  Tiele,  Gesch.  296. 

2  See  Herod,  ii.  141.  Field  mice  are  supposed  to  have  taken  up  their  quarters 
in  Sennacherib's  camp  overnight.  The  mouse  is  the  emblem  of  pestilence.  Cf, 
1  Sam.  vi.     [For  a  different  view  see  Cheyne,  Introd.  to  Isaiah,  p.  233.] 

3  [On  the  other  side,  see  Cheyne,  Introd.  Is.,  Lc] 

4  See  Prism-inscription,  Col.  iii.  10  ff. 


Chap.  VL]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  369 

himself  I  shut  up  like  a  bird  in  his  royal  city  Jerusalem.  .  .  .* 
He  laid  on  him  a  new  tribute  in  addition  to  the  former,  since 
Hezekiah,  he  says,  had  been  overpowered  by  the  splendour  of  his 
sovereignty — namely,  thirty  talents  of  gold  and  eight  hundred 
talents  of  silver,  as  well  as  utensils  of  ivory  and  fine  woods,  besides 
forcing  him  to  deliver  up  his  daughters  and  wives,  his  male  singers 
and  female  singers. 

If  we  make  allowance  for  the  obvious  exas^Ejeration  of  which 
the  great  king  is  guilty  as  regards  the  number  of  the  prisoners 
captured,  and  also  in  the  statement  about  the  tribute,^  and  if  we 
remember,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Sennacherib  is  not  speaking  of 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  but  only  of  a  sending  of  tribute,  we 
can  still  plainly  see  reflected  in  these  Assyrian  accounts  the 
consciousness  of  the  fact  that  Sennacherib  had  to  retire  before  he 
had  succeeded  in  making  himself  master  of  Jerusalem. 

Isaiah  had  triumphantly  shown  himself  to  be  in  the  right,  and 
so  too  had  his  God  Yahve.  Never  had  a  prediction  been  more 
splendidly  verified  than  this  which  Isaiah  had  here  held  out  to  his 
king  and  nation.  When  Sennacherib  was  still  far  distant — indeed, 
before  the  final  breach  with  Assyria  at  all — he  had  reached  a  sure 
conviction  that  Yahve  would  not  abandon  His  city.-  He  is  still 
more  sure  of  this  after  Sennacherib  has  set  out  and  is  advancing 
against  Judah.  The  greater  the  anxiety  in  Jerusalem  becomes, 
the  more  joyous  is  Isaiah's  certainty  of  victory.  And  as  one  after 
another  the  reports  reach  Jerusalem,  bringing  the  bad  news  of 
Sennacherib's  victories  in  Phoenicia  and  Philistia,  and  the 
politicians  of  Judah  are  becoming  dejected,  Isaiah  sees  in  all  this 
his  previous  threatenings  gloriously  justified.  He  can  even 
venture  to  utter  harsh  threatenings  against  the  king's  chief 
advisers.^ 

1  We  may  with  Brandis,  MiXnz-,  Mass-  und  Gewichtswesen  in  Vorderas.,  p.  98, 
perhaps  explain  the  difiference  in  respect  of  the  sum  mentioned  by  Hezekiah  (300 
and  800  talents),  by  supposing  that  the  method  of  reckoning  was  different  in  the 
two  cases.     Still  this  is  uncertain. 

'  Of.  Isaiah  xxix.  5  ff.  ;  xxx.  27  ff.  ;  [and  Dillm.  Comm.  ;  Cheyne,  Intr.  Is., 
pp.  183,  199  ff.]. 

3  Cf.  Isaiah  xxii.  15  ff.  ;  and  Dillm.  in  his  Comm. 

VOL.  II.  2  A 


370  HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

AVhen  Sennacherib's  army  left  Phcenicia  and  turned  towards 
the  south,  it  was  greeted  by  Isaiah  in  a  prophetic  utterance  which, 
for  grandeur  of  conception  and  for  force  and  beauty  of  description, 
is  amongst  the  most  powerful  of  any  of  his  which  we  possess. 
Assyria  is  the  rod  of  God's  anger,  'howbeit  he  meaneth  not  so, 
neither  doth  his  heart  think  so,  but  it  is  in  his  heart  to  destroy  and 
cut  off  nations  without  number,'  and  therefore  his  pride  is  bringing 
him  to  his  ruin.^  And  when,  finally,  Sennacherib  has  received 
Hezeldah's  tribute,  and,  spite  of  this,  inflicts  a  siege  on  Jerusalem, 
he  sees  in  this  a  base  piece  of  treachery  which  Yahve  will  not 
allow  to  go  unpunished  :- 

*  Woe  to  thee  that  spoilest,  and  thou  wast  not  spoiled, 

And  dealest  treacherously,  and  they  dealt  not  treacherously  with  thee  I 

When  thou  hast  ceased  to  spoil,  thou  shalt  be  spoiled. 

.  .  .  The  high  ways  lie  waste,  the  wayfaring  man  ceaseth  : 

He  hath  broken  the  covenant, 

He  hath  despised  the  cities  ("  done  violence  to,"  so  Kittel), 

He  regardeth  not  man.' 

Jerusalem,  on  the  other  hand,  will  finally  triumph : 

*  Thine  heart  shall  muse  on  the  terror  : 

Where  is  he  that  counted,  where  is  he  that  weighed  [the  tribute]  ? 

Where  is  he  that  counted  the  towers  ? 

Thou  shalt  not  see  the  fierce  ("  foreign,"  so  Kittel)  people. 

A  people  of  a  deep  speech  that  thou  canst  not  perceive  ; 

Of  a  strange  tongue  that  thou  canst  not  understand.' 

('  The  people  of  the  dark,  unintelligible  language,'  so  Kittel).^ 


§  72.  ManasseJi.     Amon. 

Of  Hezekiah's  further  proceedings  we  can  learn  nothing. 
Isaiah,  too,  vanishes  in  701,  and  we  see  no  more  of  him.  The 
position  of  Judah  after  Sennacherib's  retreat  was  not  an  enviable 


^  Isaiah  x.  5  fF.      V.  11  determines  the  time. 

^  For  other  ideas  of  the  date  and  significance  of  Isa.  xxxiii.  see  Konig,  EinUi- 
tung,  p.  321  ;  Duhm's  Commentary  ;  and  Cheyne,  Introd.  to  Isaiah,  pp.  163-172.] 

3  Isaiah  xxxiii.  1  ff.,  18  f.  (R.V.);  Isaiah  xiv.  24-27,  xvii.  12-14,  and 
besides,  2  Kings  xix.  21-24  (note  the  'messengers'),  also  probably  belong  to  the 
period  of  the  siege. 


CiiAP.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  371 

one.  Hezekiah  is,  and  continues  to  be,  Assyria's  vassal ;  and  his 
country,  after  what  it  had  suffered  during  the  war  and  the  siege, 
must  have  certainly  been  in  a  pitiable  condition.^  But  all  the 
distress  of  the  present  is  nevertheless  far  more  than  outweighed  by 
the  proud  and  exalted  feeling  which  Judah  alone,  amongst  all  the 
states  of  Southern  Palestine,  had  a  right  to  indulge  in.  The  giant 
amongst  the  rulers  of  the  earth,  before  whom  all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  earth  bowed  down,  was  shattered  on  the  rock  of  Zion.  This 
joyous  consciousness  of  victory  would,  of  course,  help  Judah  soon 
to  recover  again  from  its  wounds.  The  account  of  Hezekiah's 
successful  battles  with  the  Philistines  is  perhaps  also  to  be  referred 
to  this  period.^  In  any  case,  the  reputation  of  Yahve  and  of  Zion 
would  necessarily  gain  infinitely  by  the  marvellous  issue  of  the 
struggle.  Isaiah  had  been  right  when  he  said  that  the  Hill  of 
Zion  was  higher  than  all  hills,  and  that  Yahve  would  protect  His 
dwelling-place.  It  is  extremely  probable  that  he  now  enjoyed  the 
triumph  of  seeing  the  disappearance  of  the  idols  which  still  re- 
mained everywhere  in  the  hands  of  the  common  people,  and  that 
Hezekiah,  by  way  of  honouring  Yahve  of  Jerusalem,  proceeded 
with  greater  earnestness  than  before  with  the  work  of  suppressing 
the  high-places.^ 

But  after  Hezekiah's  death  things  soon  assumed  a  totally 
different  aspect.  The  Book  of  Kings*  informs  us  that  his  son 
Manasseh  (686-641)  restored  and  introduced  again  into  Judah  all 
kinds  of  heathen  customs.  He  allowed  the  high-places  which  had 
been  suppressed  by  Hezekiah  to  be  used  again  ;  built  altars  to  Baal, 
and  put  back  again  into  the  Temple  the  Ashera  which  had  been 

^  Perhaps  Isaiah  i.  5-9  has  a  reference  to  this. 

2  2  Kings  xviii.  8.     Cf.  Stade,  624. 

3  By  most  recent  writers  the  whole  of  Hezekiah's  reforms  have  been  referred 
to  this  period.  But  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how,  in  this  case,  the  author  of 
the  Book  of  Kings  passes  a  favourable  judgment  on  the  whole  reign  of  Hezekiah, 
if  the  latter  did  not  begin  his  reforms  till  near  the  end  of  it.  Seeing  he  wrote 
only  a  short  time  after  Hezekiah's  day,  he  may  quite  well  have  had  a  correct 
recollection  of  what  took  place.  No  objection  can  be  drawn  from  the  case  of 
Josiah  ;  he  begins  his  reign  at  an  earlier  age,  and  he  began  his  reforms  before  621. 

^  2  Kings  xxi.  The  chapter  is  probably  not  quite  uniform  (see  Stade,  ZA  W.  vi. 
186  fif.),  but  its  statements  as  regards  matters  of  fact  can  hardly  be  objected  to. 


372  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  ITI. 

removed  from  it.  He  restored  to  a  place  of  honour  again  the 
Canaanitish  practice  of  sacrificing  children,  and  also  the  various 
black  arts  which  have  for  long  been  forbidden  in  Israel,  at  least 
by  law,  and  which  were  carried  on  only  in  secrecy.  And  even 
the  Assyrian  star- worship  finds  in  him  a  zealous  patron. 

How  are  we  to  account  for  this  phenomenon  ?  AYellhausen's 
explanation  is  certainly  right :  '  The  popular  half-heathen  Yahve 
must  at  all  costs  be  restored  to  His  place  of  honour  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  stern  and  holy  God  of  the  prophets.'  ^  Sennacherib's 
retreat  from  Jerusalem,  and  the  brilliant  fulfilment  of  Isaiah's 
preaching,  necessarily  resulted  in  the  victory  of  the  prophetic 
party.  The  prophets  would  be  able  to  maintain  their  place  so 
long  as  the  king  lived  who  owed  everything  to  Isaiah.  As  soon 
as  Hezekiah's  eyes  are  closed,  the  old  popular  religion  which 
had  been  combated  by  the  prophets,  raises  its  head  again  and 
fights — for  the  last  time,  and  therefore  all  the  more  desperately 
— for  its  existence.  What  we  see  being  accomplished  under 
Manasseh  is  nothing  but  the  strong  violent  reaction  of  the  old 
syncretism  which  had  got  firmly  implanted  in  the  hearts  of  the 
masses,  against  the  endeavours  of  prophecy  to  give  the  strict 
ethical  Monotheism  the  place  of  authority  in  life.  Those  who 
clung  to  the  popular  religion  did  not  wish  its  fresh,  joyous 
worship  of  Nature,  with  its  altars  on  high  places  and  images, 
and  its  indulgent  and  voluptuous  accompaniments,  to  be  starved 
out  of  existence  in  favour  of  that  strict  and  sober  conception 
of  God  and  of  His  Will  which  the  prophets  represented.  If 
Hezekiah  had  leant  an  ear  to  the  prophets,  why  should  his 
successor  not  reverse  the  process  and  side  with  the  other 
party  ? 

Political  considerations  may  also  have  had  an  effect,  at  least 
so  far  as  the  intrjDduction  of  Assyrian  forms  of  worship  was 
concerned.  Hezekiah  owed  his  deliverance  to  Yahve,  and  in 
what  he  did  he  expressed  his  thankfulness  that  Yahve  had 
proved  Himself  more  powerful  than  all  the  gods  of  the  heathen. 

1  Wellh.  Ahriss,  67. 


Chap.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  373 

If  Isaiah's  prophecy  was  to  be  believed,  the  time  of  salvation 
and  blessing  for  Judah  was  now  at  length  truly  to  dawn.  Assyria 
must  perish,  and  Jerusalem  and  Judah  might  raise  their  heads 
more  proudly  than  ever.  There  were  certainly  few  enough  signs 
of  this.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  just  at  this  very  time  that 
Assyria  reached  the  pinnacle  of  its  power,  and  although  Judah 
liad  offered  a  glorious  resistance  to  the  giant,  it  could  not  hope 
to  get  any  further  than  it  had  been  before.  It  was,  and  con- 
tinued to  be,  Assyria's  vassal.^ 

Thoughts  such  as  these  were  calculated  to  damp  enthusiasm 
for  Yahve.  One  might,  in  fact,  ask :  Who,  after  all,  gained 
the  victory — Sennacherib  or  Hezekiah,  Yahve  or  the  gods  of 
Assyria?  Judah  after  701  enjoyed  a  long,  and,  as  it  seemed, 
an  undisturbed  time  of  peace;  but  what  was  this  repose  under 
the  sceptre  of  Assyria  as  compared  with  the  prospect  held  out 
by  Isaiah  ?  If  Judah,  aS  a  matter  of  fact,  thus  lived  merely 
by  the  grace  of  Assyria,  it  seemed  illogical  to  withhold  from 
the  gods  of  Assyria  the  worship  which  was  their  due  as  well 
as  Yahve's. 

Thus  the  Canaanitish  and  Assyrian  deities,  and  foreign  modes 
of  worshipping  God,  gradually  found  their  way  into  Jerusalem  and 
into  the  Temple.  The  high-places  and  the  altars  are  restored ;  the 
Asheras  and  Maggebas  become  once  more  parts  of  Israelitish  wor- 
ship; and  even  Kedeshas — i.e.  those  dedicated  to  prostitution  in 
the  service  of  Astarte,  or  in  connection  with  her  worship — settle 
in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  Temple.^  In  addition  to  all 
tliis  that  strange  dark  feature,  which  is  often  enough  peculiar  to  the 
religion  of  Nature  together  with  lascivious  festivals  and  wild  orgies, 
gets  special  prominence  here,  and  the  inhuman  custom  of  sacrific- 
ing children  appears  to  have  flourished  with  exceptional  vigour 
in  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  In  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  a  gorge  on 
the  southern  or  western  side  of  the  Temple  hill,  are  the  places 
for   sacrifice   where   children,   slaughtered   in   honour   of    Melek 

1  See  Schrader,  KA  T."-  354  ff.  [Eng.  Trans,  ii.  40  ff.] ;  Tiele,  Qh>ich.  328  ff.,  346. 
-  2  Kings  xxiii.  7. 


374  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

(Moloch),  are  burnt.^  Besides  this,  we  have  the  Assyrian  star- 
worship  in  its  various  forms.  Manasseh,  in  fact,  more  than  any 
other,  is  to  be  certainly  classed  amongst  those  kings  of  Judah 
before  the  time  of  Josiah,  who  kept  sun-chariots  and  sun-horses 
close  to  the  Temple :  -  he  carries  on,  at  the  same  time,  the  worship 
of  '  the  host  of  heaven ' ;  the  sun-god  is  surrounded  by  a  whole 
court  of  heavenly  beings — the  stars,  who,  as  being  his  under-gods, 
claim  their  own  peculiar  worship.^  Even  if  Ahaz  was  the  first 
to  begin  the  worship  of  these  Assyrian  deities,  it  was  under 
Manasseh,  according;"  to  all  the  indications  we  have,  that  the 
worship  was  first  carried  on  on  an  extended  scale.  The  period 
from  now  to  the  reformation  under  Josiah  is  dominated  by  this 
mode  of  worship.  That  very  reformation,  and  Deuteronomy, 
which  was  spiritually  so  closely  related  to  it,  show  what  a  hold 
it  had  got  in  Judah.  Even  after  this  reform  it  was  not  quite 
rooted  out.    We  still  find  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  complaining  of  it.* 

There  can  scarcely  be  any  doubt  but  that  this  close  alliance 
with  Assyrian  modes  of  worship,  which  made  such  a  deep  im- 
pression on  the  life  of  Judah,  is  merely  a  symptom  of  something 
of  a  more  general  kind.  If  Assyrian  religion  was  imitated  to 
such  an  extent  as  was  the  case  here,  Judah,  in  Manasseh's  time, 
must  in  general  have  drawn  closer  to  Assyria  in  political  matters, 
as  in  all  the  other  departments  of  life.  People  got  reconciled 
to  the  fact  of  the  Assyrian  vassalage,  and  began  to  admire  and 
imitate  the  whilom  enemy.  Assyrian  life  and  thought,  the  cus- 
toms and  culture  of  Assyria,  along  with  its  religion,  certainly 
became  more  familiar  to  Israel  at  this  time  than  had  ever  been 
the  case  before. 

Unfortunately,  the  information  we  possess  regarding  these 
eighty  important  years  of  Israelitish  history — from  701  to  621 — 
is  so    very  scanty,  that    we    cannot  venture  to  pronounce  upon 

^  2  Kings  xxi.  6 ;  xxiii.  10.  On  the  pronunciation  of  Molek,  see  in  Kautzsch, 
critical  notes  on  1  Kings  xi.  7.  The  same  holds  good  of  Ashtoreth  and 
Astarte. 

-  2  Kings  xxiii.  11,  12.  '2  Kings  xxi.  5. 

*  Jer.  xliv,  4.  ;  Ezek.  viii.  6  ff. ;  cf.  Zeph.  i.  5. 


Chap.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  375 

the  influences  exercised  by  Assyria  in  any  other  sphere  save  in 
that  of  worship,  nor  do  anything  beyond  mentioning  the  general 
fact  of  its  existence.  Any  conjectures  regarding  anything  beyond 
this  cannot  be  proved.  Stade/  for  instance,  thinks  he  can  show 
that  the  Assyrio-Babylonian  mythology  found  its  way,  to  a  very 
large  extent,  into  Judah  at  this  very  period  of  syncretism  and 
blended  with  the  ancient  Israelite  stories  regarding  the  primitive 
history  of  the  world  and  of  man.  But  to  whatever  extent  Israelitish 
primitive  history  may  have  been  influenced  by  Assyria,  the  adop- 
tion of  Assyrian  elements  may  belong  to  a  considerably  earlier 
time.  Ahaz,  for  instance,  did  not  only  worship  sun-horses,  but 
set  up  an  Assyrian  sun-dial  in  Jerusalem.^  It  will  be  seen  from 
this  that  the  influence  of  Assyria  on  the  life  and  thought  of  Israel, 
though  it  may  have  been  specially  strong  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh, 
goes  back  to  a  considerably  earlier  period. 

Naturally,  such  a  thorough  change  as  took  place  under  Man- 
asseh, and  which  so  entirely  altered  things  from  what  they  were 
in  Hezekiah's  days,  could  not  be  carried  through  without  the 
application  of  force.  Those  who  remained  faithful  to  Yahve, 
and  especially  those  who  had  gathered  round  Isaiah,  could  not 
be  silent  about  Manasseh's  ongoings.  Manasseh,  however,  seems 
to  have  punished  with  death  any  resistance  to  his  measures. 
It  is  only  by  supposing  this  to  have  been  the  case  that  we  can 
understand  why,  in  the  very  closest  connection  with  the  king's 
apostasy  from  Yahve,  the  Book  of  Kings  reproaches  him  with 
having  caused  streams  of  innocent  blood  to  flow,  so  that  Jerusalem, 
like  an  over-full  dish,  was  filled  with  blood  to  the  very  rim.^ 
Tradition  has  numbered  Isaiah  amongst  the  martyrs  in  Yahvd's 
cause  whose  blood  flowed  under  Manasseh.  If  he  himself  was 
not  actually  amongst  them,  many  of  his  pupils  doubtless  were. 
Jeremiah  is  apparently  thinking  of  the  horrors  under  Manasseh 
when  he  speaks  of  the  sword  as  having  devoured  Judah's  prophets 
like  a  destroying  lion.* 

1  Stade,  Ge.^r.h.  631  f.  -  See  2  Kings  xx.  11  ;  cf.  Herod,  ii.  109. 

3  2  Kings  xxi.  16.  •*  Jer.  ii.  30. 


3V6  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

But  though  brute  force  might  indeed  silence  the  prophets  of 
Yahve,  it  could  not  compel  them  to  apostatise.  In  their  seclu- 
sion the  prophets,  and  the  faithful  worshippers  of  Yahve  belong- 
ing to  the  ranks  of  the  priesthood  and  the  people,  may  have  set 
themselves  all  the  more  earnestly  to  work  for  Yahv^  and  His 
honour.  The  evil  of  the  time  was  apostasy  from  Yahve.  That 
could  be  checked  only  if  what  Hezekiah  had  without  much 
success  striven  after,  could  be  permanently  accomplished.  The 
high-places,  with  their  altars,  their  images  of  the  gods,  and  the 
secret  worship  of  various  kinds  which  was  bound  up  with  them, 
were  the  real  seats  of  idolatrous  worship.  If  they  were  once  sup- 
pressed it  would  be  easy  to  restore  Yahve  once  more  to  honour, 
and  once  more  to  make  of  Israel  a  people  holy  to  Yahve.  It  was  in 
thoughts  such  as  these  that  there  originated,  within  the  prophetic 
circle  in  the  time  of  Manasseh,  a  book  which  was  not  to  play  an 
important  part  till  the  days  of  Josiah,  namely,  Bciiteronomy.  The 
ancient  Mosaic  law  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  was  to  be  freshly 
presented  to  Judah  in  a  new  form  corresponding  to  the  special 
needs  of  the  time.  The  unfavourable  circumstances  of  the  time, 
especially  the  heavy  weight  of  persecution  which,  in  Manasseh's 
days,  lay  upon  Yahve's  brave  confessors,  did  not  allow  of  the  book 
being  made  public  as  yet.  It  is  accordingly  laid  up  in  the  Temple, 
and  remains  concealed  there  till  it  is  brought  to  light  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  Josiah's  reign.^ 

As  regards  literature  generally,  the  time  of  Hezekiah  and 
Manasseh  seems  otherwise  to  have  been  a  period  of  active  pro- 
duction. As  was  shown  before,  the  later  elements  in  the  group 
of  narratives  in  the  Book  of  Samuel,  designated  SS,  belong  in  all 
probability  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.^  The  writers  worked  on  the 
basis  of  the  older  traditions,  and  partly  by  freely  developing  the 
old  material,  sought  to  revive  anew,  for  the  benefit  of  the  younger 
generation,  the  traditions  which  had  been  handed  down  regarding 

^  See  the  detailed  examination  of  the  composition  and  of  the  date  of  the 
writing  of  the  book  above,  in  the  first  volume,  §  7,  1,  2. 
^  See  above,  pp.  34  f.,  45. 


Chap.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  377 

the  heroes  of  the  past — Samuel,  Saul,  and  David.  To  these  were 
doubtless  joined  narratives  dealing  with  the  period  of  the  later 
kings  which,  unfortunately  owing  to  the  peculiar  plan  of  our  Book 
of  Kings,  have  been  to  a  large  extent  lost.  Some  bits  may  be 
preserved  in  the  books  we  have  called  K.  And,  in  particular,  we 
previously  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  Israelitish  Book  of 
Kings  (Ki)  must  belong  to  the  time  of  Manasseh.^ 

If  the  detailed  proof  of  this,  previously  given,  be  correct,  then 
the  most  suitable  time  to  which  to  assign  the  composition  of 
essential  parts  of  the  great  Hexateuch  Law  and  History-book  will 
also  be  in  this  period — the  book,  namely,  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted under  the  name  of  the  Elohistic  Priestly-writing  (P).  Ever 
since  the  Temple  service  had  been  regularly  going  on,  and  had 
more  and  more  increased  in  importance,  a  ritual  must  have  become 
a  necessity.  In  course  of  time  it  came  to  be  prescribed  in  writing. 
Many  other  regulations  were  added  on  to  this,  especially  those 
having  to  do  with  cultus  and  the  worship  of  God.  When  Heze- 
kiah  undertook  his  scheme  of  reform,  he  was  able,  like  Josiah  at 
a  later  date,  to  count  on  the  support  not  only  of  the  prophets,  but 
quite  as  much  on  that  of  the  Jerusalem  priesthood.  The  shape 
this  support  took  was  the  redaction  of  the  older  laws  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  centralisation  of  divine  worship  in  Jerusalem. 
Thus  important  parts  of  that  priestly  writing  (P^)  were  composed 
as  early  as  the  time  of  Hezekiah.  From  this  point  onwards  the 
work  of  the  priestly  lawgivers  is  continued  beyond  the  time  of 
Manasseh,  and,  in  fact,  some  portions  seem  not  to  have  been 
included  in  the  book  till  the  time  of  the  Exile.  For  the  proof 
of  these  statements,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  give  it,  I  refer  readers 
to  the  investigation  in  an  earlier  section  of  this  book.^  A  fresh 
examination  of  this  very  difficult  and  very  big  question  cannot 
be  looked  for  here.  This  would  require  a  fresh  and  detailed 
estimate  of  the  reasons  for  and  against,  and  consequently  a  fresh 
critical  examination  of  the  sources.     For  general  statements  are 

1  See  above,  pp.  210,  218. 

2  Cj\  the  examination  of  thie  point  in  vol.  i.,  §§  9  and  10. 


378  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

of  no  value  here.  If  my  view  is  the  correct  one,  it  does  not 
require  any  new  arguments  in  its  support ;  if  when  examined  it 
cannot  stand  the  test,  its  rejection  is  simply  a  matter  of  time. 

A  later  narrative,  preserved  in  the  Book  of  Chronicles,  tells 
us  that  Manasseh  was  taken  prisoner  by  the  Assyrians.  He  was 
carried  away  in  chains  to  Babylon,  but  was,  in  answer  to  his 
prayer,  afterwards  set  free  and  restored  to  his  throne.^  The  Book 
of  Kings  knows  nothing  of  this.  Even  if  it  were  not  altogether 
probable  that  the  narrative  originated  in  the  necessity  felt  of 
bringing  Manasseh's  long  and  peaceful  reign  into  harmony  with 
the  theocratic  standpoint  of  the  Book,  still,  taking  into  account 
the  well-known  character  of  Chronicles,  very  few  serious  reasons 
can  be  advanced  in  favour  of  its  historicity.  Besides,  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  the  narrative  possesses  a  striking  analogy  in  the 
history  of  Pharaoh  Necho  I.  who  was  carried  away  in  chains  to 
Nineveh,  and  was  afterwards  set  at  liberty.^ 

Manasseh's  son  and  successor,  Amon  (641-639),  appears  to 
have  gone  entirely  in  his  father's  footsteps.  After  a  reign  of  two 
years,  he  loses  his  life  in  a  palace  revolution.^  It  would  be  of  the 
highest  importance  in  enabling  us  to  form  an  opinion  regarding 
the  general  condition  of  that  period,  if  we  knew  whether  religious 
reasons  had  anything  to  do  with  his  dethronement,  as  in  the  case 
of  Joram  of  Israel.  If  they  had,  then  the  fact  that  Amon  was 
specially  popular  with  the  common  people  would  appear  in  a  new 
light.  A  bloody  revenge  was  taken  by  the  populace  for  his  murder 
on  those  who  had  instigated  the  conspiracy  against  Amon's  life. 
Are  we  to  suppose  that  these  occurrences  were  closely  connected 
with  reforms  similar  to  those  carried  through  by  Josiah.  and  for 
the  accomplishment  of  which,  on  the  death  of  Manasseh,  the  change 
of  throne  seemed  to  supply  the  fitting  opportunity  ?  We  may 
suppose  that  Amon  resisted  the  reforming  tendencies  of  the  court, 
trusting  to  the  favour  in  which  the  system,  which  had  become  the 

1  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  10  fif.     See  on  this  Graf,  in  StKr.  1859,  467  ff.,  and  Wellh. 
Prol-  215  [Eng.  Trans.  207]  ;  on  the  other  side,  Kohler,  Gesch.  ii.  2,  279  ff. 
'  See  Schrader,  KAT.^  371  [Eng.  Trans,  ii.  58] ;  Tiele,  Gesch.  356. 
3  2  Kings  xxi.  19-26. 


Chap.  VL]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  379 

dominant  one  in  the  country  under  Manasseh,  was  held.  He 
would  pay  for  his  resistance  by  his  death,  but  the  party  of  the 
country  people  who  supported  him,  together  with  the  country 
priests,  would,  we  may  imagine,  take  a  bloody  revenge  for  this 
attack  on  their  interests.  This  party  would  thus  succeed  in 
delaying  the  carrying  out  of  those  plans  of  reform  for  almost 
twenty  years.  Owing  to  the  scanty  nature  of  our  information, 
it  is  perfectly  impossible  to  answer  questions  of  this  kind.  Still 
the  state  of  the  case  is  such,  that  it  is  permissible  at  least  to 
mention  conjectures  of  this  sort. 


§  73.  Josiali. 

In  place  of  the  murdered  Amon,  his  son  Josiah,  a  boy  of  only 
eight  years  (639-608),  is  set  on  the  throne.  With  his  accession 
Israel  is  once  more  seen  taking  an  active  part  in  connection  with 
events  which  were  happening  in  the  big  world.  The  mighty  empire 
of  Assyria,  which  had  risen  to  the  supreme  point  of  its  power 
under  the  great  and  noble-minded  Assurhaddon,  now  began  under 
Assurbanipal  (669-625),  the  Sardanapal  of  the  Greeks,  gradually 
to  fulfil  its  destiny.  In  the  first  years  of  his  reign  Assyria  was 
still  in  full  possession  of  its  power  and  greatness.  But  now  those 
mighty  movements  of  the  nations  which  in  the  second  half  of  the 
seventh  century  shook  all  Western  Asia,  began  more  and  more  to 
make  their  appearance,  and  under  their  influence  Judah's  despot, 
the  empire  of  Assyria,  broke  up.  As  early  as  the  middle  of  his 
reign  (about  645)  Psammetich  of  Egypt  had  thrown  off  the  Assyrian 
rule,  which  since  the  time  of  Assurhaddon  had  weighed  upon  his 
kingdom.  Others  followed  suit,  and  the  final  result  was  that  the 
dominion  of  the  world  was  taken  from  the  Semites,  who  had 
carried  it  on  for  a  thousand  years,  and  transferred  to  the  Aryans.^ 
The  first  deadly  blow  struck  at  the  Assyrian  Empire  was  dealt 
by  the  Medes.  They  revolt  from  Assyria  about  the  middle  of  the 
seventh  century,  and   under  Dejokes,  and  especially  Phraortes, 

1  On  what  follows,  see  especially  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  543  flF. 


380  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

begin  to  found  a  kingdom  of  their  own.  Phraortes  meets  his 
death  (about  625)  while  fighting  with  the  Assyrians.  The  decisive 
battle  is  delayed  for  a  time  by  the  appearance  of  the  Scythians. 
About  this  time  (±  630)  hordes  of  an  Eastern  equestrian  people 
come  swarming  over  all  Western  Asia,  robbing  and  plunder- 
ing as  they  go,  an  event  which  may  be  compared  with  the 
later  inroad  of  the  Huns  and  Mongols  into  the  West.  They, 
too,  shook  the  Assyrian  Empire  to  its  foundations.  Accord- 
ing to  Herodotus,  they  even  penetrated  into  Syria  and  knocked 
at  the  gates  of  Egypt.  But  the  Scythian  shock  is  scarcely  past 
when  the  Medes  unite  with  Babylon  to  strike  a  decisive  blow  at 
Nineveh  (608). 

Judah  was  drawn,  directly  or  indirectly,  into  all  these  move- 
ments. Since  the  revolt  of  Egypt  and  Media  from  Assyria,  it  was 
felt  that  the  all-powerful  colossus,  before  which  the  world  had  for 
centuries  trembled,  had  begun  to  totter.  A  fresh  breath  of  new 
life  and  hope  must  have  gone  through  the  vassal-states.  In  Judah 
too,  people  began  to  think  that  Isaiah  was,  after  all,  right  when  he 
had  prophesied  the  end  of  the  proud  braggart.  Assyria's  deities 
sank  in  value.  The  spirit  of  Isaiah,  though  it  had  almost  died 
out  amongst  the  masses,  revived  again.  Prophecy  began  again  to 
gain  ground  and  could  venture  into  the  light  of  day.  And  when 
now,  finally,  the  Scythians  inundated  Western  Asia  and  touched 
even  the  borders  of  Judah,  it  was  all  perfectly  clear:  Yahve  is 
rising  up  once  more  to  execute  judgment  on  the  nations.  The 
gravity  of  the  situation,  and  the  threatening  danger  (for  Judah  her- 
self as  well  as  for  others)  supplied  the  soil  on  which  a  new  phase 
of  prophecy  sprang  up. 

Of  the  representatives  of  this  new  prophetic  development 
Zephaniah  ^  is  the  first  whom  we  come  across.  Whether  it  is  that 
the  revolt  of  Egypt  or  the  inroad  of  the  Scythians  appears  to  him 
to  be  a  special  sign  of  the  divine  punitive  wrath,  his  conviction  is 
that  the  day  of  Yahve  will  come  with  all  its  terrors.     It  vv^ill 

1  See  Kuen.  §  78;  Schwally,  ZAW,  1890,  1G5  fif.  ;  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  AT.'- 
364  ff. 


CiiAr.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDATI— JUDAH'S  END  381 

destroy  the  heathen  round  about;  it  is,  however,  over  Assyria 
especially  that  the  divine  judgment  hangs.^  But  the  day  of  God 
will  certainly  come  upon  Judah  itself,  and  will  come  upon  it  first 
if  an  end  is  not  put  to  its  idolatry.-  The  '  remnant  of  Baal,'  as 
well  as  violence  and  all  foreign  practices,  must  first  be  abolished 
before  Judah  can  be  safe  in  the  day  of  the  wrath  of  Yahvc.  At 
a  short  interval  apparently,  and  previous  to  Josiah's  reforms, 
Zephaniah  is  folloAved  by  Nahum.  Assyria  must  fall;  Nineveh 
will  be  destroyed,  for  out  of  it  went '  he  who  thought  evil  against 
Yahve,  and  counselled  wickedness.'  '  I  will  break  his  yoke  and 
burst  his  bonds  ...  of  thy  name  let  there  be  no  more  any 
sprout,  out  of  the  house  of  thy  god  will  I  cut  off  graven  images 
and  molten  images;  I  will  make  thy  grave — for  thou  art  vile.'^ 
Sure  of  victory,  and  filled  with  an  unutterable  contempt  for 
Assyria,  Judah  rejoices  over  the  fall  of  her  powerful  foe.  Nahum 
pictures  the  latter  in  such  clear  and  brilliant  colours  that  one 
might  think  he  is  painting  what  he  has  actually  seen.  But  this 
may  be  so  only  in  appearance ;  it  is  sufficient  that  Nahum  foresees 
Assyria's  destruction  as  a  certain  fact.  This  points  to  the  time 
when  Assyria  was  being  hard  pressed,  in  the  days  of  Kyaxares  the 
Mede,  by  the  Medes  and  the  Scythians  together.  For  Judah 
must  still  have  been  nominally  subject  to  Assyria.* 

The  spirit  of  prophecy  once  wakened  from  its  slumber  must 
continue  to  exert  its  influence.  And  when,  a  few  years  after  the 
time  in  which  Nahum  probably  prophesied  Deuteronomy  was 
brought  to  light,  it  must  have  fallen  on  fruitful  soil.  Even  in 
Manasseh's  reign  the  worshippers  of  Yahve  had  not  been  idle :  the 
production  of  Deuteronomy  shows  this,  according  to  my  view  of 
how  we  ought  to  explain  its  origin.  Later  on,  at  Manasseh's 
death,  and  under  the  influence  of  what  was  happening  in  the 
outside  world,  the  hopes  of  the  patriots  revived ;  but  all  in  vain. 
Amon  fell.  Josiah  was  still  a  docile  boy  when  he  mounted  the 
throne.    The  more  he  approaches  maturity,  and  the  more  the  course 

1  Zeph.  ii.  4-5.  -  Zeph.  i.  4-ii.  3.  ^  Nah.  i.  11,  13,  14. 

•*  See  Kuen.  §  Ixxv.,  especially  Nr.  8  and  10. 


382  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

of  events  itself  proves  favourable  to  him,  the  more  he  seems  to 
have  lent  an  ear  to  thejprophetic  party.  And  on  this  occasion, 
moreover,  it  was  the  party  of  the  patriots  which  spoke  against 
Assyria. 

Since  the  death  of  Assurbanipal,  Josiah,  who  had  meanwhile 
from  a  child  become  a  man,  had  been  loosening  the  ties  which 
made  him  the  vassal  of  Assyria.  Later  on,  at  all  events,  he 
considers  himself  the  lord  and  master  of  Palestine.  He  introduces 
reforms  into  Samaria,  and  attacks  Necho  on  his  march  through 
Canaan  as  if  he  had  always  had  the  right  to  exercise  authority 
everywhere  in  the  country.^  At  the  same  time  the  Assyrian 
deities,  and  perhaps  the  foreign  deities  generally,  lose  credit.  The 
Yahve  of  the  prophets  is  again  restored  to  honour,  and  along  with 
Him  the  Temple  of  Zion.  The  proclamation  of  Deuteronomy  is 
only  a  link  in  the  chain  of  events.  Before  the  book  made  its 
appearance,  Josiah  had  set  himself  to  work  to  get  the  Temple  put 
in  order.  Then  he  gets  to  know  of  this  '  Book  of  Doctrine,'  and  it 
supplies  a  new  basis  for  his  efforts.^ 

This  happened  in  the  king's  eighteenth  year  (621).  The  book 
was  plainly  the  outcome  of  the  prophetic  spirit.  What  the 
prophets  had  always  demanded,  namely,  that  Yahve's  precepts 
should  be  observed  and  His  will  fulfilled,  was  now  expressed  in 
easily  understood  and  definite  statements  which  showed  how 
Israel  must  live  in  order  to  be  holy  and  worthy  of  the  'Holy 
One  of  Israel.'  Prophecy  had  thus  become  statute,  law ;  it  had 
entered  into  the  priestly  sphere.  The  holiness  of  Yahve,  and  His 
unique  nature  as  the  only  God,  form  the  fundamental  thought  of 


1  Cf.  Kuen.  §  Ixxv.  10. 

^  2  Kings  xxii.  and  xxiii.  See  also  remarks  in  vol.  i.  pp.  58,  59.  The  account 
is  certainly  not  all  of  a  piece,  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  been  richly  supplied  with 
additions  (Stade,  ZAW.  v.  292  f.,  and  now  especially  in  Kautzsch).  But  this 
does  not  essentially  detract  from  its  trustworthiness.  The  new  French  school, 
however,  holds  very  different  views  about  it.  Cf.  Vernes,  Une  Nouvelle  Hypoth. 
sur  .  .  .  du  Deuteron.  1887  [Essctis  Bihliques,  i.  ff.),  and  Pr6cis  d'Hist.  Juive, 
1889,  470 ;  Horst,  ^tude  sur  le  Deut.  in  Rev.  de  VHist,  des  Relig.  1888,  11  ff. 
Against,  especially  Kuenen  in  T.  Tijd.  1888,  35  fif.  [See  now  also  Piepenbring,  in 
ReviLc  de  VHist.  des  RdUjions,  1894,  123  f.] 


CiiAr.  VL]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  383 

the  book.  But  the  necessary  preparation  for  the  carrying  out  of 
its  principles  is,  to  a  large  extent,  a  renewed  purifying  of  worship. 
Deuteronomy  does  indeed  also  contain  a  considerable  number  of 
ethical  and  especially  social  rules,  the  aim  of  which  is  to  realise 
the  prophetic  ideal  of  righteousness  in  the  nation.  But  in  many 
respects  they  remained  ideal  demands,  such  as  the  nation  had  to 
a  certain  extent  been  long  familiar  with  in  the  older  prophets. 
What  could  be  directly  accomplished,  and  what  at  the  same  time 
was  in  complete  harmony  with  the  trend  of  the  age,  and  promised 
to  effect  the  most  thoroughgoing  changes  in  the  actual  state  of 
religious  matters,  was  the  energetic  enforcement  of  the  thought  of 
the  centralisation  of  worship.  This,  however,  was  an  affair  of  the 
priests  quite  as  much  as  of  the  prophets. 

Thus  both  parties,  prophets  and  priests,  had  a  share  in  bringing 
about  the  public  recognition  of  the  book  and  in  carrying  out  its 
demands.  It  is  the  priest  Hilkiah  who  makes  the  book  public,^ 
and  the  prophetess  Huldah  guides  the  king  in  his  resolutions  by 
her  prophetic  utterance.  The  heathen  symbols  and  altars  which 
had  sprung  up  since  Manasseh's  time  are  again  put  away,  and  a 
thorough  purification  of  the  Temple  is  undertaken.  It  was  to  be 
done  in  a  more  effectual  fashion  than  under  Hezekiah.  To  this 
end,  the  priests  belonging  to  the  country  towns  are  transferred  to 
Jerusalem,  and  their  sanctuaries  in  the  high  places  are  profaned. 
And,  owing  to  the  weakness  of  the  Assyrian  government  just  at 
this  time,  Josiah  is  able  even  to  go  beyond  the  borders  of  what 
was  properly  his  own  land.  The  worshippers  of  Yahve  in  what 
was  formerly  Israelitish  territory,  but  has  been  for  exactly  a 
hundred  years  Assyrian,  are  included  in  his  reforms,  and  the  altar 
of  Bethel  is  destroyed.  It  is,  moreover,  sufficiently  significant  for 
the  character  of  the  movement  that  the  priests  of  the  sanctuaries 
of  the  high  places  which  were  suppressed  were  not  treated  either 
in  accordance  with  the  letter  of  the  new  law  or  with  the  original 

1  Why  did  Hilkiah  not  make  P  public,  if  the  book  was  actually  in  existence 
(Horst,  Th.  Hitt.  Z.  1888,  Nr.  22)  ?  Because  he  found  D,  and  did  not  only 
pretend  to  have  found  it. 


384  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBKEWS  [Book  III. 

intention  of  the  king.  The  law  had  desired  that  they  should 
remain  where  they  were,  and  simply  give  up  priestly  service. 
They  might  come  occasionally  to  Jerusalem  and  take  part  as 
guests  in  the  Temple  sacrifices.  Josiah  had  evidently  intended  to 
indemnify  the  priests  who  had  been  deprived  of  their  living  by 
incorporating  them  in  the  Temple  priesthood.  The  Jerusalem 
priests,  on  the  other  hand,  seem  to  have  struggled  against  this 
undesirable  increase  in  their  numberS,  and  would  not  admit  their 
country  brethren  to  the  altar.^  De  facto,  the  Temple  priests  from 
this  time  onwards  are  the  possessors  of  a  monopoly,  while  those 
who  had  hitherto  been  the  country  Levites  are  degraded  from 
their  office ;  de  jure,  this  state  of  things  is  approved  by  Ezekiel. 

The  reform  which  was  demanded  and  introduced  by  prophecy 
has  in  this  way  become  a  priestly  ordinance.  It  supplied  the 
very  strongest  support  to  the  position  of  the  priesthood.  This  4s 
the  one  effect  of  the  new  law.  The  other  is,  however,  of  a  much 
more  far-reaching  character.  By  means  of  a  national  assembly  at 
which  king  and  people  respectively  bind  themselves  to  obey 
Yahve,  the  law  is  made  the  law  of  the  community  of  Israel.  Up 
to  this  time  the  law  had  consisted  partly  of  the  oral  utterances  of 
the  priests,  and  partly  of  written  common  law  preserved  and  safe- 
guarded by  custom.  Now  there  exists  a  recognised  legal  codex — a 
'  canonical '  book.  We  thus  come  on  the  first  trace  of  a  sacred 
book,  in  the  strict  sense  of  a  lioly  scripture.  What  the  Christian 
Church,  the  Church  of  the  Eeformation  above  all,  owes  to  Holy 
Scripture,  has  its  roots  in  this  conception  which  we  here  meet 
with  for  the  first  time.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  here 
finally  the  source,  too,  of  all  the  evils  which,  like  the  shadow 
alongside  of  the  light,  have  come  into  Judaism  and  Christianity  as 
the  result  of  outward  reliance  on  the  written  Word,  and  of  an 
unspiritual  adherence  to  the  authority  of  the  letter. 

^  Cf.  Dent,  xviii.  1  fF.,  with  2  Kings  xxiii.  8,  and  the  discussions  in  vol.  i. 
p.  122  f. 


Chap.  VL]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  385 

§  74.  Jeremiah.     The  End. 

When  we  consider  the  course  which  Josiah's  reforms,  carried 
out  on  the  basis  of  that  law,  had  actually  taken,  we  can  under- 
stand how  the  very  man  who  above  all  might  have  been  expected 
to  take  an  interest  in  it,  was  more  and  more  at  a  loss  to  know 
what  to  make  of  the  spirit  which  these  reforms  had  called  forth 
in  Judah — the  prophet  Jerertiiah.^ 

The  prophetic  figure  of  Jeremiah  is  the  bright  evening  sun 
which,  with  its  golden  beams,  sheds  a  glory  over  Judah  as  it 
sinks  into  the  night.  No  single  one  of  all  the  Old  Testament 
prophets  comes  so  near  to  us  in  a  human  way  as  he.  He  has  all 
the  powerful  utterance  of  a  Hosea,  and  can  deal  blows  as  heavy 
as  Isaiah's ;  but  at  the  same  time  his  heart  is  overflowing  with  a 
human  feeling  for  the  misery  of  his  people,  and  he  weeps  hot 
tears  over  the  piteous  fate  of  his  fatherland.  He  is  consumed  by 
a  warm  love  for  his  unhappy  nation.  And  yet  duty  to  his  God 
calls  him  and  compels  him  to  blame,  when  he  would  willingly 
console.  With  a  bleeding  heart  he  enters  on  the  terrible  struggle 
with  himself,  and,  although  the  noblest  patriot  who  ever  lived, 
bears  the  stigma  of  a  traitor  to  his  country  for  the  sake  of  Yahve 
and  truth.  More  surely  than  any  other  he  foresees  the  end.  To 
seek  to  arrest  it  would  be  arrogant,  to  bewail  it  would  be  vain. 
Like  the  older  prophets,  he  too  has  only  hope  left.  But  his  hope 
speaks  a  different  language  from  theirs.  It  is  not  the  thought  of 
outward  restoration  which  lies  nearest  to  his  heart,  though  he  is 
acquainted  with  that  too,  nor  is  it  the  restoration  of  a  remnant. 
God's  law  in  the  heart,  and  along  with  this  a  ncio  covenant — that 
will  be  the  mark  of  the  Israel  of  the  future.  And  thus  he  stands 
at  the  point  where  the  ancient  Israel  terminates,  as  the  pioneer 
who  anticipates  a  new  time. 

Jeremiah's  first  appearance  in  the  character  of  prophet  belongs 

^  Cf.  Kostlin,  Jes.  u.  Jerem.  ;  Cheyne,  Jeremiah:  His  Life  and  Times,  1888; 
Marti,  Der  Prophet  Jeremia,  1889.  The  best  characterisation  in  a  short  form  is 
in  Wellh.  Ahr.  75  fif.  ;  Israel  and  Jiidah,^  117  tf.  [Of.  Oiesebrecht,  Jeremia, 
1894,  Introd.] 

VOL.  II.  2  B 


386  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

to  the  thirteenth  year  of  Josiah's  reign,  and  thus  to  the  period  of 
idolatry  previous  to  the  king's  reforms.  It  is  at  the  same  time 
the  period  of  the  Scythian  invasion  which  threatens  Judah  too. 
Probably  both  things,  in  fact,  Judah's  apostasy  and  the  danger 
which  threatened  from  the  side  of  the  Scythians,  are  brought  into 
close  connection  in  the  words  uttered  by  Jeremiah  at  that 
time: 

*  Assemble  yourselves,  and  let  us  go  into  the  fenced  cities. 
Set  up  a  standard  toward  Zion  ! 
Flee  for  safety,  stay  not ! 
For  I  will  bring  evil  from  the  north, 
And  a  great  destruction. 

A  lion  is  gone  up  from  his  thicket,  and  a  destroyer  of  nations  ; 
He  is  on  his  way,  he  is  gone  forth  from  his  place  ; 
To  make  thy  land  desolate, 

That  thy  cities  be  laid  waste,  without  inhabitant.  .  .  . 
A  people  Cometh  from  the  north  country, 
And  a  great  nation  shall  be  stirred  up  from  the  uttermost  parts  of 

the  earth. 
They  lay  hold  on  bow  and  spear  ; 
They  are  cruel,  and  have  no  mercy.'  ^ 

Josiah's  reform  took  place  soon  after  this.  We  do  not  know 
whether  or  in  what  way  Jeremiah  took  an  active  part  in  it.  He 
must  in  any  case  have  taken  the  liveliest  interest  in  it.  But  when 
we  consider  the  direction  which  things  took  soon  after  Josiah's 
action  based  on  Deuteronomy,  we  can  only  too  easily  understand 
how  Jeremiah  has  still  the  old  complaints  to  make  against  Judah.^ 
He  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  outward  precepts  and  man's 
commandments  which  have  been  learned ;  he  demands  circum- 
cision of  the  heart.  But  he  cannot  find  this  now  any  more  than 
before. 

We  know  nothing  definite  regarding  Josiah's  reign  after  the 
reform.  But  it  was  apparently  peaceful  and  successful.  All  was 
quiet  at  home,  and  since  the  downfall  of  Assyria  there  had  been 
nothing  to  fear  from  abroad  in  the  way  of  the  oppression  of  foreign 

1  Jer.  iv.  5-7  ;  vi.  22,  23  (R.V.).     Cf.  especially  vi.  27-30. 
'^  See  Marti  in  Ztitsckr.  f.  Theol.  und  Khxhe,  ii.  52  ff. 


CriAP.  Vr.]       THE  ASSYK1AJN8  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'8  EJND  387 

rule.  It  is  not  till  thirteen  years  after  his  reforms  that  we  again 
learn  something  about  Josiah.  Owing  to  the  alliance  of  the 
Medes  with  Babylon,  the  attacks  on  the  Assyrian  World-Empire 
had  entered  on  a  new  stage.  In  the  year  608  we  find  the  Mede 
Kyaxares  in  company  with  Nabopolassar  of  Babylon  occupied 
with  the  struggle  against  Assyria.  Assyria  is  approaching  its 
end.  Egypt  feels  it  should  not  let  slip  this  opportunity  of  making 
good  its  old  claim  to  Syria.  The  son  of  Psammetich,  who  had 
just  mounted  the  throne  as  Pharaoh-Necho  (ii.),  approaches  with 
the  intention,  as  the  Book  of  Kings  informs  us,  of  marching  to- 
wards the  Euphrates  against  the  king  of  Assyria.  He  means  to 
dispute  the  sovereignty  of  Syria  with  the  Assyrians.  The  other 
States  apparently  join  him ;  but  Josiah,  on  the  contrary,  is  not 
disposed  to  give  up  to  a  new  despot  the  independence  which  he 
has  barely  tasted.  He  opposes  Necho's  advance.  An  engagement 
takes  place  at  Megiddo  in  the  Kishon  Plain.  Josiah  falls ;  his 
people  carry  his  body  back  to  Jerusalem.^ 

Here  everything  is  in  the  most  terrible  confusion  in  consequence 
of  Josiah's  defeat.  Nobody  had  reckoned  on  a  result  of  this  kind. 
Apparently  Josiah's  reform  and  Assyria's  downfall  had  awakened 
in  the  nation  a  confident  feeling  that  Judah  now  possessed  Yahve's 
approval,  and  consequently  could  count  on  the  help  of  His  arm. 
Any  one  who  took  a  sensible  view  of  things  could  only  pronounce 
Josiah's  conduct  to  be  foolhardy  and  rash.  And  this  appears  to 
have  been  Jeremiah's  opinion.  When  after  Josiah's  defeat  the 
people  in  their  alarm  came  thronging  to  the  Temple  to  keep  a 
fast  day,  under  the  idea  that  they  had  simply  not  been  zealous 
enough  in  worship,  but  that  God  could  not  possibly  abandon  His 
city,  he  pronounces  their  hope  to  be  superstition.  '  Will  ye  steal, 
murder,  and  commit  adultery,  and  swear  falsely,  and  burn  incense 
unto  strange  gods  ?  Then  ye  come  and  stand  before  me  in  tliis 
house,  which  is  called  by  my  name,  and  say :  Here  we  are  safe ! 
that  ye  may  do  all  these  abominations.'  On  the  contrary,  as  the 
Temple  of  Shiloh  became  a  prey  to  the  enemy,  so  too  can  the 

^  2  Kings  xxiii.  29,  30.     CJ.  Herod,  ii.  159,  aud  Meyer,  Gtach.  d.  Alt.  578. 


388  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

Temple  of  Jerusalem.^  In  saying  this,  Jeremiah  of  course  came 
into  the  sharpest  conflict  with  public  opinion  in  Jerusalem,  as 
represented  by  the  holders  of  power,  and  as  reflected  in  the  current 
patriotism  of  the  masses.  His  outspokenness  involves  him  in 
a  prosecution.  But  he  is  able  to  appeal  to  the  example  of  Micah 
before  him.^ 

The  fear  that  Necho  would  immediately  appear  before  Jeru- 
salem proved  to  be  unfounded.  Pharaoh  hastens  towards  the 
Euphrates.  Meanwhile  the  army  had  made  Josiah's  younger  son, 
Jehoahaz,  king  in  Jerusalem.  Apparently  the  elder  son,  Eliakim, 
was  inclined  to  submit  to  Necho,  and  was  for  that  reason  passed 
over.  But  Jehoahaz  only  reigns  for  three  months.  Pharaoh  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  satisfied  with  the  choice ;  he  sends  from 
Eibla,  in  Coelesyria,  where  he  was,  and  imposes  a  fine  on  the 
inhabitants  of  Judah,  and  forces  them  to  dethrone  their  king. 
Eliakim  is  put  by  Necho  in  Jehoahaz's  place,  and  mounts  the 
throne  of  his  fathers  under  the  name  of  Jehoiakim  (608-597). 
Jehoahaz  is  carried  away  to  Egypt,  and  later  on  he  died 
there.  A  heavy  tribute  is  imposed  on  Jehoiakim,  which  he 
assesses  on  the  holders  of  property,  and  collects  by  the  aid  of 
the  army.^ 

Jehoiakim  seems  to  have  returned  completely  to  the  paths  of 
Manasseh.  A  different  moral  theory  became  prevalent.  People  said, 
'  The  fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  sons'  teeth  have  been 
set  on  edge,'  as  they  reflected  on  the  fate  which  had  overtaken 
Josiah  spite  of  his  piety.  And  in  the  same  spirit  is  the  complaint : 
*  When  we  burned  incense  to  the  Queen  of  Heaven  ^  in  Judah  and 
Jerusalem,  we  had  plenty  of  bread.  Things  went  well  with  us, 
and  we  saw  no  evil.  But  since  we  left  off  burning  incense  we 
have  wanted  all  things,  and  have  been  consumed  by  the  sword 
and  by  hunger.'     Besides  this,  Jehoiakim  seems  to  have   been 

^  Jer.  vii.  9  ff.     See  Wellh.  Ahr.  73.        "  Jer.  xxvi.     Cf.  Marti,  Jerem.  xxiii. 
3  2  Kings  xxiii.  31-35.     pNH  0^**  =  Militia  ?     [But  see  Klostermann.] 
*  See  on  this  Stade,  ZA  W.  vi.   123  flf.,  289  fif.  ;  Schrader,  Berl.  Akad.  d.   Wiss. 
1886,  477  ff.     [Cheyne,  Jeremiah,  1888,  p.  198  f.] 
^  Jer.  xxxi.  29 ;  xliv.  17,  18, 


Chap.  VL]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH-JUDAH'S  END  389 

fond  of  display  and  a  rnler  of  despotic  tendencies ;  ^  while  just 
then,  when  the  times  were  so  critical,  Judah  required  a  man  who 
was  backed  up  by  the  confidence  of  the  people. 

Pharaoh  was  still  in  Syria,  which  seems  to  have  submitted  to 
him  without  much  trouble  on  his  part.  But  when  Nineveh  fell 
it  was  necessary  that  there  should  be  some  clear  definite  under- 
standing between  Egypt  and  the  new  lord  of  the  East  as  to  which 
was  to  be  master.  In  place  of  Nabopolassar,  who  had  already 
fallen  ill,  his  son,  Nebuchadrezzar,  advanced  against  Pharaoh- 
Necho.  The  latter  was  completely  defeated  in  G04  at  Carchemish 
on  the  Euphrates. 

Syria  has  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  Chaldeans.  Jehoiakim, 
like  the  other  Syrian  rulers,  submits  to  the  victor  after  having 
for  some  years  indulged  the  vain  hope  of  complete  freedom  (about 
601).  He  has  paid  his  tribute  for  three  years,  and  then  he  feels 
a  desire  to  revolt  again  from  Nebuchadrezzar.  Jeremiah  was  now 
in  evil  case.  As  early  as  the  time  of  Necho's  defeat  he  had  clearly 
foreseen  the  fate  of  Egypt : — 

'  Go  up  into  Gilead  and  take  balm, 
Oh  virgin  daughter  of  Egypt ! 
In  vain  dost  thou  use  many  medicines, 
There  is  no  healing  for  thee. 
The  nations  have  heard  of  thy  shame, 
And  the  earth  is  full  of  thy  cry  : 

For  the  mighty  man  hath  stumbled  against  the  mighty. 
They  are  fallen,  both  of  them  together.' ' 

Jeremiah  had  even  at  that  time  feared  that  Jerusalem  would 
be  destroyed  by  Nebuchadrezzar.  In  Jerusalem  itself,  too,  similar 
fears  seem  to  have  been  entertained.  And  so  a  fast  is  arranged 
in  order  to  ward  off  the  threatened  evil.  Jeremiah  cannot  now 
keep  silence  any  more  than  on  a  former  and  similar  occasion.  He 
must  point  his  people  to  the  right  path  of  help.  He  is  forbidden 
to  appear  in  public,  and  so  he  arranges  to  have  his  words  read 

1  See  Jer.  xxii.  13  flf. 

2  Jer.  xlvi.   11,   12  (R.V.).      [Some  critics  doubt   the  prophet's  authorship. 
See  Giesebrecht.] 


390  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

aloud  by  his  scribe  Baruch.  In  the  book  which  was  read  there  must 
have  been  threatenings  such  as  we  meet  with  in  Jeremiah  here  and 
there.  Nations  from  the  north,  the  king  of  Babylon  himself,  will 
burst  in  on  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  destroy  them,  and  take  away  from 
them  *  the  voice  of  the  bridegroom  and  of  the  bride,  the  sound  of  the 
mill  and  the  light  of  the  lamp.'^  Informed  of  this  by  his 
ministers,  Jehoiakim  cuts  Jeremiah's  book  in  pieces  and  throws 
it  into  a  brazier.  Jeremiah  had  fallen  into  disfavour;  and  his 
unpopularity  necessarily  increased  the  more  determinedly  he,  as 
Isaiah  had  done  before  him,  sought  to  thwart  the  party  composed 
of  the  rabid  patriots,  and  the  more  he  endeavoured  to  prevent 
Jehoiakim  from  revolting  from  Nebuchadrezzar. 

When  the  revolt,  nevertheless,  actually  took  place,  Nebuchad- 
rezzar, first  of  all,  incited  the  neighbours  to  make  attacks  on 
Judah  in  conjunction  with  Babylonian  guerilla  bands.  Soon  after 
this,  however  (597),  he  enters  Palestine  himself  with  an  army.- 
Jehoiakim's  sudden  death  saves  him  from  a  bitter  humiliation. 
His  son  Jehoiachin,  a  youth  of  eighteen,  also  known  as  Jeconiah, 
enters  on  his  very  unattractive  inheritance.  Nebuchadrezzar 
proceeds  to  besiege  Jerusalem.  In  order  to  escape  extremities, 
Jeconiah  yields  before  the  city  is  actually  stormed.  He  has  to 
repair  to  the  enemy's  headquarters  as  Nebuchadrezzar's  prisoner, 
accompanied  by  his  mother  and  his  whole  court  and  staff. 
Nebuchadrezzar  demands,  besides,  the  surrender  of  seven  thou- 
sand men,  capable  of  bearing  arms — that  is,  possessors  of  land — 
as  well  as  one  thousand  workers  in  iron.  Along  with  Jeconiah 
and  his  court  and  harem  they  are  carried  away  to  Babylon — 
naturally  with  their  families.^  A  part  of  the  sacred  utensils  is 
also  carried  off.*  Seeing  that  Jerusalem  had,  for  the  second  time, 
resisted   him,  Nebuchadrezzar  was  now  determined  to  break  its 


i  Cf.  Jer.  xxv\  8  ff.,  and  in  addition  chap,  xxxvi. 

-  2  Kings  xxiv.  1  ff.  Verse  2  ff.  is  a  later  addition,  but  cannot  be  objected  to 
so  far  as  the  substance  is  concerned. 

^  For  some  exceptions,  see  Ezek.  xxiv.  21. 

^  2  Kings  xxiv.  8  ff.  Verses  13  and  14  are  an  addition,  see  below.  But  see 
Jer.  xxvii.  8  ff.  ;  xxviii.  3. 


CnAP.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH-JUDAH'S  END  391 

pride  and  to  make  further  resistance  impossible.  He  had  under- 
estimated the  tenacious  love  of  freedom  and  the  fierce  fanaticism 
which  marked  the  Jewish  spirit.  The  prophet  Ezekiel  is  amongst 
those  who  were  carried  away.  From  him  we  learn  that  the 
captives  were  settled  near  the  river  Chebar.  The  youthful 
Jeconiah  himself  languished  for  thirty-seven  years  in  Babylonian 
dungeons.  Jeremiah  calls  after  him :  '  0  land,  land,  land !  hear 
the  word  of  Yahve.  Thus  saith  Yahv^,  Write  ye  this  man 
childless,  a  man  that  shall  not  prosper  in  his  days :  for  no  man 
of  his  seed  shall  prosper,  sitting  upon  the  throne  of  David,  and 
ruling  any  more  in  Judah.'^ 

During  this  period  the  literary  impulse  has  not  yet  died  out  in 
Judah  any  more  than  prophecy.  It  is  as  if  men  with  the  spirit  of 
the  prophets  had,  in  anticipation  of  the  end,  sought  to  arrange 
the  literary  '  remains '  of  the  nation.  In  the  days  of  Jehoiakim  or 
Jeconiah,  the  history  of  the  kings  was  put  together  in  a  form 
which  differs  very  little  from  our  present  Book  of  Kings.  It  was 
anything  indeed  but  a  perfect  work ;  still,  in  the  absence  of  any- 
thing better,  it  is  a  monument  of  priceless  value.  The  real  author 
of  the  Book  of  Kings,  who  is  clearly  a  child  of  the  spirit  which 
first  manifested  itself  in  Deuteronomy,  has  comrades  in  aim  and 
endeavour  in  the  men  who  put  together  and  revised  the  stories  of 
the  Judges  and  the  earliest  narratives  of  the  Kings.  They,  too, 
belong  to  this  last  period  of  the  history  of  Judah.  And,  in  fact, 
the  Deuteronomic  School  had  probably  by  this  time  extended  its 
labours  even  to  the  Law.^ 

In  Hcibakkuh,  prophecy,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  makes 
its  appearance  once  more  at  this  time  side  by  side  with  Jeremiah. 
He  speaks  of  the  Chaldeans  as  an  enemy  who  has  already  done 
grievous  violence  to  Judah.  How  can  the  Holy  One  of  Israel 
suffer  this  ?  It  must  be  the  punisliing  hand  of  I'ahve  :  '  But  the 
plunderer  will  one  day  be  plundered  because  of  men's  blood  and 

1  Jer.  xxii.  29,  30{R.V.). 

-  See  on  K  aud  D-  above,  p.  223  ;  on  /*/.  pp.  5,  13,  25  fT. 


392  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

of  the  violence  done  to  lands,  and  cities,  and  to  all  their  in- 
habitants.'^ 

On  David's  throne  is  placed  yet  another  son  of  Josiah,  called 
Mattaniah,  who  is  twenty-one  years  old.  As  king  he  bears  the 
name  Zedekiah  (597  to  586).^  Although  willing  enough,  in  a  way, 
to  act  up  to  Jeremiah's  advice  and  to  accept  the  inevitable,  he  did 
not  possess  either  the  skill  or  the  force  to  make  himself  master  of 
the  difficult  situation  in  which  he  was  placed.  The  deportation  of 
the  propertied  and  influential  element  was  a  source  of  many 
complications  for  the  new  constitution.  Now  that  all  offices  and 
possessions  were  free,  the  door  was  open  for  the  incapable,  the 
ambitious,  and  the  self-seeking.  The  new  possessors  of  property 
and  power,  with  the  usual  zeal  of  upstarts,  were  still  less  inclined 
than  their  predecessors  had  been  to  renounce  the  right  of  Judah  to 
play  an  independent  role.  Judah's  sole  task  for  the  present,  namely, 
to  regain  internal  order  and  new  strength  under  the  overlordship  of 
Babylon,  appears  to  them,  in  their  blind  zeal,  far  too  insignificant 
a  part.  They  begin  once  more  to  listen  to  Egypt's  blandishments, 
which  had  always  proved  disastrous,  and,  especially  after  the  pre- 
dictions uttered  by  Habakkuk,  hope  for  the  speedy  downfall  of 
Babylon.  Thus  factions  of  all  kinds  are  formed ;  there  seem  even 
to  have  been  instances  of  violence  and  bloodshed.  In  a  word,  those 
who  had  been  carried  away  to  Babylon,  with  Ezekiel  at  their 
head,  regard  with  contempt  the  state  of  matters  in  Jerusalem,  as 
if  those  who  remained  behind  were  the  real  authors  of  all  the 
misfortune,  and  see  in  it  a  proof  of  their  lawlessness  and  corruption.^ 

But  it  was  not  in  Judah  only  that  men  began  to  look  forward 
to  the  speedy  destruction  of  Babylon,  and  to  think  of  how  it 
might  be  made  use  of  to  enable  them  to  cast  off  the  foreign  yoke. 
As  had  happened  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah,  foreign  embassies 
arrive  and  importune  Judah.     Edom,  Amnion,  Moab,  Tyre,  and 

^  Probably  only  i.-ii.  8,  belonged  to  the  book  in  its  original  form.  See 
especially  Kuen.  §§  76,  77.  [Dififerently  Budde,  StKr.,  1893,  383  ff.  ;  c/.  also 
Rothstein,  StKr.,  1894,  51  ff.] 

2  2  Kings  xxiv.  18-25,  21 ;  also  Jer.  lii. 

^  Cf.  Ezek.  xi.  15  ;  xxiL  25  ff.  ;  cliaps.  viii.,  xvii. 


Chap.  VI.]      THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH— JUDAH'S  END  393 

Sidon  take  part  iu  the  confederacy.  Jeremiah,  as  Isaiah  had  done 
on  a  former  occasion,  uses  every  endeavour  to  keep  his  king  to 
the  path  of  reason,  but  in  vain.  The  hope  of  the  speedy  break-up 
of  Babylon,  a  hope  which  is  even  now  nourished  by  fanatical 
prophets,  as  well  as  the  prospect. of  support  from  Egypt,  carry 
away  the  masses,  and  they  are  stronger  than  the  king's  will. 
Even  the  exiles  themselves  are  drawn  into  the  general  com- 
motion.i  The  report  goes  that  they  are  already  preparing  to 
return.  Jeremiah  is  the  only  one,  as  Isaiah  had  been  before  him, 
who  perceives  the  mad  foolhardiness  of  such  a  hazardous  enter- 
prise, not  because  he  has  less  trust  in  Yahve  than  the  rest,  but 
because  he  has  no  confidence  in  the  moral  condition  of  his  people. 
And  his  voice  is  not  listened  to. 

The  confederacy  of  his  vassals  does  not  seem  to  have  troubled 
Nebuchadrezzar  much.  In  the  winter  of  the  year  587  he  however 
appears  with  his  army  before  Jerusalem.  He  proceeds  at  once 
to  invest  the  city.  In  the  city  itself  terror  and  despair  begin  to 
manifest  themselves.  Still  the  inhabitants  are  determined  to 
resist  to  the  uttermost.  And,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem  prove  strong  enough,  and  its  garrison  brave  enough, 
to  offer  resistance  to  the  Great  King.  And  when  the  long- 
looked-for  help  from  Egypt  at  last  came  with  the  appearance  of 
Pharaoh  Hofra,  whose  army  marched  into  Palestine,  Nebuchad- 
rezzar is  forced  to  raise  the  siege.  The  rejoicing  is  universal — 
Jeremiah  alone  does  not  rejoice.  The  enemy  will  return  in 
a  short  time ;  even  if  Zedekiah's  army  were  to  inflict  a  total 
defeat  on  the  Babylonians,  Yahve  would  in  the  end  deliver 
Jerusalem  into  the  hands  of  Nebuchadrezzar.- 

Jeremiah  has  to  pay  for  his  outspokenness  by  imprisonment. ^ 
But  while  he  is  bearing  the  disgrace  of  being  considered  an  enemy 
and  a  traitor  to  his  own  city,  his  words  are  being  actually  ful- 
filled. The  besiegers  have  returned.  Famine  rages  in  the  city. 
After  besieging  it  for  a  year  and  a  half,  Nebuchadrezzar's  troops 

^  Jer.  xxvii.,  xxix.  -  Jer.  xxxvii.  11  ;  xxxiv.  8  Q\ 

'  Jer.  xxxviii.     [Cf.  Cheyne,  Jeremiah,  p.  172  flf.] 


394  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS  [Book  III. 

succeed  in  making  a  breach  in  the  walls.  Zedekiah  is  seized  with 
the  courage  of  despair.  He  attempts  a  sortie.  On  the  south  side 
he  succeeds  in  breaking  through  the  ranks  of  the  besiegers.  He 
has  already  gained  the  open,  and  tries  to  flee  to  the  country  east 
of  the  Jordan.  He  is  overtaken  at  Jericho  and  made  prisoner, 
and  his  troops  are  dispersed.  He  is  blinded  by  Nebuchadrezzar 
and  carried  off  in  chains  to  Babylon.  His  sons  were  executed 
before  his  very  eyes.  The  city  is  given  up  for  a  month 
to  the  plundering  troops  of  the  enemy,  and  then  set  fire  to,  to- 
gether with  the  Temple  and  the  king's  fortress.  The  walls  fall ; 
what  still  remained  of  the  Temple  utensils  is  carried  off.  A 
frightful  doom  overtakes  those  who  are  found  alive  within  the  city. 
The  populace  is  subjected  to  a  second  deportation.  Unfortunately, 
we  cannot  now  determine  the  number  of  those  carried  away.^ 

A  final  attempt  to  raise  once  more  a  Judaic  commonwealth 
on  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  state  miscarries  after  a  few  months.^ 
Nebuchadrezzar  makes  a  friend  and  partisan  of  Jeremiah,  the 
noble  Gedaliah  ben  Ahikam  ben  Shaphan,  governor  of  Judah, 
and  fixes  his  headquarters  at  Mizpah.  He  endeavours  to  collect 
together  the  scattered  remnant  and  to  reintroduce  order  and 
prosperity  into  Judah  under  Babylonian  authority.  But  the 
jealousy  of  the  neighbouring  Ammonites  prevents  the  unhappy 
country  from  settling  down  peacefully.  The  Ammonite  king 
incites  a  certain  Ishmael,  a  member  of  the  House  of  David,  to 
murder  Gedaliah.  Three  months  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
Ishmael  and  his  party  make  a  fierce  and  cruel  attack  on  all  in 
Mizpah  who  acknowledge  themselves  as  Babylonian  subjects. 
Ishmael  flees  towards  Ammon.  Those  still  left  in  the  country 
are  afraid  of  Nebuchadrezzar's  vengeance.  They  resolve  to 
emigrate  to  Egypt.  Along  with  the  emigrants,  though  against 
his  will,  goes  Jeremiah.  He  was  still  a  prisoner  when  Jerusalem  | 
was  captured.  The  conquerors  set  him  free,  and  he  is  carried  away 
along  with  the  exiles  as  far  as  Eamah,  and  then  set  at  liberty. 

^  Cf.  2  Kings  XXV.    20  ;  xxiv.  13,   14  ;  Jer.  lii.   28-30  ;  and  thereon,  Stade, 
ZA  W.  iv.  271  ff.  -  2  Kings  xxv.  22  ff.,  and  especially  Jer.  xli.  ff. 


Chap.  VI.]       THE  ASSYRIANS  IN  JUDAH-.TUDAH'S  END  095 

The  Hebrew  nation  has  thus  reached  its  end.  It  has  not 
become  extinct,  but  it  has  been  uprooted.  Its  shoots  are  planted 
in  two  foreign  regions,  in  Babylonia  and  Egypt,  where  they 
grow  luxuriantly  and  take  on  new  forms.  What  springs  from 
them,  even  when  it  is  once  more  replanted  in  the  old  soil,  is  no 
longer  the  old  tree.     Hebraism  has  become  Judaism. 


INDEX 


A  =  Annals  of  the  Kings,  ii.  208  fl". 

Aahmes,  i.  190  f. 

Aaron,  i.  119fF.,  194ff.,  199,  205  ?i.,  207  f., 

216  fF.,  219. 
Abarim,  i.  221  f. 
Abdon,  ii.  76. 
Abel-beth-Ma'acah,  ii.  175,  200,  250,  347, 

347  71. 
Abiathar,  ii.  126,  171,  177  ff.,  182. 
Abibaal,  ii.  157  n. 
Abiezer,  ii.  80. 
Abigail,  sister  of  David,  ii.  173. 

wife  of  David,  ii.  128. 

Abijah,  King,  ii.  238  f.,  248. 
Abimelech,  of  Gerar,  i.  138,  153. 

ofShechem,ii.l3n.,18n.,82??.,85ff. 

Abinadab,  ii.  135. 

Abiram,  i.  212,  219. 

Abishag,  ii.  179. 

Abishai,  ii.  144,  162,  173. 

Abner,  ii.  124,  138  ff.,  143  ff.,  146  f. 

Aborigines  of  Canaan,  i.  18  ff. 

Abraham,  i.  136  ff.,  149  ff.,  162  f.,  171  ff. 

Absalom,  ii.  163,  169  ff.,  248. 

Accad,  i.  148,  178,  258. 

Accho,  i.  269 ;  ii.  366. 

Achish,  ii.  129  f.,  141. 

Acbsah,  i.  268,  299. 

Achzib,  i.  269. 

Adma,  i.  137. 

Adon,  i.  179. 

Adonijah,  ii.  177  ff. 

Adonibezek,  i.  266,  276,  299,  306. 

Adoram  (Adoniram),  ii.  187,  244. 

Adonizedek,  i.  306  ff. 

Adriel,  ii.  167. 

Adullam,  ii.  125  f.,  151. 

Agag,  ii.  117  f. 

Agriculture,  ii.  93,  296. 


Ahab,  ii.  215,  237  f.,  262  ff. 

Ahaz,  ii.  2.39  f.,  343  ff. 

Ahaziah,  King  of  Judah,  ii.  237  f.,  281, 

285. 

King  of  Israel,  ii.  237  f.,  274  f. 

Ahijah,  priest,  ii.  201  f. 

prophet,  ii.  188,  254. 

Ahimaaz,  ii.  171  ff. 

Ahiman,  i.  201,  267. 

Ahimelech,  ii.  125  f.,  201. 

Ahithophel,  ii.  171  f. 

Ahlab,  i.  269. 

Ai,  i.  285  ff.,  299;  ii.  64. 

Aijalon,  i.  270,  301  ;  ii.  63,  76. 

Alisphragmutosis,  i.  257. 

Altaqu,  ii.  366  ff. 

Amalek,  i.  95,  197,  201,  207,  233  f.,  268, 

276;  ii.  78  f.,  117  f.,  133,  140,  163. 
Amarna  Tablets,  ii.  60,  96  n. 
'Amiisa,  ii.  173  ff. 
Amaziah,  King,  ii.  218,  238  f.,  288  f. ,  294  f. 

priest,  ii.  323. 

Amenhotep,  i.  261. 

Amenmeses,  i.  261. 

Amenophis,  i.  258  ff. 

Ammonites,  i.  24,  152,  202,  224,  231  n.  ; 

ii.  29  w.,  78,  90,  113,  139,  161  ff,  172, 

291,  332  71.,  339,  366,  392,  394. 
Amnon,  ii.  169  f. 
Amon,  King,  ii.  240,  378,  381. 
Amorites,  i.  21,  211,  213,  224,  230,  270. 
Amos,  father  of  Isaiah,  ii.  339. 

prophet,  i.  81,  129  ;  ii.  291,  320  ff. 

Amu,  i.  185. 
Anakini,  i.  23. 
Anat,  goddess,  ii.  98. 

person,  ii.  76  n. 

Anathoth,  ii.  179. 
Ancestor-M-  rship,  ii.  203. 

397 


398 


HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS 


Apepi,  i.  189. 

Aphek,  i.  269;  ii.  104,  132,  158,  271. 

Apiiriu,  i.  184. 

Arabah,  i.  24 ;  ii.  295. 

Arabia,  ii.  131,  189,  338,  353. 

Arad,  i.  202,  268. 

Aram.    See  Syria  and  Damascus. 

Ararat,  i.  182. 

Araunah,  ii.  191. 

Arioch,  i.  177. 

Ark  of  Yahve,  i.  209,  224,  238  f.,  275, 

279;  ii.  46,  105,  107  f.,  136,  158,171, 

192,  195,  203  f.,  306. 
Armenia,  i,  182. 
Army,  ii.  164,  198,  300,  334. 
Arnon,  i.  11,  212  f.,  224. 
Arpachsad,  i.  162,  184. 
Arsa,  ii.  255. 
Art,  ii.  94  f.,  194. 
Asa,  ii.  237,  248  f.,  255. 
Asahel,  ii.  144  f.,  148. 
Asenath,  i.  145. 
Ashdod,  i.  25 ;  ii.  360,  363. 
Asher,  i.  155,  269 ;  ii.  63,  74,  80,  98  n. 
Ashera,  ii.  99,  247  f.,  264,  310  f.,  355  f., 

371  f. 
Ashkelon,  i.  25  ;  ii.  363  ff. 
Ashtart,  ii.  98  f.,  310,  373. 
Assarhaddon,  ii.  353,  379. 
Asshur,  Assyria,  i.   148,  161;  ii.  232  f., 

257  ff.,  289,  314,  333  ff.,  361,  372  ff., 

379  fF. 
Assnrbanipal,  ii.  379. 
Assurdan,  ii.  295. 
Assurnasirpal,  ii.  258. 
Assurnirar,  ii.  295. 
Athaliah,  ii.  238  f.,  282,  285  f. 
'Atarot,  ii.  261. 
Avaris,  i.  256,  258. 
'Avvites,  i.  23. 

Azariah  (Uzziah),  ii.  236  flf.,  295,  329  ff. 
Azuri,  ii.  360. 

Baal,  ii.  98  ff,  201  f.,  264  f.,  268  f., 
279  f.,  282,  286,  306  f.,  322  ff.,  371  ff., 
381,  388  ff. 

Ba'al-Berith,  ii.  83  ff.,  100. 

Hazor,  ii.  169. 

Jehuda,  ii.  159. 

Peor,  i.  82,  214. 


Ba'alath,  ii.  185. 

Baba,  i.  189  f. 

Babel,  Babylon,  i.   148;  ii.  232  f.,  .353, 

361  ff.,  375,  380  ff. 
Bahilrim,  ii.  172. 
Balak,  i.  202  f.,  214,  224,  229  f. 
Balaam,  i.  84  ff.,  202  f.,  214,  220. 
Bamoth.     See  High-places. 
Bamoth  Baal,  i.  214. 
Ban,  the,  ii.  64,  117  ?i.,  199. 
Barak,  ii.  72. 
Baruch,  ii.  389. 
Barzillai,  ii.  172,  179,  200. 
Baasha,  ii.  237  f.,  249  f.,  254. 
Bathsheba,  ii.  168,  176  ff. 
Be'er,  i.  213;  ii.  84  ?i. 
Beeroth,  i.  290,  301;  ii.  156. 
Beersheba,  i.  34,  83,  146;  ii.  99,  322. 
Bela,  i.  137. 
Benaiah,  ii.  178. 
Benhadad,  ii.  249,  261,  271  f.,  279  (^ee 

also  Hadadezer),  290  f. 
Benihassan,  i.  187. 
Benjamin,  i.  294  f.;  ii.  21,  74,  111,  116, 

124,  145,  174. 
Bethanath,  i.  270. 
Bethel,  i.  34,  87  f.,  89  ff.,  136  ff ,  141  ff , 

149,  164,  269  f.,  275  ff.,  285;  ii.  64,  99, 

252,  304,  322  ff.,  353. 
Beth-horon,  i.  305;  ii.  185. 
Bethlehem,  i.  108  «.;  ii.  119,  151,  320. 
Beth  Rehob,  ii.  161. 
Beth-shean,  i.  266,  269;  ii.  63,  135,  138. 
Beth-shemesh,  i.  270;  ii.  294. 
Bezek,  i.  266,  307. 
Bidkar,  ii.  270,  281. 
Bilhah,  i.  155. 
Blood-revenge,  ii.  95,  301. 
Boaz,  ii.  193. 
Bronze,  ii.  194. 

Book  of  the  Excellent,  i.  92,  302;  ii.  199. 
Book  of  the  Wars,  i.  90  f.,  213  f. ;  ii.  199. 
Bull- worship,  i.  89,  199  f.,  209;  ii.  202, 

253  f.,  .304,  308,  325  ff. 
Burnt-offerings,  i.  113. 

Caleb,  i.  201  f.,  211,  218,  267,  276,  299; 

ii.  129  f. 
Canaan,  Canaanites,  i.  9  f.,  20,  136,  147, 

200  f;    conquest  of,   i.    263  ff.,    282, 


INDEX 


309 


293  ff ;  civilisation  of,  ii.  Gl  11".,  72  IT., 

75,  125  f.,  187. 
Caphtor,  i.  25. 
Carchemish,  ii.  389. 
Carmel,  Mount,  i.  13  f. ;  ii.  268. 

town,  ii,  128. 

Carrhae,  i.  ISO. 

Centralisation  of  worship,  i.  60,  108  fT. ; 

ii.  377.     See  Reform. 
Chaldeans.     See  Kasdim  and  Babylon. 
Chalybes,  i.  182. 
Chebar,  ii.  390. 
Chedorlaomer,  i.  137,  178  f. 
Chemosh,  i.  243,  246  n. ;  ii.  276  f. 
Chemoshmelek,  ii.  261. 
Chephirah,  i.  290,  301 ;  ii.  156. 
Cherith,  ii.  268. 
Cherubim,  ii.  192. 
Chronicles,  ii.  224  f.,  283,  360,  378. 
Chronology,  ii.  8,  135,  142,  234. 
Circumcision,  i.  195,  281,  298  f. 
Climate,  i.  15. 
Cloud,  pillar  of,  i.  197. 
Commander-in-Chief,  ii.  300. 
Covenant,  Book  of  the,  i.  59,  94,  208  f., 

235;  ii.  96  n.,  376. 
Covenant,  Ark  of  the.     See  Ark. 
Cuneiform  inscriptions,  ii.  232. 
Customs,  ii.  94,  199,  296  ff.,  321  ff. 

D,  D-.     See  Deuteronomy. 

Da  =  History  of  David,  ii.  35,  40  ff.,  44, 

302. 
Dadda-idri,  ii.  270. 
Dagon,  ii.  98,  107. 
Daibon,  ii.  261. 
Damascus,  i.   137;   ii.   163  n.,   184,  245, 

250,   258    f.,   262,   271,   273,   288   ff., 

290  ff.,  314,  335,  346  f. 
Dan,  i.  89,  270 ;  ii.  20,  69  f.,  71,  92,  101, 

103,  175,  201,  250,  252,  304,  322. 
Dathan,  i.  212,  219. 
David,  ii.  35  ff'.,  119  ff.,  138,  175,  240, 

241  ff.,  327,  .364,  365. 
Debir,  Holy  of  Holies,  ii.  192. 
Debir,  town,  i.  267,  276,  299. 
Deborah,  i.  79  ??.,  87;  ii.  66  ff.,  71  ff.. 

97. 
Decalogue,  i.  50,  72,   198  ff.,  208,  235, 

244. 


Dejokcs,  ii.  .379. 

Delilah,  ii.  91. 

Deluge,  i.  34  f.,  147. 

Deuteronomy,  i.  39,43-69,  101,  lO."),  115; 
ii.  376  f.,  382  fl";  Deuteronomic  editor 
(D-),  i.  46  ff,  52,  279  ff,  pas.ihn;  ii. 
53  ?i.,  208,  223  f.,  391. 

Dinah,  i.  142,  156;  ii.  60  n. 

Diodorus,  i.  190. 

Doeg,  ii.  126. 

Dor,  i.  269.  ^^' 

Dothan,  i.  158. 

E  (E2),  i.  38,  69-96,  136-147,  203-215, 
274  f.,  279,  281,  310;  ii.  15  ff.,  26  ff, 
45,  306,  308. 

Ebal,  i.  87,  289. 

Ebenha'ezer,  ii.  11)4. 

Eber,  i.  148. 

Edom,  Edomite,  i.  23,  140  ff.,  154  ff., 
169,  212,  220,  276;  ii.  126,  163,  184, 
276,  285,  288,  291,  339,  343,  366,  392. 

Eglon,  town,  i.  305. 

king,  ii.  78. 

Egypt,  i.  133,  139,  144,  150,  15.3,  158  f., 
183  ff.,  215  ff.  ;  ii.  182,  185  ff.,  244  f., 
293,  333  ff.,  348,  360  ff.,  387  ff. 

Ehud,  ii.  76  n. ,  78. 

Ekron,  ii.  363  f. 

Elah,  King,  ii.  237  f.,  255. 

Elam,  i.  137,  177  f.  ;  ii.  362. 

Elath,  i.  24 ;  ii.  164,  289,  329,  343. 

Elders,  ii.  94,  109,  112  f.,  299  f. 

Eleazar,  i.  87. 

El-elyon,  i.  180. 

Elhanan,  ii.  120. 

Eli,  ii.  107,  125,  182  f.,  201. 

Eliakim  ben  Hilkiah,  ii.  367. 

Eliezer,  i.  137. 

Elijah,  ii.  213  f.,  266  ff.,  275,  279. 

Elim,  i.  217. 

Elisha,  ii.  214  f.,  268,  278,  280  ff,  290, 
292  f. 

Ellasar,  King,  i.  177. 

El-Kab,  i.  189. 

Elon,  ii.  76. 

Eltekeh.     See  Altaqu. 

Emim,  i.  23. 

Endor,  ii.  134. 

Ephod,  ii.  34  n.,  82,  101,  201,  305. 


400 


HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS 


Ephraim,  i.  15  f.,  83  f.,  145,  266 ;  ii.  63, 

74,   80,  90  S.,  105,  115,  138,  187  f.  ; 

forest  of,  ii.  173,  342. 
Er,  i.  158. 
Eriaku,  i.  178. 
Esek,  i.  153. 

Eshba'al,  ii.  139,  141-149,  366. 
Etham,  i.  216. 
Ethba'al,  ii.  263  (366). 
Ethiopia,  ii.  249,  338,  366  ff. 
Euphrates,  i.  172  ;  ii.  387. 
Exodus  from  Egypt,  i.  196,  206,  216,  223, 

256,  260. 
Ezekiel,  i.  105  ff.,  118  f.,  126  ff.  ;  ii.  374, 

390. 
Ezion-Geber,  i.  24 ;  ii.  164,  184,  283. 

Family  Life,  ii.  298. 
Festivals,  i.  114  ff.  ;  ii.  305,  309. 
Flora  of  Palestine,  i.  16. 
Fortified  towns,  ii.  185,  297  f. 

Gaal,  ii.  86  f. 

Gad  (tribe),  i.  203,  215,  221,  225,  275 ;  ii. 

98  ?i. 

prophet,  ii.  225,  254. 

Galilee,  ii.  347. 

Gath,  i.  25 ;  ii.  120,  129,  152,  288. 

Gaza,  i.  25 ;  ii.  360,  363. 

Geba,  ii.  250. 

Gedaliah,  ii.  394. 

Gerar,  i.  138,  153. 

Gerizim,  ii.  85. 

Gershom,  i.  193. 

Geshur,  i.  269;  ii.  163,  170. 

Gezer,  i.  269 ;  ii.  63,  75,  152  f,,  185. 

Giants,  i.  201,  211,  267. 

Gibbethon,  ii.  255. 

Gibborim,  ii.  164. 

Gibeah,  ii.  21  7i.,  105,  111,  113  ff.,  138  f., 

154,  166  f. 
Gibeon,  i.  290,  300  ff.  ;   ii.  63,  75,  144, 

151  f.,  156,  167,  175. 
Gideon  (Jerubbaal),  ii.  80  ff.,  81  ».,  96, 

202. 
Gihon,  ii.  178,  359. 
Giiboa,  i.  13;  ii.  134  f.,  138. 
Gilead,  i.  143,  155  f.,  215;  ii.  74,  S9n., 

172,277,280,  347,  347  n.,  389. 


Gilgal,  i.  87  f.,  270,  275  f.,  281  f.  ;  ii.  99, 

114,  117,202,214  71. 
God.     See  Yahve. 
God,  Brook  of,  i.  213. 
Goliath,  ii.  37,  120,  120  «.,  152. 
Gomorrha,  i.  137,  151. 
Goshen,  i.  160,  205,  222. 

H  =  Law  of  Holiness,  i.  107  ff.,  126  ff. 

H  (HI)  =  Heroes,  stories  of,  ii.  79,  81  n. 

Habakkuk,  ii.  391. 

Habor,  ii.  352. 

Hadad,  ii.  184. 

Hadadezer,  ii.  162  f.  {see  also  Benhadad), 

270  f. 
Hagar,  i.  138,  151. 
Hamath,  ii.  163,  293,  336. 
Hamor,  1,  156,  164  ;  ii.  69  n.,  83,  87. 
Hanno  of  Gaza,  ii.  349,  352,  359. 
Haran,  i.  148,  172  ff. 
Har-heres,  i.  270 ;  ii.  63. 
Harod,  i.  11;  ii.  80. 
Haroseth,  ii.  72. 
Haseroth,  i.  218,  224. 
Havvoth-jair,  ii.  77. 
Hazael,  ii.  268,  279,  288,  290  f. 
Hazor,  i.  308;  ii.  72  n.,  185,  347. 
Head,  tribal,  ii.  94  ?i..  111. 
Heber,  ii.  74. 
Hebrews,  origin  of  the,  i.   172  ff. ,  180; 

in  Egypt,  183  ff.  ;  Hebrews  and  Jews, 

ii.  394. 
Hebron,  i.  83  f.,  137  ff.,  201,  267,  276, 
*  299  ff.  ;  ii.    64,  99,  128  ff.,  142,  144, 

170  f. 
Helbah,  i.  269. 
Heliopolis,  i.  258. 

Herodotus,  i.  190  ;  ii.  368,  380,  387  n. 
Heroes  of  David,  ii.  164. 
Heshbon,  i.  213  f. 
Hezekiah,  i.  63  ;  ii.  220  ff.,  239  f.,  355  ff., 

360  ff. 
High-places,  i.  88  f.,  108  ff.,  122  f.  ;  ii. 

100  f.,  201,  208  n.,  248  f.,  253  f.,  305, 

308,  322  ff,  355  ff,  383. 
Hilkiah,  ii.  383. 
Hinnom,  ii.  373. 
Hiram,  ii.  157,  163,  189,  335. 
Hittites,  i.  22  f.,  26,  163,  269;  ii.  61  n., 

62  11.,  165,  293,  339,  353. 


INDEX 


401 


Hivvites,  i.  21,  290  n. 

Hobab,  i.  200,  233  n.,  268. 

Hobah,  i.  137. 

Hofra,  ii.  393. 

Hophni,  ii.  105. 

Horeb,  i.  197,  200  ff.,  204,  234 ;  ii.  268. 

Horites,  i.  23  ff. ,  220. 

Hormah,  i.  202,  211,  268. 

Horse,  ii.  188. 

Hosea,  i.  81  f.  ;  ii.  112  ??..,  113  ?^.,  323  ff., 

333. 
Hoshea,  ii.  238  ff.,  349  ff. 
Host  of  Heaven,  i.  63  ;  ii.  374. 
Huldah,  i.  58  ;  ii.  383. 
Huleh  (lake),  i.  13,  308. 
Human  sacrifices,  ii.  95,  116,  202,  373. 
Hur,  i.  207  f. 
Huramabi,  ii.  195. 
Hushai,  ii.  171  f. 
Hyksos,  i.  185,  257  ff. 

Ibleam,  i.  269. 

Ibzan,  ii.  76. 

Ijon,  ii.  347. 

Ilubidi,  ii.  352. 

Image-worship,  i.  90,  199,  221  f.,  249; 

ii.  19,  71,  82,  100  f.,  201  f.,  219,  253, 

304,  306  1,  322. 
Immanuel,  ii.  346. 
Incense,  altar  of,  ii.  192. 
Isaac,  i.  138  f.,  152  ff.,  163  f.,  171. 
Isaiah,  ii.  220  f.,  250,  333,  339  ff.,  356  ff., 

363  ff.,  375. 
Ishbosheth.     See  Eshba'al. 
Ishmael,  i.   138,  151,  158,  163,  169;   ii. 

394. 
Israel,  i.   18  f.,  34,    85,   94.      See  also 

Ephraim  and  Judah. 
Issachar,  ii.  63,  65  w.,  74. 
Ishtob,  ii.  161. 
Ithra,  ii.  173. 
Ittai,  ii.  173. 
Itureans,  i.  139. 
lye-abarim,  i.  220. 

J  =  Yahvist,  i.  69  ff.,  149-160,  190-203, 
264-270,  273  f.,  279  f.,  281  f.,  285; 
ii.  15  ff.,  45,  304. 

Je  =  Jerusalem  source,  ii.  46  f,,  302. 

Jabbok,  i.  11,  156,  213,  224. 

VOL.  II. 


Jabcsh,  ii.  Ill,  113,  135,  141,  144,  200. 

Jabin,  i.  308  ;  ii.  72  n. 

Jachin,  ii.  193. 

Jael,  ii.  73. 

Jahaz,  i.  213. 

Janoah,  ii.  347. 

Japhet,  i.  148. 

Jarmuth,  i.  305  f. 

Jazer,  i.  213. 

Jebus,  i.  22,  267,  299,  301  ;   ii.  63,  75, 

155  f. 
Jeconiah.     See  Jehoiakin. 
Jehoahaz,  King  of  Israel,  ii.  238  f.,  277, 

291  ff. 

King  of  Judah,  ii.  240,  388. 

Jehoash,  ii.  239,  291  f. 

Jehoiada,  ii.  286  f. 

Jehoiakim,  ii.  240,  390  ff. 

Jehoiakin,  ii.  390. 

Jehoshaphat,  i.  62;  ii.  238  f.,  263,  276, 

282  f. 
Jehosheba,  ii.  286. 
Jehu,  King,  ii.  216,  240  ff.,  268  f.,  280  f., 

289  ff. 

Prophet,  ii.  255. 

Jephthah,  ii.  89  f. 

Jeremiah,  i.  112,  129  ;  ii.  374,  385  ff. 
Jericho,  i.  282  f.,  293;  ii.  64. 
Jeroboam  (i.),  ii.  187,  206,  237  f.,  242, 

250  ff. 
(II.),  ii.  238  f.,  295  ff.,  323  ff., 

331,  336. 
Jerubba'al.     See  Gideon. 
Jerusalem,  ii.  155,  245,  286,  360  «.,  367  ff. 

See  also  Jebus. 
Jesse,  ii.  119. 

Jethro,  i.  35,  204,  209,  223. 
Jezebel,  ii.  263,  281. 
Jezreel,  i.  12  f.,  266;  ii.   132,  133,  269, 

280,  297. 
Joab,  ii.   144,   148  f.,   161  f.,    168,   170, 

173  ff 
Joah,  ii.  367. 
Joash,  ii.  239  f.,  287  f. 
Jochebed,  i.  245. 
Joel,  ii.  328. 
Joktan,  i.  149. 
Jonadab,  ii.  281. 
Jonathan,  son  of  Saul,  ii.  38,  114,  121  ff., 

124,  135,  168. 

20 


402 


HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS 


Jonathan,  son  of  Abiathar,  ii.  171,  178. 
Joram,  King  of  Israel,  ii.  238  f.,  274  flf., 

279  fif. 
King  of  Judah,  ii.  238  f.,  282  f., 

284. 
Jordan,  i.  10  f.,  279  f.  ;  ii.  81,  139,  174. 
Joseph,  i.   34,  83,  144  fF.,    156  ff.,  165, 

186  flP.,  203,  222,  265  ff. 
Josephus,  i.  134,  256. 
Joshua,  i.  86,  201  f.,  207,  209,  211,  215, 

218,  221,  265  1,  269  f.,  274  ff.,  284  ff., 

311. 
Josiah,  i.  49,  58,  108 ;  ii.  240,  353,  376, 

379  ff. 
Jotham,  ii.  IS  7i.,  84. 

King,  ii.  239  f.,  330  ff. 

Judah,  i.  83  ff.,  155,  158,   266  ff.,  272, 

291  ;  ii.   103  f.,  117,  141  f.,  245,  339, 

365  f.,  369  ff. 
Judges,  ii.  65  ff.,  76  f.,  92. 
Judicial  procedure,  i.  210. 
Jurisdiction,  appellate,  i.  62. 
Justice,  Courts  of,  ii.  284,  301. 


K  (Ki,  Kj)  =  Redaction  of  A,  ii.  210  ff., 

377. 
Kadesh-Barnea,   i.   201   f.,  211   f.,   220, 

224,  228  f.,  231  f. 

on  the  Orontes,  ii.  165. 

in  Naphtali,  ii.  347. 

Kasdim,  i.  181  f. 

Kebir,  Tell-el-,  i.  253. 

Kedar,  i.  139,  163. 

Kedeshas,  ii.  248,  325,  373. 

Keilah,  ii.  127. 

Kenath,  i.  215. 

Kenaz,  Kenizzites,  i.  267,  276  f. 

Kenites,  i.  200,  250,  268,  276  f.  ;  ii.  74, 

78. 
Kerioth,  i.  202. 

Kibroth-Hattaavah,  i.  211,  218. 
Kidron,  i.  12. 
Kinnereth,  i.  13. 
Kings,  Monarchy,  ii.  82  f.,  106  f.,  112  f., 

146,  197,  241  ff.,  300  f. 
Kings,  Books  of,  ii.  49  ff.,  207  ff.,  377, 

391. 
Kirharoseth,  ii.  276. 
Kiriath-arba,  i.  267,  276. 


Kiriath-jearim,  i.  290,  301  ;  ii.  71,  108, 

156,  159  n. 
Kiriath-sepher,  i.  267  ;  ii.  96  n. 
Kish,  ii.  Ill,  168. 

Kishon,  i.  12  ;  ii.  63,  72  ff.,  268,  387. 
Kitron,  i.  269. 
Korah,  i.  219. 

Kreti  and  Pleti,  ii.  153  n.,  164. 
Kudur-Mabug,  i.  177. 

Nanhurdi,  i.  177. 

Kyaxares,  ii.  381,  387. 

Laban,  i.  142  f.,  155. 

Lachish,  i.  305  f.  ;  ii.  289,  297,  367  f. 

Lagamar,  i.  177  f. 

Lah-u-roi,  i.  153. 

Laish,  ii.  19,  71,  92. 

Language  of  Israel,  i.  20, 

Law-book,  Law-giving,  i.  58  f.,  96,  198  f. 

(in  J),  208  f.  (in  E),  218,  224,  235. 
Leah,  i.  142,  155. 
Lebanon,  ii.  187. 

House  of  tlie  Forest  of,  ii.  193. 

Lepers  (Manetho),  i.  258,  261. 

Leshem,  i.  270. 

Levi,  Levites,  i.  117  ff.,  155, 195,  204,  209, 

212,  219  f.  ;  ii.  35  n.,  69,  101,  107  n., 

203,  305. 
Literature,  ii.  302. 
L6-debar,  ii.  166. 
Lot,  allotment,  i.  265,  271. 

i.  137  f.,  149  f. 

Luz,  i.  269. 

Maachah,  woman,  ii.  248,  310. 

i.  269  ;  ii.  161. 

Ma9cebas,  i.  88,  141,  143  ;  ii.  99,  247,  264, 

310,  355  f.,  373. 
Machir  ben  Animiel,  ii.  172. 

town,  i.  214,  221 ;  74,  76. 

Macpelah,  i.  163,  165. 

Mahanaim,  i.  87,  143  ;  ii.  139,  142,  147  n., 

173  f. 
Makkedah,  i.  305. 
Mamre,  i.  137  ff.,  151  ff.,  179  ff. 
Manasseh,  King,  i.  63  ;  ii.  240,  371  ff. 

Tribe,  i.  145  ff.,  269 ;  ii.  80. 

Manetho,  i.  256  ff. 
Manna,  i.  201,  210,  217. 
Marah,  i.  207. 


INDEX 


403 


Mari,  ii.  293. 
Martu,  i.  178. 

Mashkuta,  Tell-el,  i.  253  f. 

Massah,  i.  197. 

Matja,  Wadi,  i.  284  ff. 

Mattan,  ii.  287. 

Mattanah,  i.  213. 

Mazkir,  ii.  56,  198,  208. 

Mazzoth,  i.  196. 

Medebah,  i.  214;  ii.  261. 

Medes,  ii.  379  ff. 

Megiddo,  i.  12,  269 ;  ii.  63,  185,  387. 

Melchizedek,  i.  137,  175,  180. 

Melchishua,  ii.  135. 

Memphis,  i,  256. 

Menahem,  ii.  238  ff.,  332  ff. 

Menander,  ii.  263  n.,  269. 

Mephibosheth.     See  Meriba'al. 

Merab,  ii.  167. 

Merenptah,  i.  256  ff.,  261. 

Meriba'al,  ii.  149,  168,  171,  174. 

Meribah,  i.  197. 

Merodach-Baladan,  ii.  362  ff. 

Merom,  i.  13,  308  f. 

Meroz,  ii.  74. 

Mesha',  ii.  231,261  f.,  276. 

Messiah,  ii.  319,  346. 

Micah  ben  Jimla,  ii.  216,  272,  275. 

of  Moresheth,  ii.  350  f.,  355  f.,  388. 

Michal,  ii.  39,  121  ff.,  146  f.,  159. 

Michmash,  ii.  115. 

Midian,  i.  144,  193,  202,  220  f.,  233,250; 

ii.  78  f. 
Milcah,  i.  149. 
Milcom,  i.  246 ;  ii.  162. 
Millo,  ii.  187. 

Miriam,  i.  202,  206,  211,  225. 
Misphragniuthosis,  i.  257. 
Mizpeh,  ii.  99,  109  f.,  250,  394. 
Moab,  i.  23,  152,  202  f.,  214  f.,  220,  224, 
228,  230  ff.  ;  ii.  78,  139,  161  ff,  261  f., 
274ff.,295,  339,  366,  392. 
Moloch,  i.  246 ;  ii.  374. 
Monotheism,  i.  242  f.,  246;  ii.  202,  318, 

372. 
Moses,  i.  92,  192-203,  204-215,  215-222, 
223  f.,  259,  303;    historical   existence 
of,  239  f.  ;    religious  creation  of,  241- 
252. 
Mugheir,  i.  183  ff. 


Naaman,  ii.  279. 

Nabal,  ii.  128,  141. 

Nabopolassar,  ii.  387  f. 

Naboth,  ii.  269,  278. 

Nadab,  King,  ii.  238  f.,  254. 

Nahalol,  i.  269. 

Nahash,  ii.  113. 

Nahor,  i.  149,  162  n. 

Nahum,  ii.  381. 

Naphtali,  i.  270 ;  ii.  63,  74,  250,  347. 

Nathan,  ii.  169,  178  ff.,  254. 

Nations,  genealogy  of,  i.  148. 

Nature-religion,  i.  243,  244,  246  ;  ii.  99, 

264,  372  f. 
Nazarites,  ii.  92,  298  f. 
Nebaioth,  i.  163. 
Nebo,  i.  221. 

Nebuchadrezzar,  ii.  389  ff. 
Necho,  ii.  387. 
Necromancers,  ii.  134. 
Negeb,  ii.  128. 
Nimrod,  i.  148. 
Nineveh,  ii.  378  f. 
Nizir,  i.  182. 
Nob,  ii.  125  f.,  158,201. 
Nobah,  i.  215. 
Nobility,  ii.  94. 

Oeed-Edom,  ii.  159. 

Oboth,  i.  220. 

Officials,  ii.  198,  300. 

Omri,  i.  91,  ii.  238  f.,  255  f.,  257  ff. 

Onan,  i.  158. 

Ophir,  ii.  189,  197,  283. 

Ophrah,  ii.  80  ff.,  201  f. 

Oracle,  ii.  134,  142,  151,  202. 

Oreb,  ii.  80. 

Organisation,  ii.  93  f.,  197,  299  f. 

Osarsiph,  i.  258. 

Osorkon,  i.  254. 

Othnicl,  i.  267,  276,  299 ;  ii.  77. 

Overseers  under  Solomon,  ii.  186  f. 

P=PiiiESTiA-  Writing,  i.    96-132,    161- 

167,  215-222,  308 ;  ii.  22,  377. 
Pr  (IV)  =  Prophetical  history,  ii.  213  f. 
Paddan-Aram,  i.  164. 
Padi,  ii.  365  f. 
Palestine,  i.  9  ff. 
Palms,  city  of,  i.  268. 


404 


HISTOEY  OF  THE  HEBEEWS 


Paran,  i.  220. 

Passover,  i.  61,  116;  ii.  309. 

Patriarchs,  historical  or  not,  i.  168. 

Pekah,  ii.  240  flf.,  338  ff. 

Pekahiah,  ii.  240  ff.,  337. 

Peleg,  i.  149. 

Pentateuch,  i.  27  ff.,  58  f.,  97  ff.,  104  ff. 

Penuel,  i.  81  f.,  87,  99,  251,  297. 

People,  numbering  of  the,  i.  237  ;  ii.  165. 

Perez,  i.  158. 

Pestilence,  ii.  165. 

Pethor,  i.  214. 

Phicol,  i.  139. 

Philistines,  i.  25  f.  ;  ii.  62,  101  ff.,  118  ff., 

127,  129  ff.,  138  ff.,  150  f.,  339,  342, 

359,  363,  366,  369. 
Phineas,  i.  220. 
Pho3nicians,  i.  25;  ii.  62  n.,  93,  163,  194, 

195,  262,  366. 
Phraortes,  ii.  379. 
Pilgrimage,  ii.  322. 
Pisgah,  i.  203. 
Pithom,  i.  204,  253  ff. 
Potiphar,  i.  144  f. 
Priests,  Priesthood,-  i.    117    ff.,    209    f., 

212  ff.  ;  ii.  182  f.,  201  ff.,  286  f.,  331. 
Primitive  history,  i.  168  ff. 
Prophets,  i.  239,  242;  ii.  73,  109  f.,  136, 

265f.,312ff.,  376,  380  ff. 
Psammetich,  ii.  379. 
Puah,  i.  204. 
Pul,  ii.  333  f. 

Qarqar,  ii.  236,  273  f.,  275,  352. 

R  (Rd,  Ri>)  =  Redactor  or  editor,  i.  66  f., 

75,  165-167,  194,  221,  281 ;  ii.  3,  25  n., 

208  ff. 
Ri  (ri)  =  Stories  of  the  Judges,  ii.  2  f., 

13,  391. 
Raamses,  i.  204,  216,  254. 
Rabbath-Ammon,  i.  24;  ii.  162,  168. 
Rabsaris,  ii.  367  n. 
Rabshakeh,  ii.  367. 
Rachel,  i.  87,  142,  155. 
Rahab,  i.  283. 
Ramah,  ii.   99,  107,  111,  117,  249,  297, 

394. 

in  Gilead,  ii.  272  f.,  275,  277,  280. 

Rammannirar,  ii.  293  n. ,  294  f. 


Rameses,  King,  i.  255,  260f.  ;  ii.  61  n. 

land  of,  i.  165. 

Raphia,  ii.  352,  360. 

Ra-Saqenen,  i.  189  f. 

Rebeka,  i.  141  ff.,  153  ff. 

Rechabites,  ii.  281,  298. 

Red  Sea,  i.  196,  207,  216,  223  ff.,  225  f.  ; 

ii.  164,  184,  283,  329  f . 
Reform,  i.  58 ;  ii.  355  ff.,  386  ff. 
Reformation,  ii.  384. 
Rehob,  i.  218,  269. 

Rehoboam,  ii.  211  f.,  237  f.,  242  ff.,  246  f. 
Rehoboth,  i.  153. 
Rephaim,  i.  23,  266  n.  ;  ii.  151. 
Rephidim,  i.  207,  217,  234. 
Representative,  Philistine,  ii.  105,  114  f. 
Resheph,  ii.  98. 
Reuben,  i.  144,  155,  203,  215,  221,  225, 

275 ;  ii.  70,  74. 
Rezin,  ii.  3.35  ff.,  347. 
Rezon  ben  Eliada',  ii.  184. 
Rizpah,  ii.  150,  167,  200. 
Rock,  Dome  of  the,  ii.  191. 
Rogel,  ii.  178  n. 

S  =  History  of  Saul,  ii.  29  f.,  33  f..  Ill  n., 

303. 
So  =  History  of  Solomon,  ii.  55  ff.,  303  f. 
SS  =  History  of  Samuel  and  Saul,  ii.  29  ff., 

34f.,42ff.,  Ill  n.,  303,  376. 
Sabako,  ii.  349,  362. 
Saba,  ii.  189. 

Sacrifice,  i.  Ill  ff.  ;  ii.  201,  305. 
Safa,  i.  276. 
Sais,  i.  256. 
Salatis,  i.  256. 
Salem,  i.  175. 
Salmanassar  (ii.)   ii.    236,  272  ff.,   275, 

289  f.  ;  (III.)  ii.  295  ;  (iv.)  ii.  348  f. 
Salmonah,  i.  220. 
Samaria,  ii.  237,  260  f.,  276,  281  f.,  293, 

348  ff-. 
Samaritans,  ii.  354. 
Samson,  ii.  11,  91,  104. 
Samuel,  ii.  23  ff.,  106  ff.,  134. 
Sa-ptah,  i.  261. 
Sarah,  i.  138,  149  ff.,  162  ff. 
Sargon,  ii.  351,  360  ff. 
Saul,  ii.  23  ff..  Ill  ff.,  135,  140,  168,  240, 

302. 


INDEX 


405 


Scythians,  ii.  3SG  fif. 

Seir,  i.  23.     See  VAom. 

Sela,  i.  24 ;  ii.  289. 

Sennacherib,  ii.  238,  3G0  ff. 

Septuagint  (lxx.),  ii.  36  flf.,  50  ff.,  12071., 

184  «.,  186  n.,  188  n.,  205  ff.,  333  f.  n. 
Serah,  ii.  249. 

Serpent-worship,  i.  212 ;  ii.  310,  355. 
Serpent-stone,  ii.  178,  180. 
Serbonian  Lake,  i.  262. 
Sesostris,  i.  191  f. 
Sethos,  i.  260  f. 
Seti,  i.  260  f. 
Set-nechts,  i.  261. 
Shaalbim,  i.  270 ;  ii.  63. 
Shallum,  ii.  238  f.,  332. 
Shamgar,  ii.  73,  76  n. ,  97  n. 
Shamsi,  ii.  338. 
Shaphan,  i.  58,  64. 
Sharon,  i.  14 ;  ii.  103. 
Shashu,  i.  185. 
Sheba'  ben  Bichri,  ii.  176. 
Shechem,  i.  88  f.,  136,  143,  149,  156,  164, 

311  ;  ii.  65,  69,  83,  99,  243,  251,  297. 
Shebna,  ii.  367. 
Shefela,  i.  14 ;  ii.  103,  367. 
Shelah,  i.  162. 
Shem,  i.  148. 
Sheshai,  i.  201,  267. 
Showbread,  table  of,  ii.  192. 
Shibboleth,  ii.  90. 
Shiloh,  ii.  101,  105,  203,  387. 
Shimei,  ii.  76  w.,  171,  174,  179  f. 
Shinar,  i.  148. 

Shishak,  i.  254;  ii.  188,  247,  251. 
Shittim,  i.  203,  214,  279  f. 
Shobi,  ii.  172. 
Shunem,  ii.  133. 
Shur,  i.  207. 
Siddim,  i.  137. 
Sidon,  i.  26,  269 ;  ii.  197,  258,  263,  338, 

363  ff.,  392. 
Sihon,  i.  213  f.,  224  f.,  228  f. 
Silo.     See  Shiloh. 
Siloah,  ii.  230,  360. 

Simeon,  i.  146,  155,  266  ff.,  276 ;  ii.  69. 
Sinai,  i.   193,  197  ff.,  204,  207  ff.,   217, 

223,  233  ff.,  250. 
Sin,  i.  217. 
Sin-offering,  i.  114. 


Sisera,  ii.  72. 

Slaves,  ii.  299. 

So  (Seve),  ii.  349,  352, 

Sodom,  i.  137,  151. 

Solomon,  ii.  49  ff.,  177  ff.,  183  ff.,  240. 

Solomon's  districts,  ii.  186,  198,  299. 

Song  of  Miriam,  i.  206,  225. 

Moses,  i.  9.3,  210,  215  n. 

David,  ii.  137. 

Spies,  i.  201,  211,  218. 

Star-worship,  ii.  348,  372  f. 

Stations,  list  of,  i.  95,  212  f.,  221,  236. 

Succoth,  i.  206,  216 ;  ii.  81  f. 

Sun-horses,  ii.  348,  374. 

Superstition,  ii.  116,  134,  200,  202. 

Suphah,  i.  213. 

Supplement- Hypothesis,  i.  40. 

Syria,  i.   26;  ii.    152  f.,  260,   271,  336, 

338,    342,    348,    366,    389.        See    also 

Damascus. 
Syro-Ephraimitc  War,  ii.  236,  237  ff. 

Taanach,  i.  269 ;  ii.  63. 

Tabernacle,  the,   i.   200,   209,  217,   224, 

237. 
Tables  of  the  Law,  i.  199  f.,  208,  217  f., 

238. 
Tabor,  ii.  80. 
Tadmor,  ii.  185  n. 
Tahpenes,  ii.  184. 
Talmai,  i.  201,  267. 

ii.  163,  170. 

Tamar,  woman,  ii.  169  f. 

town,  ii.  185. 

Tarshish,  ships  of,  ii.  189  «.,  283,  341. 

Tartan,  ii.  361,  367  n. 

Tekoa,  ii.  320. 

Tema,  i.  163. 

Temple,  ii.   159,  189  ff.,  245  f.,  287  f., 

309  f.,  331,  348  f.,  357. 
Teraphim,  i.    142;  ii.  20  w.,  34  v.,   101, 

123,  202  f.,  306. 
Terah,  sons  of,  i.  149. 
Thebez,  ii.  89. 
Theophany,  i.  197,  208  f. 
Thothmcs,  i.  179  ;  ii.  61  n. 
Thummim.     See  Urim. 
Thummosis,  i.  257. 
Tibni,  ii.  256. 
Tiglathpileser  (i.),  ii.  257  ;  (iii.)  ii.  335  ff. 


406 


HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREWS 


Timaeus,  i.  256. 
Timnath-serah,  i.  276,  292  n. 
Tirhaqa,  ii.  362,  368. 
Tirzah,  ii.  255,  332. 
Tishbe,  ii.  266. 
To'i,  ii.  163. 
Tola,  ii.  76. 

Town  life,  ii.  61  f.,  297  f. 
Trade,  ii.  61  f.,  197,  296. 
Trees,  sacred,  ii.  99. 

Tyre,  ii.    157,  163,   180,   335,  338,  366, 
392. 

Uriah,  ii .  168. 

Urim  and  Thuinmim,  ii.  202. 

Ur  Kasdim,  i.  149  f.,  181  ff. 

Wady  el-Fari'a,  i.  11. 

esh-sheri'a,  ii.  133. 

Modschib.     See  Anion. 

Waheb,  i.  213. 
War-chariots,  ii.  62. 
Waters,  City  of,  ii.  162. 
Well,  Song  of  the,  i.  92,  213. 
Writing,  Art  of,  ii.  95. 

Yahve,  i.  204,  242,  245-252  ;  ii.  97,  100, 
110,  157  f.,  371. 


Yarmuk,  i.  11. 

Zachariah,  ii.  238  f . ,  332. 

Zadok,  i.  118,  124;  ii.  171,  177  ff.,  1 

308. 
Zalmunnah,  ii.  81. 
Zamzummim,  i.  23. 
Zaphenath-paneah,  i.  145. 
Zarephath,  ii.  268. 
Zebah,  ii.  81. 
Zeboim,  i.  137. 
Zebul,  ii.  84  ff. 
Zebulun,  i.  269 ;  ii.  63,  74. 
Zechariah,  ii.  288. 
Zedek,  ii.  366. 
Zedekiah,  ii.  240,  392  ff. 
Ze'eb,  ii.  80. 
Zephaniah,  ii.  380. 
Zephath,  i.  268. 
Zerah,  i.  158. 
Zereda,  ii.  187. 
Ziba,  ii.  166,  171. 
Ziklag,  ii.  129  f.,  133,  140. 
Zilpah,  i.  155. 
Zimri,  ii.  238,  255. 

Zion,  ii.  156  ff.,  191  ff.,  358,  371,  386. 
Zipporah,  i.  193,  195,  210  f. 
Zoan,  i.  201. 
Zobah,  ii.  161,  184. 


79, 


Printed  by  T.  and  A,  Constable,  Printers  to  Her  Majesty 
at  the  EdinT)urgh  University  Press 


Date  Due 


1 

i 

^^^ 

^^' 

•  1  '  Hi 

**v: 

.;^'•\- 

•..^ 

''<•'  ■  ■  •  - 

*f  ' 

S  '  ■  'r.\  ■ 

r-v-^:^  -r: 

'•(''  '» 

^        ' ■'  ■. 

■J'-'  *" 

:■. ;,  n\ 

l"«'. 

^  '•'  • 

-  ■;•»- 

>c,'  . 

:i^.^' 

*■■  •■*, 

.'<«;■.•: 

■   '^. 

'"^■i  • 

■X  -r' 

"fe*^' 

,'*•>'". 

•l^}h.  . 

-v^'-. 

^i.'. 

•*-'. » • 

"'  ■ 

V    V 

s^^ 

'.Vv^' 

^■^? 

<A^-:vf^^.' 


le 


'  1012  oooiJ'JWi 


isf-