Full text of "Old Testament history"

See other formats

//. 6 .

r"'

PRINCETON, N. J. ^

^,,..„.B5..i 1ST

*..„,.,§,45S

fx V ^-^.-^.'VvV . -.- , , ; >, - '1,1/...- , V ,-.

'<4 .'V!i

-•J .-X";

,v- -:/.:■

rs%'

•■t*LMt

S!>«i!^>^ '^

T^K?-

^be Ifnternational

XTheoloGical Xibrar^.

EDITORS' PREFACE.

Theology has made great and rapid advances in receni
years. New lines of investigation have been opened up,
fresh h'ght has been cast upon many subjects of the deepest
interest, and the historical method has been applied with
important results. This has prepared the way for a Library
of Theological Science, and has created the demand for it.
It has also made it at once opportune and practicable now
to secure the services of specialists in the different depart-
ments of Theology, and to associate them in an enterprise
which will furnish a record of Theological inquiry up to
date.

This Library is designed to cover the whole field of Chris-
tian Theology. Each volume is to be complete in itself,
while, at the same time, it will form part of a carefully
planned whole. One of the Editors is to prepare a volume
of Theological Encyclopaedia which will give the history
and literature of each department, as well as of Theology
as a whole.

The Library is intended to form a series of Text-Books
for Students of Theology.

The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and compact-
ness of statement. At the same time, they have in view

EDITORS PREFACE.

that large and increasing class of students, in other depart-
ments of inquiry, who desire to have a systematic and thor-
ough exposition of Theological Science. Technical matters
will therefore be thrown into the form of notes, and the
text will be made as readable and attractive as possible.

The Library is international and interconfessional. It
will be conducted in a catholic spirit, and in the interests
of Theology as a science.

Its aim will be to give full and impartial statements both
of the results of Theological Science and of the questions
which are still at issue in the different departments.

The Authors will be scholars of recognized reputation in
the several branches of study assigned to them. They will
be associated with each other and with the Editors in the
effort to provide a series of volumes which may adequately
represent the present condition of investigation, and indi-
cate the way for further progress.

CHARLES A. BRIGGS.
STEWART D. F. SALMOND.

Theological Encyclopaedia. By Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt.,

Professor of Biblical Theology,

Union Theological Seminary, New

York.

An Introduction to the Litera- By S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt.,

ture of the Old Testament. Regius Professor of Hebrew, and

Canon of Christ Church, Oxford,
{Rc'Z'ised a fid enlarged edition.)
The Study of the Old Testa- By the Right Rev. Herbert Edward
ment. Rvle, D.D., Lord Bishop of Win-

chester,
Old Testament History, By Henry Preserved Smith, D.D.,

Professor of Biblical History, Am-
herst College, Mass. [/« Press.
Contemporary History of the By Fra.ncis Brown, D.D., LL.D.,
Old Testament. D.Litt., Professor of Hebrew, Union

Theological Seminary, New York.
Theology of the Old Testa- By the late A. B. Davidson, D.D.,
n^cnt. LL.I)., Professor of Hebrew, New

College, Edinburgh. [/// Press,

tX)t 3nternaftonaf ^^eofogtcaf fetBrarg.

An Introduction to the Litera-
ture of the New Testament.

Canon and Text of the New

Testament.

The Life of Christ.

A History of Christianity in
the Apostolic Age.

Contemporary History of the
New Testament.

Theology of the New Testa-
ment.

The Ancient Catholic Church.
The Later Catholic Church.
The Latin Church.
History of Christian Doctrine.

Christian Institutions.

Philosophy of Religion.
Apologetics.

The Doctrine of God.
The Doctrine of Salvation.
Christian Ethics.

The Christian Pastor and the
Working Church.

Rabbinical Literature.

By S. D. F. Salmond, D.D,, Prin-
cipal of the Free Church College,
Aberdeen.

By Caspar Rene Gregory, D.D.,
LL.D., Professor of New Testa-
ment Exegesis in the University of
Leipzig.

By William Sanday, D.D., LL.D.,
Lady Margaret Professor of Di-
vinity, and Canon of Christ Church,
OxfoVd.

By Arthur C. McGiffert, D.D.,
Professor of Church History,
Union Theological Seminary, New
York. {A^ow ready.)

By Frank C. Porter, Ph.D., Pro-
fessor of Biblical Theology, Yale
University, New Haven, Conn.

By George B. Stevens, D.D., Pro-
fessor of Systematic Theology,
Yale University, New Haven,
Conn. {iVoTV ready.)

By Robert Rainy, D.D., LL.D.,
Principal of the New College,
Edinburgh. {A^o'o ready.)

By Robert Rainy, D.D., LL.D.,
Principal of the New College,
Edinburgh.

By the Right Rev. Archibald Rob-
ertson, D.D., Lord Bishop of Exe-
ter.

By G. P. Fisher, D.D., LL.D., Pro-
fessor of Ecclesiastical History,
Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
{Revised and enlarged edition.)

By A. V. G. Allen, D.D., Profes-
sor of Ecclesiastical History, P.
E. Divinity School, Cambridgf^,
Mass. {^Ncnv ready.)

By Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Divinity in the Uni
versity of Edinburgh.

By the late A. B. Bruce, D.D., some-
time Professor of New Testament
Exegesis, Free Church College,
Glasgow. {Revised and enlarged
edition.)

By William N. Clarke, D.D., Pro-
fessor of Systematic Theology,
Hamilton Theological Seminary.

By George B. Stevens, D.D., Pro-
fessor of Systematic Theology, Yale
University.

By Newman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of
Congregational Church, New Ha-
ven. {Revised and enlarged edition.)

By Washington Gladden, D.D.,
Pastor of Congregational Church,
Columbus, Ohio. {N'o%v ready.)

By S. ScHECHTER, ^LA., President
of the Jewish Theological Seminajry,
New York City.

Zhc llnternational tlbcoloaical Xibrar?.

EDITED BY

CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D.,

Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, Uvion Theological
Seminary, New York ;

STEWART D. F. SALMOND, D.D.,

Professor of Systematic Theology and Nezv Testament Exegesis,
Free Church College, Aberdeen.

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.
By Prof. HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D.

International Theological Library

OLD TESTAMENT
HISTORY

HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D.

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL mSTORT AND INTERPRETATION
IN AMHERST COLLEGE

NEW YORK

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

1903

COPYKIGIIT, 1903, BY

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
Published, September, 1903

TROW DIRECTORY
PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY

ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT

IN MEMORY OF THE YEARS

1888 TO 1893

CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. The Sources .
II. The Origins .

III. The Patriarchs

IV. Egypt and the Desert
V. The Conquest

VI. The Heroes .

VII. The Early Monarchy

VIII. David

IX. Solomon .

X. From Jeroboam to Jehi

XI. The House of Jehu

XII. The Fall of Samaria

XIII. Hezekiah and AIanasseh

XIV. JosiAH and his Sons
XV. The Exile

XVI. The Temple Rebuilt

XVII. Nehemiah and After

XVIII. The Greek Period
XIX. A New Heroic Age

XX. The Priest-Kings .
Chronological Table
Index of Subjects
Index of Scripture Passages

PAGE
I

87
106
129
156
177
198
219
238
260
301

344
382

413
441
470

499

503
310

PREFACE

The purpose of the present volume is to put into narrative
form the results of recent Old Testament study. The book might
have been called a History of Israel ; but that title would indicate
that the subject was treated in its relation to the general history of
mankind, whereas for a series of theological handbooks it should
be treated in its relation to our religion. From the beginning
the Christian Church has assigned special importance to the body
of writings which we call the Old Testament — Old Covenant
would perhaps be a better title. To understand these writings is
one of the first aims of theological study, and the endeavour to
understand them has given rise to a number of separate sciences
— Old Testament Introduction, Philology, Geography, Chronol-
ogy, Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, and others. In
our time it has become increasingly clear that no literature (and
the Old Testament is first of all a literature) can be understood
without tracing the process of growth by which it came into
being. The immense critical labour that has been expended on
the Old Testament of late years is motived by a desire to discover
the stages of growth by which this literature became what it is.

For the understanding of the literature we cannot stop with
the investigation of purely literary questions. Criticism is a
means to something beyond itself. The results of critical in-
quiry must be brought into relation with each other by a con-
structive reproduction of what has actually taken place in the
past ; in other words, criticism must result in history before it
can be considered complete. It follows that every new advance
in criticism involves a rewriting of history. Otherwise it would
be presumptuous to do again what has already been so often done
before. As in what we call secular history new treatises are

vii

Vlll PREFACE

poured from the press year by year, so it must be with Biblical
and ecclesiastical history. No science is ever complete, and Bib-
lical science is no exception to the rule. The new and in some
respects startling results of recent Biblical science call for a new
historical reconstruction. In recognising the necessity thus laid
upon them. Old Testament students only put themselves in line
with students in other branches of learning. Every other history
is rewritten as often as the documents on which it is founded are
seen in a new light ; Old Testament history cannot be an ex-
ception.

Minute and careful study of the Old Testament is no new
thing; it has been carried on in every age since the time of the
Apostles. Especially in the Protestant Church during the seven-
teenth century it was pursued with a thoroughness and devotion
which are beyond praise. What distinguishes the work of our
own day from that so laboriously carried on in earlier times is
the new point of view. There was a time when, for theological
study at least, the work of the critic consisted mainly in settling
the meaning of each separate Biblical statement. Each dictum
was then reckoned with in its isolation, as an authentic declaration
of truth. In our day we find it impossible to content ourselves
with this method of treatment. We cannot feel that we under-
stand a Biblical statement when we know simply what it says.
We are constantly going behind the word to the personality of
the author; we inquire concerning his times, his circumstances,
his ideals, his relation to his predecessors, his place in the chain
of development. As we do not fully assure ourselves that our
own recollections mean what we think they mean unless we can
bring them into harmonious relations of time and space with
other recollections, so it is with the traditions of the past — we
must know not only what was at a certain date, but also how it
is related to what came before and after.

Historical criticism is simply the careful examination of the
facts of tradition in order to bring them into harmonious relation.
It has always been exercised by reflecting men when they endeav-

PREFACE IX

oured to ascertain what had taken place in earlier ages. It is
only within recent times, however, that criticism has been de-
veloped into a science. This is due partly to the increased
systematisation of all branches of inquiry, partly to the discovery
that all ancient documents must be subjected to the same process
before they can be made to yield assured historical data. This
necessity arises first from the constant intrusion of error in the
process of transmission. The scribes to whom we owe the pres-
ervation of all ancient books can make no claim to infallibility.
Mistakes in copying, in editing, in compiling, are liable to occur
at every stage of the process of transmission. So far as our evi-
dence concerning the past is contained in written documents it
cannot be used until these mistakes are removed. Their removal
is the object of textual criticism. For a long time scholars w^ere
not disposed to concede that the Old Testament was in need of
textual criticism. For reasons which we easily understand, and
which indeed command our sympathy, the Word of God (as the
Bible was somewhat inexactly called) was supposed to be exempt
from the ordinary tendencies of manuscript transmission. But
at the present time the large majority of scholars find it necessary
to examine the Old Testament text by the same methods which
are applied to other ancient documents. It needs no demonstra-
tion that the historian must be familiar with these methods, and
that he cannot use the Old Testament text except as it has been
subjected to them.

The line between textual and historical criticism (the higher crit-
icism as it is usually called) is not easily drawn, and indeed there
is no sharp line of demarcation between them. The higher criticism
is simply the process of examining and weighing the evidence in
our hands. This evidence may be in the form of tradition, that
is, documents which profess to tell iis what has taken place, or
in the form of monuments which indicate what has taken place
without the direct purpose of describing it. Evidently a docu-
ment which contains a tradition is also a monument of the time
when the tradition took shape. Evidence concerning the past,

X PREFACE

whether direct (traditional) or circumstantial (monumental),
must be interrogated before it can be used. For the danger of
misapprehension is as constant a factor here as is the danger of cor-
ruption in the case of manuscript transmission. To understand
our tradition, to date and locate our monuments — this is the ob-
ject of the higher criticism. As applied to the Bible it is the
same science which is constantly used in examining other histori-
cal documents.

The beginnings of Biblical higher criticism may be traced to
Ibn Ezra, to Spinoza, with more justice to Astruc, as the be-
ginnings of Biblical textual criticism may be traced to Cappel,
Morin, and Simon. But it is only within the last forty years that
both sciences have been recognised among English-speaking
scholars. This period has been a period of conflict, but now the
recognition of the validity of criticism in both kinds may be said
to be complete. In the domain of the higher criticism the result
has been to show the extraordinary complexity of the problems
with which we have to deal. What we seek to do is to date the
documents, analyse them where they are composite, estimate the
personality of the writers, and arrange the results into a consistent
picture. The complexity of the material ought not to surprise
us. The Bible is a book of edification, and a book of edification
must be recast in order to meet the wants of an age different from
the one for which it was first written. The Old Testament has
gone through this process more than once ; what modern scholars
seek to attain by notes and comments, ancient scribes sought to
attain by insertions and changes in the text. These repeated
modifications of the text — redactions, combinations, glosses — are
the first object of the historian's interest, for they are the marks of
the historical process which he seeks to reconstruct. It is the
realisation of this fact which makes the Old Testament study of
to-day so different from the Old Testament study of fifty years
ago.

It may be objected that if the prol)lem be indeed so complex
the historian should suspend his labours, and that he should not

PREFACE Xi

write the history till the critical work is all done. But it is a mis-
take to suppose that the constructive work can wait till the crit-
icism is complete. The constructive work is itself necessary to the
critic. If history is based on criticism, criticism is tested by history.
Criticism dates the docmiients; history arranges the testimony of
the documents according to the scheme presented by criticism. If
the resulting picture is inharmonious, out of proportion, or unnat-
ural, it becomes evident that the criticism has been incomplete or
one-sided. The analysis of the critic must constantly be checked by
the historian's synthesis. Moreover, the historical presentation is
needed to guard the critic from too great subjectivity. His
danger is that in the details of the critical examination he may
forget the larger whole with which he has to deal. So far as there
is any justification for the charge that the higher critics are nega-
tive and destructive, it will be found in the fact that one and an-
other has neglected to test his results by a positive combination
of them in historic form. When the results are fairly tested by
such a constructive use of them, they will be seen not only to
further a correct appreciation of the individual documents or
monuments, but also to give a more intelligible presentation of
the whole subject with which they deal.^

As in all other history, so in Old Testament history, what in-
terests us is the stream or movement of which the isolated facts
are indications. In endeavouring to form a clear conception of
this stream or movement, we are constantly compelled to lament
the paucity of our materials. What we wish to reproduce is the
process which extended over a thousand years, and we have as

' The most complete discussion of the relation between criticism and his-
tory may be found in Bernheim, LehrbKch der historischen Methode'^ (1903).
The lectures of Freeman. Methods of Hisiorical Study, contain valuable
hints, but fall far short of a systematic discussion. A suggestive little book
is Droysen, Gundriss der Historik, published in English translation by E.
Benjamin Andrews, Outline of the Principles of History {x'^f)^)- On the
progress of critical study as applied to the Bible (especially the Old Testa-
ment) the reader should consult the preface to Driver, Introduction to the
Literature of the Old Testament^^ (1902).

Xll PREFACE

its evidence fragments sufficient to fill only one moderate-sized
volume. Additional and welcome light is given by the records
of Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, and Persia. This light, however,
does not prove what it is sometimes claimed to prove ; it does not
show that Israel was merely a part (and an insignificant part) of
those great empires, and therefore that it has no history of its
own. The political insignificance of Israel may be readily ad-
mitted. But the intellectual and spiritual life of Israel is a dis-
tinct entity, standing out apart from the life of the surrounding
nations. This life which has made so distinct a contribution to
civilisation must be understood from its own monuments, and
can be understood from this source alone. It can be so under-
stood, and the paucity of the remains which have come down to
us should not discourage us. Critical inquirers have sometimes
fallen into an exaggerated scepticism, as though nothing could be
certainly known concerning antiquity — was not the theory once
propounded that all the Greek and Latin texts in our hands were
forgeries of the monks in the Middle Age? But such scepticism
is unwarranted ; the documents in our hands, fragmentary though
they be, are facts, and it ought to be possible to interpret their
testimony. The footprint in the sand on Robinson Crusoe's
island was a fragmentary monument indeed, but it gave evidence
that was unmistakable, and it gave its interpreter many an uneasy
hour because of the distinctness of its message.

It is evident that no one man can perform all the labor of criti-
cism and at the same time carry on all the lines of investigation,
archaeological, geographical, and chronological. The worker in
this field is one out of many, each one of whom is eager to make
use of the results already obtained in order to make further dis-
coveries. The constructive worker is engaged in a process of
selection ; he must constantly ask himself which of the so-called
results is reliably established, which is only probable, which is
too uncertain to build upon. The first requisite of the historian,
therefore, is soundness of judgment. It is, indeed, impossible to
get along without hypotheses — our science is in line with other

PREFACE Xlll

sciences in this respect. But hypotheses differ widely among
themselves. The ability to judge them soberly is of the first im-
portance.

The ideal historian, therefore (in my judgment), is the one
who is able to distinguish degrees of probability. To this must
be added the ability to tell what he knows. What the specialist
knows, his readers have a right to know. They have a right to
see the picture which he sees, artd to see it in the way in which he
sees it. It has already become clear to us that a historical picture
is made up of probabilities. Some of these probabilities stand
out with a distinctness which is practical certainty. That David
reigned over Israel, that Isaiah preached in Jerusalem, that Judas
Maccabeus fought against the Gentiles — these are things which I
can affirm with as little reserve as I affirm that twice two is four.
I have the right and it is my duty, in making a historical picture,
to draw these figures upon my canvas as firmly and distinctly as I
can draw them. But as we fill in the picture, we are conscious
that many details must be less sharply outlined ; some are in the
shadow so deeply that we barely make them out. The successful
historian I take to be the one who is able to reproduce the lights
and shadows so that his readers will be able to see the picture just
as he sees it. To do this without the monotonous and irritating
repetition of "perhaps," " probably," or ''it seems to me," is
a matter of no little difficulty. Happy is the man who is able to
feel that he has solved the problem with even a moderate degree
of success.

The interest in history is as old as the Bible itself, as old as
the oldest parts of the Bible, in fact. For we find among the
earliest documents in Hebrew literature the songs and stories
which rehearse the righteous acts of Yahweh, or which celebrate
the deeds of Israel's heroes. We must not confound this interest
in history with the interest felt by the modern student. Interest
in history as history is a matter of comparatively recent growth.
The earliest authors or singers were under the influence of
patriotic or religious enthusiasm. And yet it does not seem forced

xiv PREFACE

when we say that the ancient and the modern motives are not
far apart. The ancient writer was sure that he was setting forth
God's working for His people; the modern historian sets forth
what has taken place in the hope of discovering the law of human
progress. The latter is broader and more philosophical in his
views ; the former is more distinctly didactic in his tone. But
the underlying motives are not very different. The narrative
which was compiled from Israel's folk-stories, and which now fills
the first section of our Old Testament, shows a genuine historic
and philosophic interest. It is interesting to note even in the
Bible itself the tendency to rewrite history to meet the views of
succeeding generations ; for the narrative of the earlier books
was recast by the Chronicler to meet the needs of his own time.
If criticism needed any justification it would find it in this prece-
dent.

The first attempt to write a history of Israel, made in post-Bib-
lical times, was that of Josephus in his Antiquities. This author
was, no doubt, moved by a desire to emulate the Greek and Latin
historians with whose works he had become acquainted during his
years of residence at Rome. But with this personal ambition
there was a concurrent motive. The proud Jew was stung by the
taunts levelled at his race by the anti-Semites of that day. He
would answer them by showing that the career of Israel was no
whit inferior in interest and importance to that of any other
nation of antiquity. Josephus was not alone in this ambition.
Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary of his, had the same ambition
and wrote a history of the Hebrew kings from Moses to Agrippa.
He was less fortunate than his rival, for his work early fell into
oblivion.^

The Christian Church received the Old Testament from the
Jews, first of all, as containing a divine revelation, and therefore
as profitable for instruction in righteousness. It was for this rea-

* The most complete bibliography of Josephus, with a characterisation of
the man and of his different works, is that of Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiid-
ischen J 6'//Cvj-^ (1901), I, pp. 74-106. On Justus of Tiberias, ibid..^ pp. 58-63.

PREFACE XV

son, and not with any distinctly historical interest, that these
books were read in the public assemblies as well as studied in
private. Still there was a vague notion of historic progress in
the Christian distinction between the old dispensation and the
new. We are not surprised to find a New Testament writer con-
trasting the partial and fragmentary revelation of God in the
prophets with the full revelation in Christ, and we recognise a
real though rudimentary historic sense in such a contrast. But
in the first centuries the historic interest was crowded out by
others more pressing. On the one hand, the allegorical interpre-
tation, already in vogue among the Jews, led to the search for
mystical or theosophic revelations, and clouded the real historic
meaning of the text. On the other hand, the attack made upon
the Church by Jew and Gentile brought apologetics to the front,
and emphasised philosophy rather than history.

Still the apologetic need resulted after a time in turning atten-
tion to history. The Greeks and Romans had their histories
which were seen not to be in harmony with the scheme presented
in the Biblical books. There was laid upon Christian writers
much the same necessity which had been felt by Josephus ; they
were challenged to reconcile the Scripture account of antiquity
with those current among the Gentiles. They felt that they
must, if possible, show the superiority of the sacred books.
Julius Africanus is said first to have given attention to this mat-
ter. The result was his Chronographia, in which the Hebrew
data were combined with those of Gentile writers. This work
has been described as a handbook of universal history on the basis
of the Biblical narrative. It has perished, except fragments, but
it was the model after which many histories of the world were
shaped, and the fashion has continued almost down to our own
time.^ Among the followers of Julius Africanus, the most im-
portant is Eusebiusof Cffisarea, who wrote a book entitled C/iron-
ica. This work avows its apologetic purpose on its first page.
1 Details may be read in Wachsmuth, Einleitimg in das Studium der
alien Geschkhte (1895), pp. 1 55-158-

xvi PREFACE

It gives parallel accounts of the history of the early ages, the
Hebrew narrative (in outline) forming one section. The second
part of the work is taken up with a chronological table, beginning
with the time of Abraham. The author knows of the diver-
gences between the Hebrew and Greek copies of the Penta-
teuch and decides in favour of the Greek. ^

About the year 400 of our era, a compendious history of the
world was written by Sulpicius Severus of Gaul.^ Although con-
tinued down to the author's own times, this work might almost
be called the first Biblical history. More than three-fourths of
it are concerned with the Old Testament. The author dates
the creation six thousand years before his own time, and follows
closely the narrative of the Biblical books. His work is said
to have been used as a text-book for the higher institutions of
learning in the Netherlands, Germany, and France, as late as the
seventeenth century. The sketch of Old Testament history
given by Augustine, which may be mentioned in connexion with
the work of Sulpicius, is a theological rather than a historical
discussion.^ And, as is well known, Augustine was the leader of
the Church for many generations. Mediaeval study of the
Scriptures was not carried on to learn history but to discover sound
doctrine — that is, to justify the teaching of the Church and its insti-
tutions. Where the allegorical method prevails a real historical
interest cannot assert itself. While the allegorical method suc-
ceeded in confirming the theology of the Schoolmen, the literal
interpretation of the Old Testament was admitted so far as it

' The work has survived in an Armenian translation ; the second book
also in the Latin translation of Jerome. A Latin version made from the
Armenian (by Petermann) was published together with some Greek frag-
ments and the Latin of Jerome, by Schoene, Eusebii Chroniconim Libri
Duo (1875). Cf. also the same author's critical discussion, Die Welichronik
di's Ensebhis (1900).

^ Sulpicii Severi Chroniconim Libri Duo in the Corpus Scriptorum Eccle-
siasiicorum Latinorum (Vienna, 1866).

^ De Civitate Dei, XV-XVIIL The narrative is frequently interrupted by
metaphysical disquisitions as well as by allegorical "improvements."

PREFACE xvii

confirmed the rights and prerogatives of the ecclesiastical orders.
We should be wrong to suppose that the only motives for study
of the Scripture were these : the Church always more or less dis-
tinctly realised that it was called to teach. The Old Testament
always had an immense practical interest ; it furnished texts,
examples, and illustrations for the preacher. But we can hardly
discover in either of these methods of treatment a really histor-
ical interest.

The Reformation emphasised the importance of the Scrip-
tures as the sole authority in doctrine, and it discarded the alle-
gorical interpretation. It revived the Pauline contrast of Law
and Gospel, and to this extent quickened the historic sense. But
the study of Scripture as authority still interfered with its study as
a source of history, though the emphasis laid upon the literal sense
contributed in the long run to a better historical apprehension.

The full force of the Protestant position was felt in the seven-
teenth century, when in conjunction with a renewed activity in
all departments of literature the Bible received more exact and
careful attention. The names of Cappel and Morin in textual
criticism, of Hobbes, Spinoza, and Richard Simon in the higher
criticism, belong in this century.^ With this critical activity
we find more attention given to Bibhcal history, which, how-
ever, is still treated as the introductory part of Church history.
Of the seriousness with which the problems were attacked we
have an evidence in Usher's discussion of Biblical chronology,
as well as in his Annals.^ The latter work reproduces the data
of the Biblical narrative in the order of time, beginning with the
creation of the world ''the evening before October 23 in the
year 710 of the Julian Period," 4004 B.C. Each event is dated

^ See the chapters on the higher criticism and on the history of Biblical
History in Rriggs, General Iniroduction to the Study of Holy Scripture.

"^ Annales Veteris Testamenti a pritna Mundi Origine deducti una cum
reruni Asiaticarum und Ai,gypticarum Chronico, London, 1650, reprinted
in the collected edition of his works (1847). The Chronologia Sacra may be
found in volumes XI and XII of the same edition.

XVIU PREFACE

from this era of the creation. Thus the Deluge began in the year
1656, Abraham was born 2008. The history of the world is
divided into seven periods, of which six had elapsed at the birth
of Christ. The author's theological interest is seen in his intro-
duction of New Testament statements, like the one in which Paul
says (following Rabbinical tradition) that the rock from which
water flowed in Horeb followed the people in their wanderings ;
another example is the declaration that Joshua is a type of Christ
and Canaan the type of the heavenly fatherland. In general,
however, allegory is avoided.

The historical interest of this work is seen in the introduction
of Egyptian, Babylon, and other Gentile kings in their supposed
proper place in the narrative. Thus, after the account of the
exodus of Israel, we have Manetho's story of Egypt under Seso-
this (Sesostris) ; in the year 2737 a.m. we have the statement of
Herodotus concerning Ninus, the founder of the Assyrian empire.
These citations from Gentile sources become more numerous later
in the narrative, so that the work may be said, like the earlier
ones already described, to give us universal history in a Biblical
framework. But it does this on the basis of a fresh study of the
sources.

The work of Usher, was, perhaps, the most important on this
subject published between the Reformation and the year 1750.
Others are mentioned by the bibliographers, some of w^hich were
sketches of Biblical history introductory to the history of the
Church, others were theological and speculative rather than his-
torical. As an example of the former class may be cited Span-
heim's introduction to chronology and sacred history ; an example
of the latter is Heidegger's " History of the Patriarchs." ^ The
next century saw the "■ Connexion " of Prideaux, which treated
an important period of Old Testament history, and which still

' Spanheim, luiroductio ad Chro7iologiam el Ilistoriam Sac mm {16^4);
Heidegger, /V Historia Sacra Patnarcharum (1667). Other works of this
period are catalogued by Diestel, Geschichie des Alien Testainentes in der
Christlichen Kirche (1869), pp. 460-464.

PREFACE XIX

has value. The same year with Prideaux's work was published
on the continent an '' Ecclesiastical History of the Old Testa-
ment," by Buddeus, a well-known theologian.^ As the century
advanced, the Deistic controversy gave occasion to re-examine
many questions in Bibhcal history, though here again the pur-
pose was primarily apologetic or polemic.-^

The modern period of Old Testament study may be said to
date from Astruc's "Conjectures," published in 1753. The
preceding literature may be described by the term theological,
on the Deistic as well as on the orthodox side. Astruc marked
an epoch (isolated forerunners have already been mentioned),
because he turned attention afresh to the phenomena of the Bible
itself, and showed how many of these had escaped attention.
For the time being, this caused men to neglect Biblical history,
for the critical process became all absorbing. At the same time
philosophical and theological discussion became more active.
French scepticism (Voltaire is the best example) on one side,
and a new philosophy (Kant) on the other, gave the defenders of
tradition all they could do. The result was to make the time a
period of confusion and strife. But through the welter a more
correct apprehension of the Old Testament gradually worked its
way to the front. Eichhorn is the best example of real critical
advance, while Herder pointed the way to a more sympathetic
construction of Biblical history.^

^ Prideaux, A Historical Connexion of the Old and Neiv Testaments (1715).
The work was primarily intended to cover the (supposed) period between
the Old and New Testaments, but begins with the time of Ahaz. It sug-
gested the less important work of Shuckford, The Sacred and Profane
History of the World Connected (1727) which extends from the creation to
the exodus. Buddeus, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti {i']i^)h2iS
gone through several editions.

^Although published a little later than the period we are discussing, I
may mention here the most elaborate refutation of the Deistic objections to
revelation: Lilienthal, Gute Sache der Gottlichen Offenbarung {i']bo-i']?)2)
in sixteen volumes.

3 Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1780-83; the fourth edi-

XX PREFACE

In the nineteenth century the progress of our science is marked
by two great names — Ewald and Wellhausen. Ewald's chief
work^ contains an elaborate criticism of the sources, as well as
a narrative of events and movements. At the very outset the
author emphasises the necessity of distinguishing the story from its
foundation, that is, of criticising the sources. Ewald's learning
and acuteness are unquestioned. His work sometimes repels by
its dogmatism, and, as we now know, its theory of the docu-
ments is wrong. But, all things considered, it is one of the
most influential works which the last century produced. Its re-
sults were popularised in England and America by Dean Stan-
ley's lectures on the history of the Jewish Church.^ Other
histories by German scholars in this period are either based on
critical hypotheses similar to those of Ewald, or else are anticrit-
ical in their bias. Among the former may be mentioned Hitzig
and Weber, as well as the early volumes of Gratz.^ Among the
latter we may reckon Hengstenberg, Kurtz, and Kohler.* Eng-

tion appe»red in 1823. Herder, Aelteste Urkunde des Alenschengeschlechts
(1774); Geist der Heh-dischen Pocsie (1782). Cf. Briggs, General Intro-
duction to the Study of Holy Scripture (1899), chapter XI, Higher Criticism
of the Hexateuch (1897), chapters III-VI.

' Geschichte des Volkcs Israel, 7 vols., 1843 ff. The third edition
appeared 1864-1868. An English translation of this edition was published
1869-1883. The Old Testament History ends with Vol. IV of the German,
Vol. V of the English ; the remaining volumes treat of New Testament times.

"^ History of the Jezvish Church, 3 vols., 1863-1877.

^Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1869; Weber und Holtzmann,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel und des Entstehung des Christentums, 2 vols.,
1867; Gratz, Geschichte der Judcn, vols. 1-3, 1874.

* Hengstenberg, Geschichte des Reiches Gottes unter dem alten Bunde,
1870; Kurtz, Geschichte des Alten Biindes, 1848-1858; English transla-
tion under the title, History of the Old Covenant, 1859. The work extends
only to the exodus. Kohler's book, Biblische Geschichte des Alten Testa-
ments ( 1 875-1 893), is valuable for its full bibliography. The author, though
conservative in his predilections, was compelled, by his sense of fairness, to
make considerable concessions to the critics in the course of his work.
Other works are cited in Zockler, Ilandbuch der Theologischen Wissen-
schaften (1883), I, p. 263 f.

PREFACE XXI

lish Biblical scholarship was until recently almost wholly anti-
critical. Proof may be found in the works of WiUiam Smith,
Milman, and Edersheim.^

A distinct epoch is marked by the publication of Wellhausen's
Prolegomena:' The views there advanced were not altogether
new. Reuss had held (but not published) them as early as 1834,
while Graf and Kuenen had come independently to the same con-
clusions. But the brilliancy of Wellhausen's style, and the skill
with which he marshalled his arguments, first showed the strength
of the position which he maintained. This position was that the
Law was not the starting-point but the culmination of Israel's
development. The rapidity with which this thesis was accepted
by Old Testament scholars was nothing less than revolutionary.
Among English-speaking peoples the theory of Wellhausen was
set forth by his article ^'Israel" in the EncyclopcEdia Britafi-
iiica, and by the lectures of W. Robertson Smith on the Old
Testament in the Jewish Church, =^ and on the Prophets of Israel.
From tlie Wellhausenian i)oint of view a number of histories of
Israel have been published within the last twenty-five years, as
well as a larger number of monographs dealing with particular
epochs or with details of the critical inquiry. The following list
is not absolutely complete, but contains the most important of

the histories :

Wellhausen himself has published an Israclitische tind Judische
Geschichtc which may be supposed to represent the second vol-

1 William Smith, Studenf s Old Testament History; Milman, History
of the Je7C's, 3 vols, (second edition. 1863) ; Edersheim, History 0/ Israel aud
Judah, 7 vols. (1887).

2 The original title was Geschiehte Israels. Band I (1878). The later
editions bear the title. Prolegomena zur Geschiehte Israels. The work is
published in an English translation in a volume (which contams also Well-
hausen's article. "Israel," from the Eneyelop.vdia Britanniea), entitled
Prolegomena to the History of Israel (no date).

3 First delivered in Edinburgh and Glasgow in 1881 and published the
same year ; second edition, 1892. The Prophets of Israel followed in 1882 ;
second edition, 1897.

XXll PREFACE

ume of the work of which the Prolegomena was the first. This
volume appeared in 1894, and has passed through several
editions.

Stade, Geschichte des Volkcs Israel, 1 881-1888. The latter
part of the history was written by Oskar Holtzniann. Next to
Wellhausen's works this is the most important treatise which has
yet appeared on the subject. It is enriched with maps, plans,
fac -similes, and illustrations.

Kuenen's works on the Religion of Israel and on the Prophets
are in the domain of Biblical theology, but their historical bear-
ings are important.

Reuss, Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften alten Testaments
(1881) is nominally a history of the literature. In fact, it treats
the history of the people and the history of the literature together
in a suggestive and attractive manner.

Renan, Histoire dii Peuple d' Israel, 1 887-1 893; English
translation 1 888-1 895. Renan's brilliancy of style is well
known. His critical point of view is nearer that of Ewald than
that of Wellhausen.

Kittel, Geschichte der Hebrder, 1888-189 2. English transla-
tion. History of the Hebrews, 2 vols., 1895. This history ex-
tends to the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar. The author
gives a considerable part of his attention to the discussion of crit-
ical questions, in which he agrees more nearly with Dillmann than
with Wellhausen.

Vernes, Precis d' Histoire Juive, 1889. The author gives a
good sketch of Hebrew history, but expresses an exaggerated
scepticism concerning the sources from which he draws.

Winckler, Geschichte Israels, 2 vols., 1895 and 1900. The
work is less a history of Israel than a series of ingenious conjec-
tures on various points in the early history.

Klostermann, Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis zur Restauratiofi
unter Esra U7ul Nehemia, 1 896. The author is known as one of the
ablest among the (comparatively) conservative scholars in Ger-
many.

PREFACE XXUl

Kent, History of the Hebrew People and History of the Jeivish
People, 4 vols., 1896-1900. The last volume is by Professor
Riggs. The work is based upon a critical appreciation of the
sources and is enriched by maps and chronological tables.

Thomas, Geschichte des Alien Bimdes, 1897. This is a work
intended especially for teachers, and is written by one who is
not ex prof es so an Old Testament scholar. The author is, how-
ever, thoroughly familiar with the best critical literature, and
succeeds in presenting the history of Israel in connexion with
that of Egypt and the great Asiatic empires. The work extends
to the fall of Jerusalem, a.d. 70.

Piepenbring, Histoire du Peuple d' Israel, 1898. This is the
best presentation in French of the Wellhausenian reconstruction
of the history of Israel.

Cornill, History of the People of Israel, 1898. This is a series
of ten papers i^repared for the Operi Court (Chicago). It is pub-
lished also in German.

Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1899. The English
reader will form a good idea of the author's position by examin-
ing his article '' Israel " in the Encyclopedia Biblica, II.

Lohr, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1900 — an outline in eight
lectures.

Paton, The Early History of Syria and Palestine, 1901.
Though not strictly an Old Testament History, this book dis-
cusses helpfully many questions which belong in our department.

Ottley, A Short History of the Hebrews to the Roman Period,
1901. Maps, a brief sketch of critical positions, and a chrono-
logical table add to the usefulness of this volume.

Wade, Old Testament History {$)o$. The usefulness of this
book is sufficiently evidenced by the fact that a second edition
has just appeared (1903). It modestly claims that it is not in-
tended for scholars, "but for less advanced students." It is,
however, thoroughly critical in its positions and method.

The reader will not fail to note that the long silence of Eng-
lish scholarship in the department of Old Testament History has

XXIV PREFACE

now been broken, and that the critical position is fairly estab-
lished.

With reference to the present work I have two remarks to
make. The first is that for Hebrew proper names I have retained
the form familiar to us in the English of the authorised version.
The only exception is the divine name Yahweh, which seems to
me in every way preferable to the m\-llQhxdi\c Jehovah.

My second remark concerns the literature of the subject. All
branches of Old Testament science bear upon Old Testament
history, and there is no book in any department which may not
have something of value for the historian. It is plain that no
one man can be familiar with this vast body of literature. My
hope is that I have overlooked no work of real importance.

In making references I have not usually taken into considera-
tion other works on Old Testament History. The reader who
wishes to study the subject thoroughly will consult the most im-
portant of these. Where I have made references I have made
them to works which treat some particular phase of the subject,
or which will enable the reader to discover the grounds of that
interpretation of a Biblical text which I have adopted.

The current method of abbreviating titles (seen in the frequent
recurrence of such enigmas as P R E, S B A W, Z D M G) must
be annoying to the reader who is not familiar with the lit-
erature. Even one who has some experience is frequently at a
loss to interpret these symbols and is obliged to waste his time
in consulting a table of abbreviations. However appropriate for
an encyclopaedia such a system may be, I am convinced that for
a work like the one before us the trifling amount of space saved
should not be brought into the account against the convenience
of the reader. I have therefore followed the example ofSchiirer,
and in each case have given the title of the work which I cite
with sufficient fulness to enable the reader to identify it at once.

My colleague, Prof. John F. Genung, has read a considerable
part of this work in manuscript; my friend. Prof. Irving F.
Wood, of Smith College, has read the whole work in proof;

PREFACE XXV

and my son, Preserved Smith, Fellow of Columbia University,
has also read a considerable part of it in proof. I am indebted
to all these gentlemen for helpful suggestions, and it gives me
pleasure here to express my thanks.

Amherst, Mass., Jidy 2S, igo^.

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

CHAPTER I

THE SOURCES

The name Old Tesfame?it History is an inheritance from early
theological science. All history was allowed to fall into the two
divisions designated as Sacred ^nd Profane. The former readily
divided itself into the Biblical and Ecclesiastical sections, and
the Biblical section as readily arranged itself under the heads
Old Testament and New Testament. Of late years the distinc-
tion between sacred and secular has become less marked. It is
now felt that all history is sacred, because 'it is all the working
out of the plan of God. What has been known as Old Testa-
ment History now begins to appear under the title History of
Israel.

Whichever name we use, the discipline itself is of the first
importance to every one who would understand the world or his
own time. The little land of Palestine has had large influence
upon the progress of mankind. The story of the people who
dwelt there is more widely known than anything else that has
come down to us from ancient times. In modern Europe, in
America, among all nations that profess the Christian religion the
names of Abraham, Moses, and David are household words. The
same is true in Mohammedan countries. Israel has contributed to
our civilisation the enduring and powerful element of religion. The
literature of Israel has become a part of the Bible, and the Bible
is the book of religion for the civilised world. But a literature
cannot be understood without a knowledge of the people which
gave it birth. The importance of a study of the history of Israel
needs no further demonstration,^

* On the place of Old Testament History among the theological sciences
cf. Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, 1899, pp. -yjt
487 ff.

2 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

In entering upon this study we are at once confronted by the
fact that a large part of the Old Testament itself is historical in
form. It would seem at first sight as if the historian had only to
adopt what the sacred writers have already written down, telling
their story after them. The endeavour to do this would be at
once hampered however by the fact that there is not one history
to deal with, but that there are two. The books from Genesis
to II Kings give an apparently continuous narrative from the
Creation to the Exile. The Books of Chronicles, with their con-
tinuation in Ezra and Nehemiah, begin at the same point and
carry the story beyond the return from the Exile. Older schol-
ars supposed it i)ossible — indeed they were forced by their view
of inspiration — to combine these two narratives in such a way as
to retain all the data of both. It is now generally recognised
that such a combination is impossible. The two histories present
so many points of divergence that they can in no way be made
to give a homogeneous account.

But a further difficulty arises when the attempt is made to do
justice not only to these two histories but also to the rest of the
literature which has come down to us from Hebrew antiquity. An
important part of this literature preserves to us the works of the
prophets. These preachers of righteousness have left on record
their impressions of their own times, and have thus given us
great light upon the history. It becomes necessary to make use
of these documents along with those which are narrative in form.
The same is true of the poetical and apocalyptic sections of the
Old Testament. All are monuments of an historic process, and
should fit into a connected whole.

A successful presentation of this historic process is therefore
dependent upon historical criticism. This science distinguishes
the documents, analyses them if compound, shows their true na-
ture, dates them, and leads to a correct estimate of their historic
cort?nt. Old Testament history is therefore directly dependent
upon the higher criticism of the Old Testament. The conclusions
reached by the critic are the starting-point of the historian.^

' The higher criticism of the Old Testament is thoroughly treated in
Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,^ 1897. Com-
pare also Briggs, General Introduction, Chapters XI and XII ; Wellhau-
sen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, translated by Black and Menzies,
Edinburgh, no date (the third edition of the German is dated 1886).

THE SOURCES 3

Critical study of the Old Testament books has made two things
plainly, even startlingly, evident. The first is that scarcely one of
these books can claim to be a homogeneous production. The most
of them are made up by a process of compilation out of previously
existing material. This is known to be characteristic of large
parts of ancient literature. The Arab historians and commenta-
tors freely excerpt what they please to take from their predeces-
sors. Josephus in his history borrows in the same way both
from documents now in our hands and from others that have
perished. Within the bounds of a single book of the Old Testa-
ment we must expect to find a variety of material, and we must
learn to discriminate that which has the greater historical value.
It will be evident that where an author has imbedded older
material in his work, the older material may have a value quite
different from that which he has given it. The very recognition
of different strata in an historical book implies that some parts are
more reliable than others. The historian must get as near as he
can to contemporary accounts. In the inquiry as to what ac-
tually took place at a given time, the most ancient testimony
deserves the first attention.

But besides the composite nature of the documents we must
recognise another fact. The books of the Old Testament — even
those which are historical in form — are not historical in the sense
in which we use the word. The first aim of the authors was not
to set forth the actual course of events, but to set the events in
such a light as to point a moral. The books of the Old Testa-
ment are books of devotion, or books of edification ; the purpose
of the authors is didactic and hortative. It is in human nature
to make sermons effective by painting their illustrations in vivid
colours. And the colours which most distinctly affect us are
those drawn from our own experience. To modernise the inci-
dents which we draw from ancient history is almost necessary if
we are to make our story profitable to our own times. Uncon-
sciously but powerfully moved by this fact, the Hebrew historians
used great freedom in treating the material which was in their
possession.

It may not be out of place to illustrate this tendency somewhat
in detail. As has already been remarked, we have two narrative
sections of the Old Testament which cover the same ground, one
in the Books of Kings, the other in the Books of Chronicles. We

4 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

cannot help asking ourselves why the Chronicler should rewrite
the history of his people. Why should he not content himself
with reading, copying, and circulating what had come down from
the fathers? The plain answer to these questions is that he did
not find the older history edifying. For one thing, there was
much in it that was to him superfluous. He had no interest in
that backsliding Kingdom of Israel, to which so much space was
given in the older narrative. In addition he was scandalised by
much that was there set forth. Why should people care to dwell
upon such unpleasant things as David's adultery and the rebellion
of his sons ? It would be better (he thought) to draw the veil of
charity over the faults and misfortunes of Israel's great king. It
would be more edifying to have the history without these
shadows. And so the good man rewrote it without the shadows.
He had no idea of casting doubt upon the older story, only he
wanted a more edifying presentation. His omissions are thus
easily accounted for.

It is equally easy to account for the insertions. The Chron-
icler lived in a time when the Priest-code ^ had become fully es-
tablished as the law of the people. Now the peculiarity of the
Priest-code is that it carries an elaborate ritual back to the times
of Moses. The Chronicler adopted this view wnth all his heart.
To him the whole ritual establishment had been organised in con-
nexion with the Tabernacle and had come with Israel into the
promised land. But if this were so the question arose : What be-
came of it? The older historical books are evidently silent con-
cerning it. This might be accounted for in the period of the Judges
and in the period of Saul. Those were times of declension and
of disintegration. But even when we come to David we find the
same oppressive silence. The older narrative knows of only two
priests at David's court, and ignores the Levites altogether.
When David flees before Absalom, Zadok and Abiathar them-
selves bring the Ark to David. Where was the great corps of
Levites which ought to have borne the Ark and accompanied it
as a guard of honour ? This question was only one of many
similar ones that the Chronicler presumably asked himself.^ His

' On this document compare Driver, hitroduction, pp. 1 26-159.

2 The statements that David's sons were priests and that Ira the Jairite
was a priest (II Sam. 8'«, 20'''^) do not substantially relieve the difficulty
felt by the Chronicler ; they would rather increase his perplexity.

THE SOURCES 5

reply was to the effect that the older narrative, whatever its excel-
lencies, was gravely deficient in many points. He therefore set to
work to make it more complete, and this he did with a thorough-
ness that commands our admiration. No sooner does his narra-
tive bring the Ark to its new home in Jerusalem than he supplies
it with an elaborate household, as we may fairly judge from the
sixty-eight doorkeepers^ whose number is expressly given. A
few years later we find David gathering the Levites together, and
their number is given at thirty-eight thousand — all of them ma-
ture men, qualified for the service of the sanctuary. David pro-
ceeds at this time to organise them more completely, but it is
evidently the mind of the author that they were already members
of the sacred caste which had been set apart by Moses. Instead
of the two priests of David's court we now find the house of
Aaron numbering nearly four thousand adult males ^ and organised
in twenty-four courses, only one of which is in service at any one
time. The deficiencies of the earlier document have been thor-
oughly supplied. Along with this, too, the desire to find in
David a nursing father for the visible church is gratified by
making him the reorganiser of the service and the founder of the
music of the Temple.

In the matter of the priesthood therefore we understand the
motive of the Chronicler ; at the same time we discover that his
work must not be called history. We shall do him wrong if we
suppose him to be alone in his peculiar views. There is no
doubt that he represents the whole tendency of his own time, and
that the way had been prepared for him by a whole school of
tradition. Not only the religion of the time was casting a glamour
over the past ; its patriotism was equally concerned. As the
horizon of the Jews had widened when brought into the Persian
and Greek periods their view of Israel's ancient history became
exaggerated. David and Solomon, the heroes of the past, were
now measured by the standards of Xerxes or Alexander. Their
wealth becomes comparable to the wealth of Babylon. In re-
writing the history of these Kings, therefore, the Chronicler finds
the earlier data altogether too modest. When David gathered the
warriors of Israel together, according to the earlier history, he
found them to be thirty thousand in number. But when the

^ I Chr. 1 6^^; notice also the choir of I.evites already present, vv. *"^.
'According to I Chr. 12^' there are 3,700 who came to David at Hebron.

6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Chronicler brings the bands of fighting men to David at Hebron,
before his coronation, there are more than three hundred thou-
sand.^ The author is equally lavish in other instances of num-
bers, proving again that his narrative must not be called history.
In fact it must be classed with the Jewish literature which we call
Midrash.^

The Midrash is a recognised form of later Jewish literature,
which has arisen from the tendency we are considering — the ten-
dency of the religious mind to modify historical material so as to
make it serve for present edification. Examples of it are found
in the pseudepigraphical books, as for example the Book of
Jubilees. In this book the material of the canonical Genesis is
rewritten to suit the taste of the times — the first century before
Christ. Here the Mosaic institutions are antedated, because
the devotees of the Law could not suppose that Abraham did
not live by the most perfect rule of life. The freedom with
which Josephus and Philo fill out the Biblical biographies is an
example of the same tendency ; and indeed modern sermons are
in no wise slow to paint the lives of Abraham and Moses and
David with colours drawn from legend or from the preacher's im-
agination. It is not without significance that the Chronicler
names among his sources a Midrash of the prophet Iddo, and a
Midrash of the Book of Kings.^ His whole book could not be
better described than by the title A Midrash of the Book of Kitigs.

So strong is this tendency that it is discoverable in other jjarts
of the Old Testament. The critical analysis of the earlier his-
torical books shows that the authors of some of the documents
were aiming to prove a thesis. The editor of Judges avows his

1 I Chr. 12 23-". The total appears to be 340,600, besides 222 captains
whose soldiers are not enumerated. The earlier account is II Sam. 6 ^.

2 The nature of the Book of Chronicles was first distinctly set forth by
De Wette in his Beitrcige zur Einlcitiing in das Alte Testament, I, Halle,
1806. Wellhausen makes a clear and convincing statement in his Prolego-
mena ^ pp. 175-235; History of Israel, pp. 1 71-222. The reader may also
consult Driver, Introduction'^-', pp. 516-554, and the articles in Hastings,
Dictionary of the Bible (by Professor Francis Brown) and in the Ency-
clop(edia Biblica.

'•'' II Chr. 13 ", 24 ". On the subject of Midrash cf. Schiirer, Geschichte
des Judischen Volkes^, II, pp. 327, 338-350; Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vor-
triige"^ 1892, pp. 13, 37. Considerable portions of the later Jewish Mid-
rash are translated by Wunsche, Bibliotheca Rabbinica, Leipzig, 1880, and
later.

THE SOURCES 7

aim in the very distinct statement which he makes concerning the
lesson of his history. The stories of the ancient heroes which he
recites are fitted by him into a framework in which they did not
originally belong, and in which some of them at least are made
to teach a lesson wholly foreign to the intent of their original au-
thor. In the First Book of Samuel we have a particularly glar-
ing instance of two contradictory points of view urged by differ-
ent sections of the narrative. The older document made the
anointing of Saul an act of grace, a manifestation of Yahweh's
favour toward Israel. A later writer had a very different view
of the monarchy and he enforced it by his version of the story.
According to him the demand for a King was the act of an un-
ruly and backslidden people. Samuel acceded to the demand
only under protest, and the divine purpose was to punish the peo-
ple by the very King whom they desire. This second account
is a rewriting of the older one. All that is new in it is the point
of view. Its interest is not in the history but in the moral it can
be made to teach. ^ That the latest redactor of the Books of
Kings has the same interest, is evident from the judgment which
he so constantly pronounces on the men and events of which he
writes.

It is necessary for the modern historian to make constant al-
lowance for these tendencies. The result is undoubtedly a
serious modification, and in many cases a reversal of the state-
ments which the Biblical historians have made. This is not sur-
prising. The authors who gave final form to the Biblical history
were remote from the events which they described. They were
under the impression of a powerful judgment of God in the de-
struction of Jerusalem and the exile of their people. It was in-
evitable that they should look upon the whole past of their nation
as a perpetual backsliding. As we ourselves know, grave imper-
fections are seen in the civilisation of earlier ages, when it is
measured by a modern standard. The Biblical writers easily
saw the imperfections of their predecessors, and had not the
breadth of view rightly to make allowance for them. Hence the
pessimism of their histories, a pessimism that was exaggerated by

* The composite nature of these historical books is pointed out in the re-
cent commentaries, that of Moore on Judges, my own on Samuel (both in the
International Critical Commentary), and those in Marti JCurzer Handkom-
mentar, and Nowack Handkommentar.

8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

their view of a more remote past. For along with a severe judg-
ment of our immediate ancestors there often goes a tendency to
glorify those more remote. An American may in the same
breath condemn the statesmen of the middle of the nineteenth cen-
tury, while praising the revolutionary fathers in unstinted terms.
So the sacred historian condemns the whole people from the time
of the conquest down, while idealising the Patriarchs. In both
respects it is necessary for us to make allowance for the point of
view.

The extent to which this pessimistic tendency has taken posses-
sion of our minds as we look at the Biblical story can hardly be
overstated. Although, according to one story, God created all
things very good, the fall of man which follows effaces the primi-
tive goodness and infects soil and man with a curse. The first
age of the world ends in a corruption so universal that it must be
wiped out by the Deluge. In the succeeding generations the
character of Abraham alone is worthy of our respect. His pure
and lofty monotheism passes on to Isaac and Jacob, though the
family of Jacob already show signs of degeneracy. But Moses is
sent to a stiff-necked peo])le, as appears throughout the Exodus
and the Wandering. A brief brightness shines in the career of
Joshua. But as soon as he is gone the incorrigible depravity of
the people comes into view. Each of the Judges is leader of a re-
vival which comes after a period of deep and inexcusable back-
sliding. The establishment of the monarchy is only a glaring
instance of the perversity of the people. David indeed redeems
the institution from the curse under which we suspect it to
labour. But after David the degeneracy again shows itself. The
rebellion of the ten tribes, the preservation of the High-places,
the political moves of the various monarchs — all teach the same
lesson. The climax is reached in the fall of Jerusalem, which is
God's final and emphatic curse on ages of rebellion.

The justification for the modern historian who modifies this
picture or even contradicts it, is in the fact already mentioned
that this is the view of the latest time, and that if we disentangle
the documents some of them at least will tell a very different
story. Whatever the total result, the serious historian will give
all the documents the weight which belongs to them. The en-
deavour to harmonise them so that they will agree in the lesson
they teach brings us at once into difficulty. If, as one document

THE SOURCES 9

affirms, David had a Teraphim (an idolatrous image) in his
house, and if, as another document asserts, the law against idola-
try was promulgated before the time of David, we are in a hope-
less muddle ; for all the documents agree that David was obedi-
ent to the will of God. The difficulty is with the document
which has antedated the giving of the law, and we should frankly
recognise this. A parallel casein the life of Gideon will meet us
in our later investigation.

The obvious lesson from what has been said is that the student
must first concern himself with the history of tradition. He
must clearly distinguish the different documents which have been
wrought into the Biblical text, and be able to give each one its
approximate date. The testimony of each one must then be
taken for the period in which it belongs, for it is evident that
its primary value is here. The Chronicler has no independent
value for the history of David ; but for the history of his own
generation his work is priceless. The success of the historian
depends upon getting at what each author has to reveal concern-
ing his own time. Nor is it necessary to lay much stress upon
the charge that the historian in trying to date his documents
is moved by an evolutionary bias. Progress there must be in all
history, or it would not be history. It need not be difficult
for the Old Testament historian to determine questions of early
or late without being under a bias of any kind.^

In the history of tradition we must include those books of the
Old Testament which are not distinctively historical. How great
importance these prophetical and poetical books have for the
history of their times must be evident. But it is also evident
that we cannot take them for what the Jewish editors supposed
them to be until we have verified their claims. The various ele-
ments which go to make up the Book of Isaiah, for example, must
be examined and dated before they are used for historical pur-
poses. In such cases the historian works hand in hand with the
literary critic, or freely avails himself of his predecessor's results.

* A thorough discussion of the tradition as a preliminary to a history
of Israel was made by Ewald in his Geschichte des Volkes Israel (third edi-
tion in seven volumes, 1864-1868, English Translation, 6 vols., 1869- 1 883).
Unfortunately Ewald was wrong in his theory of the order of the docu-
ments. His error was corrected by Wellhausen in his Geschtchte Israels, I
(later editions bear the title Prolegomena ziir Geschichte Israels). Notice
^Iso Winckler's statement in Keilinschriften und Altes Testament, p. 208.

lO OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Having got at the history of tradition we may inquire for the
facts which lie behind the tradition. In this inquiry we are often
obHged to confess our ignorance. What actually happened at a
given epoch is eternally concealed from us where (as is so often
the case) the documents are lacking. Nevertheless we have
reason to feel that the main outlines are reasonably clear. In
the endeavour to trace them, we shall follow the course laid down
by the Old Testament itself.

CHAPTER II

THE ORIGINS

The Hebrew narrative books as they are now in our hands
have a well-defined scheme of history. The Book of Genesis
begins with the creation of the world, and gives a chronological
outline of the first period, which ends with the Deluge. A fresh
start is made with Noah, the second father of the race. In this
period the whole race of mankind is grouped genealogically, and,
as it appears, geographically ; the three zones of the known world
being assigned to the three sons of Noah and their descendants.
Attention is then directed to Abraham, one of the descendants of
Shem. This is because he is the father of the group of peoples
to which Israel belongs. In the family of Abraham we are intro-
duced to Ishmael and Isaac. But Ishmael is dismissed from the
record with a mere genealogy, that we may devote ourselves to
Isaac and his line. The two sons of Isaac are brought before us
in the same way, and a genealogical account of the clans of Esau
is given before they in turn are dismissed, that we may give exclu-
sive attention to Jacob and his sons. These are the main sub-
jects of the narrative, up to which the rest has skilfiiUy led.

It is necessary for us to note however that this plan of history,
which leaves nothing to be desired in point of completeness, is
due to the latest of the authors who have been concerned in the
composition of Genesis. These numbers and genealogies are the
work of the Priestly author, who wrote certainly after the year
500 B.C. In accordance with the spirit of his time which
delighted in genealogical tables— as we see abundantly illustrated
in the Books of Chronicles written a little later— he brought the
whole early history into tabular form. The divisions of his his-
tory are in fact entitled genealogies. Even the sketch of the
Creation has the subscription '' This is the Book of Genealogy of
Heaven and Earth, "^ and similar titles stand at the head of the
other divisions of his work.

1 A slight alteration of the received text is here accepted, as made by Ball,
The Book of Genesis, in Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old Testamejit (1896).

12 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

On account of this formal and schematic character of the work
of P ', this work was made the basis of the composite book before
us ; for it is evident that two very different hands have been at
work in the account of the Creation. The writer of the cold and
dignified narrative in Genesis i^-2*«' could not have written the
brilliant and imaginative sketch which runs through the second,
third, and fourth chapters of the book. In this latter, which
is evidently the more primitive account, Yahweh ^ is naively
human. He experiments with His creation. He shapes man
out of clay; then having given him life He forms the other
animals to see whether they will be fit companions of man. Only
when He sees that none of these meets the exigency does He fall
upon the device of taking a part of the man himself to make into
a woman. Furthermore, he plants a garden in the East, in which
He Himself dwells. He places the man in it as His gardener to
till it and to guard it. As He takes His evening walk there. He
discovers man's guilt by his behaviour — of any exercise of
omniscience there is no question. He expels man from the garden
because he has become dangerously like a divine being. All this
is very delightful and very primitive.

It does not seem venturesome to declare that this cosmology is
different from the other in that it took its origin in the desert.
It begins by declaring that in the day when Yahweh made
heaven and earth, there was no bush of the field on the earth, and
no grass had sprung up, because Yahweh had not rained on the
earth, and there was no man to till the ground. In the desert,
herbage springs up after the rain, and the tilled ground is ground
that has been reclaimed from the waste by the man who carefully
husbands its water-supply. This is in contrast with the other

1 So we will designate the Priestly writer, in accordance with now common
usage. The other writers of the Hexateuch are J (the Vahwist, from his
use of the divine name Yahweh), E (the Elohist, from his preference for
FJohim as the name of God), and D (the author of Deuteronomy). As J
shows a marked interest in the history of Judah he is sometimes called the
Judaic writer, and E, by contrast, is the Ephraitnitic. A very full discussion
of the nature of the documents is given by Carpenter and Battersby, The
Hexateuch I, 1900 ; cf. also Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch,
1897.

2 It seems better to use this, which is the Hebrew name for God, than to
take a more general and less definite word. The orthography is intended to
represent what was probably the original pronunciation. See the new
Hebrew Lexicon B D B, sub voce.

THE ORIGINS I3

conception, according to which the primeval chaos was the pri-
meval ocean, or the primeval mud, from which the water must be
drained into the great subterranean reservoir before the dry land
could appear.

The creation story of the Yahwist cannot be correctly esti-
mated without considering the other legendary or mythological
material of his narrative. Leaving out of view the Deluge, which
possibly did not belong in the earliest form of J, we may look at
his story of the Confusion of Tongues. Here w^e see clearly
that he has the intention to account for the present state of man-
kind in contrast with a primitive state which was quite different.
If all our race be descended from a single pair, how do they
come to speak so many languages ? This is a question which was
forced upon him by what he saw of the actual condition of man-
kind. And in answering this question he used the story of a
iower and an etymology, neither of which originally had any
connexion with what they now set forth. ^ Our author is a phi-
losopher; he is interested in accounting for the present state of
things. This story accounts for the awkward variety of languages
spoken by mankind. The Deity devised it to check the too
great power of mankind. Now we understand the earlier narra-
tive. Precisely as the story of the Confusion accounts for the
present variety of speech, so does the story of the Fall account
for the present toilsome lot of the labourer. The toil of the peas-
ant is far more exacting than we should expect for the man w^ho
was created to keep the garden of Yahweh. The earth, as we
now see it, has a constant tendency to thorns and briers. This
must be because Yahweh was obliged to keep man in check.
He had aspired too high, had almost become like God. Equally
strange with the ceaseless toil of man is the painful parturition of
woman w^hen compared with the easy travail of the animals. It
was an ingenious speculation which solved both these problems
and at the same time accounted for the anomalous life of the ser-
pent, by the story of the temptation and fall of man.

This same account gives us a glimpse into primitive mythol-
ogy by its treatment of the serpent as one of the characters in
the drama. We have no difficulty in recognising in him some-

^ It is scarcely necessary to remark that our appreciation of the author is
not affected by his etymology of the name Babel — an etymology which is
impossible. The passage is Gen. 1 1 '-*.

14 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

thing more than an animal. But the reason is that to the writer
all animals were something more than animals as we view them.
To primitive man — to man far beyond the primitive stage in
fact — all animals have something demonic about them. Not that
the serpent is the fallen angel of Milton's poem, or the Satan of
the New Testament. He is simply a jmnee, a fairy if you will,
possessed of more knowledge than the other animals, but otherwise
like them. Diabolical envy or malice cannot be ascribed to him.
He counsels man to eat of the fruit bona fide, because he knows
that man will be raised toward the life of the gods by eating. He
has not wit enough to foresee that Yahweh will resent the invasion
of His prerogatives, nor has he strength or cunning to resist the
sentence pronounced upon him for his meddling.'

The material which J embodied in his narrative is properly
described by the term mythological. If this is not evident from
what has been said it will come into view when we consider a
section which we have not yet studied. This is the account of
the marriage of the Sons of God with the daughters of men.^

The little section reads as follows:

"And when men began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born
to them, the Sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair, and they
took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. Then Yahweh said,
My spirit shall not continue in man forever on account of their erring. He
is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."

In considering this obscure passage some things are not ob-
scure. The first is that the Sons of God, which are mentioned in
such distinct contrast with the daughters of men, must be beings
of another order. When 7ncn began to multiply then the angels
were enticed — this is the only proper antithesis. And with this
interpretation agrees Biblical usage in the few cases in which
the Sons of God are mentioned.^ There is no other way in

' The character of the serpent as a demonic being is sufficiently evident
in the most diverse mythologies. The brazen serpent worshipped at Jerusa-
lem till the time of Hezekiah is evidence for the view of the Hebrews, H
Kings i8 ♦.

■•^ Gen. 6 '"♦. The paragraph presents palpable difficulties to the translator,
and has been the subject of almost endless discussion. The student may read
with profit Budde, Die Bihlische Urgcschichte {\%'il), and in opposition to some
of Budde's positions Gruppe, in the Zeitschriftfiir die Alttest. Wissenschaft,
1889, p. 135 ff.; among the commentaries Dillmann (Eng. Transl. 1897)
gives a good view of the state of the inquiry.

»Job, 1^, 2', 38^ of. Ps. 29', 897(«)and Dan. 32^.

THE ORIGINS 1$

which we can do justice to this passage with its use of the
generic word maji. It follows that we have here to do with the
marriage of the jinn (to use the Arab word once more) with
human beings. So- the passage was interpreted by later Juda-
ism and by the early Christians/ whose fully developed angel-
ology was able to make use of it to account for the origin of sin.
Our author has a less definite conception of the superhuman
beings concerned in the transaction than had the Fathers of the
Church, but that they are superhuman and in the class to which
Yahweh belongs, seems quite clear.

The difference between this early writer and the later ones
to which I have alluded, is that he knows nothing of a condemna-
tion of the angels. He does not call their conduct sinful. Nor
indeed does he condemn the human beings involved. All that
we discover in his account is that Yahweh is displeased. And
the reason that Yahweh is displeased is that by the conduct of
the angels His spirit is brought into human bodies. This implies
a dangerous increase in the power of mankind. The danger is
met by the decree that the duration of man upon earth shall be
comparatively brief. It is the prevention of immortality which
is the chief concern, as was the case in setting a guard over the
tree of hfe.

In similar stories in other mythologies we find an assault made
by the inferior gods upon the throne of the Creator. It is natu-
ral to suppose that something of the kind was in the original
from which our author drew, because he takes pains to bring
in a reference to the giants, offspring of the celestial marriages.
On the other hand, the absence of any condemnation of the
angels argues against such a supposition. The mention of the
giants is simply a piece of tradition which attached itself natu-
rally to the text. Gigantic races were thought to have dwelt in
Palestine before the coming of the Hebrews.'^ Mighty men hke
Nimrod had left a name to succeeding generations. Founders of
cities or empires were worshipped as gods by many peoples. The
Hebrew could not make them gods, for that was contrary to the

^ For example, Josephus, y^«/'/^«///>j, 1,3, i; Enoch, 6 2, 7', 86^'; Jubi-
lees, 5 *-^ ; Sulpicius Severus, Chronica, 2 ^. Cf. also Eisenmenger's Ent-
Jecktes Judenthum, I, p. 380.

^ Num. 13^^. The giant Nimrod possibly once stood in connection with
our passage ; Budde, Urgeschuhte, p. 391.

l6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

genius of his religion. But it was natural for him to find some-
thing superhuman in men who filled the earth with the terror of
their name. The Biblical account does not condemn these heroes
or tyrants; they have always been, in fact, the objects of admira-
tion as truly as of terror. What our author is trying to do is to
account for them and at the same time to account for the brevity
of human life.

Enough has been said to show that we have here a piece of
genuine mythology. And this characterisation extends to the
whole of J's material for this period — it is mythological but
not polytheistic. That he has preserved only fragments of what
circulated in his time is evident.^ What he preserved he was
able to bring into harmony with the strictest monotheism. For
the Yahweh of our account, anthropomorphic as He is, is yet
the supreme God. No other is brought into rivalry with Him.
And we may say also that He remains worthy of our reverence
3ven in the primitive stories we have considered.

What we have found out for our Old Testament history is that
this part of J contains nothing that can be called historical in
the proper sense of the word. The importance which the story
of the fall of man has had in the history of thought is known to
everyone. But consideration of this phase of the subject belongs
to the history of philosophy. It should be remarked that the in-
fluence it exercised did not begin till after the completion of the
Old Testament canon. There is not one indication that the
Prophets of Israel ever gave a thought to the speculations which
the Yahwist has clothed for us in these attractive stories.

With this negative result in mind we turn again to the later
narrative, that of P, which, as already remarked, furnished the
framework into which the stories of J have been fitted. In form
this document is strictly historical. It sets before us the crea-
tive work in its parts, orderly arranged in seven days. It then
gives a genealogy which is also a chronology, naming the year
in which each of the ten antediluvian patriarchs received a first-
born son. We are thus brought to the Flood, which closes this
period of the history and leaves only Noah to become the new
head of the race.

It is hardly necessary to ask whether this author, living at a

* Other creation myths circulated in Israel down to a comparatively late
date, as is shown by Gunkel, Commentar zmn Biiche Genesis (1901) p. 29 ff.

THE ORIGINS 1/

comparatively late date, had such definite and precise informa-
tion concerning the early ages of the world. Such information
might conceivably have come to him by special revelation/ but
he seems to make no claim to have received it thus. As we know
by his method elsewhere, he was generally dependent upon older
written sources, which, however, he freely recast to meet the
views of his own time. This creates a probability that here also
he is similarly dependent. Moreover we should be puzzled to
account for a special revelation of so early an event delivered at
so late a date. If exact knowledge of the process of creation and
of the longevity of the antediluvians was necessary for Israel's
education in piety, it should have been given much earlier. All
the probabilities, therefore, are against this account being histori-
cal, in the natural sense of that word.

In comparing the account of the creation now before us with
the account in the other document, we are at once struck with
the difference in tone and in the point of view. In P God is
transcendent. He no longer shapes His men and animals out of
clay; He does not even breathe into their nostrils; He does not
plant a garden or walk therein. He speaks and it is done ; He
commands and it stands fast. All that is necessary is that He
should say let there be light and the light is there ; let there be
a firmament 2i\-\di the firmament comes into being. He does not
experiment with His material ; each class of creatures comes into
being according to a progressive scheme, each is conformed to
a type, each is *' according to its species," and each is pro-
nounced very good at once. Mythological features are not found.
The garden, the tree of life, the separate formation of wo-
man, the serpent as the tempter — all these have disappeared.
Moreover the order of creation is reversed. It is no longer man
and then the animals ; it is first inanimate nature, then the plants,
then the lower animals, the higher animals, finally man as the crown
of creation. This is an ordered, one might properly say a scien-
tific, representation. In the account of the creation of man we
might find a relic of the older anthropomorphism, for there God

^ The theory that we have here a special revelation designed to show us
the actual process of creation is still held by some scholars, or was until
within a few years ; cf. Kohler Biblische Geschichte des Alien Testaments,
I, p. 22 ff. Of the enormous difficulties which such a theory meets in the
opposition of geology, biology, and astronomy it is needless to speak.

1 8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

says let us inake man in our own image. No doubt the author,
in accord with the great prophets of Israel, conceived God as
existing in human form. But his motive here is to emphasise
the supremacy of man over other created beings, a supremacy
that is indicated by his creation in the divine image. Man
rules over the lower animals because he is like God, and be-
cause he has received the divine commission to subdue the
earth. ^ Finally an entirely new feature appears in this account,
for the creative work is arranged in a creative week, as a founda-
tion for the religious institution of the Sabbath.

These striking differences show that our author rewrote the
account of the creation to suit the advanced theology of his own
times. He had lost appreciation of the anthropomorphic Yah-
weh of the earlier time. It is probable that he had lost appre-
ciation of his predecessor's whole philosophy. To him the hard
lot of the peasant was not traceable to a primeval curse. To
him it seemed necessary that a good God should make every-
thing good. None the less he believed in a degeneracy of the
race which brought punishment in the shape of a Deluge. But
this was a gradual decadence extending through the antedilu-
vian period.

It has become certain of late years that P was influenced in his
account of the creation by Babylonian conceptions. The most
distinct evidence of this is his use of the word Tehom for the
primeval abyss. This word is the Babylonian Tiamat, the monster
inimical to the gods whose body furnishes the material of the visi-
ble universe. But, as compared with the Babylonian account, the
part played by the Teho/n in the creation is insignificant. The
Babylonian account is mythological in a high degree ; it swarms
with gods, demigods, monsters. The Biblical account has been
divested of all mythological features. Nevertheless we may be
sure that the Babylonian influence is present. In contrast with the
story of J which makes the desert the type of the original chaos,
we find in P that the earliest of all things is the ocean, or rather
the primeval slime from which water and dry land are separated
by the divine fiat. This is in accordance with the Babylonian

^ According to the Chaldean mythology men are intelligent because
made (in part) of the blood of Bel. Cf. Zimmern, Biblische und Babylon-
ische Urgeschichte, p. 14. The example shows how far removed our author
is from such crude speculations.

THE ORIGINS I9

conception where Ocean and Tiamat mingle their waters at the
beginning of all things.

It is hardly to be supposed that so strict a Jew as the Priestly
author was, would borrow directly from Babylonian mythology,
for this would be an abomination to him. But we know that
Babylonian influences had reached Palestine at a very early day.
Doubtless the cosmology had passed into Hebrew thought and
been modified long before our author put his story into shape.
Phoenician literature shows something analogous.^

The curious reader may ask why if this author is so anxious to
represent his God as thoroughly transcendent, he should leave so
pali)able an anthropomorphism as that contained in the sentence:
Let us make man in our image. For it will be held that here
are traces of other heavenly powers with whom God consults
before carrying out His design. In reply it is only necessary to
notice that in the post -exilic period, in which P belongs, the
doctrine of angels was already well developed. Elohim was
indeed transcendent. But He had a heavenly court made up of
these high officials, with whom it was seemly for Him to take
counsel in any matter of importance. It is only to mark the im-
portance of the step now to be taken that He here departs from
His usual method. Nor does He yield a jot of His pre-eminence
by so doing. The angels who are invited to co-operate do not
actually take part in the creation of man; they only look on as
witnesses of the important work in which their sovereign is
engaged.

The originality of P is perhaps sufficiently set forth in what

^ Cf. Baudissin, Stiidien zur Seinit. Religionsgeschichte, I (1876), p. II ;
Dillmann, Genesis Critically and Exegetically Expounded {i^()']) p. 33 ff. ;
Duncker, History of Antiquity, I, p. 353; Holzinger, Genesis (Kurzer
Handkommentar), p. 16 ff. ; Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria
(1899), pp. 407-453; Zimmern, Biblische und Babylonische Urgeschichte
(1901). Delitzsch, Babylonische Weltschopfungsepos {i2>i)6), and Schrader's
Keiliiisch. Bibliothek, VI, give translations of the Babylonian texts.
In English we have translations of the Babylonian account of the creation in
Ball, Light from the East (1899), pp. 1-2 1 ; Hogarth, Authority and Archce-
ology (1899), pp. 9-15; Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the
Historical Records of Assyria (1902), pp. 18-56. Cf. also Keilinschriften
und Altes Testament,'^ p. 508 ff. A mythological survival in the Hebrew
account is the declaration that the sun was made to rule the day and the
moon to rule the night — language that is intelligible only on the theory that
the sun and moon are animated beings — gods or demigods (Zimmern).

20 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

has been said. That originaHty is seen not in invention of new
material but in the rearrangement of what already exists. Prob-
ably we owe to him the arrangement of the creative work in
the time of one week. It has often been remarked that his
number of acts of creation does not really fit his scheme. The
actual number of periods is eight, so that he is obliged to crowd
a double work into two of the days. He seems therefore to have
taken a prior account which arranged the creation in eight acts.
This he compressed into six days in order to give the Sabbath
for rest. That God rested on the Sabbath is also taught in one
edition of the Decalogue.

The period between Adam and Noah is filled up with two
genealogies, one of Cain and one of Seth.^ The latter shows
itself to belong to P by its formal and statistical character. The
author is careful to begin by a repetition of the language he has
already used in his account of the creation of man — that he was
created in the likeness of God, that they were created male and
female, and that God had blessed them. He then proceeds with
the statement that Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, ^ and
begat a son i?i his likeness. This phrase does not recur in any of
the following generations, and its omission is perhaps an indica-
tion that the farther men removed from their first created ances-
tor the less they had of the divine image. ^ Ten generations are
counted, Noah being the tenth. Adam, the first, was created
good; Noah, the last, was well pleasing to God; but all the
race in Noah's time had corrupted its way so that a Deluge was
sent to destroy all but Noah and his family. As this author ig-
nored the story of the Fall and as he rejected the account of the
angelic marriages, together with the giant progeny thereof, we
must assume that in his view the corruption had come in gradu-
ally in the course of the ten generations. It is in accordance
with this, that we are expressly pointed to two men in the list
who were righteous : Enoch walked with God, and for his blame-
less life was translated. It is difficult to see why this should be
said unless it was thought that Enoch was removed from a wicked

» Gen. 4 "-2^ and 5 '-32.

2 The variations in the different texts in the matter of numbers will be
considered later.

^ This is the Rabbinical notion, Bereshith Rabba (Wunsche's translation,
p. 108).

THE ORIGINS 21

and perverse generation. Noah also is declared to have been
righteous among his contemporaries and to have walked with
God/ Here there can be no question that there is a contrast
pointed out. This view is consistently carried out by the
numbers in the Samaritan text, which make the three men
who stand nearest to Enoch, namely : Jared, Methuselah, and
Lamech, all perish in the Flood. But whether this proves
the numbers of the Samaritan to be the original is open to
question.

The numbers of this list have been made the basis of chrono-
logical systems down to a very recent time.^ It is impossible
longer so to use them, for in the first place it is no longer possi-
ble to believe that the lives of men ever extended to nine hun-
dred years or more, and secondly we cannot believe that the
creation of man took place at so late a date as results from this
genealogy, whichever text we follow. The apologetic makeshift
which interprets the names in our list as the names of '' patriar-
chal dynasties" needs no refutation.

But while rejecting the historicity of these numbers we may
yet inquire for the intention of the author. It seems altogether
likely that he was proceeding upon a theory. The round num-
ber ten as the number of generations in the first period of the
world's history indicates as much. In attempting to discover
his general scheme, we are hampered by the differences in the
texts which have come down to us. The Greek translation (in
the copies most current) adds a hundred years to the period
which elapsed in each man's life before the birth of his first son,
except in the case of two names. When allowance is made for
minor variations, this recension has still added nearly eight hun-
dred years to the period between the Creation and the Flood.
On the other hand the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch shortens

' Gen. 6 ^ a sentence of P, parallel to the declaration of J in 7 ^
^ Christian authors have generally arranged their histories of the world on
the Biblical scheme. Thus Eusebius wrote a Chronicle on this basis. The
difficulty of digesting all the Biblical data into a consistent whole is shown
by the number of Biblical chronologies that have been compiled. An ex-
tended list is given in the article Zeitrechniing'\x\ the Protest. Realencyclopadie.
The system most widely accepted among English-speaking peoples is that of
Archbishop Usher, expounded at length in his Chronologia Sacra (Works,
Vols. XI and XII) and forming the basis of his Annates Sacra (Works,
Vols. VIII and IX).

22 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

the period by about three hundred and fifty years.^ It is argued
in favour of the Samaritan form of the table that it is more sym-
metrical, shortening men's lives gradually down to the time of
Noah, who alone, as a restorer of primitive righteousness, reaches
the age of Adam. Consonant with this, the same form of text
makes the years of fatherhood a diminishing series down to Noah,
who again forms an exception. But the Greek readings have
also found numerous advocates. As pointed out by Lagarde ^
they are based upon a system, for they make three thousand
years to have elapsed at the birth of Peleg whose name (division)
indicates half the expected duration of the world — six thou-
sand years. A similar calculation lies at the basis of the received
Hebrew text, for, as has recently been shown, its author intended
to date the building of Solomon's Temple three thousand years
after the Creation. On the whole w^e may say that this is what
we should expect from the Priestly author, as to him the Temple
was really the centre of history. We need not be surprised to
find such different systems imported into the text by the change
of its readings, for the later Hebrew literature busied itself assid-
uously wMth dates and figures.^ Had the Priestly author carried
his work beyond the Conquest, we should be more certain of his
theory.

Babylonian influences seem to be indicated in this section by
the ten patriarchs, for Babylonian legend makes ten kings to
have reigned * in the antediluvian period. There is also a curi-
ous coincidence between the i68 myriads of years which the
Chaldean account assigns to the creation and the i68 hours
(seven days) which the Biblical author allows for the same event.

^ Comparative tables showing these variations are given by Heidegger,
Historia Sacra Patriarchariim, Usher, Chronologia Sacra, and by several
of the more recent writers, as Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte.

2 Syinviicta, I, p. 52 f.

^ On the three thousand years from the Creation to the Temple cf. Bousset
in the Zeitschr. fiir d. Alttest. Wissenschaft, 1900, p. 136 flF. The three
thousand years are pointed out in IV Esdras, while the Assumption of
Moses apparently indicates the same figure. The Book of Jubilees counts
fifty jubilee periods of forty-nine years each to the conquest of Canaan.

* According to Berossus. No correspondence in the names can be dis-
covered. Professor Hommel's ingenious attempt in the Proceedings of the
Society of Biblical Arclueology, 1893, p 243 fT. , was probably not intended
to be taken seriously. Traces of Babylonian influence are, however, recog-
nised by Gunkel, Genesis, p. 121 f.

THE ORIGINS 23

We can scarcely avoid seeing here an intentional contradiction —
the power of God was such that He did in an hour what the heathen
mythologist supposed would take ten thousand years. Other
calculations intended to bring the Hebrew numbers into relation
with those of the Chaldean account are too complicated to com-
mand much confidence.' What is more to our purpose here is
the evident dependence of this genealogy upon the genealogy of
Cain which just precedes it in our text. Adam, Enoch, and
Lamech are names common to the two lists. In the Greek two
others are ahke, a fact which points to their original identity;
for in this case dissimilation is a more probable result of trans-
mission than assimilation. In any case the resemblance of Mehu-
jael to Mahaleel, of Methushael to Methuselah, of Cainan to Cain
is sufficiently striking to attract our attention. Irad and Jared
differ by only a letter, and Enosh is a synonym of Adam. These
resemblances and identities make it quite certain that the Priestly
writer has copied and adapted the names given by his predeces-
sor. Conjectures which find in these names =^ mythological
survivals should therefore be applied to the Cainite table only.

Now the Cainite table is apparently a Palestinian production.
Cain the son of Adam must be the progenitor of the well-known
Kenites, the friends and allies of Israel.^ Wanderers and nomads
they were during the whole history of Israel. It does not seem
violent to see in the other names of the list clan names. In fact
we find Enoch as the name of a clan of Bedawin.* /r^^ can
scarcely be distinguished from Arad, a district of the Wilderness;
but such districts are often named from the clans that inhabit
them. Tubal has been recognised as the eponym of the Tibareni,
while Jabal and Jubal are expressly called fathers of tent-dwell-

1 Still it is remarkable that the number of weeks in the 1656 years of
Genesis is the number of f^ve-year periods in the Chaldean sum (432,000
years) ; see Marti's article Chronology in the Encyclop. Biblua. Further-
more, Enoch, the seventh in the Biblical list, corresponds to the seventh
Babylonian king who was called by the sun-god into his presence and
instructed in the secrets of astronomy and astrology. Zimmern, Btblisclu
und Babyl. Urgesch., p. 29, and also in Keilinschnften und Altes Testa-

ment,^ p. 540 ff. „> t ^ r s

2 Cf for example, Ewald, Gesc/uchte,^ I, p. 383 (Eng. Trans. I, p. 267 f.).

3 The name of the man and the name of the clan are exactly the same
in Hebrew, notice Num. 24 ", Jd. 4 ".

4 Gen. 25 *— a son of Midian would of course be a clan of Bedawin.

24 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ing and music-loving tribes. Vanished tribes, like Ad and
Thamud in Arabic literature, might well be called Mehujael
(wiped out by God) and Methushael (nimi of Sheol ).

It only confirms this to notice that Lamech is the typical
Bedawy. In possession of the sword invented by his son, the
smith, he trusts in his good right arm to avenge him on his
enemies :

'' Hearken to my voice, wives of Lamech!
Give ear to my speech.
I shall surely slay a man for wounding me,

And a lad for striking me !
If Cain is avenged sevenfold,

Then Lamech seventy and seven. " ^

The ability and the readiness to answer blow with blow and to
take abundant revenge for insults are admired in this state of
society. We have no reason to suppose that the Lamech here
depicted was anything but an admirable character to the earliest
reciter of his story. The theory sometimes advanced that Lamech
is introduced as the inventor of polygamy, and that he is con-
demned for his innovation, is entirely without foundation.

In these early chapters of Genesis we thus discover various
strata of tradition. Perhaps the oldest is the nomad saga of
Cain. According to this, the nomad Cain was the first-born of
Adam. His descendants followed their father's profession down
to Lamech, who was in fierceness and strenuousness all that the
Bedawy ought to be. From his sons sprang the various divi-
sions of mankind — hereditary guilds of herdsmen, smiths, and
musicians. With this nomad saga we may class the earliest
creation story, for, as we have seen, this story made the creation
bedn with the uninhabitable desert. In this desert Yahweh
began by planting a garden. If the desert was Northern Arabia,
the Garden was probably the oasis of Damascus.^ In the Garden,

1 Gen. 4'^^^ The Song of Lamech has given rise to much discussion. I
have adopted the interpretation of Stade. See his article on Das Kains-
zeichen in his Zeitschrift, i8g4, 1895, reprinted in his Atisge%vdhlte Akadem-
ische Reden iind Abhandlnngen, 1899.

=* The description of the Garden and its four rivers in Gen. 2 ^""^^ is a
later insertion. It evidently expresses Babylonian ideas and intends to
locate Eden in Babylonia. That the original Hebrew tradition would put
the creation of man in Syria was seen by earlier authors (as Heidegger,
Historia Sacra Patriarcharum, pp. 126, 142). The only Biblical occurrence

THE ORIGINS 2$

man was too ambitious. He aspired after the knowledge that
should make him Hke God, and he was therefore expelled. A
sign was granted him, however, as a pledge that God had not al-
together deserted him amid the dangers of the desert. When
the race began to multiply on earth came the intermarriage with
the jinn, resulting in a state of anarchy. This culminated in the
building of the tower of Babel— rumors of whose vastness must
have reached the desert-dwellers far and wide. Yahweh inter-
vened for His own protection, and the resulting state of division
among men has continued until the present day. In this narra-
tive, Noah appears to be the discoverer of the vine and the
progenitor of the inhabitants of Canaan.

The Israelite peasant had a less favourable view of the Bedawy
and his life— marauding and murderous as he knew it to be. To
him such a Hfe seemed to be the punishment for some great crime.
Hence the author who gave the tradition literary form injected
into the narrative the story of Cain and Abel— what more likely
than the murder of the unoffending Abel by the Kenite patriarch ?
In the light of this story the mark of Cain receives a new signifi-
cance, though even here it is not the stigma which popular inter-
pretation makes it. The author who made this insertion had re-
ceived also the tradition of the Deluge, and he fitted it into his
narrative as best he might, making the marriage of the angels
prepare the way for it.

Some time later P took up the subject. The treatment was too
elaborate and too mythological for him. He therefore boldly re-
wrote the whole section. After the Creation he needed only the
genealogical table, whose names he borrowed, inserting the chron-
ological data. His theory of the freedom of the will probably
accounts for his making the corruption of mankind a gradual proc-
ess. In the course of ten generations corruption became rife and
the Deluge followed. Cain and Abel disappeared and Seth alone
remained as the son of Adam from whom all mankind are derived.
We have thus representatives of various schools of thought

of the name Eden before the Exile is Am. i ^ which brings it into connect-
ion with Damascus. Further discussion of the location of Eden would be
out of place in an Old Testament History. The reader may consult Fried-
rich Delitzsch, Wo Lag das Parodies f (i88i). That the name Eden was
also Babylonian is probably true, sec Paton, Early History of Syria and Pal-
estine, p. 52-

26 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

putting before us their theories of the beginnings of mankind.*
The redactor had too much reverence for Hterature to take sides
with either against the other. He thought it a pity to lose either
document. He therefore combined them into a single nar-
rative. Doubtless there floated more or less distinctly before
his mind a theory which has been widely accepted since his time
— the theory, namely, that two types of humanity which may be
labelled the good and the bad, or the pious and the depraved,
existed from the beginning. The tribe of Cain represents the
sinners, the ungodly, the heathen ; while in the tribe of Seth we
find the pious, the righteous, the people of God.

Instead of information concerning the beginning of things we
have in these documents therefore a revelation of the progress of
religious thought in Israel from the mythologically coloured an-
thropomorphism of the ninth century before Christ down to the
transcendental (if somewhat cold) spiritual philosophy of the post-
exilic period. It has already been remarked that mythological
as the earliest sources appear they are not polytheistic. In each
of the documents Yahweh alone is the God of Israel, and He is
also the Creator of the world and of mankind.'^

The end of the first age of the world is marked by the Flood of
Noah. Our account of it is made up from two documents which
we naturally suppose to be the continuation of the two hitherto
considered. There is indeed considerable ground for the asser-

^ The reader who is interested in the various points of view now com-
bined in our book of Genesis should study carefully the excellent discussion
of Carpenter and Battersby in the first volume of their work The Hexateuch
(1900, also published as a separate volume), especially pp. 57 flf., 121, 135 f.;
and Gunkel's Legends of Genesis (1902).

'^ Until recent times all attempts to present Old Testament History have
gone on the assumption that these early chapters of Genesis were a record of
what actually took place at the beginning of the world. This treatment began
with Josephus the Jewish historian, who paraphrased the Biblical account at
the opening of his Antiquities. Among Christian writers who have followed
this method may be mentioned Sulpicius Severus, whose two books of Chron-
icles were widely read {Sulpicii Severi Chroniconim Libri Duo, Vindobonae,
1866). After the Reformation, Biblical history was treated by many promi-
nent theologians. One of the best examples is Buddeus, Historia Ecclesias-
tica Veteris Testament, 1715, often reprinted. The latest endeavour to con-
struct a history on this theory is that of Kohler, Lehrbuch der Biblischen
Geschichte Alten Testaments, 1875-1893. In the first chapter of this work
there is an extended bibliography of the subject. Recent authors usually
begin their history at a later period.

THE ORIGINS 2/

tion that the earliest Yahwist had no knowledge of a Deluge.^
But in the expanded form of his narrative which was wrought in-
to our Genesis the Deluge was already contained. We have no
difficulty in dissecting out his story. In immediate connection
with the account of the marriage of the Sons of God and the
daughters of men we have a strong statement of the corruption of
the earth : " Yahweh saw that the evil of man was great and
every purpose of his mind was only evil all the time."^ This
state of things is so distasteful to Yahweh that He repents of hav-
ing made man and resolves to wipe out the race. Noah alone
finds favour with Him and is made an excei^ion. He receives
the command to build an ark,^ and when it is completed has
seven days' warning, within which period he brings in the ani-
mals as he is commanded. There are to be seven of each species
of clean, and two of each species of unclean animals. This is to
provide for sacrificial worship after the Flood, and the form of the
command shows this writer's theory (known also from the account
of Cain and Abel) that sacrifice is as old as the race.

At the end of the seven days Noah and his family enter the
ark and the rain begins. The rain continues forty days and the
waters swell steadily for this period. Yahweh thus blots out all
that He has made from the face of the ground. As the waters are
forty days in swelling they are also forty days in ebbing.* Noah
then sends out the raven, but is apparently convinced that this
bird is not the right one to give him the information he desires.
He therefore sends out the dove (seven days later) who returns
to him at evening. After another interval of seven days he
makes another attempt with the dove and is rewarded with a

^ It is difficult to see what interest an author would have had in a gene-
alogy of Cain, and in the developing civilisation of his descendants if that
whole race was to be exterminated by the Deluge.

^ This declaration (Gen. 6'') follows now upon the statement that the
Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and that these were the mighty
men that were of old time. As the account now reads, therefore, the cor-
ruption of man is the sequel of the marriage of the angels with human wives.
Whether this was the idea of the earliest writer is doubtful.

•* The command to build the ark as originally contained in J is now lost,
having been displaced by the account of P. We must remember the redac-
tor's method — to make P the framework into which so much of J was
fitted as was possible.

* Such I take to be the meaning of 8 ^ ; the original datum has been dis-
placed.

28 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

freshly plucked olive leaf. After another week he is convinced
that it is time to leave the ark. His first act is a sacrifice, on
reception of which Yahweh vows never to repeat the destruction.

The resemblance between the Biblical account and a Baby-
lonian story has been known ever since the days of Berossus, a
Babylonian priest who wrote a history of his own people in the
fourth century B.C. His account of the Flood shows the follow-
ing points of resemblance to the one we have been considering:
(a) the hero Xisuthrus is the tenth in the line of kings which
begins with the Creation, as Noah is the tenth from Adam ; (b)
the deity commands him to build a ship, and to take into it his
friends and relations with everything necessary to sustain life, as
well as animals, both birds and quadrupeds ; (c) the command
is carried out and the flood visits the earth; (d) afterward Xisu-
thrus sends out some birds to see whether the waters have disap-
peared, an experiment which he repeats the second time, when
they come back with mud on their feet, and a third time, when
they return no more ; (e) on quitting the vessel, Xisuthrus offers
sacrifice to the gods; (f) the mountain on which the ark stranded
is in Armenia.

The original Babylonian texts now in our possession confirm
the account of Berossus, though, as we should expect, they are
more highly mythological than his reproduction. From them
we learn that the destruction of mankind was determined by a
council of all the gods. But Ea ventured to disregard the will
of the majority and resolved to save his favourite. This hero ^ re-
ceives in a dream the command to build the ship. He builds it
and makes it tight with asphalt. The rain which comes on after
he enters the ark is described most vividly — Rammam^ the
thunderer makes his voice heard ; black clouds overspread the
heavens ; the furies ( Annunaki ) bear about the torches of the
lightning. The gods themselves cower before the storm and seek
refiige in the upper heaven. Ishtar shrieks at the loss of her
worshippers. Seven days of such violence are enough to accom-
plish the object. After the ark strands upon the mountain called

^ His name is i^iven indifferent forms hy the Assyriologists, Ut-napishiim
is given l)y Jensen. P)all {Light from the East, 1899) makes it iVnh-
napishtim. Pinches {Old Test, in the Light of the Historical Records of
Assyria and Babylon, 1902) returns to the earlier form Pir-napishtim.

^ According to Winckler ; the god is called Adad by Jensen.

THE ORIGINS 29

Nisir, the hero waits seven days and then sends out in succession
a dove, a swallow, and a raven — at what intervals we are not told.
When he comes out he offers a sacrifice, over which the gods
gather like flies to enjoy the sweet odour. Bel alone is angry
that a human being has escaped, but at the intercession of Ea he
is appeased and raises the builder of the ark, his wife, and the
steersman to the rank of gods.^

The resemblances between the Hebrew and the Babylonian
account are so marked that we conclude one must be borrowed
from the other. It is i)lain that the Babylonian is the original.
The attempt to trace both to a common source in primitive
Semitic tradition is unsuccessful. The Hebrew text cannot be
older than the ninth century B.C. The Babylonian, from which
it was borrowed, is part of a great epic poem which must have
had a complicated literary history. The epic did not treat the
same problem which the Hebrew writer had in mind. The
repopulation of the world after the Deluge is quite lost sight of
in the account of Xisuthrus. His life is recounted to show that
one and another of the children of man has escaped death and
been transported to the dwelling of the gods. But this is only
to show Gilgamesh, the real hero of the poem, that death is in
fact the universal lot — the exceptions only prove the rule. It
would be wrong to say then that the Babylonian tradition con-
cerns a total destruction of mankind and a new head of the race.
So far as appears, it did not regard the destruction of mankind as
complete, and it certainly did not make the new race begin with
the hero wlio escaped the Flood.

What the account shows is that a Hebrew author took the
story, closely following its details, from Babylonian sources and
adapted it to his purpose. It is unnecessary for us to inquire
for the historical content of the Hebrew story. The occasion

^ The fragments of Berossus are given in Coxy^s Ancient Fragments (1833)
and in Winckler's KeilinschriftUches Textbuch {i%<)2). A translation may
be found in Lenormant's Beginnings of History (N. Y., 1882). The Cunei-
form text, which is part of the Gilgamesh epic, is published in transliteration,
with translation by Haupt, in Schrader's Keilinschriften und Altes Testa-
ment'^ (1883, also in English translation, The Cnneifonn Inscriptions and
the Old Testafnent, 1885-88), by Winckler in his Textbuch and by Jensen
in the Keilinschriftliche Biblwthek, VI (1900). Compare also Jastrow's
Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (1898) pp. 495-506 and the book of
Pinches cited in the preceding note.

30 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

of the Babylonian original may have been some frightful rain-
storm followed by widespread inundation of the Euphrates valley.
We may well excuse ourselves also from the task of defending
the accuracy of the account, and from the attempt to prove that
a vessel of the size of Noah's could contain all that it was built
to contain.^ Nor need we spend time on the question of the
3h universality of the Deluge. No doubt the author supposed it to
cover the entire surface of the earth. Nor can we argue either
the universality or the actuality of the catastrophe from the
number of Deluge stories that have been discovered in various
quarters of the globe.^ If the tradition arose in Babylonia from
an inundation of the Euphrates, similar stories are likely to arise
in the valley of any great river. We are not surprised, therefore,
to find a Deluge story in China, where the Hoangho has so
frightfully devastated the land many times since history began
to be written, or in the valley of the Ganges. It is noticeable,
however, that Egypt knows no Deluge, because the overflow of
the Nile is a beneficent instead of a destructive episode. If there
were a universal primitive tradition, we should expect to find it
in Egypt, so that the argument from silence has great weight.^

Two forms of the story deserve brief notice. One is the Syr-
ian, alluded to in connection with the sanctuary at Hierapolis,
where the cleft in the earth was pointed out through which the
great flood had passed into the earth.* From the locality in
which this tradition is found we have no difficulty in supposing
Babylonian influence. The more famous story is that of Deuka-
lion, which also, in the form in which it has comedown to us, may
have felt Babylonian influence. In its main stock, however, the

^ An elaborate argument of this kind is contained in Lilienthal, Gjite Sache
der Gottlichen Offenbaning, V (1754). Of course the extension of our zoo-
logical knowledge makes such an attempt increasingly difficult.

2 Perhaps the most elaborate argument of this kind is Harcourt's Doctrine
of the Deluge (2 vols., 1838), which, however, suffers from a vicious method.
The author strives to force the most irrelevant t»-aditions, names, and customs
into support of his thesis.

3 The Flood legends are collected in a little book by Andree, Die Fliit-
sagen (1891), and are compendiously treated by Diestel, Die Sintjiut tind
die Fliitsagen des Altertiims (1876).

* The treatise on the Syrian Goddess ascribed to Lucian gives this story,
and names Deukalion as the hero of the Flood. But the name Deukalion is
probably introduced for the sake of Greek readers. The reference is De
Syria Dea, 12, i^.

THE ORIGINS 31

Story of Deukalion is a purely Greek myth, having nothing to do
with a Deluge. Greek mythology knows of a number of gods
and heroes carried in chests or arks across the sea. The germ of
these representations is the rising of the sun out of the sea and
his triumphant progress across its waves shown in the glancing of
his light from crest to crest. That the Greek Deukalion is one of
these, seems evident from the name.^ In this view it is significant
that Xisuthrus in Babylonia, and Manu in the Indian story are also
gods. The common origin, if there be one, is in a myth of the
sun god. But further discussion of this phase of the subject
does not belong here.^

Heretofore we have considered only the earlier form of the
Hebrew Flood story — the one recorded by J. The Priestly
writer, however, also treated the subject. In fact it fitted in ex-
cellently wdth his conception of God as the almighty Judge of
mankind. His account is apparently preserved for us entire, and
it differs from that of his predecessor by its detailed and schematic
character. He makes it a distinct chapter of his work, under the
title of the Genealogy of Noah. He enumerates the sons of Noah
and gives their names. The dimensions of the ark, its division
into storys, and its materials are also given. The door and the
window^ are mentioned.

The thoroughness of the destruction is stated in unmistakable
language. But where the earlier account commands that seven
animals of the kind fit for sacrifice be brought into the ark with
two of other species, this author makes no distinction, bringing in
a single pair of each kind. The kinds are enumerated in language
that reminds us of this author's account of the creation : "Of
birds after their kind and of cattle after their kind, and of all the
creepers of the ground after their kind." * Behind this alteration

' Deukalion is a diminutive of Zeus. The whole subject is discussed in
the most interesting manner by Usener, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuch-
ungen III (1899), cf. also Encyc. Bihlica, I, Col. 1059.

^ Besides the literature already cited the student may consult the commen-
taries on Genesis, and especially Buttmann's Mythologus, I, p. 180 ff. Butt-
mann may be said to have begun the scientific study of the subject.

' The word for window indeed occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament,
but the author who reflected on all the details must have supposed light ne-
cessary to the inmates of the great chest.

* Gen. 6-°, cf. also 7^*. It is, of course, very possible that P based his ac-
count on some Flood story that has not been preserved to us. Cf. Gunkel,
Genesis, p. g2.

32 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

of his predecessor's data is the theory that sacrifice was not offered
until the giving of the Law. A marked feature of this account
is the Chronology. The beginning of the Deluge is dated in the
six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the
seventeenth day of the month. As the year probably began in
the autumn, the season of the opening Flood would be that of the
winter rains. ^ The culmination of the waters is dated on the
seventeenth day of the seventh month. The first stage of their
recession is marked at the first day of the tenth month. The com-
plete disappearance of the waters is recorded on the first day of
the new year, and Noah's exit from the ark takes place on the
twenty-seventh of the second month. The whole duration of
the Flood is therefore one year and ten days.

It is generally conceded that the author intends to indicate an
exact solar year by his calculation; for a solar year is about ten
days more than twelve lunations. That the early Hebrews cal-
culated the month by observation of the moon is well known.
It was forcibly brought to their attention, therefore, that the solar
year, necessarily at the basis of the agricultural calendar, did not
fit in with the lunar computation. The intercalation of an addi-
tional month was the method taken ^ to bring them into har-
mony. All that we are now interested to observe is that our
author makes the solar year twelve months and ten days. In
fact the excess of the solar year above twelve lunations is about
eleven days. But as we have elsewhere an obstinate defence of
a year of 364 days we may assume that Jewish tradition had
fixed upon this number in defiance of exact astronomical obser-
vation.^ More difficulty is made by his reckoning five months
at a hundred and fifty days, as he is seen to do when we com-
pare Gen. 7 2^ with 8 ^. Either he was here influenced by the

^ According to P the reckoning of the spring month Abib as the be-
ginning of the year dates from Moses. The Babylonian account makes
the Flood begin in winter. Cf. Encyc. Bib., I, Col. 1059.

2 So we judge from the Talmud. There is no Old Testament affirmation
on the subject.

^ The Book of Jubilees explicitly declares that a year is 364 days, that is,
exactly fifty-two weeks. This seems to be an a priori affirmation — God
would make His year an exact number of weeks, the week being the founda-
tion of His calendar. The book of Enoch is also tenacious of a year of 364
days. Both these books rest upon the account in (Jenesis, as is shown by
Bacon. Hebraica VHI, p. 126.

THE ORIGINS 33

alleged Babylonian custom of counting thirty days to a month,
or else more than one hand has been concerned in the nar-
rative.

As we should expect from this author's larger conception of
the power of God, his account is more distinctly miraculous than
that of his predecessor. The rain, however violent, is not enough
(as he supposes) to bring about the flood. The windows of the
great celestial storehouse of water are therefore opened and the
fountains of the subterranean reservoir burst out. In accordance
with the greatness of the calamity is the completeness of the de-
struction: "And there died all flesh that moves on the earth, birds
and cattle and wild animals and the swarming life on the earth,
as well as all mankind." The height of the waters is not left to
the imagination — fifteen cubits above the highest mountain satis-
fies all the requirements. Another miraculous feature seems to
be that P makes the animals come to Noah at the time they are
needed, without any effort on his part to collect them.

So far, the narrator has simply rewritten the story according
to his presuppositions. One detail remains in which he has
enriched the text ; after the Deluge God makes a covenant with
Noah — or rather grants a covenant to Noah, for in P the Deity
never appears as one of the contracting parties to an agreement;
He imposes regulations or grants privileges as the Sovereign of the
universe. The constitution here imposed extends the rights of
man over the animals so that he may use them as food. With
the permission comes, however, a strict prohibition of the eating of
blood. This is in accordance with P's theory that the Law was
the culmination of God's revelations to mankind, and that it was
preceded by rudimentary regulations designed to lead up to it.
On this theory antediluvian man received the fruits as his por-
tion, with no legislation except the command to subdue the
earth to cultivation. Noah received permission to eat flesh, ac-
companied by a prohibition of blood and of murder. Abraham
received the ordinance of circumcision with a strict command to
observe it. Moses received the full legal system. It does not
seem out of place, therefore, that this arrangement is recorded
here. The eating of blood was so abhorrent to the Jew that he
could not suppose it was ever allowed even to the Gentile world.
Possibly our author was aware that in some Gentile religions the
eating of blood was regarded as sacrilegious. It would be easy

34 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

for him to conclude that mankind had received the prohibition
before the dispersion of the descendants of Noah.

At first sight it seems highly mythological, and therefore con-
trary to the view of P, that the rainbow is introduced as the sign
of the covenant. It is, of course, possible that this item was
originally in J, and copied from him by P. The bow was
originally the bow of the Thunderer, which he laid aside at the
conclusion of tlie storm. This is its real mythological interpre-
tation, and in this view of it we see how far our author is from
the original mythology. To him the bow has become simply the
sign of the covenant — ^just as circumcision is in the divine good
pleasure made a sign of the covenant with Abraham. From this
point of view the bow has a reason for existence in the account in
which we find it. Babylonian or Assyrian parallels have not yet
been discovered. Nor can we say in general that the details of
P show Babylonian influence.^

Our examination of the story of the Deluge confirms what we
discovered in regard to the account of the Creation. Histori-
cal, it cannot be called. In its origin it is mythological, with a
possible early inundation of the Euphrates as its basis in actual
occurrence. From Babylon it wandered to the west and was
naturalised in Canaan. An early Israelite writer stripped it of
its polytlieism and made it tell of the justice of Yahweh upon a
race of aggressors. After the Exile the Priestly author, finding
it too primitive in its theology, pruned it of its more anthropo-
morphic features and made it introduce God's earliest covenant.
A redactor, to whom we cannot be too grateful, thought it a pity
to lose either story, and combined the two in a single narrative.
History of the world is not given by it ; history of Israel's tradi-
tion is here in abundance.

^ Of course we do not know what Assyriology may yet have in store for
us. Jensen {Encyc Bib , 1, col. 1060) supposes the rainbow to belong to J
originally. It should be remarked that the prohibition of blood is supposed
by some to be a later insertion; cf. Holzinger in Marti, Handkottimentar.

CHAPTER III

THE PATRIARCHS

The greater part of the Book of Genesis is taken up with the
history of the Patriarchs. After the confusion of tongues the
next great event is tlie call of Abraham. In obedience to this
call he leaves the East and comes to Canaan. What follows is
the family history of the progenitors of Israel, ending with the
settlement of the whole clan in Egypt. Abraham himself lives
the nomad life in Canaan. He pitches his tent at different points
from Shechem to the border of Egypt, on occasion going into
Egypt itself. Isaac leads a more settled life, being found for the
most part in the Negeb or South Country. Jacob is a man of
many wanderings, spending his youth in Canaan, but going to
the East for his wives, returning to Canaan with great possessions,
and emigrating to Egypt in his old age.

The many duplicates in the story and the inconsistencies of
its parts cause us to pursue the analysis which we have already
begun. It is not difficult to discover the main strands of the nar-
rative, which have now become three in number. The frame-
work continues to be furnished by the Priestly writer, whose
fondness for numbers and for orderly arrangement we have had
occasion to notice. If we had his book alone, our material
would be very limited. In the life of Abraham he begins with a
genealogy which gives the Patriarch his place in the line of Seth.
The emigration from Ur-Kasdim to Haran and from Haran to
Canaan is narrated very briefly. The separation from Lot re-
quires but a single sentence. The only incidents of importance
to the writer are : the covenant between God and the Patriarch,
which is ratified by the seal of circumcision ; the promise of a
son, which is followed by the birth of Isaac; and the death of
Sarah, which gives occasion for the purchase of the cave of
Machpelah. This can hardly be called a life of Abraham ; it
is the barest outline designed to embody a theory of universal
history.

36 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Isaac and Jacob inherit the promises — this is about all we can
say of them as they appear in the sketch of P. The older stories
were not wanting in details that gave offence to the later writer.
Hence his bare mention of Isaac, and the summary way in which
Jacob is treated. This father of the tribes is sent to the East to
get a wife of kindred blood. The return is followed by a reve-
lation at Bethel, with the change of name from Jacob to Israel.
The story of Joseph shrinks to a mere allusion, but we receive a
list of Jacob's descendants, and are told of his death and burial.

This outline shows that we cannot depend upon P for historical
material. His interest is not at all in the life of the Patriarchs,
and indeed his Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are without individu-
ality and without life. Very different is the impression made
when we turn to the other documents, or the composite narrative
into which they have been woven. Here, at any rate, is life, and
here is colour. We are admitted to the family of the heroes,
hear their prevarications and quarrels, see the sanctuaries at which
they worship, admire the hospitality of Abraham and his faith,
follow with breathless attention the romantic fortunes of Joseph,
and rejoice with him when he welcomes his aged father to a new
home. The charm and power of these stories are attested by the
hold they have had upon a hundred generations of readers.

In the troublesome task of getting at real history, however, we
are confronted at once by difficulties. The El-Amarna tablets
show us the condition of Canaan at the time when our docu-
ments suppose the Patriarchs to be sojourning there. We learn
that the country was thickly settled, the inhabitants living in
fortified towns which were often at war with each other. Nomad
tribes were pressing in from the desert, making the open country
unsafe, and even compelling the towns to make terms w^ith them.
This state of things seems to have been chronic. It leaves no
place for the peaceable immigrant like Abraham. For the most
striking thing about our stories is the absence of real warfare.
The authors are indeed aware that the Canaanite was then in the
land, but the knowledge has left scarcely a trace on the narrative.
When Abraham and Lot, with their flocks and herds, separate, it
is only because the land is not able to bear them ; that is, be-
cause there is not pasture enough for the cattle. Never a word
is there of Canaanitish opposition to such overrunning of the
country. The eternal feud between the cultivator and the shep-

THE PATRIARCHS 37

herd is known to us in later times. We are sure that a nomad
clan could not occupy the pasture lands except at the point of
the sword. But Abraham's sword nowhere appears in the nar-
rative. There might be an arrangement such as at a later time
existed between the Kenites and the Hebrews. But this is a cove-
nant relation, and Abraham never enters into covenant with the
Canaanites. There is a covenant relation established between
Abraham (or Isaae) and Abimelech at Gerar.^ But even this
covenant only establishes the title to some wells. It could not
give the nomads general rights of pasture throughout the country.
The picture presented by the authors of Genesis seems to as-
sume that the Patriarchs moved about the country, finding no
let or hindrance from anyone. They built altars, and so estab-
lished sanctuaries where they would. We might almost think of
the land as entirely without inhabitants were it not for the ex-
press declaration of the presence of the Canaanite already cited.
Two incidents only, seem to throw more light on the situation.
The first of these is Abraham's battle with the kings, narrated
in Genesis 14. Here, to our surprise, Abraham appears as a gen-
eral. He has a body of trained slaves which enables him to defeat
an army of regulars. The inconsistency of the picture with what
we find elsewhere is plain enough. Where was this valiant band
of retainers when Sarah was taken into the harem of Pharaoh ?
The doubt suggested by the discordance in the accounts is con-
firmed by closer examination of the narrative of victory itself.
The route of Chedorlaomer^ is unintelligible if his objective
point was the cities of the Plain. The mustering of four Mesopo-
tamian kings against the five towns was ludicrously out of pro-
portion. The victory of Abraham, the complete recovery of the
spoil, and the lack of any attempt on the part of Chedorlaomer
to re-establish himself, are alike inconceivable. We are com-
pelled, therefore, to leave this section out of our calculation. Its
discordance with the general picture is too pronounced to allow
us to regard it as historical.^

' Gen. 21 and 26. The two accounts are duplicates of one tradition.

2 The archaic allusion to Rephaim and Zuzim (Gen. 14^"'), and other
long-perished nations seems to be based on the notice in Deut. 2. The
route around the Dead Sea, into the desert and back, is impracticable for an
army.

^ Desperate attempts have been made of late years to rescue the historicity
of this chapter, on the ground of Babylonian literature. All that seems to be

38 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Before examining the other case of Patriarchal warfare we must
consider the general question which confronts us: In what sense
are the names of the Patriarchs understood by the original au-
thors? In response to this we must admit that Jacob or Israel is
in the Old Testament, for the most part, the name of a people
rather than of an individual. In the earlier prophets the Patri-
archs as individuals do not appear. When we consider that the
stories of J and E are earlier than Amos, this is a remarkable fact.
It seems to indicate that Amos and Hosea, at any rate, had little
idea of the Patriarchs as individual men. ^ To the Oriental it is
natural to speak of the clan as an individual. Thus the Arab
will use indifferently the sentences, The Banii Nizarmade a foray,
and Nizar made a foray. Hebrew usage was not different, as we
see from such a sentence as, " Israel went out to meet Philistim
in war."^ The same fact is abundantly illustrated in the genea-
logical tables. The author of Genesis lo groups the nations of
his world in families. The ''sons" of Japhet are Gomer, Ma-
gog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. From other
references in the Old Testament we have no difficulty in identify-
ing these names as the names of nations. Equally transparent is
the assertion that the '' sons " of Ham are Cush, Egypt, Phut, and
Canaan. Almost more expressive is the declaration that Egypt
begat Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuchim, Pathrusim, Caslu-
him, and Caphtorim.^ The names in this sentence are in form
names of tribes, and never were anything else. What the author
has in mind is that the people of Egypt fall into groups which

established is that the author of our section knew by tradition of early Elam-
itic supremacy in Western Asia. The reader may compare Hommel, Altis-
raelitische Ueberlieferiing (1897), pp. 147-202, and the article Chedorlaoiner
in the Encyc. Bib., I, 732, also Gunkel, Handkommentar, Genesis, p.
262 flf.

^ Amos uses the names Isaac, Jacob, and Israel always of the people,
never of individuals. Hosea in one passage ( 1 2 ^-^'^) alludes to the history
of Jacob as an individual. Abraham does not appear in the prophetic litera-
ture till the Exile. Cf. Hollmann, Untersuchtingen Tiber die Erzvdter bei
den Propheten (1897).

^ I Sam. 4 ', where the English disguises the fact that Philistim is a per-
sonification like Israel.

'Gen. lo'^'. The Hebrew adds out of which (Casluhim, but perhaps
more properly to be attached to Caphtorim) came forth Philistim. This is
doubtless a later insertion, but the point of view of authors and editors is
tiie same in the matter we are now considering.

THE PATRIARCHS 39

call themselves Ludim, Anamim, and so on. It is doubtful
whether he supposed there ever was a man called Egypt or that
he had sons whom he named Ludim or Anamim. The genea-
logical scheme was a convenient way of representing the facts of
geography and it was nothing more. Even if the Biblical writers
supposed that nations or tribes descended from a single individ-
ual, we are able to say on the basis of large historical investi-
gation that this is never the case. The nation of Egypt had
existed for thousands of years before the earliest Hebrew writer
reflected on history. It is quite certain that the nation could
not trace its origin to a single ancestor.

It is doubtful whether we are on more secure footing m the
other genealogical sections. We may take for example the fam-
ily of Esau.^ One of his wives was Oholibama, which is quite
certainly a clan. Among his sons or grandsons we find Teman,
Kenaz, and Amalek, which also are names of place or clan. When
we reflect on the number of Edomite clans which must have per-
ished without leaving any record of themselves, we see the strong
probability that if our knowledge were more complete we should
be able to identify all the names in the list as names of clans.
Esau would then take his place by the side of Egypt, as simply
the eponym of the Edomite people. We come to the same
result when we examine the table of Ishmael. In this case we
know that Ishmael itself is a tribe name, as is Hagar. Among
the descendants we recognise Nebaioth, Kedar, Dumah, Massa,
and Tema as place or clan names. And when we turn to the
list of Abraham's descendants by Keturah we identify Midian,
Sheba, Dedan, and Ephah without difficulty.'

These examples enable us to assert that the common method
of our Hebrew writers (for all the documents are ahke in this re-
spect) was to personify clans, tribes, nations, or geographical divi-
sions, and treat them as individuals. Probably the writers them-
selves were in many cases aware that the individuals of whom they
wrote were only personifications— it is impossible that a single
man should bear the name Caphtorim or Philistim. The author
who affirmed that Canaan begat Sidon and Heth and the whole

« Gen. 36. The list of " dukes " of Edom is simply a list of clans in-

''"cen. ts -'-'■ The identifications may be considerably increased in
number with the help of the inscriptions.

40 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

list of nations of that group, must have known that he was using
imagery — as well as a writer of the present day knows what he
means when he speaks of Columbia and her daughters.

The names of the sons of Jacob are all names of tribes, and
what is true of the names just considered must be true of these
also. This is made clear by the oldest portions of our literature.
By common consent we may consider under this head the Song
of Deborah and the Testament of Jacob. ^ In the former we
find Reuben sarcastically questioned : " Why didst thou sit
among the ash-heaps, to listen to the pipings at the sheepfolds?"
The Reuben thus addressed is the tribe. In the rest of the poem
Gilead, Dan, Asher, Zebulon, and Naphtali are likewise men-
tioned or apostrophised as individuals. This is of course only
legitimate poetical personification, and it might not throw any
light on usage elsewhere. But the comparison of this poem with
the Testament of Jacob is instructive, for in the latter the casual
reader may find individuals where tribes alone were in the mind
of the writer. " Simeon and Levi are brothers ; deceit and vio-
lence are their weapons " ^ — the verse would apply to individ-
ual warriors, and in view of the story of Dinah we should naturally
interpret it so. But when we read further, " I will divide them
in Jacob and scatter them in Israel," we see distinctly that the
tribes must be in the writer's mind. With this clue we may go
through the poem, and we discover that all the personages are
personifications.^ Judah is the tribe that rejoices in conquest
and in the cultivation of the vine — the Patriarch Judah had no
such character. Zebulon lives on the sea-shore ; Issachar is a
tributary, rendering forced labour to his master ; Dan is a high-
way robber ; Gad is a rider on forays ; Asher is a cultivator ;
Joseph is a successful warrior and is blessed with a fertile country;
Benjamin is a warrior and plunderer. The author could scarcely
have put together a list that differed more widely from the char-
acter of the individual Patriarchs. But applied to the tribes,
everything is appropriate.

^ Judges 5 and Gen. 49

2 The verse (Gen. 49 ^) is obscure in some of its words, but the general
sense is sufficiently clear.

^ Reuben alone seems to be an exception, but even in his case there is
only one sentence (v.*) that requires an individualistic interpretation. This
sentence must therefore be a poetical representation of some tribal episode
now lost to us.

THE PATRIARCHS 41

What we have seen in these oldest documents is the constant
personification of the tribes, with the consciousness that tribes
are meant. In other passages of Genesis the same consciousness
crops out. Thus Rebekah is told: "Two nations are in thy
womb" — not two men, or two fathers of tribes. In Isaac's
blessing upon his son Jacob we read:

" May nations serve thee, and peoples bow before thee ;
Be lord over thy brothers, and may thy mother's sons bow before
thee."

It would be pertinent to ask why brothers and mother's sons are
mentioned in the plural when Jacob never had but one brother.
Besides, it was never true of Jacob the Patriarch that nations
served him. There can be no doubt that the poet's whole field
of vision was occupied by the two peoples Edom and Israel. This
is strikingly confirmed by the other benediction (if we call it
so) in the same story :

" Away from the rich fields shall be thy dwelling ;
And without the dew of heaven from above ;
By thy sword thou shalt live ; and thy brother thou shalt serve ;
But when thou growest strong, thou shalt break his yoke from thy
neck." '

Here also the people of Edom are really the subject — Esau never
served his brother, but the Edomites were subjugated by David,
and later threw off the yoke thus placed upon them. In this in-
stance we have a clear case in which the story of the Patriarchs
is a poetic reflection of the historical relations of two peoples.

Historical relations rather than historical incidents are reflected
in these stories. In a few instances historical incidents may be
behind the story. The most striking example is the story of
Dinah, already alluded to as one of the two warlike incidents in
the lives of the Patriarchs. We must suppose that what actually
took place was something as follows: In the course of the immi-
gration of Israel the people came into conflict with the town of
Shechem. One clan (Dinah) was conquered by the Canaanites
and made tributary. The bulk of the people (Jacob) thought

1 Gen. 27 ""'^ •■• ; cf. v.-^. The text of *'' is apparently corrupt. I have fol-
lowed Ball with some misgiving. The fact that this last clause was added
later (Gunkel) does not interfere with the argument — the clause is quite in
the spirit of the context.

42 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

themselves not strong enough to avenge the wrong. But two
clans were of a different mind. These (Simeon and Levi)
formed a treacherous plan by which to release their sister clan.
They therefore affected to be satisfied with the new arrangement,
and proposed a general alliance with rights of intermarriage on
condition that the Canaanites adopt the rite of circumcision.
This being agreed to, they fell upon the unsuspecting town when
the men were disabled by the operation and massacred the whole
male population.^ The events are represented to us in the story
by the acts of the individual sons and daughters of Jacob.

Not many of the Genesis stories are so clearly historical as
this one; and those that are historical deal with events of a later
time. What interests us here is, first, the fact that the Patriarchs
cannot be taken as individuals. If individuals Reuben, Gad, and
Judah never existed, it is plain that individuals Jacob, Isaac, and
Abraham cannot have any more substantial reality. We have
to do here with figures of the poetic or legend-building imagina-
tion. After the clans began to be treated as individuals the
story-tellers busied themselves lovingly with these interesting
figures. They became the heroes of adventure, and the character
of the various peoples began to be reflected in their eponyms.
The most striking is Jacob. In this cunning adventurer we see
the ideals of nomad Israel admirably depicted. When we have
ceased to be uneasy at seeing such a character held up as a pattern
saint, then we begin to appreciate the skill with which he is
described.

A story of this kind is properly called a saga. Such sagas cir-
culate orally long before there is any written literature. They
are products of the poetic imagination. If one of them has a
historical incident as its basis, the incident is transformed. For
the most part, however, the interest of the narrator is not histor-
ical but social. The picture drawn is one of personal and family
life, as we see in the stories of the Patriarchs. '' We hear a num-
ber of details which, whether we take them for authentic or not,
are of no value for [political] history: that Abraham was pious
and magnanimous, that he once sent away his concubine to grat-
ify his wife, that Jacob deceived his brother, that Leah and
Rachel were jealous of each other — unimportant anecdotes of

' The composite nature of the narrative (Gen. 34) is shown by Ball and
Gunkel. I have followed what seems to me the older form of the story.

THE PATRIARCHS 43

country life, histories of wells, of watering troughs, of the inner
chamber, delightful to read but anything rather than historical
events." The author from whom I am quoting adds, what is
evident on reflection, that whereas in genuine historical tra-
dition we must find a way in which eye-witnesses of the events
have communicated their observations to the narrator of the his-
tory, in the Patriarchal sagas we have an interval of four hundred
years (in any case) between the events and the narrator. It is
impossible to suppose that tradition has carefully conserved the
smallest details of Patriarchal family life during all this period.^

At one time there must have existed a great mass of this poet-
ical material. It was in the form of detached stories, each a
unit in itself. When a written literature began, the stories had
already been grouped in a genealogical scheme. This fact is
shown by the plan common to J and E, which plan made it easy
to combine the two documents in a single narrative. The origi-
nal separateness of the sagas is shown by the duplicates which we
find in our documents. Thus the prevarication concerning a
wife is related once of Abraham and twice of Isaac ; the conse-
cration of Bethel is attributed to Abraham and also to Jacob;
the name of Beersheba is given by Abraham and also by Isaac*

Two things strike the attention in considering these stories.
The first is, that they have the nomad life as their ideal. No
doubt this is a historical recollection — the Israelites were Beda-
win before their settlement in Canaan. This they confess by
making Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob nomads. The only exception
is Isaac, who is represented as sowing and reaping, and who is
therefore thought of as beginning the agricultural life. How
the Israelite conceived the ideal shepherd is seen in the case of
Jacob. His skill in caring for his flocks, his fidelity in watching
them by day and by night, ^ his shrewdness in dealing with the
cunning and covetous Laban, his diplomatic method of concili-
ating the powerful chieftain Esau after he had twice overreached
him — all these show us the shepherd as (according to the concep-
tion of the times) he ought to be. The frank worldliness of the

' Gunkel, Genesis, p. iii. Gunkel's whole introduction (now accessible in
English with the title The Legends of Genesis) is instructive and valuable.

'.The prevarication, Gen. 12 ^^-^o, 20, and 26^-^6; Bethel, Gen. 128,
28 10-" and 35 15 ; Beersheba, Gen. 21 "-3i and 26 26-35,

»Gen. 3138-40

44 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

story in many of its phases contrasts strangely with the rehgious
tone which runs through it. But this is the nature of early relig-
ion— the God who can give success is the God who commands
the faith of primitive man. We lose the point of the ancient
story when we read into it our own religious ideas.

It follows that the main interest of this material is the picture
it gives of the nomad life at its best. Abraham's faith and hospi-
tality have been justly admired in all ages. The contest of cunning
between Jacob and Laban is equally vivid, if not equally admi-
rable. The arrogance of the maid-servant who has been promoted
to her master's bed ; the jealousy of two wives in the same house-
hold, and the superstitious means they use to get offspring; the
father's indulgence of the son of his favourite and the consequent
hatred of the other sons — these are drawn to the life, and show us
how things go in polygamous society. Slavery is assumed as a
matter of course, and the position which the trusted slave may
attain is shown in the story of the wooing of Rebekah, as it is in
the story of Joseph in Egypt. That the standard of morality
falls short of that which we hold, has already been intimated.
Abraham's cowardly denial of his wife is rewarded with flocks
and herds ; Jacob's hard bargain with his brother and his fraud
in the matter of the blessing are nowhere blamed. His dealing
with Laban is a case of diamond cut diamond. Rachel's theft
of the Teraphim is a matter of amusement to the narrator — the
household god is not the object of heartfelt reverence when he
can be thus literally sat upon by a woman. Tamar's heroism in
securing by fraud the levirate rights which have been withheld
from her, doubtless appealed strongly to those who first heard
the tale, and the more drastic measures of Lot's daughters also
awakened something like admiration. The frankness of the por-
trayal is equally instructive, whether the characters be real or
imaginary. The strong moral sense is evident, though the mo-
rality is not that of our time.

The interest of the authors is evidently centred in the land of
Palestine. A large number of the stories are intended to account
for place names. One is intended to account for the physical
conformation of the country — this is the story of the destruction
of Sodom. The Dead Sea is a phenomenon calculated to give
rise to a saga. Many another lake is supposed to have swallowed
up villages or cities, whose towers the boatman thinks he sees be-

THE PATRIARCHS 45

neath the waters, whose church bells he seems to hear on a calm
evening. The cause of such a catastrophe can be nothing less
than the wrath of the gods. In the well-known story of Philemon
and Baucis the wrath of the gods is aroused by the inhospitable
conduct of the people. The people of Sodom are worse than in-
hospitable, and the wrath of Yahweh leaves its permanent impress
upon the region, in the uncanny Sea with its burned and barren
shore. That no marked change in the natural features of the re-
gion has taken place within historic times is now generally con-
ceded. The value of the story to us is its abhorrence of the un-
natural vices of the Canaanites — vices from which Israel itself
was not free. ^

Much interest is shown by our authors in the legends which
had gathered around the various sanctuaries of Canaan. We
must remember that the worship on every high hill and under
every green tree which Jeremiah so earnestly denounces, was for
many centuries the established worship in Israel. Hence the re-
ligious motive which led the early writers to trace these sanctu-
aries to Patriarchal consecration. Bethel is one of these holy
places. According to one story it was sacred because Abraham
had built an altar there. According to another, Jacob had a rev-
elation which showed him there the ladder which was the gate of
heaven. A third account makes him receive there a direct prom-
ise from Yahweh.^ In commemoration of the revelation a
ma((el?a or sacred pillar is set up by Jacob, which he regards as
the symbol or rather the residence of the divinity — for the stone
is called House-of-God, We could hardly have a more vivid
commentary on the declaration of the Book of the Covenant :
*' In every place where I bring my name to remembrance I will
come to thee and bless thee." In the consciousness of the people,
certain places were sacred. Their sacredness was made known by
God's bringing Himself to mind in some extraordinary event, an
omen or a dream. Where the divine presence was thus made
known an altar was erected and a pillar set up. There the people

' Compare Judges 19. On similar sagas, Cheyne, in ih^ New World, 1892,
pp. 236-245; Usener, Sintflutsagen, p. 246 f.; Andree, Fhitsagen, p. 49 f.
On the various elements which enter into the Sodom story, Gunkel, Genesis,
p. 194 f.

^ The two accounts of Jacob's dream are now woven into one (J E) ; cf.
the commentaries on Genesis, or Ball's text — Gen. 28. Abraham's altar is
mentioned Gen. 12^.

46 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

came with their tithes ; there they celebrated the yearly festivals,
poured oil upon the sacred stone, slept under the supernatural in-
fluence, hoping to receive a revelation in a dream. ^

The state of things before the eyes of the narrator was this :
every village had a sanctuary of this kind, every remarkable
tree was regarded as the seat of a divinity, many of the fountains
which were a source of blessing to the land were likewise sacred.
All this state of things went back to the pre-prophetic stage of
religion. Doubtless the sacredness of many of these sites was
first attributed to them by the Canaanites. Israel adopted the
sanctuaries and consecrated them to Yahweh. And a part of the
adoption was effected by connecting them with the Patriarchs.
Thus Abraham built many altars in his wanderings. He also
planted sacred trees. For the information that he planted a
tamarisk at Beersheba and called there upon the name of Yahweh
El-Ola?n would be useless unless it meant that the tree was con-
secrated to the divinity. It can scarcely be accidental, therefore,
that Abram has a theophany at the Oak of the Oracle, or that his
altar is placed by the Oaks of Mamre.'^

A theophany shows the sacredness of Penuel, and the name of
the place {Face-of-God~) is its memorial. Beer-lahai-roi is a
similar locality, though the etymology is obscure. The place
where Abraham offered Isaac is another instance — the place was
evidently sacred before Abraham was made acquainted with it.
A different sort of sanctuary is one where an ancestor or ancestors
are buried. Thus the Tomb of Rachel is evidently sacred, for Jacob
erected a fna((eba there. The interest which originally attached
to the Cave of Machpelah is of the same kind. These graves were
sanctuaries, and in the early religion of Israel the manes were
worshipped at the place of burial.^ Machpelah has continued to

' Jacob is the inaugurator of this method of inquiring the divine will.
For parallels in other religions see Deubner, De Incubatione {i()00). On
sacred stones or pillars in other religions, see the article Baiiulos in Roscher,
Lexicon der Griechischen unci Romischeyi Mythologie, I, p. 746.

2 Gen. 12^, 13 '^ 21 3^. On the sanctity of fountains, trees, and hills
among the Semitic peoples, cf. Baudissin's essay in his Studien zur Semit-
ischen Religionsgeschichte, II, pp. 143-268 ; and Curtiss's chapter on the
High-places in his Primitive Semitic Religion (1902).

^ It would seem that a maffeba was also placed upon the grave of Deb-
orah : Gen 35 ^, continued in v. ^*. A survival of the worship of the manes
is the reverence paid at the tombs of " saints" all through the East at the

THE PATRIARCHS 47

be a sanctuary, as we know, down to the present time. Prob-
ably this, Hke the other sacred places, was originally consecrated
to a Canaanitish god. Whether Abraham was originally such a
god, may' be doubted.^ The reason why P lays such emphasis
upon Machpelah is doubtless that he wished to contradict the
Edomite claim to Hebron, which became offensive in the post-
exilic period.

The writers we are considering were also especially interested
in the possession of Canaan by Israel. They could account for
the success of their ancestors in securing so goodly a land only by
supposing an act of grace on the part of God. Hence we find
frequent emphasis of God's promises to the Patriarchs, His cov-
enant with them, and His protecting care. He causes a terror to
fall ujDon the Canaanites so that they do not pursue Jacob after
the massacre at Shechem. He warns Abimelech against trespass-
ing upon Abraham's marital rights. He forbids Laban to do
Jacob any harm.^ This protecting care is recorded in the names
of some of the characters — Ishmael is so called because his prayer
(or that of his mother) is heard. The birth of Ishmael, Isaac,
Esau, Jacob is due to especial divine favour, because the wives of
the Patriarchs were barren. Most impressive of all is the nearness
of Yahweh to His clients. He comes to them frequently in
dreams or theophanies. He makes and repeats promises of pro-
tection and prosperity. He enters into solemn covenant with
Abraham, condescending to the methods by which human con-
tracts are ratified, and the promise is repeated to Isaac and
Jacob. For Abraham's sake Lot is rescued in the destruction
of Sodom. Even the prevarication in the matter of Sarah is
made an occasion for blessing the Patriarch — the sincerity of
the author's religion does not, of course, excuse his defective
moral sense.

Historically it was a puzzle that Lot, the nephew of Abraham,
should be separated from Israel by the Dead Sea. The saga of

present day. A considerable literature might be cited on the subject of ani-
mism in the religion of Israel. The most recent monographs to date are
Frey, Tod, Seelenglaiibe und Seelenkidt im alien /sra e / (iSqS) ; and Griin-
eisen, Der Ahnenkulhis und die Urreligion /srae/s (igoo).

^ As we are here considering only the Patriarchal stories, a complete enu-
meration of the early sanctuaries is not attempted. A copious list is given
by Freiherr von Gall, Altisraelitische Kidtstdtten (1898).

2 Gen. 2o3-^ 3129, 355.

48 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

the destruction of Sodom is made to account for the situation.
Esau was the older brother of Jacob — why should he have the less
desirable country? The saga accused him of selling his birth-
right, or told how Jacob was shrewd enough to cheat him of the
blessing. The dismissal of Ishmael and of the sons of Keturah
to the Arabian wilderness confirms Jacob's title to the country.
Jacob's covenant with Laban seems to embody the idea that
Israelites and Arameans should respect the boundary cairn in
Gilead and live in peace with each other. Isaac's treaty with the
Philistines secures the title to some wells in the South Country.
Abraham's purchase of Machpelah and Jacob's purchase of land
at Shechem are designed to authenticate the title of their descen-
dants.

Care for purity of blood was early reinforced by religious mo-
tives. From this point of view we understand Abraham's anxiety
to secure one of his kinswomen as a wife for Isaac. The same
motive sends Jacob to Laban. It seems a little curious that Ta-
mar the Canaanitess should be made so prominent — we can ac-
count for the prominence only by supposing that her loyalty to
duty made her worthy to rank with the best of Israel's mothers.
A reaction against Canaanitish religion is perhaps seen in the
story of the sacrifice of Isaac, for the lesson of the story in its
present form is that Yahweh does not require sacrifice of the
first-born, but accepts an animal instead.

What has been said is enough to show that we have no really
historical knowledge of a patriarchal period preceding Israel's
conquest of Canaan. The individuals, Abraham, Isaac, and Ja-
cob, are eponyms — personifications of clans, tribes, or ethnologi-
cal groups — and they are nothing more. But, as the religious
mind is reluctant to give up the flesh and blood reality of these
figures, it may repay us to review the evidence once more. The
following positions seem to be established :

The earliest literature we have is conscious that the sons of
Israel of which it speaks (Reuben, Judah, and the others) are
only personifications of the tribes which inhabit Canaan. But if
these are personifications, then a fortiori Israel himself is a per-
sonification, and the more remote ancestors can have no more
substantial existence than the nearer one.

The state of the country, indicated by the patriarchal stories, is
contrary to fact. The only immigration possible in the Amarna

THE PATRIARCHS 49

period, was a warlike invasion, such as actually took place at
the conquest — not a peaceable sojourn like that of Abraham.

The nature of the information given by the stories is such that
we cannot suppose it handed down by any valid historical proc-
ess family gossip known only to the immediate members of the

family does not pass accurately from one generation to another
for six hundred years or more.

The stories we are considering are parallel to folk-stories which
are preserved to us in other regions— aetiological legends, sagas,
l)oetic transformations of historical events. The religious imagi-
nation especially delights in such compositions.

Arab usage is in line with what we are here assuming for
Israel. The clan is spoken of as an individual, its members are
his sons, related clans are his brothers or sisters, the alliance of
two clans is presented as a marriage, the larger group of which
the clan is a part is called the father or grandfather (sometimes
the mother or grandmother) of the clans of which it is made up.
On the ground of this analogy we should be justified in making
the wives of the Patriarchs into clans or groups of clans. So the
sons of Rachel are the two tribes Joseph and Benjamin ; Rachel
herself is simply the earlier tribe which divided into two ; Joseph,
as we know, afterward subdivided into Ephraim and Manasseh.

Biblical usage is quite clear in regard to the name Israel, which
in an overwhelming number of cases is used as the name of the
nation. Jacob is the synonym of Israel, and in the earlier litera-
ture occurs in the poetic passages almost exclusively.

This brings us to a significant fact ; the importance of the
Patriarchs as individual figures dates from the post-exilic, or at
least post-Deuteronomic, period. We can see that it was natural
for the people, in times of reversal, and when their hold on their
homeland was precarious, to emphasize the promises made to the
forefathers. The significance of these men increases, therefore,
in the post-exilic period, and down to the New Testament times.
A striking fact is, that none of the prophets allude to Abraham
until we come to Ezekiel.^ The weight of this in an inquiry
into the historicity of the Patriarchs can hardly be overestimated.
The fact is, that a single sentence in the account of Abraham
appealed to the Apostle Paul, and the Patriarch thus became an

^ The present text shows two passages, Mic. 7 ^o and Jer. ^z ^^ but both are
in confessedly late additions to the prophetic text.

50 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

important figure in Christian theology. Recent authors who at-
tempt to rescue the historicity of the P'ather of the Faithful are
obhged to make so many modifications in their account of him,
that they deprive us of his rehgious vakie.^

Our conckision is that there is no sufficient warrant for sup-
posing individuals Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to have been the
ancestors of the people. That Jacob or Israel was the name of a
clan (or that they were the names of two separate clans) seems to
be made out. Isaac and Abraham are as yet unaccounted for
— that is, we know of no tribes or clans that bore these names.
Probably both were creations of the legend-building imagination
working under the necessities of the patriarchal theory. Isaac
represents the unity of Israel and Edom ; Abraham represents a
larger unity— the early Israelites were conscious of their relation-
ship with Moab, Amnion, Ishmael, Midian, Edom, and other tribes
of the region. This implies that all these peoples had a common

^ Cornill, in his recently published sketch of the history of Israel, assumes
that the Semitic migration from Mesopotamia about 1500 B.C. was headed by
a chieftain named Abraham. This author seems to be conscious that it is
illogical to assert the historicity of Abraham while sacrificing that of Isaac
and Jacob {Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 30). In fact, the Abraham of such
a hypothesis is not the Abraham of our Bibles, and to recover the name of a
single chieftain in the great migration must be confessed to be a matter of
minor importance. Paton supposes Abram and Abraham to have been two
distinct individuals {Early Nistojy of Syria and Palestine, p. 41 f. ).
Abram he supposes to have been a chieftain of the Amorites who migrated
to Palestine about 2250 B.C. Ryle (in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible,
s. V.) also regards Abraham as leader of a great nomadic movement, but
regards his story as mainly a picture of the relationship of Arab tribes and
clans to the Hebrew stock. Kent {History of the Hebrew People, I, p. 11)
speaks only of the traditions of the Patriarchs as patron saints. Other recent
historians prefer to pass very lightly over the stories of the Patriarchs, and to
begin their narratives with the sojourn in Egypt, for example Budde, Reli-
gion of Is7-ael ; Ottley, Short History of the Hebrews. I have cited what may
fairly be called conservative scholars, so that the reader may have a fair
view of the consensus of opinion. Wade {Old Testatnent History) finds it
difficult to regard the patriarchal records, taken as a whole, as completely
trustworthy, but believes many of the figures in them to be real characters.
On the other hand, Winckler {Geschichte /sraels, II, pp. 23 f. , 28) finds in
Abraham the moon-god, or Tammuz (Adonis) the son of the moon-god, and
finds this theory confirmed by Gen. 14, which he thinks a Babylonian myth.
Renan, History of the People of Israel, \, p. 63) represents an older stage of
speculation when he identifies Abraham with the pater Orchamus (Ab-Or-
cham) of early mythology, whose name is preserved to us by Ovid.

THE PATRIARCHS gl

ancestor. A natural name for such an ancestor would be Father-
of-a-cnnad-of-uations, which the Hebrew author thinks to be the
meaning of the name Abraham. The precarious nature of Bibli-
cal etymologies is admitted on all hands. But until a more
probable derivation for the name Abraham is put forward, we may-
accept this one. In this case Abraham is a genealogical con-
struction originating in the necessities of the early theory of his-
tory. It is possible that the other name of the Patriarch, Abram,
which means Exalted-Father, is a similar invention intended to
mean Great Ancestor.

It is not strictly correct to say that the sagas give us no his-
torical results. What they reveal to us is this : the group of
peoples of which Israel was one were immigrants from the East ;
they were nomads till they settled in Palestine ; they amalga-
mated more or less thoroughly with the Canaanites. If these
results seem meagre we must remember that literature has other
than a directly historical value. Abraham as a type of the be-
liever in God reveals the religious faith of the author who drew
his picture. The manners, morals, and religion of the Patriarchs
really existed in the Israel of a later period. The authors who
could charm us with the story of Joseph have established their
kinship with universal human nature.

CHAPTER IV

EGYPT AND THE DESERT

As every reader of the Bible knows, the received history of
Israel makes Jacob and his family go down to Egypt to the num-
ber of seventy souls. Here they are nourished during the famine
and establish themselves in the land. During the years of Jo-
seph's life they prosper and increase. Change of dynasty (so we
may interpret) puts them into the power of a king who has no
feelings of gratitude toward Joseph, and who fears the power of
the growing people. His fear that they may make an alliance
with future invaders (from Syria, of course) makes him take ex-
traordinary measures to check their growth. He reduces them to
forced labour, putting them at the hard work of making bricks.
This measure proves unavailing, and he is driven to more drastic
expedients, nothing less than the slaying of all male infants as
soon as born or in the act of birth. During the time when this
cruel decree is in force Moses is born. After exposure by his
mother he is discovered and adopted by Pharaoh's daughter.
When grown to manhood his too lively sympathy with his
oppressed brethren brings him into danger and results in his
flight to Midian. Here, after some time, he is commissioned to
deliver his people. His demand for their liberation is repeatedly
refused, but the refusal is in each case followed by a signal mani-
festation of the divine wrath. The culmination is the death of
the first-born in every Egyptian family, under the impression of
which the people are thrust out. But the quick change of mind
on the part of the king threatens to undo what has been done,
especially as the fugitives get ''entangled in the land." The
new perplexity is solved, however, by a new deliverance, and an
added stroke is inflicted upon the oppressor.

The crossing of the Red Sea opens the era of the desert wan-
derings. The immediate dearth of food is met by a miraculous
supply ; the equally trying lack of water is overcome by a similar
act of God. The Bedawin dispute the way, but are successfully

EGYPT AND THE DESERT 53

overcome. At the Mount of God a covenant is ratified amid
convulsions of nature. The Book of the Covenant is adopted,
only to be immediately forgotten by the j)eople. The command
for the erection of the Tabernacle is given with great particular-
ity, but is interrupted by the trying incident of the golden
calf. A new decalogue, different from the one given forty days
or eighty days earlier, is engraved on tables of stone. After
vengeance is taken for the crime of idolatry an elaborate ritual
law is given to Moses. The people then journey to Kadesh, on
the southern border of Palestine, where they sojourn for a long
time.

The narrative thus summarised is in many places confused and
over-full. Its numerical data are exaggerated and impossible.
Its contradictions and inconsistencies have often been pointed out.
The careful reader will discover that in the narrative as it
stands, Moses goes up to the mountain as many as seven times.
He will discover also frequent duplicates, such as the revelation
of the divine Name, Ex. 3 ^"'^ and 6 '"'. In some cases a section
is injected into the narrative in such a way as to break asunder
what was once continuous ; so the little paragraph of the circum-
cision, 4 '*-'^ and the genealogy which ends '* this is that Moses
and Aaron," 6 '^ As in the earlier narratives that we have exam-
ined, these phenomena indicate composite origin. Rightly to
estimate the material we must endeavour to separate the docu-
ments. In this endeavour w^e shall discover that the most glaring
improbabilities are the property of the priestly writer— his disre-
gard of limitations of space and time are evident in this as in
other parts of his work. It is his love of symmetry which divides
Moses's life into three equal periods of forty years each. He it
is who dates the exodus four hundred and thirty years to a
day from the immigration of Jacob and his sons. He it is, also,
who not only gives the number of six hundred thousand adult
males for Israel, but confirms these figures by an elaborate census
of the twelve tribes.^

• The numerical impossibilities of the narrative are set forth by Colenso
in the first volume of his PenUxtejich and Book of Joshua Critically Exam-
ined, London, 1862. On the method of desert travelling notice Doughty,
Arabia Deserfa, I, pp. 7 and 61. Professor George F. Moore has called mv
attention to Ibn Chaldun's criticism of the figures given by Masudi in his
history of the exodus, which were borrowed, of course, from Jewish sources.

54 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

This late document being laid aside, we may suppose that the
other authors thought of the people who left Egypt as being com-
paratively a small number.^ There is, of course, no historical
improbability in a nomad clan's taking refuge in Egypt, espe-
cially in the land of Goshen, which bordered on the desert and was
suitable for pastoral life. The Bedawin have always looked with
longing eyes (as all history shows) at the rich pastures of Egypt.
The tradition of Abraham's going there to sojourn, the Ishmael-
ite or Midianite caravans that traded thither, show how acces-
sible the country was. To guard against too frequent or too
violent incursions of this kind, the Egyptian monarchs early for-
tified the isthmus of Suez. To pass the fortifications required
the permission of the authorities ; with good reason, therefore, the
story makes Joseph ask leave of the Pharaoh for the settlement
of his brothers. In the Egyptian monuments we have record of
an Edomite tribe asking and receiving permission to pass the
fortifications in order to pasture their cattle on the land of Pha-
raoh.* In fact it was the most natural thing in the world for
the nomads to be attracted to Egypt, especially from Beersheba
and the South Country.

But the Egyptologists as yet have discovered on the monu-
ments no evidence of a Joseph or an Israel in Egypt, as they
have discovered none of the oppression or the exodus. We are
therefore obliged to look narrowly at the evidence of the Hebrew
sources. Here we might plead the tradition of Abraham's visit just
alluded to, of Isaac's sojourn in the land of the Philistines (which
may have been tributary to Egypt), of Joseph's being sold to an
Egyptian courtier, and finally in all three documents the extended
account of the sojourn and deliverance. We may acknowledge

Cf. Ibn Chaldun's Prolegomena (1311), p. 6 f. The analysis of the Hexateuch
is attempted in works already cited, to which may be added Bacon's Triple
Tradition of the Exodus, Hartford, 1894.

' Some critics do indeed attribute to J the statement (Ex. 12 ^') that " Is-
rael journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand foot-
men, besides children." But the verse is suspicious. Baentsch ascribes it
to P {Exodus, p. 104), while Holzinger {Exodus, p. 35) and Addis think the
original number has been enlarged ; so apparently Carpenter and Battersby,
Hexateuch, II, p. 98.

^ \V. M. Miiller, Asien und Europa nach Altdgyptischen Denkmdlern
(1893), p. 135. The Bedawin are \\^x^ Z2\\^d. clans of Edoni. A reference
to the Seirites is given in the same connexion.

EGYPT AND THE DESERT $5

the historic probability, also, that a tribe once within the power
of the Pharaoh should be forced on to the public works, and should
make a successful revolt. On the other hand, we must not seek
confirmation for the Biblical story at the hand of Manetho/ His
account is to the effect that at one time Egypt was invaded by
foreigners who established themselves in a city called Avaris, and
kept the power five hundred years. After this time they were
expelled, and to the number of two hundred and forty thousand
journeyed through the wilderness from Egypt to Syria. Here
from fear of the Assyrians they built a city large enough to con-
tain so many myriads of men and called it Jerusalem. These
foreigners he calls Hyksos.^ What foreign dynasties ruled in
Egypt does not concern us here. All we need to notice is
that Manetho, writing in the Greek period, was influenced by
current tradition derived from the Jews, when he made the ex-
pelled Hyksos go to Palestine and build Jerusalem. Another
story cited from Manetho identifies the Israelites with the lepers
and unclean whom an Egyptian king set to work in the quar-
ries. These unfortunates were led to revolt by one Osarsiph, a
priest who was among them. Their temporary triumph was
due to an alliance with the Hyksos of Jerusalem, and their
final expulsion brought them to that city. It must be evident
that no use can be made of this legend in a history of Israel.
The story seems to be a pure invention, prompted by Egyptian
hatred for the Jews.

As external sources fail us we turn again to the Biblical narra-
tive. The unhistorical scheme of the priestly writer being left
aside, we examine the story of J and E. Beyond the statement
that the small clan of Jacob went to Egypt and remained there
three generations, that they were forced to labour on the public
works, and that they succeeded in regaining the wilderness under
tiie leadership of Moses, we find little that commands our confi-
dence. That the Egyptian authorities should want to keep them
in the land is probable enough. That the oppression was mo-

' See Josephus, Against Apion, I, 14, 15, 26-31. The credibility of
Manetho is discussed at length by Hengstenberg, Die Biicher Afose''s und
Egypten (1841), pp. 236-277. The latest treatment of the story is by Willrich,
Juden und Griechen vor der Makkahiiischen Er/iebicng (1895), pp. 53-56.

^ Bedaxvin kings or shepherd kings is Manetho's translation, which seems
to be correct; cf. Muller, Asien und Eiiropa, p. 132.

56 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

tived by fear is hardly likely — fear would have led to their expul-
sion beyond the fortifications.'

As we have had occasion to notice, the tradition behind the
two documents we are considering is one. The two writers
follow substantially the same order of events. But differences
of detail show how far the tradition was from being fixed.
For example, one document makes the people of Israel settled
by themselves in the district of Goshen. The other thinks of
them as living in the cities (or a city) in close contact with
their Egyptian neighbours, from whom they can borrow jewels
at short notice. One knows of Moses's exposure, rescue, and
adoption in the family of Pharaoh.^ The other seems to have in-
troduced him abruptly into the narrative when already a man.
Both, however, know of his flight into Midian, and account for
it by an abortive attempt to help his brethren.^ Both make him
receive a revelation of Yahweh in the desert, though one sup-
poses that the name Yahweh had been before unknown, while the
other thinks of it as known from antediluvian times.* One of
the sources gives Aaron to Moses as his helper ; the other seems
not to have known him. One makes Moses receive a magic
wand from Yahweh Himself at the Bush, and by means of this
he works the miracles. The other narrates that the miracles
are announced by Moses, but wrought by the direct act of
God.

It is altogether probable that the sources are right in dating a
religious epoch from the exodus. The religious motive is so in-
terwoven with the life of Israel that each popular movement was
a religious movement. The enthusiasm of a prophet alone seems
able to nerve an oriental people to a great effort. This is well illus-
trated in the co-operation of Moses and Aaron : Moses is told that
he shall be a god to Aaron and that Aaron will be his prophet.

' That part of the isthmus of Suez which was not rendered impassable by
marshes or lakes was defended by a wall and garrison, as already noted.

2 A curious parallel to the exposure of Moses in a basket is found in the
annals of Sargon I. Cf. McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments,
I, p. 99, and Keilinschr. Bibliothek, III, pp. 101-103.

^ So we must suppose, though the attempt as related by J has been lost in
the process of combining the documents.

* According to J (Gen. 4 '^'^) the name Yahweh was known to Enosh, the
grandson of Adam, The theory of E that it was revealed first to Moses is
quite clear from Ex. 3 i^.

EGYPT AND THE DESERT 57

The commanding position of the recipient of a divine revelation is
nowhere more strikingly set forth. How Moses came into this
position we can no longer certainly make out. That in his des-
ert wandering he heard a divine voice, and had a theophany of
flame, is not without parallel.^ Elijah also had a revelation at
Mount Horeb, and John the Baptist received his call in a wil-
derness sojourn. In what connexion the new name of Yahweh
stands with the Midianites, among whom Moses sojourns, is not
clear. The most obvious hypothesis is that Yahweh was the an-
cestral God of Midian, with whom Moses became acquainted,
faith in whom led to the endeavour to deliver Israel. The name
Yahweh gives no light on the problem.^

A distinct section of the narrative is concerned with the
plagues sent upon Egypt by Yahweh. In the current text these
are ten in number, but the analysis shows that no single source
had so many. All of them (except the death of the first-born)
are such visitations as the land of Egypt is subject to from its situ-
ation and climate.^ Their object is variously given by the dif-
ferent writers. One assumes that they are to punish Pharaoh's
refusal to let the people go ; another makes them demonstrations
of the power of Yahweh ; the third presents them as stages in the
contest between Yahweh and the gods of Egypt. The earliest
document (J) makes the plagues seven in number : an epidemic
among the fish of the Nile, an enormous number of frogs, swarms
of flies, a murrain among cattle, a violent hail, an invasion of lo-
custs, and the death of the first-born. The narrative of E duplicates
the hail, the locusts, and the death of the first-born, and adds the
turning of the Nile into blood and the darkness, both which
seem to have a basis in the natural phenomena of the country.

' One is reminded of the sidra tree of Mohammed — Koran 53 '*.

^ The etymology of Ex. 3 '* expresses only the view of the writer, and can
hardly put us into possession of the real meaning of a name so ancient. Be-
sides this, the author's language is obscure, so that we do not know whether
he meant to predicate of Yahweh self-existence (uncaused), self-determina-
tion, sovereignty, or unsearchableness. Conjectures are recorded in many
commentaries and Biblical theologies, the latest to date by Holzinger {Ex-
odus, p. 13 f.) and Baentsch {Exodus, p. 23).

^ This is well brought out by an article, " Die Plagen Egyptens," in the
Christliche Welt, X (1896), No 45. The author shows also, that the se-
quence of the plagues is that m which the natural phenomena come in the
Egyptian seasons.

58 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

The red colour of the Nile at the opening of the inundation is
one of the things which impress every observer. The darkness
may be an exaggeration of the sand-storms which obscure the at-
mosphere. P chooses only a part of those narrated by his pre-
decessors and makes a change in two of them to increase their
efficacy.^ Both J and P make the death of the first-born the oc-
casion for instituting the passover festival.

The endeavour has often been made to defend the Mosaic au-
thorship of the account by showing its intimate acquaintance with
things Egyptian. To appreciate the real force of this argument
we must remember the relation in which Palestine always stood
to Egypt. We might compare it to the relation of Wales to
England or of Switzerland to France. Canaan, as the smaller
country, always looked up to Egypt as its powerful neighbour.
Egyptian influence always extended thither. Often Egypt was
the real or nominal possessor of the country. An Egyptian party
was always found at the court of Israel. There is no period of
the history, therefore, in which an intelligent Israelite could be ig-
norant of Egyptian conditions and Egyptian customs. Doubtless
a journey to Egypt was made by every man that travelled from
Palestine for business, education, or pleasure. When we consider
these facts, the wonder is that the Pentateuch knows so little of
things Egyptian. The Pharaohs of the narrative are all called
Pharaoh, but no one of them is brought before us by his indi-
vidual name. This is in striking contrast with the later histori-
cal books of the Canon, which know quite well their Shishak,
Necho, and Hophra. Here we ask in vain even for the dynasty
to which Joseph's patron belonged, or to which belonged the op-
pressor and the father of Moses's adopted mother. The contest
between Yahweh and the Egyptian gods is referred to, but no
one of these gods is brought before us by name. The peculiari-
ties of the Egyptian religion are so marked, and its contrasts to
the religion of Israel are so violent, that we never cease to won-
der at the reticence of the authors. How easy it would have
been for them to show by a concrete example the impotence of
Apis and Mnevis ! The ram of Mendes, the crocodiles of Ombos,

I The flies become to him gnats ; the murrain on cattle is changed to
boils (? small-pox) among men. On the differences between the documents
in the matter of the plagues, cf. Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch
{1S97), p. 148.

EGYPT AND THE DESERT 59

the obelisks and statues of the various temples might be made to
point a contrast between the God of Israel and the objects of
Egyptian bUnd devotion, such as would adorn the tale as well as
point a much-needed moral for times to come. But we read
nothing of this kind. In a writer who had lived in the midst of
these abominations^ this would be incomprehensible. The ab-
sence of local colour evident in every chapter of the narrative,
then, forbids us to attribute these documents to an author brought
up in Egypt. And when we look at those resemblances between
Egyptian and " Mosaic" institutions which have been industri-
ously collected and persistently urged, we find that they are no
more than are discovered in comparing the religion of Israel with
other early religions.

It is easy to show that at other points than religion, the
Hebrew author had naive conceptions of things Egyptian. We
can hardly suppose that the Pharaoh ever lived in so little state
as to be accessible to Moses and Aaron whenever they chose to
seek an interview. Was the capital ever at Rameses or Succoth
—or did the king come thither to oversee the Israelite labour?
Did the Princess Royal regularly take her bath in the Nile?
Does the Nile flow through the land of Goshen? Such questions
readily suggest themselves. The difficulty in answering them
shows that we have to do with a picture many of whose details
are drawn from the writer's imagination rather than from his
knowledge of Egypt. Examination of the proper names which
occur in the narrative shows us scarcely any that are necessarily
Egyptian. That of Moses himself is usually so classed. But the
Hebrew narrator did not so regard it, for he gives it a Hebrew
etymology.' In the genealogies of P we do find an occasional
Egyptian name; thus Aaron's son Eleazar marries the daughter
of a man with an Egyptian name, and he calls his son also by an

1 The puzzling expression in Ex. S^",/.^ toe shall sacrifice the abomina.
Hon of the Egyptians, may show that the author knew of Egyptian worship
of bulls and rams, for these were the sacrificial animals of Israel Did he
perhaps write, we shall sacrifice the gods of the Egyptians? This would
best suit the context, and a zealous scribe might readily substitute the word
that better expressed his own feelings.

•^ The name is undoubtedly older than the story of the daughter ot Fha-
raoh It does not seem violent, therefore, to revive a conjecture now dis
credited, that it was given to Moses as the Deliverer (literally Drawer-^
of his people.

is-
■out

60 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Egyptian name.^ In the same connexion we find a name which
may be that of the Egyptian god Osiris. But these indications
in the latest of our documents cannot be made the basis of an
argument. Finally, the absence of any conception of Egyptian
history, its successive dynasties, its relations with Canaan and
the Sinaitic peninsula, points in the same direction.^

The climax of the story is the crossing of the Red Sea. But
the narrative here shows the same perplexing combination of dif-
ferent features that we have met in the earlier account. P, with
the exactness of detail that marks his narrative elsewhere, makes
the people march from Rameses to Succoth, thence to Etham in
the edge of the wilderness ; then they make a sharp turn and
camp by the sea before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea
opposite Baal Zephon.^ Unfortunately our knowledge of the
localities is not sufficient to enable us to identify the route thus
marked out. That it is intended to emphasise the miracle by
bringing Israel into a situation from which escape seems impos-
sible, is evident. The result will be the greater glory to Yahweh.
The older documents are much less definite. The earliest one
(J) simply tells us that Israel marched to the border with the
pillar of cloud before them. When Pharaoh discovered that
they were leaving the land with no purpose of returning, he pur-
sued with his army. To relieve the terror of Israel the pillar of
cloud guarded the rear against the approaching enemy. Mean-
while a strong wind was driving back the waters of the sea so
that in the morning th(i bed of the sea was dry. The destruction

^ Putiel and Phinehas, Ex. 6 '^^. The name Phinehas occurs again in the
family of Eli. Whatever Egyptian influence may have been at work in the
period of Samuel there can be, here, no question of an Egyptian sojourn
(i Sam. I 3).

2 The reader may consult an article by Professor Toy in the Neiv World
for 1893, pp. 121-141. The Egyptian features of the Pentateuch have been
diligently emphasised by scholars, either to prove the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch or to disprove the originality of the Mosaic revelation.
Especially persistent has been the attempt to connect Hebrew and Egyptian
religion. The earlier essays of the kind were laboriously refuted by Wit-
sius in his ALgyptiaca (Amsterdam, 1696), and his contention has been
upheld by recent investigation. On Egyptian religion, cf. Wiedemann,
Religion of the Ancient Ei^yptians (1897).

^Ex. 14 '-'l The account intimates that the route was one not natural
for the people to take, and that the purpose was to entice Pharaoh to destruc-
tion.

EGYPT AND THE DESERT 6l

of the Egyptians was accomplished by the returning flood tide.
It is vain to inquire for the particular point at which this author
supposed the crossing to take place. The great variety of the-
cries that have been held shows the insufficiency of the data
That no actual occurrence lies at the basis of the account would
be too much to say. In the present state of our knowledge
we cannot make a more definite statement about it than this :
Early Hebrew tradition relates a sojourn in Egypt and a remark-
able deliverance under Moses. The Song of Deliverance is a late
insertion in the text, and besides adds nothing to the prose

description. .

The object of bringing Israel out of Egypt is that they may
worship at the Mount of God where Moses had his revelation.
There seems no reason to doubt that this was the point, three
days' journey in the wilderness, to visit which Pharaoh's consent
was asked by Moses. The perplexity which has compassed our
efforts to define the events of the exodus is still encountered as
we inquire for the site of this mountain. At least three sacred
spots are named at which Israel met its God. These are Sinai,
Horeb, and Kadesh. That Sinai and Horeb are different names
for the same mountain is possible, but when we observe that the
two names characterise different documents we are led to suspect
that they were originally different places which have been forci-
bly brought into connexion in the process of uniting the tradi-
tions into one story. As in other cases, the most circumstantial
narrative is the one which is latest in order of time.

It is significant that one of the oldest fragments continues the
account by adding immediately after the crossing of the Sea:
*' Then Moses made the Bene Israel march from the Red Sea, and
they went forth into the Wilderness of Shur and marched three

1 It is in itself suspicious that the youngest document should have the
most detailed information. Our one fixed point is the uniform tradition
that Israel was settled in Goshen. This district is clearly identified as the
eastern part of the present IVadi Tumilat. Rameses seems to have been at
the western end of this district. Etham will then be a point at the eastern
end "in the edge of the desert." The present tendency is to identi y Pithom
and Etham. Pi-hahiroth. Migdol, and Baal Zephon are, however, still obscure.
Careful articles on the Exodus and Goshen are given by Hastings s DicUon-
ary of the Btble and the Encyclop..dia Biblica. The localities are treated
also in the commentaries and in numerous other works; compare the refer-
ences in the articles just named.

62 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

days in the Wilderness without finding water." The Wilderness
of Shur is known to us as the district lying immediately east of
the isthmus of Suez. It is evidently the thought of the author
that the Israelites marched straight eastward. The objective
point in his narrative has been displaced in the compilation, but
we can hardly doubt that it was Kadesh. It is significant, also,
that at Marah, after the sweetening of the water '' He gave him
statutes and judgments, and there He tested him." This was
precisely what was done at Sinai, according to the received ac-
count. It does not seem violent to suppose that this earliest
writer meant by Marah, whose waters were sweetened, the foun-
tain of Kadesh, but that the name Kadesh has been excluded
from the narrative in the interest of harmony. Tlie clause there
He tested him is an evident allusion to the testing which gave its
name to the place Massah. But Massah is identified with Meri-
bah,^ which is certainly at Kadesh. On the ground of these in-
dications we are justified in assuming that the earliest traditions
made Israel journey from Egypt directly to Kadesh. There they
sojourned for a considerable time, Moses acting as their oracle
and leader, and thence they made the first attack upon Canaan.
Kadesh is in fact the only point in the whole region where a con-
siderable clan can find sustenance for its flocks. We may easily
suppose that the earliest narrative made Amalek dispute the pos-
session of this oasis with Israel.^

In favour of Kadesh as the original sanctuary we may quote
the following passage from the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy :

** Yahweh came from Sinai
And beamed forth unto them from Seir :
He shone forth from Paran
And came from Meribath Kadesh." ^

' Ex. 17 ^-8. The location of Meribah in Kadesh is well established by
Num. 20 13, 27 1*, Ezek. 47 i*, 48 28.

' Rephidim, where Amalek fought with Israel (Ex. 17 ^'^^), is mentioned
in direct connexion with Massah and Meribah. Perhaps too much stress
should not be laid upon Judges 1 1 1^, where the interpolator gives Egypt, the
Red Sea, and Kadesh as the three stations of the wanderings of Israel, making
no mention of Sinai.

3 It is admitted by recent commentators that Meribath Kadesh is the orig-
inal reading of the last two words. With this verse (Deut. ZZ '^) compare
32 ^^ Dillmann in his commentary refers to Ewald, who claims {Jahrbiicher
der Bibl. IVissenschaft, III, p. 234) to have discovered the reading many
years before 185 1.

EGYPT AND THE DESERT 63

The verse looks like an attempt to combine various traditions
concerning the ancient residence of Israel's God. Kadesh is the
climax of'the verse, and while we might account for the mention
of Sinai and Seir as indicating the general region from which
Yahweh approached Palestine, Kadesh can be brought in only
because of a definite tradition connected with it.

In the Ode of Deborah the seat of Yahweh from which He
comes to rescue His people is Seir and the pld of Edam} It is
possible that we have here an entirely divergent tradition. But,
on the other hand, it is possible that the field of Edom once
extended so far westward as to include Kadesh. Without laying
too much stress upon this, we should not forget that the rock
from which Moses brought water is at Kadesh, according to the
original tradition in both forms.^ This tradition is in fact a
legend which arose in connexion with the sacred fountain. For
at\adesh a copious spring gushes forth from the base of a small
hill of solid rock. In accordance with ancient Semitic religion
such a spring and the rock from which it issues would certainly

be held sacred.-^

Moses estabhslied his clan here, himself acting as mimster of
the oracle. At this stage of religious development every God
assists his worshippers by revelations. And these revelations
concern the practical affairs of life. Disputes between tribesmen
were settled by '^bringing them before God." Hence the
sanctuaries of repute always have a priest whose business it is to
receive and transmit the decisions of the divinity. In one of our
accounts Moses is represented as hearing and deciding cases from
morning to evening. This function belongs to him because he

1 Judges, 5 *. The mention of Sinai in the next verse seems to be an inter-
polation; cf. Moore and Budde on the passage. _

^Ex 17 « mentions Horeb, but this is an interpolation, as is shown by
Baentsch {Handkommentar). The parallel account, Num. 20 '-^ locates the

event at Kadesh. , , „ u t- ,»«

3 On Kadesh we have the elaborate monograph, Kadesh Barnea, by Trum-
bull (1884), where earlier authorities are discussed. The description of
Rowlands is there quoted m full (p. 214 f-). and confirmed by Trumbull s
own observation (p. 273). On sacred fountains among the Semites, cf.
Baudissin, Studien zur Semit Rdigiomgeschichte, 11, pp. i43-i»3- i^e
Kenites with whom, according to one document, Moses was af^liated by
marriage, certainly dwelt in the region of Kadesh. and Amalek with whom
Israel had a feud from the time of the Wandering, also belongs in the
vicinity.

64 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

has the counsel of Yahweh. The Hebrew word for priest shows
that the man so designated was the organ of divine revelations.
The irony of history is illustrated when the later writers deny
the priesthood to Moses. It is not difficult to suppose that
the fountain of Kadesh received its name Fountain of Decision
because of this oracle administered by Moses. Further evidence
of Moses's connexion with Kadesh may be found in the fact that
his Kenite father-in-law was at home in this region.^

While this is the oldest tradition concerning the desert sojourn,
there can be no doubt that other accounts named Sinai and
Horeb as sacred mountains. In a region like the Sinaitic penin-
sula we should be surprised not to find a number of peaks viewed
as seats of divinities. Nothing in our documents compels us to
suppose Horeb and Sinai to be the same, or to make one name
refer to the group and the other to a single peak. Tlie elaborate
attempts which have been made to fix upon one of the mountains
in the Sinaitic group as the Mount of the Law are based upon
the assumption that the data of P may be taken for history.
When we surrender these data we are left with only the vaguest
intimations. In the verse quoted above, Sinai is associated with
Seir, Paran, and Kadesh. In sharp contrast with this conception
is the one which identifies Sinai with a peak in Midian. Midian,
so far as we know, always occupied the territory east of the
Aelanitic gulf. The Mount of God at which Moses received his
call is put by E on the western edge of this district.^ As the
mountain is also called Horeb by E, we can hardly help seeing
here the same general view which, in relating the life of Elijah,
makes him travel forty days from Beersheba to Horeb. But it
is hopeless to try to reconcile this with the statement in our
Deuteronomy that there are eleven days from Horeb to Kadesh
Barnea. The latter statement again throws no light upon the
Deuteronomist's location of Horeb. The divergence of the tra-
ditions must be evident, and this divergence is just what we
should expect in documents of different ages, all of them some
centuries removed from the events which they treat.

And if the chief points are so uncertain, it is clear that no satis-
factory identification of the itinerary of the wandering can be

^ Kadesh is apparently more than three days' march from Egypt. But it
is impossible to base an argument on this till we know where the three days'
march into the desert was to start from.

2 Ex. 3 \

EGYPT AND THE DESERT 65

hoped for. The attempts hitherto made have gone on the
hypothesis that all the statements of the Biblical text are equally
reliable.^ Thus there has grown up a tradition that the Israelites
crossed the Red Sea at Suez, moved down the east shore of the
Gulf of Suez to what is now known as Wadi Feiran, and then
turned into the mountains, camping in the valley Er-Raha " be-
fore the Mount." This is doubtless the route which the traveller
would take to reach the site which monkish tradition has fixed
upon as sacred. But it must be remembered that the southern
end of the peninsula is a mass of mountains, among which no
single peak has claims to pre-eminence. That a caravan of even
fifteen hundred people (which some regard as the original clan
of Israel) could not find water on this road and that its cattle
could not subsist there even in the spring — these are grave objec-
tions to the hypothesis. And when we seek for historical evi-
dence we find none. Few of the names given in the Hebrew
narrative have survived, a fact which can hardly surprise us when
we remember that they are names of nomadic encampments
merely. Those which are descriptive might be applied to
different places — Marah, for example, would describe almost any
of the springs or wells in the region, for almost all the water is
brackish. But the most discouraging fact is the one already
noted, that the detailed list of encampments is the work of the
latest author in point of time, and is the product of his impossible
theory of the wandering.

Before we can correctly estimate the force of what has been
said, we must recall to mind that the nation which reached its
highest prosperity under Solomon was made by the combination
of many different elements. No more than a fraction of Israel
ever sojourned in the wilderness of Kadesh. That a fraction, and
an important fraction, did so sojourn is clear from more than one
indication. The story ofthe wandering is one indication. Another
is the sense of kinship with Esau (Edom), Moab, Ammon,
Midian, and Ishmael. The population of Arabia has always

1 Modern descriptions of the peninsula begin with Burckhardt, Travels in
Syria and the Holy Land (1822). The most elaborate attempts at identifi-
cation were made by Robinson, Biblical Researches, Vol. I (Second Edition,
1856). Compare also Palmer, Desert of the Exodus (1872), and Trumbull,
Kadesh Barnea. Recent commentaries on the Pentateuchal books discuss
the various hypotheses.

66 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

pressed northward toward Syria. We may readily suppose — in
fact it is difficult to suppose anything else — that these tribes (Esau,
Moab, and Amnion) were a part of the great Arabic migration.
The sojourners at Kadesh were in fact Edomite clans which
were afterward a part of Judah, and so finally incorporated with
Israel. Our sources, however, do not recognise a North
Arabian kingdom of Mugri of which much is now said.

The importance of this fraction of Israel is seen in the impress
which their institutions made upon the nation of which they be-
came a part.^ The desert has always favoured the tribal organ-
isation of society, and this social organisation was so firmly
fixed by the desert sojourn that it lasted in Israel long after the
adoption of the agricultural life.^ The dwelling in booths at the
autumn festival is only one of the reminiscences of the desert so-
journ. The law of blood-revenge, which is the only way of se-
curing the public peace in the desert, continued in force in Israel
long after it was a settled nation.

The religion of the desert is polydaemonism. The jinn in-
habit every rock and bush, and many of them receive worship
from men. To a very late time Israel remembered that it had
worshipped the hairy monsters that infest the desert.^ Totemism
is one of the forms in which tribal man attempts to come into re-
lation with superhuman powers. The vestiges of totemism which
persist in the tribe names of Israel show that this people formed
no exception to the rule. Circumcision is an original tribal
mark, very probably originating in the desert. The earliest ac-
count we have of its introduction in Israel dates it from the life
of Moses.* In one of the desert encampments Yahweh meets

^ Notice Buhl, Sociale Verhdltnisse der Hebrder^ pp. 1,9. It is possible
that the clan of Jerachmeel was the original — or at least early — occupant
of the Kadesh oasis. But I am not able to follow Prof. Cheyne in discover-
ing numerous references to this clan in our documents ; see the article
"Jerachmeel" in the Encyclopcedia Biblica, and also the paper entitled
" From Isaiah to Ezra " in the American Journal of Theology (July, 1901).

'^ On traces of matriarchy in Israel see Gunkel, Genesis, p. 37; Buhl,
Sociale Verhdltnisse, p. 28.

^ Lev. 17^. Such passages show how wide of the mark is Renan's
theory of a primitive monotheism of desert-dwelling tribes {History of the
People of Israel, I, pp. 28, 38 ff.)-

* The reader will remember that the account of circumcision in Genesis
is given by the latest author, while the one now under discussion is a part
of the oldest tradition, embodied in J.

EGYPT AND THE DESERT 6/

Moses and threatens to kill him. Zippora takes a sharp stone
and circumcises her infant son, and touches her husband with the
blood, whereat the wrath of the God is turned away.' The
only plausible interpretation of the curious account is that cir-
cumcision was the tribal mark which brought a man into right
relations with the tribal divinity. Moses was a member of the
tribe that owed allegiance to Yahweh — whether as an Israelite cr
as adopted by the Kenites or Midianites we are not told — but he
had not received the tribal mark. Hence the anger of the God,
which was appeased by the circumcision of the substitute. We
feel ourselves here to be in the circle of the most primitive ideas
on this subject. The story can hardly mean to account for the
origin of circumcision, but probably does mean to intimate that
this was the first instance of its application to infants. The insti-
tution itself, common to a number of Asiatic and African peoples,
must date from a remote antiquity.

The cycle of festivals which are enjoined in the later religion
of Israel is connected wdth agricultural life, and cannot be associ-
ated with the desert. The Passover in its primitive form is an
exception. The Israelites were shepherds. The firstlings of the
flock were probably sacrificed in the spring-time, as was the case
among the Arabs down to a recent date.^ To this extent He-
brew tradition is correct in emphasising the Passover celebra-
tion at the exodus. We may even conjecture that the sprinkling
of the blood on the door-posts is a reminiscence of the time
when the tent was sprinkled wath blood as the opening rite of a
warlike expedition.^

The Hebrew writers were unconscious of the extent to which
their institutions were survivals from their nomad life. Their
sense of the importance of the desert, however, is seen in their
account of the Patriarchs, whom they pictured as ideals and who
are in every case Bedawin. The Rechabites, who appear in later
history, are witnesses to the same mode of thought. Their
thought was that agriculture and settled habitations were contrary

^ Ex. 424-26 A good discussion of the subject is contained in Marti,
Geschichte der Israelitischen Religion (1897), p. 43 f.

^ W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 210, 387, 445 f.; Wellhausen,
Reste Arabischen Heidenttims, p. 94 f.

^ Traces of such a rite are found among the Arabs according to Marti,
Geschichte der Israelitischen Religion, p. 40.

68 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

to the will of Yahweh. The only reason that can be assigned
for this view is the fact that in the consciousness of the people
Yahweh was God of the desert, and that the desert life was the
life pleasing to Him. The fullest expression of this idea is the
claim on the part of all our documents that at Sinai (or Kadesh)
Yahweh entered into covenant with Israel. Before this He had
chosen them and brought them out of Egypt ; but the purpose
of the choice was that the covenant might be made. In the
oldest document the covenant seems to be a simple agreement
that Yahweh will be the God of Israel, and that He will go
before them and secure them in possession of Canaan: ''My
presence shall go with thee and give thee rest." ^

The covenant implies some sort of obligation on the part of
Israel. Obedience to the will of God is the natural requirement
when a special relation has been established between Him and a
people. This is the more obvious to the desert dweller, because
all obligation apart from that of blood-revenge is, in a nomad
society, the result of special agreement. We are not surprised,
therefore, to find each of our documents giving a divine law in
connexion with the wilderness sojourn. One has the well-known
Decalogue ; another (or perhaps the same one) has the Book of
the Covenant ; a third has a Decalogue of its own ; Deuteron-
omy repeats the first Decalogue with modifications ; while the
Priestly writer introduces at Sinai his whole elaborate legislation
together with its portable sanctuary. The most primitive of
these codes is doubtless the Decalogue of J.^ It consists of
ritual commands, as we should expect in a religious compact.
In its earliest form it seems to have read as follows :

" Thou shalt not make a molten God.
Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread.
Every male that opens the womb is mine.
Six days shalt thou labour and on the seventh keep Sabbath.
The feast of weeks thou shalt observe.

*Ex. 33^*^. The verse is ascribed to a later stratum of J, but it doubtless
represents an early idea. The difficulty was to reconcile the continued resi-
dence of Yahweh at Sinai with His journeying in Israel's company. One
author therefore made Him send His angel, the other His presence (coun-
tenance) in which He manifested Himself.

^ Ex. 34. The account is intelligible only on the hypothesis that the
commands of the latter part of the chapter are the ones written upon the two
tables of stone which Moses brings with him in the opening verses.

EGYPT AND THE DESERT 69

And the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year.

Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

And my Passover offering shall not remain until morning.

The first-fruits of thy ground shalt thou bring to the house of Yah-

weh thy God.
Thou shalt not boil a kid with its mother's milk."

The comparative antiquity of this Decalogue is made evident
by the parallel between it and the closing section of the Book of
the Covenant.^ That it is more primitive than the Decalogue
of Ex. 20 and of Deuteronomy, must be evident. The latter
shows the influence of the prophetic theology, especially in the
prominence it gives to the duties of man toward man. Never-
theless the commands here given cannot all go back to the desert
period. The majority of them are intelligible only in connexion
with an agricultural state of society. For example, the Sabbath
cannot be observed by the shepherd, for his work requires daily
attention. The feast of weeks and the feast of ingathering are
feasts of the cultivator. We are driven, therefore, to the conclu-
sion that this Decalogue, valuable as it is in giving us knowledge
of Israelite religion after the settlement in Canaan, cannot give
us knowledge of what took i)lace before the conquest.^ If the
original compact between Yahweh and Israel included a series of
commands, we have no way of discovering what these were. On
the other hand, we have no difficulty in supposing a covenant on
the simple term of obedience to the voice of Yahweh speaking in
His prophet. Moses was the living exponent of the divine will.
At Marah (or Massah) he gave Israel a decree and a decision ;
Jethro found him giving to the people ''the decisions of God
and His instructions"; the original Tent of Meeting was the
place where God talked with Moses; Kadesh is called En Mish-
pat because of the habitual oracle there ministered by Moses.
The divine afflatus descends not only upon Moses but upon

^ This was pointed out by Bruston, Zeitschr. fiir die Alttcsi. IVissettsch.,
XII (1892), p. 181 ff. The passage in question is Ex. 23 ^^"^^ — apparently
the displaced copy of J's first Decalogue.

^ Whether ten was the number of commands in this series, or tzvelve as
some suppose, cannot be definitely made out, as the passage has been repeat-
edly worked over. Ten is so constant a number in the tradition that the
presumption is in its favour here. A somewhat different arrangement from
the one given above is found in Professor Briggs's instructive comparison of
the different Decalogues, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch,^ (1897), PP«
189-210.

70 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

the seventy elders.^ The thought of constant divine guidance
through prophets or seers would militate against the giving of
any extended law. All that a primitive covenant would natu-
rally contain is an obligation to obey the will of Yahweh as it
should be revealed in His prophet. Or shall we say that the
original covenant was a promise that Yahweh would lead the
people to conquest on condition that they would regularly give
Him the first-born males of the flock ? The importance of the
first-born in Hebrew tradition might justify such a theory, and it
is certain that to a comparatively late date public opinion in Israel
confided in the help of Yahweh because of the fact that the altars
were abundantly supplied with victims.

What, then, was the primitive covenant of the wilderness ? The
mists of antiquity prevent our seeing distinctly, but we may
reasonably suppose that the religious leader who had brought
a nomad clan out of Egypt was able to impress upon them the
faith that Yahweh had chosen them as His own, that He would
lead them against their enemies, and that He would give them
the fair land on which they had cast longing eyes. The nat-
ural expression of such a faith would be a covenant, in which
the different fractions of the people would renew their brotherhood
and vow allegiance to Yahweh and His prophet. That this was
a coalition of tribes, not all of which had known Yahweh earlier,
is very possible. It was in the territory of Midian that Moses
first became acquainted with the new divinity. And in another
account it is Jethro who offers the first sacrifice to Yahweh, of
which Aaron and all the elders are invited to partake.^ The
adoption of a new divinity by Israel would thus be in a certain
sense the beginning of their history, and the importance given
by tradition to the Mosaic age would be justified by the facts.

The covenant with the people involves Yahweh's journeying
with them. Various statements in our sources embody the vary-
ing traditions which grew up on this theory. The pillar of cloud
and fire is one author's method. Another gives the promise of
the angel who goes as Yahweh's representative. The Ark must
originally have been a visible pledge of His presence, and the

^ Num. 1 1 24-so 'Yhe passage is ascribed to E ^, but I see no reason why
it may not represent ancient ideas.

^ Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile, p. 23 ; Giesebrecht, Die Ge-
schichtltchkeit des Sinat Bundes (inconclusive).

EGYPT AND THE DESERT 71

veritable place of His dwelling. The Tent of Tryst was origi-
nally parallel to the Ark — not a dwelling-place for the Ark, but
for Yahweh Himself. The Tabernacle of which we have such an
elaborate description in the book of Exodus is a very late fic-
tion, created by the theory of the Priestly author, who could not
conceive the congregation of Israel existing without the central
sanctuary. But this structure had as a prototype the earlier and
simpler tent called the Tent of Tryst. A tent is of course the
only practicable sanctuary for a nomad people. According to the
account in our hands, this Tent was originally placed in the midst
of the camp, but was later removed outside owing to the con-
tamination of the people in the worship of the golden bull. The
author's meaning is that Yahweh was willing to travel with His
people, and so to be accessible to them by the mediation of
Moses. The whole account is a reflection of later conditions and
its historicity is open to grave doubts. The Ark, however, makes,
a much more primitive impression. If the divinity of Sinai or
of Kadesh resided in a rock — which from Arabic analogies seems
very probable — it would be natural for the people to secure His
presence by providing a chest in which to transport the fetish.^

The formation of such a covenant as we have assumed would
not take place without friction. The elevation of a prophet to
the leading place in the new nation would naturally call out the
jealousy of the earlier leaders — the Sheikhs. It is possible, there-
fore, that the murmurings of the people against Moses, of which
our narrative is full, have some historic background. The most
definite instance is the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram. These
two leaders of the tribe of Reuben object to Moses' making him-
self a prince over the people, and apparently charge him with
self-interest in his administration.^ Such a quarrel was certain

* Meinhold, Die Lade Jaktve^s, revives the theory that the Ark was a
portable throne. But, as pointed out by Budde, Z. Alttest. IVissensch., XXI,
p. 193, this does not account for all the facts.

^ Only thus can we understand Moses' declaration that he had not taken
an ass from them, Num. 16 '^. It should be remembered that the story of
Korah and his company is a separate narrative, and belongs in the Priestly
document. It has been ingeniously suggested that the quarrels here described
resulted in a separation of the Israelite clans into two bodies, one of which
attacked Canaan directly, while the other went around Edom to the eastern
desert ; cf. Steuernagel, Einwanderung der Israelitischen Stdmme (1901)
p. 107.

72 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

to arise whenever an energetic prophet undertook to rouse the
people to a new effort. The details of the narrative are, however,
the product of the legend-building imagination.

The results with which we have to content ourselves in the
Mosaic period are meagre. There may have been an Israelite
clan that sojourned in Egypt. Its exodus was not improbably
due to a religious leader. Under this religious leader the people
entered into covenant with other desert-dwelling clans at Kadesh.
The God who sanctioned the alliance and who became a party
to it was Yahweh, the Storm-God of Sinai. He was henceforth
the leader of His people in war, and under His encouragement
they undertook the conquest of Canaan.

CHAPTER V

TH E CONQUEST

According to the Pentateuch, Israel made an attempt upon
Canaan from the south and were repulsed, whereupon they made
the circuit of Edom, took possession of Gilead and Bashan, and
entered Canaan by the Jordan valley at Jericho. Although we
hear of the repulse on the southern border, we know that Judah
was in part made up from clans which always had their seat in
that region. We suspect, therefore, that the circuit of Edom is a
device of the narrator to unite two discordant traditions. In fact
it is clear on reflection that the attack of Israel on the coveted
land was made at more than one point, and that it was repeated
with varying success a number of times before their footing was
secure. The clans settled at Kadesh were only a minute fragment
of what afterward became the people of Israel.

Palestine is so situated that it has been the scene of almost
continuous conflict from the earliest times. Lying between Egypt
and the great Asiatic empires it was an object of desire to both
its more powerful neighbours. Almost more constant is the men-
ace of the Bedawin on its south and east. Arabia has always pro-
duced more men than it can nourish. Perhaps in no part of the
world is the population so constantly on the verge of starvation.
The Bedawy is at the end of the year just where he was at the
beginning of the year. Nine months of the twelve the milk of
his flocks has barely sufficed to keep him alive. That such a
people live in a chronic state of warfare is natural. The culti-
vated country on the border of which they dwell is the constant
object of their desire. History shows their steady pressure
toward this goal. Two streams of migration have issued from
Arabia from time immemorial. One proceeds northward from
the Hejaz and threatens Palestine directly. The other strikes
eastward and impinges upon the kingdoms of the Euphrates
valley. But as these kingdoms have usually been well organised,
this second stream has worked its way northward until it meets

74 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

the great current which flows from the northeast. Baffled by
this, it has bent around the north end of the desert, overflowed
the oasis of Damascus, and reached Palestine by way of Bashan.
There is reason to suppose that both these streams have always
had a part in the peopling of Palestine.^ Both of them are
therefore represented in the people that called itself Israel. Jacob
is persistently connected with Aram by the Hebrew writers :
Abraham is an immigrant from the Euphrates region ; while, as
we have just seen, the affiliation with Esau, Midian, and the
Kenite would point to an Arabian source.

The Canaanite or Amorite population that was displaced or
absorbed by Israel w^as an earlier wave of the same flowing tide.
What the earliest population of Canaan was, we have no means of
knowing. Hebrew tradition gives, indeed, the outlandish names
of Zamzummim, Emim, Zuzim, and others. But these are too
slight a foundation for a theory. The Canaanites who were in full
possession before the coming of Israel were evidently kinsfolk of
their conquerors. Israel's pride led to the denial of the relation-
ship, for the genealogies derive Canaan from Ham. But this is
a late hypothesis. All the facts go to show that Phcenicians,
Canaanites, and Hebrews \vere from the same original stock.
This was once distinctly taught, it would seem, in the account of
the curse of Canaan.^

In the struggle which has gone on from time immemorial for
the possession of Palestine, nothing is more remarkable than the
weakness of both parties, a weakness founded on their lack of co-
hesion. Whenever the people of the settled country have b'een
united under an energetic ruler they have laughed to scorn the
attempts of the nomads. When the nomads have laid aside their
tribal jealousies they have become irresistible. But for the most
part neither one thing nor the other has taken place. The inhabi-
tants of Canaan were usually divided into petty states unable to
make common cause even under the severest pressure. The desert

^ It is not within the province of this history to discuss the general ques-
tion of the origin of the .Semitic peoples. The reader may consult Barton,
A Sketch of Semitic Origins (igo2) and Paton, Early History of Syria.
These authors agree that Arabia is the region from which the Semitic peoples
(so far as we know them historically) emigrated. We must bear in mind
that migration of peoples was the rule rather than the exception down to
very recent times.

2 See the chapter, " Noah als Winzer," in Budde's Biblische Urgeschichte.

THE CONQUEST 75

dwellers, in their turn, never dreamed of yielding their indepen-
dence in order to unite in any movement, however important.

The unification of Israel — so far as it was accomplished at all —
was accomplished under Solomon. The conquest (to retain the
conventional term) had been going on for four centuries or
more. For, as we now know, before the exodus took place, or
at least as early as the time when the southern clans were sojourn-
ing at Kadesh, Asher was already in its later seat in northern
Palestine, while two districts in the centre of the country bore
the names Jacob and Joseph. Even more significant is it to
find somewhere in the region a people called Israel mentioned in
the Egyptian lists — lists which give the conquests of the Pharaoh
usually identified with the Pharaoh of the exodus.^

It is not without reason that the Hebrew narrative makes the
attempt from the south a failure. The clans settled at Kadesh
can never have been powerful, for the desert in that region could
not support more than a very^canty population. The conflict with
the Amalekites must also have kept down their strength. It was
only after the allied tribes had effected their entrance into Canaan
that Caleb began to move northward, finally coalescing with
Judah. The importance which Hebrew story gives to the desert
sojourn is due to the consciousness that the tribes which brought
Yahweh with them made the most important contribution to the
life of the people.

^The mention of Asher in inscriptions of Seti and Rameses II (about
1400 B.C.) is affirmed by W. M. Miiller, Asien unci Eitropea in Altagyp-
tischen Denkmdlern, p. 236 ff. On Jacob and Joseph (in the significant
forms Jacob-el QXi^ Joseph-el), compare the same work, p. 162 fT., and Meyer
in the Zeitschr.f. d. Alttest. mSsensc/i. ,Yl, pp. I-16. These names occur
in a list of Thothmes III. The mention of Israel in an inscription of Mern-
ephtah is in such terms as to show the people already settled in the coun-
try. Cf. Oflford in the Proceedings Soc. Bib. Arch., i8q8, p. 55 ; Steindorff
iniheZeitschr. A litest. lVissensch.,X.\l, ^^. 330-333 ! Spiegelberg in the
Sitzungsbericht d. Berliner Akadeviie, 1896, p. 193 ^-5 Griffiths in the Con-
temporary Revieiv, May, 1896. The most complete discussion of this inscrip-
tion is by Wiedemann in Le Mnseon, Louvain, 1898, pp. 89-107. Wiede-
mann emphasises the unreliable nature of the statements made in honour
of an Egyptian king. When all allowance is made for the tendency of
the scribe to exaggerate the exploits of his monarch, it still remains true
that in the time of Mernephtah, in connexion with a list of Canaanite towns
an Egyptian was able to say, " Israel is laid waste, its corn is annihilated."
The statement, however false or exaggerated, is inconceivable unless at that
date Israel were known as a settled people in Canaan.

^6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

In itself considered, the story of a march around Edom pre-
sents no improbabihty. The Sinaitic Bedawin of the present day
extend their raids into the eastern desert beyond Damascus. Were
the vigilance of the defenders of Canaan relaxed at any one point,
no doubt that exposed point would attract invaders from every
part of the wilderness. The unhistorical character of the ac-
count is evident, however, from that part of it which narrates the
conquest of the country beyond Jordan. That two battles should
put Israel into complete possession of this rugged and defensible
country is incredible. Legend has here condensed a long proc-
ess into a single campaign. The region in question was chroni-
cally in dispute between Israel, Moab, Amnion, and Syria — not
to speak of Sihon and Og, who appear in our narrative. The
fragments of verse with which the story is adorned^ really com-
memorate the battles and raids of a later time, at least as late as
the time of Omri. It is possible that the earliest struggle was
between the Amorites and Reuben, the latter being allied with
Moab and Amnion. A fragment of the earlier people was adopted
in Israel by the name Gad.'^

What is quite certain is that Israel was settled in the transjor-
danic territory before the invasion of Canaan proper. In historic
times the district belonged to Reuben, who is called the first-born
of Israel. The dignity thus assigned to him shows that tradition
made these the first Israelite settlements. In the time of Saul we
find that Jabesh Gilead was fully Israelite. The association of
Jacob-Israel with Mahanaim and Penuel is an indication of the
same sort, while the fact that Ishbaal, the son of Saul, found a se-
cure refuge at Mahanaim (as did David when compelled to leave
his capital) shows that Israelite blood had its claims fully recog-
nised in these ancient settlements. Once thoroughly established ,
in Gilead, Israel had a base of attack for the reduction of Canaan.

The El Aniarna tablets, discovered and deciphered in our own
time, have thrown a strong light upon the state of affairs in
Canaan in the fourteenth century before Christ. We have already
seen that Palestine is necessarily the bone of contention between
Egypt and any strong power in Western Asia. Some time before

1 I refer to Num. 21 1*^- 2t-3o^

'^ Cf. Paton, Early History of Syria, p. 150. The tribe of Gad called
itself by the name of its divinity, of whose worship in Syria we have many
evidences, Baethgen, Beitriige zur Semit. Religionsgeschichte, I, pp. 76-80.

THE CONQUEST 'J'J

the date of the tablets, Babylon had evidently been in possession
of the country, for it is Babylonian script which is used by the
writers even in communicating with the Egyptian court. The
actual (or rather nominal) suzerain, however, was Egypt ; and the
records show that at this time the power or vigilance of the recog-
nised chief monarch was much relaxed. The Egyptian court ap-
pointed native rulers with the title of king, each having under him
a single city with its dependent towns. Each of these princelings
paid tribute when forced to pay it ; each was lavish in protesta-
tations of fidelity to his chief, '' his god, his sun "; each was lavish
in excuses when he thought it safe to withhold his present ; each
was ready to fight for his own hand against his neighbours. In
case of serious invasion each was ready to claim the protection of
Egypt, but each was equally ready to join hands with the invaders
if Egypt should show weakness or neglect.

Now it is interesting to discover that a somewhat serious in-
vasion was in progress at the time when these letters were written.
We read repeated, earnest, sometimes despairing appeals of the
princes for Egyptian help. The enemy seems to be a Bedawin
people who are called Chabiri. They come from the north, and
threaten Phoenicia as well as Palestine proper. Their attack
seems most pressing in Phoenicia, for we find the most urgent
appeals for help sent from Gebal, Beirut, Sidon, and Tyre — from
whose governors some towns or fortresses have already been taken.
In this region the invaders are united under a leader named Abd-
Ashera, whose followers are sometimes called his sons. It is rather
curious to note that this sheikh claims himself to be subject to
Egypt. In Canaan similar bands are threatening Jerusalem,
Makkedah, Hazor, and Gezer. On the other hand, places in Phi-
listia such as Ashkelon have not yet been molested.

Interesting points brought out by the letters are : the compara-
tive feebleness of the separate bands of invaders, and the readi-
ness of the native chiefs to enter into alliance with them. The
feebleness is brought out by the requests for help which in all
cases assume that only a very few Egyptian soldiers will be
necessary. The writers even in their greatest stress seem to
think that fifty, forty, even twenty Egyptian soldiers will be
able to defend their towns against the enemy. No doubt we
here discover a constant feature of the long struggle with the
Bedawin. The invaders have no means of compelling walled

yS OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

towns.^ Siege-works and battering-rams are wholly beyond
them. If only the walls are sound and provisions do not give
out, the citizens may scoff at the invaders. For the most part
the attempt to reduce a fortress by starvation will fail, for the
besiegers themselves have no regular commissariat. If they bring
their flocks with them they soon graze off the immediate neigh-
bourhood and are compelled to move on.

These considerations show how the process may extend over a
long period of time. Occasionally, no doubt, a large company of
invaders may carry a place by sudden assault. The religious
frenzy which drives them to such a deed is likely to lead to the
extermination of the unfortunate victims. By a solemn vow the
town and its inhabitants are in such a case devoted to the divinity
whom the assaulting party regards as its leader. The story of
Jericho shows the thoroughness with which one such vow was
carried out. Mesha of Moab boasts of the Israelite towns which
he had thus " devoted " to Chemosh.

But, for the most part, such extreme measures are not reached.
The townspeople recognise that it is better to make peace with
their tormentors. By tiie payment of blackmail they can make
allies of their enemies, and perhaps even employ them against
their neighbours with whom they are at feud. In the desert it is
not uncommon for the cultivators of the oases to pay tribute to
the Bedawin in order to secure themselves peace. Mohammed's
terms at Kheibar are only a specimen of what has taken place
again and again. So the men of Jabesh were willing to enter into
any reasonable arrangement witli the Ammonites. It was only
the harshness and humiliation of the terms actually offered which
prevented an understanding in this case. When an understanding
is once reached, the parties are on amicable terms enough. The
Bedawin agree to respect the rights of the townsmen, and honour-
ably carry out the agreement. Alliances are made between indi-
viduals on both sides ; the Arab has a friend in town whom he
visits, the townsman has some one to whom he can appeal in case
the flocks trespass on the cultivated ground. Intermarriage fol-
lows, and the final amalgamation of the two stocks. The Patri- -
archal sagas already considered give evidence that many such

^ The inability of Mohammed's enemies to carry the very feeble entrench-
ments at Medina, in the Campaign of the Ditch, is a striking illustration of
a similar condition of things.

THE CONQUEST 79

alliances were entered into by Israel. For instance, Abraham
and Isaac both make covenants with Abimelech. Judah has a
friend Hirah the Adullamite, who is of the earlier inhabitants,
and he takes Tamar, a Canaanitess, as wife for his son. The
allies of Abraham in the very late account of his attack upon
Chedorlaomer are Canaanites. Jacob's purchase of ground, and
Abraham's purchase of a burial-place, are examples of titles se-
cured by peaceful means. The early documents know that the
conquest was an extended process. Thus we have a promise of
Yahweh given by the mouth of Moses to the effect that He would
not drive the enemy out suddenly, but little by little.^

The El Amarna tablets reveal a somewhat extended invasion
going on. Whether it be the Hebrew immigration is not yet
certainly made out. The Chabifi of the tablets cannot be
affirmed to be the Hebrews. But Chabiri and Hebrews are a
part of the same general stream of migration. We see alliances
already forming between the towns and the invaders. The Old
Testament testifies that Israel established itself by means of such
alliances. Later writers make this, indeed, the basis of a serious
charge against Israel.^

1 Exod. 23 2^-3".

' The cuneiform tablets discovered at El Amarna in Egypt are published in
transliterated text with translation by Winckler {Keilinschr. Bibliothek^ V,
Berlin, 1896). Up to the time of their discovery it w^as not known that
Egypt had any rights in Canaan at the time of the conquest — the Hebrew
sources nowhere show any knowledge of this fact. The unsettled state of
the country at the writing of the tablets is indicated by the complaint of
Burnaburiash, king of Babylon, that his caravans have been plundered on
their way to Egypt (Winckler, p. 27). It is not only the Chabiri who are
dangerous to the towns, we hear also of the Amorites and Hittites as hostile
to the Egyptian supremacy. The Chabiri who follow Abd Ashera are some-
times described as coming from Mitanni and Kash, which were Mesopo-
tamian countries (pp. 185, 189). They were in alliance with the Hittites, or
were perhaps mercenaries in their service, for they seem also to have en-
listed as mercenaries under the Canaanitish rulers (Letter 144, p. 265). That
they were ready to enter into alliance with the natives is illustrated by the
petition of the people of Gebal to their governor that he " make alliance with
the Sons of Abd Ashera, that we may have peace" (p. 203), and in the com-
plaint that the people are falling away to the Chabiri (p. 299). Various
points of interest in the tablets are brought out by Petrie, Syria and Egypt
frotfi the Tell El Amarna Letters (N. Y., 1898); Trampe, Syrien vor dent
FAndringen der Israeliten (Berlin, 1898); Klostermann, Ein Diplomatischer
Briefwechsel aus dent zweiten Jahrtatisend vor Christi (Kiel, 1898); Niebuhr,
Die Amarna Zi-zY (Leipzig, 1899) ; Jastrow, in the Journal 0/ Bib I. Lit., XI,

80 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

As we might expect, the literary imagination compressed the
long process of conquest into a short, sharp conflict. The book of
Joshua was the result. In this narrative, Israel, after encamping
some time in the Plains of Moab, crosses the Jordan and estab-
lishes itself at Gilgal. Here the reproach of Egypt is rolled away
by the circumcision of the people. Spies are sent out who dis-
cover that the people of the land are already in a panic. Jericho
falls by a miracle, and is made an example by utter "devotion."
Even the ground on which the ruins lie is put under a curse.
A reverse at Ai is the means of discovering Achan's sacrilege.
After his detection and punishment the town falls, being devoted
like Jericho. Its destruction is followed by the building of an
altar on Ebal. Then comes the treaty with the Gibeonites, se-
cured by deceit on their part, and conceded by criminal careless-
ness on the part of Joshua. The treaty is resented by the Canaan-
ites, who attack the new allies of Israel. This gives Joshua new
occasion for battle, and the natives are routed at Beth-horon —
a battle marked by direct divine interposition in response to
Joshua's prayer. The capture of the cities in the region is an easy
matter, and the inhabitants are without exception devoted at the
edge of the sword.

This experience is duplicated for the northern part of the
country. Jabin, king of Hazor, gathers an immense army at the
Waters of Merom. Joshua destroys the army, hamstrings the
horses, and burns the chariots. After this, he takes possession of
the cities, exterminating the inhabitants, but taking the property
for Israel. There follows a list of the kings that have been over-
thrown. The whole land is left entirely free for Israel to parti-
tion and occupy. The description and assignment of the terri-
tory occupy the latter part of the book.^

p. 95 ff., XII, p. 6i ff. Paton, Early History of Syria ^ p. in ff.; Winckler,
Keilinschriften und Altes l^estaiiient^^ ^. 196 ff.

The reader may perhaps object to the El Amarna letters being called to
testify to the condition of Palestine, both in the Patriarchal period and at the
time of the conquest. Strictly speaking, they testify to the state of things a
little before the Israelite invasion. But they imply that a similar condition
had existed during some centuries before the time of their composition.

^ The Book of Joshua falls naturally into two parts ; first an account
of the battles with the Canaanites, then a sketch of the division of the coun-
try among the tribes. The latter ^chapters 13-24) is simply a reflection of
geographical divisions as they existed at a later time. This section, at any

THE CONQUEST 8l

It is only an a priori objection to this account to say that no
nation ever dealt with a conquered country in this wholesale
manner, or that the complete extermination of a whole people is
an impossibility. The defender of the narrative might plead
that in this case the impossible took place, and that Israel's
exigency required measures elsewhere unparalleled in history.
What leads us to doubt the historicity of the narrative is the fact
(already noted) that the Old Testament sources themselves give
abundant indications of another sort of conquest. It is, for
example, a frequent complaint of the Old Testament writers that
Israel did not exterminate the earlier inhabitants of Canaan. On
the one side, this is attributed to the incorrigible lust of Israel for
aUiance and intermarriage with the heathen ; on the other side,
it is accounted for by the purpose of Yahweh Himself. Either
He left the people of the land to be gradually dispossessed,
in order that the wild animals might not increase and become
unconquerable ; or He left them in order that Israel might be
kept in martial exercise ; or else He kept them to test Israel's
fidelity to himself in full view of the religions of Canaan ; or
finally, He kept them alive as scourges with which to punish His
people's disobedience.^ The variety of explanations emphasises
the fact that the Canaanites, so far from being destroyed by
Joshua, were a prominent part of society at least down to the
time of Deuteronomy.

Equally significant is the testimony of other documents to the
fact that the cities said to have been destroyed by Joshua were
not actually in the possession of Israel until a much later time.
The most conspicuous example is Jerusalem, which did not be-
come Israelite until the time of David. Even the narrative we
have been considering ascribes the conquest of Hebron not to
Joshua, but to Caleb.' Debir fell before the prowess of Othniel;

rate, can make no claim to be history, because it comes from a postexilic
author, whose distance from the events would prevent his having any accu-
rate knowledge of what took place. The composite nature of the rest of the
book is evident. Its oldest sections are found repeated in other connexions,
where they give a very different impression from the one made by the book
of Joshua. Their true import will be seen below.

1 Compare Judges, 2 2«-22, 3 2, with Deut. 7 ".

2 According to Joshua, 15 ^*, Caleb drove out the Anakim from Hebron,
though Hebron had been captured and its inhabitants had been massacred
by Joshua, 10 ^'^ '.

82 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Gezer was Canaanite until the time of Solomon. Beth-shan was
Canaanite in the time of Saul. Jabin, king of Hazor, was not a
contemporary of Joshua, but of a much later generation. Shechem
in the very centre of Israelite territory remained Canaanite
through the period of the Judges.^

Now the account of the battle of Merom suggests the nature of
the literary process. We compare the victory of Joshua there
with the victory of Deborah and Barak in the Great Plain, and
we see striking points of resemblance. In both cases the leader
of the enemy is Jabin, king of Hazor ; in both cases the Canaan-
ites have a large force of chariots; in both, the victory of Israel
is complete. The Waters of Merom ^ at which Joshua meets
the enemy are not yet identified, but the Great Plain in which
Barak defeats Sisera is for a chariot force the most appropri-
ate ground in the region. The conclusion is obvious — the ac-
count of Joshua's battle is a later reflection of the victory of
Barak.

And if one of Joshua's great battles is the reflection of an event
that took place later, the other is probably like it. In the life of
Saul we find a conspicuous event in the defeat of the Philistines.
This battle begins at Michmash, but during the day the enemy
are driven westward beyond Beth-horon.^ But Beth-horon is
the scene of Joshua's great victory. It is easy to suppose that
tradition has here duplicated a single event, in which case the ex-
ploit of Saul is the original.

The account of the conquest given by the Book of Joshua fails
us, therefore, when we seek for facts. And the reason why it fails
us is found in the nature of the book. The aim of the author is
not history, but edification. Writing at a comparatively late date,
and looking back upon a remote past, he sees the conquest as a
signal act of Yahweh's kindness to His people. To glorify this
kindness is, in the author's mind, much more important than

^ On Gezer, cf. i Kings, 9 ^^•, Beth-shan, I Sam. 31 '^'i Jabin is a Canaan-
itish king in the time of Deborah, Judges, 4^ ; Shechem seems to be Canaan-
ite under Abimelech, Judges 9.

^ The current identification of this site with the Huleh lake is without
any support in the Biblical text.

^i Sam. I430f; it does not seem violent to conclude this on the basis
of Jonathan's assertion that if the people had been a little more vigorous,
they would have driven the enemy to Aijalon, which lay some distance
below Beth-horon.

THE CONQUEST 83

to ascertain what actually took place. Hence the superhu-
man character of the events. The x\rk only needs to approach
the Jordan in order that its waters may flee. The stones of Gilgal
are chosen and set up by divine command as memorial stones.
Jericho falls without human effort, but not without giving us an
edifying example of treachery in the person of Rahab. The
transgression of Achan, its disastrous results, the detection and
punishment, are narrated at length in order to emphasise the
taboo laid upon the Canaanites. The sparing of the GibeonitesI
was a historical fact too obstinate to be ignored. The only wayj
to account for it was to suppose the covenant obtained by deceit. f
Even then the author cannot wait for Solomon to reduce the un-
fortunate people to slavery, but attributes this step to Joshua. In^
short, the book is an imaginative^icture of what might have taken!
place, had the conquest occupied a few weeks instead of two cen- 1
turies or more.^

In this state of affairs it is especially fortunate that another ac-
count of the conquest has been preserved to us. This is the nar-
rative which we now read in the opening chapter of the Book of
Judges. Editorially it has been adapted to its present position by
a superscription which dates the events after the death of Joshua.
The incongruity of this with the narrative which precedes, is
evident. If the Canaanites had been exterminated by Joshua,
there would have been no need to begin the conquest over again.
Leaving out this false date, we see that this author is giving an
account of the conquest as it actually took place. He knows
nothing of a leader named Joshua — knows nothing of an Israel
united under a single general. In fact, he goes back to the so-
journ of Israel in Kadesh, and shows us their attack upon the
country from the south. Judah and Simeon, we learn, took
possession of Bezek, Hebron, Debir, and Hormah. Three of
these we know to have been in the southern district, and the
capture of Hormah is in another passage expressly said to have

^ The Book of Joshua is a part of the Hexateuch and is made up from
the elements which appear in the other five books. But it has very few
traces of the earliest document (J) whose account of the conquest did not
agree with the later theory and was therefore left out. Fortunately it was
not wholly lost, as we shall see. The account in Joshua shows strong Deu-
teronomistic colouring. An author who thought the forefathers must have
fulfilled the later ideal by the complete destruction of the Canaanites, worked
over the account of E with the results now in our hand.

84 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

been effected from the desert.^ The mention of the Kenites
and the Amalekites in the original text of our passage, argues in
the same direction. Moreover, had Judah invaded the country
from the Jordan valley, its march would have been opposed by
the powerful fortress of Jerusalem which confessedly was Canaan-
iie till the time of David.

In this passage we learn that Simeon was in near alliance with
Judah. We hear also of Caleb as leader in the attack on He-
bron and Othniel as the conqueror of Debir. In both cases
we have reason to suspect that the names really represent clans
which were afterward accounted subdivisions of Judah. The
story of Achsah and her request to Caleb is an aetiological saga,
designed to establish an ancient claim to certain springs of water.
This shows that even here we are not on thoroughly historical
ground. But the account has a very much better conception of
what actually took place than we find in the Book of Joshua.
Besides the exploits of Judah the only warlike event it narrates is
the capture of Bethel by the tribe of Joseph, and this is accom-
plished by the commonplace method of treachery and surprise.
For the rest the author contents himself with enumerating the
towns which the Israelites were not able to conquer, but in which
they obtained rights as clients. This illustrates what was said
above about the method of coalition. When the newcomers be-
came troublesome they obtained admission to certain territories
by treaty. The treaty allowed them to build quarters of their
own in the cities. At first they were not recognised as on an
equality with the older citizens, but had the inferior rights of " so-
journers." Thus the two peoples dwelt side by side in many of
the cities, certainly as late as the time of Solomon, and it is this
state of affairs^ which the author has before his eyes. When
the Israelites became strong enough, they reversed the relations,
reducing the Canaanites to clientage, to forced labour, or even to
slavery. Extermination, which was the ideal of later times, was
not thought of while the problem was a practical one.

^ Num. 21 '-^, which originally followed directly on the account of the
spies. It is natural to connect the city of palms of Judg. i ^^ with the Tamar
which we know to have existed in the South Country. The subject is dis-
cussed by Steuernagle, Einwanderting der Israelitischen Stcimme (1901).

2 The Arab analogies are striking. Compare, for example, the state of
things at Medina when Mohammed came thither ; Wellhausen, Skizzen und
Vorarbeiten, IV (1889).

THE CONQUEST 85

The harmony of this representation (barring a little foreshort-
ening) with what we have found in the El Amarna tablets is
evidence of its truth. In the tablets we see a strong wave of
immigration making itself felt in the country. In the Hebrew
account we see how it has distributed itself, making its way to
all parts of the land. The details of its entrance into the differ-
ent settlements escape our knowledge. We have already seen
that the episode of Dinah in Genesis represents one way. In
the book of Judges we have another characteristic incident in the
campaign of the Danites. Here we find the tribe of Dan already
settled in the country, but straitened by attack on both sides.
They therefore send out spies to seek new seats. Any town open
to attack is regarded as fair game. The report of the spies shows
that Laish, at the foot of Mount Hermon, is a town detached from
its natural allies, the Sidonians, and at the same time unsuspicious
of attack. The whole fighting force of the tribe — six hundred
men is the number — marches forth against the city. They take
it unawares, storm the walls, put the inhabitants to the sword,
and divide the land among themselves.^

The account, as well as the action of the Danites, betrays no
conscience concerning the transaction. It is assumed that a
state of war exists everywhere except where it is barred by kin-
ship or by express treaty rights. The Canaanites must look out
for themselves, and if they are caught unprotected they have only
themselves to blame. These are the principles held by both par-
ties during the long period of Israelite invasion. Probably many
a town which confided in its walls fell a victim to its own sense
of security and the aggressive alertness of the invaders. Many,
however, rather than be subject to unexpected attack chose the
part of discretion, and made some sort of arrangement with the
enemy. For the most part a treaty made with religious sanc-
tions was sufficient to secure a tolerable peace, though the
instance of Saul and the Gibeonites shows that this was not
always the case. From the later point of view the state of
society was unsettled as compared with the king's peace —
" there was no king in Israel, and every man did that which
was right in his own eyes."

1 Judges, 18. The present account is composite, but the older portion
can be separated out with some certainty ; cf. Moore's edition in Haupt's
Sacred Books of the Old Testament.

86 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

When this oldest account of the conquest ^ is carefully exam-
ined we find that after some centuries of struggle Israel was in full
possession of the highlands of Judah and the highlands of Ephraim
only. In the valleys the Canaanites were able to maintain them-
selves '' because they had chariots of iron." North of the Great
Plain the process of mingling had gone furthest, and we infer from
certain indications that the Israelites there were in subjection to
the older inhabitants. The Testament of Jacob ^ compares Is-
sachar to a pack-animal, willing to serve so long as it is fed.
And the Song of Deborah intimates that the northern tribes were
restrained by their Canaanite alliances from taking part with
their brethren against the common enemy. All this time, how-
ever, amalgamation was going on, and when a strong Israelite
leader came to the front many Canaanitish elements had already
become absorbed in Israel.

^Judges, I. That this chapter contains J's account of the conquest was
pointed out by E. Meyer in the Zeitschr. f. d. A litest. Wissensch.^ I, pp.
1 17-145. His results have been accepted by all recent commentators, includ-
ing Nowack { Hand kommen tar, 1900).

2 Gen. 49. The ancient poem is a description rather than a Testament or
Blessing.

CHAPTER VI

THE HEROES

Following the account of the conquest and division of the
land under Joshua we have in our Plebrew Canon a book which
we call traditionally y/^^4'''^i-. In the form in which we now read
it, it is a work of edification like the others we have considered.
This form, however, is reached by a redactional process, and we
are able to distinguish between the material which the editor
found ready to hand, and the additions which he made. The
substance of the book is a series of stories about Israel's deliver-
ers. They are fitted into a framework which makes them teach
the uniform lesson that backsliding from Yahweh is followed by
punishment, in the form of war and defeat, while repentance is
rewarded by deliverance and victory. The stories often show
their reluctance to teach this lesson by the very imperfect manner
in which they meet the views of the compiler. In themselves
they are of the utmost value as illustrating the early age of Israel's
conflicts.^

In this book we find the Israelites settled in the midst of the
Canaanites, and in a chronic state of warfare. The central high-
lands (Ephraim) are in their possession, but they may be called at
any time to defend themselves either against the older inhabitants
or against fresh invaders from the desert. It is evident that the
stream of migration is still pushing on from the East. The next
wave is as willing to overwhelm Israel as Israel has been willing to
submerge the Canaanites. The strongholds in the plains are still

^ The structure of the Book of Judges has been carefully investigated by
recent scholars, including Budde {Richter and Samuel, 1890; Das Buck
der Richter, 1897), ^loore {International Ci'itical Cofumentary, 1895; The
Book of Judges in Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old Testament, 1898 ; critical
edition of the Hebrew text in Haupt's series, 1900), and Nowack {Richter-
Ruth in the Handkotnmentar^ 1900). The stories which form the ground-
work of the book are sometimes composite, and there seems to have been
a double redaction. The artificial scheme of the final editor made the num-
ber of "Judges" twelve. This was secured by inserting the minor Judges,
of which the names only are known.

88 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

in possession of the ancient inhabitants. Between the two hos-
tile forces Israel is in danger of being ground to pieces.

The danger of the situation is increased by the lack of unity in
Israel itself. The tribes have evidently fought for their own hand.
The vague sense of kindred which undoubtedly exists is not suffi-
cient to keep them from attacking each other. It may even be
doubted whether Judah was yet counted a part of Israel. In any
case, the tribes are not able to make common cause even against
a powerful enemy. The social organisation is still that of the
desert. There is no central authority, no authority at all, prop-
erly speaking, even for a single tribe. The Sheikhs have a cer-
tain influence due to the purity of their blood, but the influence
is never sufficient to coerce the freemen of the tribe. A man of
extraordinary energy, or one who shows especial prowess in war, is
doubtless respected in the community. The expression of his
wishes will receive some attention because his fellow-tribesmen
desire to stand well with him, or because they fear his displeasure.
He may declare war or rather plan a campaign, but his following
from the fighting men will be volunteers moved by personal aff'ec-
tion for him or by confidence in his ability to lead them where
they will get revenge, or booty, or both. He cannot issue an
order or levy contributions.

In ordinary times such a man is only the older brother of the
poorest tribesman. Butifhebea man of upright purpose he is
likely to increase his prestige by arbitrating the differences be-
tween his brethren. Where such diff*erences arise the man who is
wronged, or who thinks himself wronged, looks about for an ally
who will help him to his own. The cry of the suitor is not '* hear
and decide my case " but '* avenge me of mine adversary." The
Sheikh thus becomes the vindicator of the oppressed, and it is
in this way that we must interpret his title. The Judges whose
exploits are related for us in the period now under review were
in no sense magistrates. They were men who had vindicated
the rights of Israel in battle. Later times, misled by the double
meaning of the word judge, gave them something of the kingly
position and prerogatives. In truth the time in which they lived
was a time when every man did what was right in his own eyes.
There was neither law nor tribunal in our sense of the word.^

^ The Siiffetes of Carthage are evidently the Shophetim of the Hebrews,
showing that a regular magistracy may develop from the extraordinary insti-

THE HEROES 89

The position of Barak, Gideon, and Jephthah in the community
is thus quite clear. They were raised up to vindicate the rights
of their people agamst the oppressor. Another thing is not
quite so clear. As has been shown above, tribal society is based
upon the custom of blood revenge. When a man is killed it is
the duty of all the clan to avenge his death. But this does not
mean that the murderer is to be executed. If he can be taken,
well and good ; but the blood he has shed rests upon his whole
clan. Justice is satisfied if any member of the clan is slain as an
equivalent for the murdered man. Of course there must be
equality — freeman for freeman, client for client, slave for slave.
What we do not always make clear to ourselves is that this gives
legitimacy to private warfare in the form which we call assassina-
tion. That the brother of a murdered man should make his way
in disguise into the camp of the murderer and there strike down
the first man he meets (though innocent of any part in the
crime that is to be avenged) strikes us with horror. It is not
so in tribal society. The public conscience does not condemn
assassination where there is blood between the parties — it rather
applauds it.^ The public enemy, of course, stands upon the
same footing with the private enemy, for blood revenge must be
taken for men slain in battle as well as for those slain in private
quarrel. While our own code therefore condemns Ehud as an
assassin, we can understand how the conscience of his kinsmen
hailed him as their deliverer.

The first story of deliverance gives us almost nothing but the
bare scheme of the editor. It relates that Israel forgot Yahweh
and served the Baals and Asherahs. Yahweh was incensed
against them and sold them into the power of Chushan-risha-
thaim, king of Syria, on the Euphrates. From this oppression
they were delivered by Othniel ben Kenaz, Caleb's younger
brother. As we have evidence that Caleb is only the eponym
of a clan, the flesh and blood character of Othniel is open to
doubt. Chushan-rishathaim has a name that does not inspire
confidence, and an invasion from Syria is out of line with all the

tution here described for us. But among the Hebrews the development was
arrested by the monarchy.

^ Mohammed's unscrupulousness in this matter is well known. What is
to us so revolting does not seem to have offended his contemporaries,
whether friends or foes.

go OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Other feuds of which we read in the period. It has been acutely
conjectured that for Syria (Aram) we should read Edom, and that
we have here a trace of the early struggles between Judah and
Edom, of which there must have been many.^ Even if this be
true the absence of detail in the narrative makes it valueless for
our purpose, and we must go on to Ehud, the first real deliverer.

The familiar story ^ is to the effect that Moab invaded Israel
and made them tributary. The only tribe affected seems to have
been Benjamin. Eglon, the Moabite king, established himself in
Jericho, and hither the Benjamites brought their tribute, which
was of course paid in kind. One of the sheikhs responsible for
the payment was Ehud, a man left-handed. In his defect he
found his opportunity. In preparing for his deed, he concealed
along dagger on his right side — where the king's guard, if they
searched him, would not think to look. Thus armed, he headed
the long train of bearers. The tribute being delivered, the train
retreated as far as the images at Gilgal — a well-known sanctuary.
Here Ehud dismissed them and made his way alone to the palace.
On the pretext of discovering secret information he was admitted
to a private audience in the upper chamber of the palace. The
declaration, " I have a message of God for thee, O King," caused
the king to rise from his seat — the respect which the oriental
feels for a man inspired sufficiently accounts for the movement.
A single stab in the abdomen accomplished the purpose of the
Benjamite. The security of the attendants was such that Ehud
made his escape before their suspicions were awakened. Benja-
min was aroused ; the Moabite garrison was cut off. The result
was deliverance from the oppressor.^

The next event recounted for us is of far-reaching importance,
because it is the first case in which Israel overcame a regular

^ The words Aram and Edom are very similar in Hebrew and there are
some cases of their confusion by the scribes in our Hebrew Bibles. The
substitution of Edom for Aram in this passage (Judges 3 '-i') was made by
Gratz, Gesch. d. Jtiden, I, p. 412 f., and has recently been taken up by
Winckler, Geschichte Israels, II, p. 118. Further conjectures are recorded
by Paton, Early History of Syria, p. 161 f.

2Judges si'-J-so.

^The apparent smoothness of the narrative should not blind us to the diffi-
culty of forming a clear conception of what actually happened. How Ehud
obtained the private audience will probably always remain obscure. I think
it probable that in the original narrative he was entertained by the king as
his guest.

THE HEROES 9I

army in the plain. As was to be expected, so great an event was
worthily celebrated in the songs of the people, and one of the
jnost important literary monuments of the Old Testament is the
Song of Deborah which is connected by tradition with this vic-
tory! In attempting to discover what took place the Song is
our chief reliance. The prose narrative is later and less original.^
The course of events seems to be somewhat as follows:

Israel was firmly settled in the central highlands in the district
known as Mount Ephraim. Between them and Judah, however, was
a strip of Canaanite territory dominated by the important fortress
of Jerusalem, as yet unconquered. West of Jerusalem we know that
at least Kirjath jearim was a member of the Gibeonite confeder-
acy. On this side, therefore, Ephraim and Benjamin were cut
off from their natural allies. There was, however, no active hos-
tility on this side— perhaps the Gibeonite treaty was already in
force. The scene of war was to the north, where the Great Plain
(Esdraelon) was entirely in the hand of the Canaanites. Taanach
and Megiddo in the edge of the Plain are known to have been
Canaanite strongholds. Such also was Beth-shan at the opening
of the side valley of Jezreel into the Jordan valley. Issachar may
have held the ridge of Gilboa, while Zebulun and Naphtali had
wedged themselves among the earlier inhabitants on the hills to
the north of the Great Plain. But the first impulse which had
brought them into the country had spent itself. Under the lead
of an energetic prince named Sisera, the Canaanites had pulled
themselves together, and the Israelites were crowded to the wall.
Some of them were reduced to serfdom. The caravan roads
were insecure, being at the mercy of the tyrant's soldiers. Traffic
almost ceased, the cultivated country was plundered, the fighting
men were disarmed, so that no spear or shield was seen among the
forty thousand of Israel.^

Sisera' s capital seems to have been to the north of the Great
Plain and not far distant from it. Here he mustered his army

lit is now generally recognised that the prose narrative (Judg. 4) is
later than the poem which follows. The former is, moreover, composite,
mingling the account of a war with Jabin with that of the war with Sisera.

2 The oppression is said to have taken place in the days of Shamgar ben
Anath (Judges 5«). This Shamgar has been conjectured to be the father of
Sisera, and the non-Semitic character of the name indicates a foreign, per^
haps a Hittite, invasion ; so Moore, Jottrnal 0/ the Am. Oriental Soc. XIX,
11(1898), p. 159 f.

92 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

for a great raid which was designed to break the remaining
power of Israel. His force of chariots was so considerable that
resistance seemed to be vain. But Yahweh is not always on
the side of the heaviest artillery. The leading spirit in Israel was
a woman named Deborah, who is described as a prophetess. In
this case, as in so many others, a religious leader alone could
infuse faith and courage into the people. The prose narrative
makes her judge Israel — doubtless by oracular revelation of the
divine will. We saw in the case of Moses that a prophet nat-
urally became the arbiter of disputes among the people. The
oldest law book expressly provides that certain cases shall be
brought to God for decision. Deborah, seated under one of the
sacred trees, of which the country was full, gave responses to those
who came to inquire concerning the will of God. Doubtless
many such inspired women attained to public reputation during
the history of Israel. But not many of them used their influence
to rouse patriotic enthusiasm in a time of danger.

All that we know is that this woman gave a message of God to
Barak, the Sheikh of Naphtali, commanding him to bring what
forces he could muster to Mount Tabor. Probably her influence
was exerted on the chiefs of the other tribes at the same time, urg-
ing them to make common cause against the common enemy. The
locality was favourable for a rally of the tribes. On the wooded
slopes the warriors would be out of the reach of the dreaded
chariots ; at the same time they would be within striking distance
should the enemy expose himself on the march. According to
tradition ten thousand out of Israel's forty thousand able-bodied
men responded to the summons. In ordinary circumstances, ill
armed as they were, they could not cope with the force under
Sisera's command. The chariots were superior so long as they
had ground on which to manoeuvre.

But the circumstances soon became extraordinary. Under a
heavy rainfall the alluvial plain becomes a morass, in which
heavy troops find it impossible to move.^ The hopes of Israel in
the God of battle and of the storm were not disappointed. Yah-
weh came from Sinai; the mountains shook, the earth trembled,
the clouds poured down water ; the stars from their courses
fought against Sisera. A cloud-burst inundated the plain and
made it a sea of mire. The chariots sank in the bog, and the
^ So the Turkish cavalry found to their cost some millenniums later.

THE HEROES 93

frantic efforts of horses and drivers produced a panic which soon
became a rout. The insignificant stream of Kishon became a
river choked with chariots, horses, and the dead bodies of the
Canaanites. The hght-armed Israelites, as we may suppose, hung
on the skirts of the disheartened and flymg foe. If only the peo-
ple of Meroz — an Israelite village that commanded the road of
the fugitives — had been true to their opportunity the whole force
of the enemy might have been annihilated.

As it was, the victory was a signal one, and it was made more
complete by the death of the hated Sisera. He indeed did not
perish in the inelee. Abandoning his chariot he succeeded in
making his way on foot some distance toward his capital.
Wearied and footsore he stopped at aBedawin encampment and
asked for refreshment. The tent-dwellers were Kenites, ancient
friends of Israel who had come with them into the Promised
Land, but who had not adopted the agricultural life. Gipsy-
like they still kept up the nomad life, camping wherever they
could find pasture. Jael, the wife of the Sheikh, was the only one
at home. Though her people were not involved in the struggle,
their sympathies were with Israel. When the fugitive king ap-
peared, she poured him out a bountiful bowl of sour milk, the
favourite beverage of the Bedawy. But before he had swallowed
a mouthful she struck him with the mallet — the familiar tool used
by the nomad to drive his tent-pins. The blow crushed his
temple and he fell dead at her feet.

Technically, the unfortunate man was not yet protected by the
law of hospitality, since he had not yet drunk of the offered bev-
erage. The reader will recall that Sir Walter Scott makes Sala-
din careful to strike down the Master of the Templars before he
has partaken of the cup proffered the guest. So far as the poem
is taken as authority, Jael cannot be charged with treachery.
The author of the prose narrative has brought gratuitous re-
proach upon her by expanding the account.^

It is not difficult in reading this ancient song to discover
Israel in the making. There is as yet no nation, only a loose
agglomeration of clans. They are not yet the twelve tribes of

^ He makes Jael go out to meet Sisera and invite him to the tent She
brings him milk, which he drinks and is thereby fully assured of safety.
She then steals upon him when asleep and drives the tent-pin through his
head. The poem knows nothing of all this.

94 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

later tradition. Machir and Gilead are in the same class with
Zebulun and Reuben. When the scheme of twelve tribes took
shape, Machir became simply a subdivision of Manasseh. While
the poet is conscious that all the tribes he names are of the same
blood, he shows by his taunts how little the tribes themselves rec-
ognised the claims of kinship. The sons of Reuben debated the
matter of joining their brethren. But remote from the scene of
the war, they came to no decision — which was equivalent to an
adverse decision. Gilead, the other transjordanic tribe, shared
the inaction of Reuben. Dan and Asher, on the other hand,
were compromised with the Canaanites, for both of them had an
interest in the maritime trade : " Dan goes abroad in ships, and
Asher tarries on the shore, sitting still at the landing-places."

One of the most remarkable things about the ode is its silence
concerning Judah, Simeon, and Levi. The Testament of Jacob
contains a hint that Simeon and Levi had been overtaken by
some disaster, brought upon them by their own recklessness, and
the story of Dinah indicates that they had been foremost in hos-
tility to the Canaanites. We can only conclude that they
had been practically wiped out not long before the date
of our story. Silence with reference to Judah, however, must
be interpreted in the light of what was said above. Mere
remoteness from the scene of conflict was scarcely enough to
excuse his absence. Nor does the fact that Canaanite territory
intervened between him and his brothers justify inaction. The
only hypothesis which fits the case is that Judah was not of full
Israelitish blood. The tribe was made up partly of Edomite
clans, partly of Canaanitish elements, as we see from the story of
Tamar. It was now in the making, and had not coherence
enough to be counted a tribe. The Joseph clans were not yet
ready to recognise the kinship ; in fact, the secret of later dis-
union is here laid bare.

At this time the poet estimates Israel's fighting men to be forty
thousand in number. The modesty of this estimate compared
with the extravagance of many numerical data in the Hebrew
historical books makes a favourable impression.

The strong religious sj)irit which animates the poem shows the
exaltation at the time of oppression and conflict. Yahweh is a
God of war. Though His home is in the southern desert. He
sees the oppression of His people and marches to their relief. He

THE HEROES 95

shows Himself in the storm, and under His leadership heavenly
powers attack the foe. The enemies of Israel are Yahweh's
enemies. The curse is pronounced upon Meroz because its
people did not take the side of Yahweh. The destruction of
Sisera is an omen for the future, when the enemies of Yahweh and
of Israel shall all likewise perish.

The signal deliverance wrought under Deborah's lead made
less impression upon succeeding generations than was made by
the incident which comes next in the narrative. So we may
judge from the complicated literary process which has left its
marks upon the story of Gideon. Scarcely anywhere are the du-
plications of the present text so perplexing, and nowhere is it
more necessary to get at the earliest form of the narrative in or-
der to make it of historical use.^

The scene is laid in Mount Ephraim, where Gideon was Sheikh
of a clan called Abiezer, with his home at Ophrah. The town
has not been certainly identified, but was not far from Shechem,
and was near the edge of the Jordan Valley."' At the time of
the story Israel, now thoroughly agricultural, is distressed by Be-
dawin invaders who are called Midianites. They and their
cattle, after their wont, destroyed the face of the country like
the proverbial swarm of locusts. The hero of the story having
rescued a few stalks of wheat, was obliged to beat them out in
the wine-press under the cover afforded by the vineyard. Medi-
tating upon the distress of Israel, he heard a divine voice en-
couraging him to take the part of deliverer. An altar erected
on the spot commemorated the theophany for many years after.

1 The marks of a double narrative and of more than one redaction are
brought out by Prof. Moore's editions in colours and by Nowack's transla-
tion, printed in diflferent kinds of type. The two names of the hero (Jerub-
baal and Gideon) clearly show a double source. The double account of his call
is easily distinguished. In one document (Judg. 6''--'*) the Angel of Yahweh
appears to him, giving unmistakable proofs of his identity. In the other,
Gideon receives the divine message in a dream of the night, and tests its
origin by the fleece which is alternately left dry or soaked by the night
mist according to his prayer (6 36-^0). A later addition is the attempt to ac-
count for the name Jerubbaal. Originally expressing the faith that T/ie-
Lord-Fights for Israel, it was no longer understood, and was made to mean
He-fights-aga inst- Baal.

2 That it was also near the Great Plain is not so certain, as the data
which are usually interpreted in favour of such a location occur in later por-
tions of the narrative, or are themselves uncertain.

9^ OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

The distress of Israel was not, however, the moving cause in
Gideon's exploit. The invasion had come nearer to him per-
sonally, in that the enemy had murdered many of his immediate
family. Moved by personal grief and the sacred duty of blood-
revenge, he was possessed by the spirit of Yahvveh, and called
the clan to war. Three hundred of the clansmen responded. A
sudden night -attack threw the undisciplined host of Midian into
confusion, and they fled toward the desert beyond Jordan. Gid-
eon and his men followed them to the wilderness and inflicted a
second defeat upon them, bringing the chiefs back to Ophrah.
Here, when questioned as to the murders, the prisoners boasted
of their deed, and were put to death by Gideon's own hand.^
It is interesting to see the veteran warrior encourage his youthful
son to flesh his sword upon these enemies of the clan.

The lack of unity in Israel is brought out in this narrative by
the behaviour of Succoth and Penuel. These were two ancient
Israelitish towns, yet both of them refused aid and comfort to
Gideon's exhausted men. He, on his part, did not hesitate to
take the ofl'ensive against them for their unbrotherly conduct.
According to another document, Ephraim took offence at not
having been invited to the war — Gideon, it should be noted,
belonged to Manasseh. A soft answer from him turned away
their wrath, but the incident shows the lack of common interest
in the tribes.

The piety of Gideon is shown by his consecration of the spoils
of war. The amulets taken from the enemy were made into an
ephod, by which we must understand an image of Yahweh. The
offence taken at the idol by a later writer must not make us
doubt the hero's good faith in the matter.^

Dignity and authority tend to become hereditary. It is not
surprising that the sons of Gideon should suppose themselves en-
titled to some prerogatives on account of their father's heroism.

* The account of the immense force (thirty-two thousand men) collected
by Gideon only to be dismissed (except three hundred), is a late embellish-
ment of the story. The author could conceive how Yahweh could save by
a small force, but could not suppose only three hundred men to respond to
the call of a divinely appointed leader.

^ That the ephod was an object of worship was quite plain to the author
of Judg. 8^^, who speaks of the worship paid it in terms more forcible than
polite. The innocence of such a symbol of Yahweh in this period is made
clear by the language of 17 '-*.

THE HEkOES 97

The Canaanitish cities, as we know, were accustomed to the rule
of tyrants, either of their own blood, or forced upon them by the
crown of Egypt. In the absence of a law of primogeniture, the
most ambitious or the least scrupulous son of a chief secures him-
self in the reversion by the murder of his brothers. Gideon, to
be sure, was not a monarch. But such power as he had seemed
to one of his sons an object of desire. So the family tragedy that
has so often been enacted in the East on the death of a monarch
was played on the village stage of Ophrah.

Gideon was blessed with numerous children. Those at Ophrah
were of pure Israelite blood. But as the connubium with the
Canaanites was established, he had a wife of that stock who
chose — according to a well-known form of Semitic marriage —
to remain with her own kin at Shechem.^ Her son was there-
fore recognised as belonging to their blood. At the same time
he was a recognised son of Gideon, and by the patriarchal system
in force in Israel he had a claim upon the inheritance. Plausi-
bly representing to the Shechemites the advantage his governor-
ship would give his kindred, this man, Abimelech by name, hired
a band of bravos and cut off the Israelite heirs of Gideon, except
one lad who made his escape.

Abimelech therefore became Emir of the district. With his
band of mercenaries he was probably able to make his authority-
complete. Our narrative says in so many words that the burgh-
ers of Shechem and Beth-millo made him king at the sacred tree
in Shechem. Some sort of religious sanction was thus given
his usurpation. The caustic fable of Jotham, delivered from the
overhanging mountain, taught the people that the most worthless
of men are the ones most likely to be intrusted with high office.
But it clearly implies the kingship of Abimelech.

The reign, whatever its nature, was short. According to one
account it was only three years after Abimelech' s installation that
God sent an evil spirit between him and his subjects. They as-
serted their ancient freedom and showed their estimate of the
king's peace by plundering the caravans which traversed the
country. This, of course, moved the king to take active mea-
sures against the unruly. The other account sets forth the revolt
in somewhat different terms. One Gaal, Sheikh of a small clan

^ On the Sadiqa marriage, which is exemplified in the case of Samson
and elsewhere, of. W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage, Ch. 3.

98 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

of fighting men, took up his residence in Shechem. With the
hope of supplanting Abimelech, he began to stir up dissatis-
faction. It was the time of the vintage, and the temper of
the people — always boisterous at this season — showed itself in
seditious speeches, in which Gaal took the lead. Abimelech's
Canaanitish blood had advanced him to his position; now his
Israelitish blood makes him the subject of abuse. Gaal points
out that Abimelech and his lieutenant Zebul are of a race once
subject to the Shechemites as slaves. If he (Gaal) were only at
the head of affairs, he would openly defy Abimelech, and they
would try conclusions on the field of battle. Abimelech was
not in Shechem at the time,^ but the seditious words were re-
ported to him by his deputy, and he marched promptly against
the city with his mercenaries. Gaal, under the taunts of Zebul,
the deputy, went forth before the eyes of the citizens to make
his threats good. His defeat destroyed what prestige he had,
and Zebul was able to banish him and the remnant of his troops
from the city.

It is perhaps hazardous to combine with this account of the
suppression of the revolt the story which follows, of a re-
newed attack upon the city. We may remember that the re-
volt was not confined to Gaal and his men, but that the
Shechemites had broken the king's peace by plundering the
caravans — thus making clear to him that they were resum-
ing their old independence. To suppress this lawlessness,
Abimelech could find no better way than to turn his soldiers
loose upon the citizens when they came out to their fields.
With one company he seized the unguarded gates while the
rest were cutting down the townspeople. The sack of the
city followed. A neighbouring stronghold bore the name
Tower of Shechem, and the people, crowding into it, sought
safety from attack, but the tower was burnt over their heads and
all of them perished.^ At Thebez, also, one of the towns which
sympathised in the revolt, an attempt was made to burn the
tower in which the people had taken refuge. But here a woman

^ He had taken up his abode in an otherwise unknown Arumah (Judg.
<)*^) — the name should also be restored in v.^^ (Moore).

2 The location of this Tower of Shechem is unknown. It was apparently
a separate place — not the citadel of Shechem itself. Thebez has been iden-
tified in Tiibaz, eight miles northeast of Shechem.

THE HEROES 99

threw a millstone from the roof and struck the incautious general
to the ground. To avoid the ignominy of death at the hand of a
woman he ordered his squire to thrust him through. Thus per-
ished an energetic but unscrupulous ruler. The piety of the Bib-
lical author sees in his death the divine vengeance upon fratricide.
The attention we have given this episode is justified by the
light it throws upon the times. We see Israelites and Canaanites
settled in immediate proximity, both being cultivators of the
soil. The Israelites had earlier been subject to the Canaanites,
but, owing to Gideon's generalship, the relations were now re-
versed. The parties lived together and intermarried, perhaps
worshipped the same Baal ; but the race feeling was strong.
Abimelech, though he raised himself to power by the aid of
the Canaanites, was supported mainly by the Israelites. His en-
deavour to establish a settled government was wrecked partly by
race jealousies, partly by the tribal sense of freedom which does
not readily tolerate any authority. In the conflict the city of
Shechem was destroyed. That Israel also suffered severely can
hardly be doubted.^

The part which an energetic captain can play in a state of
society such as we are now considering, is illustrated by Gaal,
the leader of the revolt against Abimelech. A more striking in-
stance is that of Jephthah, to whom we come next.' What we
learn about him is that he was an outlaw who gathered about
him a band of kindred spirits who acknowledged him as captain.
Sparing his own people, he fixed his haunts in the region of
Bashan. Hence he was recalled by the necessities of his kindred.
Chronically at war with their neighbours, these were now deeply
involved with the powerful tribe of Ammon. In their extremity,
the Sheikhs of Gilead bethought themselves of their exiled brother.
A formal proposition was made to Jephthah, and accepted by hmi,
to the effect that he should become their ruler, if only he would

1 A variant tradition of the destruction of Shechem is contained in the le-
gend of Dinah. With the knowledge at our command, we cannot trace that
story to this event. The possibility that this is its origin may, however, be
kept in mind. , • i u

2 As already intimated, the minor judges cannot be taken as historical char-
acters. For this reason we may pass over Tola and Jair, who are mentioned
between Abimelech and Jephthah. The names, in fact, seem to be clan names.
The reader, however, will be interested in Prof. Cheyne's attempt to transfer
a part of Jephthah's story to Jair, Encyc. Biblica, s v. " Jephthah."

lOO OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

defeat the oppressor — in the mind of the writer, at least, the suc-
cessful warrior attains to something like kingly power. The
agreement was solemnly ratified in the sanctuary at Mizpah, and
here also Jephthah made the vow, to us so repugnant, that if
successful he would sacrifice to Yahweh the first person that
should come out of the doors of his house to meet his victorious
return. That he intended a human being to be the victim is
evident from the form of the vow. If evidence were lacking
that human sacrifice was known to the religion of Israel, we
should find it here. Nor does the writer of the account revolt
from the deed — to him its pathos arises simply from the fact
that a young woman perishes in her virginity, and thus the stock
of Jephthah is cut off. The view of the time was, no doubt,
that the vow was effective in securing the help of Yahweh, just
as at a later time Chemosh was roused from his lethargy by a
similar sacrifice on the part of the king of Moab.^

To this pathetic incident and its yearly commemoration, we
owe the preservation of the history, which in itself has no
great importance. Jephthah's dynasty ended with himself.
There is no evidence that his rule (if such we call it) extended
beyond the region of Gilead. In any case it had no influence
on the main stream of Israel's history. One thing further is
noticeable in connexion with it — the turbulence of Ephraim,
which tribe took offence at not having been called to the war.
Jephthah had not the diplomatic temper of Gideon. The result
was a fierce conflict between the two tribes, in which Ephraim was
worsted. To the incident our language owes the word Shibbo-
leth— a monument of the test applied by the Gileadites to their
brethren. Inability to pronounce according to the prevailing
mode has often been inconvenient, seldom fatal as here, though
there are some parallel instances known to history.^

1 2 Kings 3 26 r — the sacrifice brings ^reaf wrath upon Israel. Had there
been no human sacrifices in Israel, the protest embodied in the account of
Abraham's off"ering Isaac would have been needless. A somewhat extended
discussion of the subject may be found in Kamphausen's Ver/idltniss des
Menschenopfers zur Israelitischen Religion (1896). Recent excavators in
Palestine claim to have found evidence of human sacrifice at Gezer— whether
in the pre-Tsraelite period is not yet certain ; Palesti?ie Exploration Fund,
Qjiarterly Statement, January, 1903, p. ig.

* To the instances given by Moore {Commentary, p. 309) may be added
one by Doughty, Arabia Deserta, I, p. 155. The smallness of the scale

THE HEROES lOI

No more extraordinary champion of the cause of rehgion has
arisen in the whole course of history than the one who next
claims our attention among the judges of Israel — Samson the son
of Manoah. The piety of later times made him, like Isaac or
Samuel, a special gift to a mother long disappointed in her hope
for children, and described the theophany which gave promise
of his greatness. But even the faith of Judaism must have found
it difficult to discover Israel's deliverer in this boisterous knight.
Samson was anything but a theocratic ruler of God's people. He
was not even a deliverer after the pattern of Gideon or Jephthah.
It is easy to suppose that the piety of Gideon or Jephthah,
different as it was from the piety of later times, exerted a dis-
tinct influence in favour of Israel's loyalty to Yahweh. But
we can find no trace of such influence exerted by Samson. He
is simply a hero of folklore — a champion possessed of great physi-
cal strength, who delights in inflicting mischief upon the Philis-
tines; fitful in his rage, and fitful also in his good nature; led
by his sensuality into dangerous situations from which he frees
himself by unexpected feats ; falling a victim to a designing
woman, but ending his life with dignity in a supreme eff'ort for
revenge.

The discrepancy between the story and its setting is strong
evidence for its truthfulness. Certainly the exploits could not
have been invented by the authors who have handed the narra-
tive down to us, because the story so poorly teaches the lesson
these authors have at heart. Barring a little natural exaggeration
therefore, we accept the main incidents as historical, not mythi-
cal, only slightly legendary. Their value to us is very great
because of the light which they throw upon the life of the time.
For the advancement of Israel's nationality they may be said to
have no value at all.

The scene of this part of the history is on the western edge of
the hill country. Here the tribe of Dan had pushed forward in
the front of the Israelite invasion. But they were met by a

on which this history is enacted may be seen when we notice that Amman
(Rabbath Ammon) is not more than twenty miles in a straight line from
the centre of Gilead. The long argument of Jephthah about Israel's title to
Gilead, (Judg. 11I2-28J jg ^lot by the author of the main history. The
editor in adapting it to its present position, has not observed the fact that
it originally referred to a controversy with Moab instead of Ammon.

I02 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

counter-invasion which had already taken possession of the mari-
time plain. The Philistines were pirate bands who had ravaged
the coasts of Palestine and given much trouble to the Egyptian
territories for some time. Like the Northmen of our history,
they overran the weaker civilisation of the coast districts, settled
among the older inhabitants, and gradually became amalgamated
with them. In the fertile grain lands of the Shephela they had
made themselves masters, and now formed a confederacy of five
bands, under five chiefs or princes. At the time we are consid-
ering, they had (like the Hebrews) adopted the language of
Canaan.^ How far customs and religion had been assimilated,
cannot clearly be made out ; but they alone, among the inhab-
itants of Canaan, are stigmatised as uncircumcised. After becom-
ing masters of the maritime plain they had attacked the high-
lands, and had made the nearer tribes of Israel tributaries.
Among these the Danites were their nearest neighbours. In the
story of Samson we see that the relations between the two peo-
ples were friendly enough. The connubium is recognised —
Manoah's protest against Samson's Philistine wife is probably the
reflection of later ideas. The Israelites seem to have accepted
the situation, paying tribute to escape the harassment of war. A
part of the Danites, probably the most adventurous spirits, had
preferred to seek a new home in the north, as already related.
Those that were left bowed to the Philistine yoke.

Certainly there is no settled enmity where Samson can so easily
obtain a wife. The woman's preference for her own kin, shown
in the betrayal of the secret of the riddle, is only what may be
expected in Oriental society. Samson's outbreaks are acts of
private revenge such as might occur in tribal society at any time.
Individually he is wronged by his wife's treachery ; he leaves
her in anger, and is wronged again by her father's giving her
to another ; individually he takes his revenge on the whole clan
by burning up the standing corn."-' His people do not make

' On the Philistines, besides the commentaries to Judges, compare W. M.
Muller, Asien unci Europa, pp. 387-390, and Studien zur Vorderasiatischen
Geschichte, II (1900).

2 When the grain is dead ripe it is easily set on fire. Modern travellers
remark on the care taken by the Fellahin to prevent fire spreading in time
of harvest.

Samson's marriage was of the Sadiqa type already commented upon in the
case of Gideon.

THE HEROES 103

the quarrel their own; in fact, when the Phihstines demand
him, they hand him over for punishment. This does not pre-
vent their enjoyment of his successful feats.

How far the details of these stories are accurate, is a question
of minor importance. Our interest in the narrative is excited
less by the remarkable incidents than by the religious concep-
tions revealed. Samson's strength is in his hair. This points to
an estimation of the hair of which we have numerous parallels in
other religions. In the Old Testament this estimate is most
fully expressed in the Nazirite. A Nazirite is a man, who, for a
time, is in a state of special ceremonial consecration. As a part
of his consecration, and as its external sign, he lets his hair
grow long. The Hebrew writer regards Samson as a life-long
Nazirite. The only other mark of consecration given in his
case, is abstinence from the fruit of the vine. It is clear that this
marks his consecration as a consecration to Yahweh, the God of
the desert. The vine was sacred to another god, and therefore
forbidden.

There is no other Old Testament instance in which long hair
is associated with great physical strength ; but it is easy to trace
the connexion of ideas. Samson's great strength was a special
gift of Yahweh. His feats are, in fact, ascribed to a distinct
inrush of the Spirit of Yahweh.^ Should the consecration be
broken, the special relation with Yahweh would no longer exist.
The cutting of the hair breaks the consecration— '' he did not
know that Yahweh had departed from him" is the assertion of
the text. The mechanical nature of the conception is evident in
the sequel, for when the hair grew again, the strength returned.
Amazing as it is to us to find a religion in which Yahweh cared
more for the hair than for the chastity of His devotee, we are
obliged to admit that such a religion existed in Israel in the time
of the Judges.

Reviewing the period which we call by the name of the Judges
we see that it is really the second stage of the conquest. Israel
ijudg. 14^'^^, 15^*. It is a serious question whether, in this period,
Yahweh was not identified with the Sun-god. The name Samson indicates
consecration to the Sun, to whom there was a sanctuary (Beth Shemesh) m
the region. ^

On the connexion of long hair with religious consecration, see W. R.
Smith, Rdigionof the Semites, pp. 305-31$' Frazer, The Golden Bough, \,
p. 193 f., II, 328.

104 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

has now made its way into many parts of the land. It has
adopted the agricultural life and has some fortified towns of its
own. In other towns it lives in conjunction with the Canaanites
— probably each race has a separate quarter to itself. Treaties
existed which secured the rights of the parties. But in the absence
of a central authority these treaties were easily disregarded.
Some consciousness there was that all the Israelite clans were of
one blood, and that the Canaanites were not of their race. But
this consciousness was not strong enough to keep the tribes from
warring on each other.

No people ever reached this stage of civilisation without hav-
ing a literature, and we must suppose that the sagas which have
come down to us were already circulated. The sense of unity
was probably fostered by the stories of the common ancestor
Jacob. The poem which we call the Testament of Jacob dates
in part from this period. It describes the situation of the tribes
and their character. We hear of Reuben, who still clings to the
nomad life, too passionate, too uncontrolled, to attain to any-
thing better. Simeon and Levi are condemned for their ruthless-
ness and threatened with extinction. Issachar is still under
bondage to the Canaanite, a bondage that he threw off under
Barak. Dan and Gad are in constant warfare with their neigh-
bours, and Benjamin also lives a freebooter life. Asher, Naphtali,
and Ephraim are in possession of a fruitful country from which
they obtain abundance of dainties.

We are here a long way from the desert life, and the sagas, as
we have seen, reflect the view of the peasant rather than the
Bedawy. The curse of Cain is that he lives a nomad ; the lot of
Jacob is praised above that of Esau. At the same time, the
shepherd life has not lost its charm. The Israelite delights in the
shrewdness of the arch-shepherd Jacob, his ancestor. So, too, he
recounts with admiration and something like awe, Israel's night
contest with a divine being, in which the human hero came off
conqueror. Such stories fostered the sense of unity among the
tribes.

More effective still was the common belief in Yahweh as the
God of Israel. In some cases He is thought of as still dwelling
in His original home in the south. It is thence that He comes
to the help of Israel against Sisera. But He is also active in the
land and seems early to have acquired a title to it. It is His

THE HEROES IO5

spirit which rushes upon Gideon and Samson and fits them for
their work. How far He was identified with the local Baals we
cannot clearly make out. But we must suppose that at the sanc-
tuary of Bethel (for example) Yahweh was the God that was
worshipped. To Him Gideon consecrated an Ephod, and it
was He to whom the unlucky Micah dedicated that image which
the Danites appropriated by the right of the strongest.

The question of historical interest was whether the sense of
unity, racial and religious, would be able to work out a real polit-
ical union. At the close of the period the prospect was not
hopeful. The incident with which the Book of Judges concludes
is calculated to bring this into view and may appropriately open
the next chapter.

CHAPTER VII

THE EARLY MONARCHY

In the first flush of invasion Israel had carried the highlands.
But the Canaanites pertinaciously maintained themselves in the
plains. The Philistines were seasoned warriors and were able
not only to master the maritime plain but also to push their con-
quests into the hill country. Their relations to Dan we have
already discussed. In Benjamin they claimed the supremacy, and
their Resident, perhaps supported by a garrison, was established
at Gibeah as an instrument for the collection of tribute and a
sign of the subjection of Israel. To make common cause against
such a foe would seem to be the part of common prudence.
And yet the tribes were quarrelling among themselves.

The incoherence of the people who called themselves Bene
Israel (Sons of Israel) is strikingly brought out by the concluding
narrative of the Book of Judges, to which a brief allusion has
already been made. Unfortunately the story has been worked
over by a later hand so as to teach the very opposite lesson.
What we may reasonably suppose to be the original story is
something as follows : ^

A man who dwelt in Mount Ephraim had a wife from Bethle-
hem. In a fit of anger the woman left him and returned to her
father's house. After a time her husband sought her and they
were reconciled. The hospitality of the father made it difficult
for them to get away, but finally, one afternoon, they made a
start. The day was far gone when they reached Jerusalem, and
the servant who was with them proposed they should lodge in
that city. The master, however, did not trust the hospitality

^ The story in Judges 19-21 shows more marks of late date than any
other portion of the book. As it stands, it pictures Israel as a theocratic
community, moving as one man under the lead of the priestly oracle, purg-
ing out iniquity from its midst, exterminating men, women, and children in
the way of duty, yet mourning over the loss of one of the twelve tribes and
taking measures to restore it. All this is evidently late. But the kernel of
the story seems to be old and this I venture to use.

106

THE EARLY MONARCHY I07

of Gentiles, and preferred to go on till they should reach an
Israelite town. This they found in Gibeah of Benjamin, but not
the hospitality for which they looked. No attention was paid
them as they stood in the public square, until an old man, not a
native of the place, took them to his house. The rest of the
people were not content with the sin of omission. They invaded
the home of hospitality. By threats of the vilest description
they forced the stranger to deliver his wife to them, and her
they abused so that she died under their hands.

To the appeal for vengeance, enough Israelites responded to
make war upon Benjamin — for this tribe made common cause with
the criminals. The result was the almost complete extermination
of the tribe. The rest of Israel had forsworn the connubium
with them, and the survivors were provided with wives only by a
scheme which reminds us of the rape of the Sabines. This is
what the author, who lived after the establishment of royal author-
ity, regarded as each man's doing that which was right in his
own eyes — inhospitality, violation of the rights of the guest,
rape, tribal defence of violence, robbery of maidens from neigh-
bouring towns, internecine conflict. It is probably not acci-
dental that an attempt to remedy these evils was made in the
tribe which had suffered most deeply from them.

The narrative of the origin of the kingdom which has come
down to us in the Books of Samuel shows a strange confusion in
the treatment of this subject. In the looseness of the tribal or-
ganisation, which was fitted to cope neither with external evils
nor with internal lawlessness, some men must have looked to the
monarchy as the institution essential to the prosperity, or indeed
the existence, of Israel. Our narrative records such a desire on
the part of the people as a whole, but goes on to stigmatise it
as contrary to the will of Yahweh, We see here the effect of
later experience. The monarchy, in its actual working, fell far
short of the ideal. Hence, there grew up the conviction that the
theocracy was Israel's true constitution. It is this judgment
which has coloured so much of the narrative now before us. Its
inconsistency with other parts of the story is evident. To one
author, the king was a gift of God to His people; to another,
the king was granted only under protest, and as a punishment
for the people's sins. There can be no doubt that the former is
the older view, and our history must carefully trace the document

I08 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

in which it appears. This document is, in fact, of the utmost
value for the reconstruction of the period/

The hero of the narrative is Saul, the son of Kish. He is in-
troduced to us as a man of good family, his father being a well-
to-do farmer.^ Nobility there was none in Israel, though no
doubt purity of blood was highly esteemed, as it always has
been among the Arabs. Saul, though he had attained to man-
hood, was still under the paternal direction and occupied in
the work of the farm with apparently no higher ambition, when
an errand on which he was sent brought him a new impulse.
The asses had strayed, and Saul made a considerable journey to
seek them, but without success. As he was about to give up the
search, the trusty servant who accompanied him suggested that
they inquire of a seer of whom he had heard. This man (Samuel
by name) was a member of the class which is found in all stages
of society — clairvoyants, mediums, possessors of second sight —
to whom those less gifted apply for counsel, direction, or knowl-
edge of the future. The recovery of lost or stolen property has
always been one of the things for which they have been consulted.
We readily understand how Saul's servant advises a visit to Sam-
uel, how Saul hesitates because he has not the customary honora-
rium, how, when reassured on this point, he consents to go.

Samuel, however, was more than an ordinary seer. By his
strong sense, his probity, and his devotion to the interests of his
people he had established himself as the leading man in the little
community in which he dwelt. A village feast was at hand, at which
the heads of families partook of the commor sacrifice. Samuel was
the one chosen to preside on this as on all public occasions. As
Saul and his servant entered the village they met him going

* The composite character of the Books of Samuel (originally one Book)
is evident at a glance. For the analysis, the reader may be referred to
Budde's Richter und Samuel, his edition of the Hebrew text in Haupt's
Sacred Books of the Old Testament (1894), and the present writer's com-
mentary in the International Critical Commentary (1899). On the text,
which has suffered much in transmission, use also Wellhausen's Text der
Backer SaniueVs (1871), and Driver's Notes on the Hehrw Text of the
Books of Samuel (1890). The critical questions of both kinds are also
treated in the latest (1903) commentaries of Budde and Nowack.

^ He is described as gibbor hail, which is erroneously translated mighty
man of valour. It means, simply, a man who has landed property, and
therefore is qualified to bear arms, cf. 2 K. 15 ^^^

THE EARLY MONARCHY lOQ

up to the sanctuary. Courteously inviting the strangers to ac-
company him, he made them the guests of honour at the feast,
and afterward took them to his house for the night. In the
morning he took Saul aside, and announced the divine choice
which made him the deliverer of Israel for whom the people were
longing. This message he confirmed by the solemn rite of
anointing — a consecration to God which makes the recipient a
sacred person.^

This picturesque anecdote is an early attempt to give the
monarchy divine sanction. To understand it fully, we need to
take into view its sequel, where we find Saul among the
prophets. As he returns to his native town of Gibeah, he meets
a company oi Nebiim coming down from the sanctuary in sol-
emn procession. They are preceded by a band of music and are
engaged in the enthusiastic acts of worship associated with so
many oriental religions, and exemplified in the ancient Galli as
well as the modern dervishes. As Saul meets them, he is over-
come by the impulse which possesses them, and himself joins in
their extravagances so as to call out the wonder of his fellow-
townsmen. In the parallel account^ Saul is so entirely pos-
sessed by the Spirit that he is incapable of carrying out the
plans upon which he has set his heart. He loses all will of his
own, and marches on the road laid out for him by a higher power.
Arriving at the company of enthusiasts he shares their extrava-
gances even to the stripping off of his garments, and finally, with
senses overcome, he lies in a trance all that day and all that
night.

We have here one of the most remarkable institutions of Israel's
early religion. These raving prophets can be understood only
by comparison with their fellows, the Galli and dervishes, to
whom reference has already been made. Such prophets are found
in the Canaanitish religion, where they dance about the altar.
From the Canaanites the institution passed over to Israel. AVhat

^ The anointing of the sacred pillar at Bethel (Gen. 28 ^^) gives us light
upon the original significance of the act. The rite was very ancient in Ca-
naan according to the El Amarna tablets (Winckler's edition I, p. 99). An
extended discussion of the subject is given by ^Veinel in the Zeitschr. f. d.
Alttest. IVissensch., 1898, pp. 1-S2.

^ I Sam. 19 ^^-2* is undoubtedly a later embellishment of the original ac-
count which we read in 10^-'^. But the embellishments make clear how the
original account was understood by the earliest readers.

no OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

now interests iis is the appearance of the prophets in the history
of Saul. We must remember that it was the time of PhiUstine
oppression. If rehef was to come, it must come by a new rehg-
ious impulse. In the earlier time we have seen that a religious
impulse brought Israel out of Egypt. It was probably a religious
impulse also that nerved the tribes against Sisera. Now, under
the Philistine oppression, earnest men began to have accessions
of zeal for Yahweh. The zealots (as the dervishes so often have
done) stirred up the people, and their enthusiasm became conta-
gious.^ The monarchy of Saul was the fruit of the revival. .
This is indicated both by Saul's connexion with Samuel and by
his relations with the prophets. The later form of the story joins
the two and makes Samuel the head of the prophetic movement.
The part played by Samuel in this account is that of a prophet
in the later sense — he is a revealer of the will of God, and the
organ by which the new king is appointed. It was inevitable
that a later time, looking back to the theocracy as its ideal,
should magnify his part in the history of Israel. From this point
of view we readily understand the opening chapters of the book
of Samuel, for in these chapters Samuel himself appears in the
light of a divinely appointed ruler — a second Moses — greater than
a Gideon or a Jephthah. In this office of theocratic head of the
people he takes his place in the series of Judges, succeeding Eli,

^ The word which we translate prophet, nabi\ is yet an unsolved riddle in
the Hebrew vocabulary. The most natural hypothesis is that it is a bor-
rowed word. As to the fact of the nabfs enthusiastic or orgiastic behaviour
the passage just discussed is sufficient evidence. In the same line is the ex-
travagance of some of the later prophets, the use of the verb ' prophesy ' for
the raving of a (feigned) madman, and the characterisation of a young
prophet as crazy. The dancing of Canaanitish prophets or priests about the
altar is the prelude to oracular utterances, cf. Pj-oceedings of the Soc. Bib.
Arch. XXI, p. 253, and I Kings, 18 ^i-^^, where the prophets of Baal are
described; also W. M. Miiller, Stiidien ziir Vorderasiatischen Geschichte,
II, p. 17. As there was a god Nebo {N'abu) in Babylon who was the pro-
claimer of truth or wisdom, it does not seem far-fetched to connect the nabV
with him, especially as his worship had spread to Palestine at a very early
day — a mountain in Moab and a town in Judah bore his name. The nabV
would then be one possessed by Nebo. On the god Nabu, cf. Jastrow, Relig-
ion of Babylonia and Assyria, '^^. 124-130; Schrader, Keilinsch. tind Altes
Testament, ^ p. 399 ff. Enthusiastic dancing about the altar is one of the
earliest expressions of religious emotion. A Baal of the sacred dance is
known to us from an inscription discovered near Beirut, Baethgen, Beitriige
zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte^ p. 25.

THE EARLY MONARCHY III

whose sons were cut off because of their wickedness. The well-
known narrative gives us a charming picture of faith and piety in
the person of Hannah. The childless woman comes to the sanct-
uary to pray for a son, and in her strong desire vows, in case he is
granted, to give him to the sanctuary as its servant. The boy is
born and faithfully dedicated according to the vow. His fidelity
is brought into strong relief by the contrasted conduct of the sons
of Eli. These are types of the arrogant priests who care for their
office only so far as it fills their bellies. Regardless of ancient
custom, they pick for themselves the best pieces of the sacrifices,
and with indecent haste send their servants to claim their
share even before the sacred rites have been duly performed.*
Their weak and indulgent father is warned on their account, but
in vain. The sons are destroyed in battle ; the father is himself
killed by shock at the loss of that which he held dearer even than
his sons — the Ark of Yahweh. In this tale of disaster Samuel
stands out as the faithful servant of Yahweh. While yet a youth
he receives a revelation directed against the house of Eli. Later
he is favoured with others which establish him in the opinion of
the people. Finally he is the recognised vindicator of the people,
at whose prayer the Philistines suffer a miraculous defeat, and
come no more into the border of Israel.^

This whole account must be received with the greatest caution.
If Samuel were the theocratic ruler of the people and at the same
time their successful leader against their enemies, what need for
the monarchy at all? The answer of the author would be that
there was no need for a monarchy ; that the call for a king was
simply a manifestation of the depravity of the people. This he
brings out by making Samuel treat the demand for a king as
apostasy from Yahweh. Samuel is in this narrative intended
to make Saul superfluous. The construction of history is an ideal
one which quite ignores the actual sequence of events.

While we are obliged to resign the Samuel of these earlier
chapters, there is one section which may give us some historical

^ I Sam. 2 ^2-n_ ^j- f^j-st sight the passage seems to be ancient. But
on reflection we see that the author has no really serious charges to bring
against the priests. Contrasting his indictment with that of Hosea, for
example, we find it expressive of advanced ritualism and an exaggerated
estimate of sacred things.

* I Sam. 7 ^^. This chapter is certainly late.

112 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

material. The scene of Eli's ministration is the sanctuary of
Shiloh.^ This was a substantial structure in which the central
sacred object was the Ark, already known to us in the story of the
exodus. Eli the priest is, like Samuel, an idealised figure presented
to us as one of the Judges of Israel.^ When Philistine aggression
drove the people to arms, a battle was fought in the country be-
low Shiloh. Israel was defeated in the first collision and the
Sheikhs determined to bring the Ark from Shiloh that it might
lead them to victory. The position accorded to Yahweh as the
God of battles made this a natural step, and if we may trust the
history of the exodus, the Ark was from earlier times put in
front of the host in order that it might insure the defeat of the
enemy. Only so can we understand the ancient cry with which
it was greeted :

Rise, Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered !
And let thy haters flee before thee ! ^

The superstition which saw in the Ark a sure pledge of victory
was rebuked by the sequel. Whether the Israelites were over-
confident or not, the Philistines seem to have fought with the
courage of despair. The army of Israel was annihilated ; the
bearers of the Ark were slain; the palladium itself fell into the
hands of the enemy ; Shiloh was razed to the ground. The
prophet Jeremiah could point to it as an instructive example of
God's vengeance upon a place which once He had chosen as His
habitation.

The Ark could not long be detained away from its own peo-
ple. The captors, to show the superiority of their own god,
placed it as a trophy in the Temple of Dagon.* But mysteri-
ous visitations upon the idol made them uneasy in the suspicion
that after all Yahweh might be the stronger. The suspicion was
confirmed by an outbreak of the bubonic plague in the city where
the Ark was detained. Suspicion became certainty when the

' The locality which still bears the name Seihin is accurately described in
Judg. 21^^; cf. Moore's note on the passage and his references.

* I Sam. 4 '^, a redactional insertion, but one which correctly interprets
the traditional position of Eli.

^ Num. lo ^^ ; the section is ascribed to J by the majority of critics.

* The nature of this Philistine divinity is still obscure. His name occurs
in Assyrian, cf. Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 208 f.

THE EARLY MONARCHY 1 13

plague followed the route which the Ark took when sent from
city to city. At last the popular terror became uncontrollable.
The chiefs were compelled to return the dangerous emblem or
depository of superhuman power. Every effort was now made to
conciliate the offended deity. A suitable votive offering was
prepared and placed with the Ark itself upon a new, and there-
fore unpolluted, cart. The untaught kine obeyed the divine
impulse and took the nearest way to the territory of Israel.*

The sacred object was able to show its power on friends as
well as foes. At Beth-shemesh its death-dealing holiness proved
destructive to seventy men, and the people hastened to get rid
of so dangerous a treasure. At Kirjath-jearim, whither it was
carried, it was more placable or was better treated, and here it
rested till the time of David.'"* There is some confusion in the
sources as to the name of the place, which is later called Baal
Judah. As we know Kirjath-jearim to have been one of the
Canaanite cities to a comparatively late date, we may conjecture
that this accounts for the change of name in the narrative of
David's life.

Is this incident of the capture and return of the Ark historical?
Serious objection is made to it by some scholars on the ground
that if once captured the Ark was not likely to be restored. That
it should be captured is not improbable. It was the custom to
carry it into battle. We cannot suppose it impossible that it
should ever fall into the hands of the enemy. We cannot ac-
count for the story of its capture without some basis of fact — the
pride of Israel would have resented the invention of such a story.
And, if captured, there is no reason why it might not make the
impression which is so vividly described in the narrative. The
God of Israel had more than once shown His power. A
plague breaking out about the time of the capture would quite
certainly be interpreted as the stroke of His wrath. To send
Him back to His own people would be the dictate of common
prudence. The sobriety of the narrative is seen in its limiting
the power of Yahweh to the pestilence, and not making Him

* According to Bavarian legend the corpse of Saint Emmeram was in like
manner committed to a yoke of oxen, who were allowed to choose their own
way; Usener, Religionsgesch. Untersjichiingen, HI., p. 137.

* I Sam. 5 '-7 ^ The section is older than the narrative in which it is
imbedded.

114 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

overthrow the armies of the Phihstines in some public way. The
same sobriety is seen in the position which is given the Ark it-
self. The sacred object is not made the sole and central symbol
of the Godhead to all Israel. The loss of it did not affect the
chief sanctuaries in the least, nor did its return make Kirjath-jea-
rim the only place of legitimate worship. Samuel never visited
it after its return, never tried to restore it to his own tribe or
city. Saul paid it no attention. In all these respects we see
that our narrative has been kept free from the representations
of a later age.

The incident of the capture of the Ark is calculated to give us
a vivid conception of the Philistine power. If that power was
sufficient to carry off the Ark and conquer its defenders in a
pitched battle, what might it not accomplish? In truth, the
Philistine oppression was severe, and its severity was not miti-
gated by the infliction of the plague. The paragraph in the
history which speaks of the Israelites as being totally disarmed,
is indeed an exaggeration. But the fact that a Philistine Resident
was stationed at Gibeah, in the very heart of Benjamin, shows
the galling nature of the foreign yoke. From this yoke Saul
sought to deliver Israel, and though he himself accomplished
little, he kept the spirit of the nation alive, and prepared the
way for his greater successor. It has been his misfortune that
his exploits have been compared with those of this successor.

The kingship was not, as a matter of fact, conferred upon Saul
by the word of Samuel. The election by lot, which is related in
connexion with the demand of the people for a king, is an imagi-
native construction of legend. Saul became king by an act of
prowess like that which brought Gideon into prominence in
Israel. It was again the Bedawin which gave occasion for a
great deed. The Ammonites made a raid upon their Israelite
neighbours, besieging Jabesh Gilead.^ The townsmen, rather
than see their country devastated, offered to make an arrange-
ment such as often existed between two tribes in that period.
They doubtless expected to pay tribute as the price of peace — the
proposition was in line with what Israelites and Canaanites had
often done. But Nahash, the Sheikh of the invaders, insisted on
terms hitherto unheard of. He would put out the right eye of

* Wadi Yabis, which falls into the Jordan valley about twenty miles
south of the Lake of Galilee, seems to preserve the ancient name.

THE EARLY MONARCHY II5

every male in the town, and would '' lay it as a reproach on all
Israel." The sarcasm which Arab poets know how to pour upon
cowardice, sufficiently shows what Israel would suffer in case this
outrage were inflicted upon their brethren. Whether Nahash had
a personal wrong to avenge (it has been suggested that he himself
had lost an eye in battle), or whether it was a case of sheer bar-
barity, we cannot now determine. Secure in the supposed weak-
ness of Israel, he allowed the men of Jabesh to seek help among
their kin. Messengers hastened across the Jordan, probably with
no very sanguine hopes of rallying their disunited brethren to
their support.

It was with no thought of Saul's authority or influence that the
messengers came to Gibeah, for the king assumed neither author-
ity nor title.^ After the reHgious exaltation of his meeting with
the dervishes, he had quietly returned to the work of the field.
When the news came of the hard fate of Jabesh, the people broke
out in weeping, but no one thought of sending for Saul. It was
only as he returned from his day's work that he discovered the
commotion, and learned its cause. Then a mighty impulse
seized him. The Spirit of God rushed upon Jiiin'^ as it used to
rush upon Samson. He hewed his oxen in pieces, and sent the
pieces to all Israel with the message: ''Whosoever comes not
after Saul, so shall his oxen be treated." The answer was a
muster of the people so prompt, that the Ammonites w^ere taken
by surprise and thoroughly routed. The deliverance of Jabesh
was complete, and, as in the cases of Gideon and Jephthah, the
event marked Saul as the divinely chosen chief of the people. With
Saul, however, there was a distinct advance. The assumption of
the title of king showed a purpose to inaugurate a more stable gov-
ernment than had existed before. To the people, first and last, the
chief office of the king was to lead them in battle against their ene-
mies. The new dignity was conferred at the ancient sanctuary

^ There is a possibility, however, that* Jabesh and Benjamin regarded
themselves as closely akin. The account of the attack of the other tribes
upon Benjamin tells of the Benjamites receiving wives from Jabesh (Judg. 21
**-'^), and the piety of the Jabeshites toward Saul after his death argues for
some uncommon bond of union. The elaborate conclusions of Winckler,
nowever {Keiliuschri/ten und Altes Testament^, p. 227, and Geschichte
Israels, 11, pp. 155-158), seem to rest on a slender basis.

^i Sam. 11^, Judg. 14^-^^, 15^*; the verb is the same in the four
passages.

Il6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

of Gilgal, where, after offering sacrifices, Saul and the men of
Israel rejoiced exceedingly.^

That Israel should weaken itself by fighting with Amnion,
could be looked upon only with pleasure by the Philistines. The
organisation of Benjamin under a king was also a small matter in
their eyes. How the internal affairs of their tributaries were
conducted did not concern them, so long as the tribute was not
endangered. The kingship of Saul can hardly have been recog-
nised (at least at first) beyond the boundaries of his own tribe.
The haughty and turbulent Ephraimites were not likely to sub-
mit to him, and Judah, as we know, was only very loosely con-
nected with Israel. We may suppose that the new king spent
some time quietly in establishing his power before he ventured to
try conclusions with the main enemy. Our narrative is silent ex-
cept with regard to the leading events, and gives us no clew as
to the chronology of the period. It tells us only that Saul en-
listed three thousand men, with whom he garrisoned Bethel,
Michmash, and Geba.^ These were important points for the
control of the highways, both the one running north and south,
and the one running across the country into the Jordan valley.
As the security of the roads is one of the chief cares of the king,
this measure is quite intelligible. These fortresses were also well
situated to discover and check any invading force.

When we first met Saul, he was described to us as a young
man. The next adventure presents him as more mature in years,
father of a son who is capable of bearing arms — the well-known
and well-beloved Jonathan.^ The name tempts us to linger,
for the Old Testament writers have dealt lovingly with it. We
find the young man presented as the paragon of friendship, the

1 The story of the relief of Jabesh (i Sam. ii) is ancient, and the sub-
stance may well be taken for authentic history. In the received text are
some interpolations, designed to harmonise its statements with the other
document with which it is combined. Samuel was originally unknown to
it, but has been introduced in the process of redaction. In the correct
reading, it dates the relief of Jabesh about a month after Saul's first anointing.
The enormous numbers of Saul's militia must be judged like similar data
elsewhere.

2 As David had a body-guard of only six hundred men, we may suspect
the three thousand to be an exaggeration.

' IVhom Yahweh gave is the meaning of the name. Saul's piety is mani-
fcsted in all the names he gave his sons.

THE EARLY MONARCHY II7

loving and generous prince who could rejoice that he was to be
supplanted in the kingdom by his friend David. At his first in-
troduction to us the shadow has not yel begun to fall over his
life. He is the intrepid warrior, without whose impetuosity Saul
might never have broken with the Philistines. It was Jonathan
who struck the first blow for freedom. As crown prince he had
command of the troops at Geba. The place is on the south side
of a wadi running up from the Jordan valley. At this place the
Philistine Resident was stationed, a constant provocation to the
young soldier. Impatience getting the upper hand, Jonathan
slew the agent of oppression with his own hand. The act of re-
volt needed no interpreter, and the Philistines promptly moved
into the hill country. Coming from the north (as would appear),
they forced Saul to evacuate two of his posts — Bethel and Mich-
mash. Geba, however, was protected by the ravine which ran
between it and Miclmiash, and its garrison could not so easily
be dispossessed. Saul's men deserted in numbers, and his force
was reduced to six hundred men. With these he held Geba,
but was unable to take the offensive, or even to check the devas-
tation of the country. After the manner of Oriental (and also of
Occidental) warfare, the Philistine bands harried the country.
From the fixed camp at Michmash, where they could hold the
Benjamites in check, they daily sent out parties of raiders to the
north, east, and west. These, with settled purpose, looted,
killed, and burned whatever belonged to Israel.

A bold stroke by Jonathan brought light into the darkness
which seemed settling upon Israel. From the camp at Geba he
could look across the ravine and see what was doing at Michmash.^
There the advance post of the Philistines was stationed on the
edge of the cliff overlooking the ravine. The young soldier
could not help thinking what a fine thing it would be to give
them a fright, and the thought became a resolve.

As was appropriate to a prince and an officer, Jonathan had a
squire or adjutant — armour-bearer is the Hebrew title — who
fought by his side.^ Such an officer naturally became the con-

* It is acutely conjectured by Duff {Old Testament Theology, II, p. 223)
that the name means Place of Cheviosh. Chemosh was the god of Moab, and
the name might have been given during the Moabite invasion from which
deliverance was wrought by Ehud.

^ We have already met such an officer in the case of Abimelech, Judg. 9H

Il8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

fidential friend of his chief; so we are not surprised to find Jona-
than confiding his plans to him. What he proposes is that they
quietly make their way to the bottom of the ravine and then
show themselves in the open. If the sentinels observe them and
banter them to climb the slope they will take it as Yahweh's
omen that they are to make the attempt. The squire is in no
way behind his chief in ambition, and readily seconds the plan.
The result is as Jonathan expected. The sentinels seeing the
young men below them, amuse themselves with watching the
''Hebrews coming out of their holes." Then they shout:
' ' Come up hither and we will show you something. ' ' This is the
looked-for omen, and in the confidence that it is a sign from
Yahweh, the two warriors scramble up the cliff. The men of the
outpost are taken aback by the unexpected move. Uncertain
whether there may not be a large force swarming up the slope,
they hesitate, then turn to flee. The active Jonathan, ''swifter
than an eagle," as he is described later,^ pursues, overtakes,
beats down, and with the help of his adjutant soon puts some
twenty men beyond the power of doing harm.

The undisciplined armies of the East are easily thrown into a
panic. The force of Philistines on this occasion was a miscella-
neous body drawn together by the hope of plunder. Besides
Philistines and Canaanites it contained many Hebrews, who were
pressed into the service either as slaves or burden-bearers, or who
had feigned zeal for their Philistine superiors. It is hardly sur-
prising that the main camp was thrown into confusion by the
sudden attack upon the outpost. The piety of the Israelites was
sure that an earthquake was felt, and this they interpreted as the
signal of Yahweh's coming to the aid of His people. This party
in the camp was therefore ready to strike a blow for freedom,
while the Philistines, uncertain whom to trust, turned their
swords against friend and foe without discrimination. As Saul
from the not distant Geba heard the thunder of the captains and
the shouting, and looked to see what it meant, he saw, not the
dreaded ranks ready to march, but a mob surging hither and
yonder in aimless and ridiculous confusion.

The pious king was not willing to move without some indica-
tion of the will of God. The priest Ahitub was with the army,
carrying the ephod by which the mind of Yahweh could be as-
^ In David's lament, 2 Sam. i ^^.

THE EARLY MONARCHY II9

certained.' First the troops were mustered, and the roll call
showed the absence of Jonathan and his aid. Then the ephod
was brought, and the ceremonies preparatory to the consultation
of the oracle were gone through, or at least begun. Meanwhile
the confusion in the camp of the enemy kept increasing. The
circumstances seemed to indicate the will of Yahweh plainly
enough. Without waiting for the special revelation therefore,
Saul decided to seize the golden moment. Directing the priest
to suspend the service, he marched at the head of his little band
against the Philistines. The time was indeed opportune; the
Philistines were in utter confusion ; the Hebrews in the camp —
slaves or hangers-on — had turned against their masters. The
host was melting away ; what held together was making its way
westward toward the Philistine country. Saul and his men had
nothing to do but to follow and slay. As the fleeing and pur-
suing companies made their way over the country, Saul was con-
tinually reinforced by those Israelites who had kept in hiding or
had heretofore avoided taking sides in the war. The day was a
day of victory for Israel.

The vividness with which the narrative brings before us the
conditions of ancient Palestinian warfare must be my excuse for
reproducing it at such length. No other of the battles of Israel
is so fully described for us, but many must have been fought in
substantially the same manner. Nor is it the battle alone that
throws light upon the condition of the people at this time. The
sequel is at least equally interesting. Saul, as we have seen, left
the consultation of the oracle incomplete. But, either to concili-
ate the God whose oracle he was thus treating cavalierly, or else
to secure His favour by a special example of self-denial, the king
laid upon his soldiers the vow of abstinence. " Cursed be every
one who shall eat food till evening, till I be avenged on my ene-
mies." The solemn Amen of the people ratified the vow. Doubt-
less by this vow the soldiers were kept from plundering and so de-
laying or endangering the victory. But we can hardly suppose that
this was Saul's main idea. His purpose was to impose a 'taboo,
with the idea that this in itself was an act well pleasing to God.^

^ The ephod has been discussed above in connexion with the story of
Gideon. It had some relation with the sacred lot which we shall meet again.

^ Vows of abstinence are not unusual among the Arabs in going to war.
cf. Procksch, Die Blutrache bei den Vorislaviischen Arabern (1899), p. 5.

I20 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

The effort did not result as had been anticipated. The people,
exhausted by pursuing and fighting, and unrefreshed by food,
were unable to do effective execution on their foes. Moreover,
when the period of taboo was ended by the going down of the
sun, the famished people flew upon the captured cattle, slew and
ate. The care in disposing of the blood, which is enjoined in all
religions, conspicuously in the religion of Israel, was found to be
lacking. Saul was the first to regret this profane haste. He
ordered an altar to be extemporised, and warned the people by
heralds to bring to it the animals they had in hand, that their eat-
ing might be in accordance with the customs of religion.^

The unfortunate results of the vow were not yet fully manifest.
After the refreshment of the soldiers Saul proposed a night attack
upon what was left of the Philistine force. The oracle was again
appealed to, but no response could be had. The conclusion was
easily drawn that some one had violated the taboo and that Yah-
weh was angry. As a matter of fact the taboo had been violated ;
Jonathan, who had not been present at its imposition, had eaten
a little honey from an abandoned hive. When he was informed
of the state of the case he ceased eating, though convinced that
his father had been unwise in forcing the people to fight all day
without food. Jonathan's transgression, unwitting though it
was, brought guilt upon the people, and the anger of Yahweh
was accounted for. That anger could be removed only by the
death of the offender. To discover the guilty person, the sacred
i]ot was again brought into play. Saul and Jonathan were in one
group, the body of the soldiers in the other. The lot fell upon

The fasting before a battle can hardly be said to be parallel to the present
case, Judg. 20 ^^ i Sam. 7^ One is reminded, however, of the vow taken
by the zealots not to eat or drink till they had killed the Apostle Paul, Acts
23 ''-''^.

^The story of the battle and taboo is found in i Sam. 13 ^-14 ^5. As we
read it in the received text, it is disfigured by insertions from a later hand,
which make it almost unintelligible. The chief of these is the account of the
rejection of Saul, 13^-^^. This is a construction of religious bias: a later
writer believed that Saul was rejected by Yahweh, the ground of the belief
being that he did not succeed in establishing a dynasty. It required little
logical power to conclude that the rejection was because of disobedience to
Samuel, the chosen organ of divine revelation. Hence the paragraph in
question. Less disturbing is the insertion 1319-22^ though it gives an exag-
gerated view of the situation. The text of the chapters is corrupt in several
places, as is pointed out in the commentaries,

THE EARLY MONARCHY 121

the royal party. The people expostulated against going on, fear-
ful of losing either their king or the hero of the day. But Saul
would not consent to anything less than the complete issue of the
case; the lot was cast again and fell upon Jonathan.^ The king
would doubtless have offered himself as the victim had he been the
one pointed out. Jonathan freely confessed his unwitting trans-
gression and chivalrously offered to die. But the people could
not reconcile themselves to the death of their hero. They tumul-
tuously revolted against the carrying out of the sentence, and by-
offering a substitute redeemed the prince from the fate that
hung over him.* Of course, the night was too far spent to think
of further pursuit or battle. A further attempt against the Phil-
istines seems not to have been made at this time.

The Hebrew historians, like ancient historians in general, were
interested in battles and the fortunes or misfortunes of their heroes.
They do not tell us what we would most like to know. We may
readily suppose that the decisive victory we have been consider-
ing gave substantial relief from Philistine oppression — it is evi-
dence to this effect that we hear no more of Philistine Residents
in Benjamin. But what Saul did for the organisation of the
kingdom is left untold. Probably social relations remained much
as they had been, except that an appeal could be taken to the
king as the judge of last resort. Saul's court and household were
on the most modest scale, and we hear nothing of his laying
taxes on his subjects. The extent of his kingdom is quite un-
known. All that we are told of his acts is that he enlisted every
valiant man in his service. This implies that his was a predatory
kingdom, his own revenue and the support of his men coming
from the raids in which he kept his troops busy. There is an
intimation that David was at one time kept constantly on such
service. The Philistines, the Canaanites, the Amalekites and
other nomad tribes would furnish objects enough for such excur-

* The passage, i Sam. 14 ^^-^5, in the form in which the Greek translat-
ors read it, gives us the best account of the sacred lot (the urim and thuvimim)
which we have anywhere in the Old Testament. It does not say in so many
words that the ephod is the receptacle for the oracular stones, but that is the
natural conclusion. A discussion of the Biblical material with reference
to Babylonian analogies is given by W. Muss-Arnolt, "The Urim and
Thummim," in the Amer. Journal of Semitic Languages {igoo), pp. 193-224.

^ That it was a human substitute is not expressly stated in the text, biit
all the probabilities point toward such an one.

122 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

sions. Our present narrative adds to these the Moabites, the
Ammonites, and the Syrians, and there is no improbabihty in
Saul's leading forays into the regions occupied by these peoples.
In the oldest document we hear no more of pitched battles till
we come to the end of Saul's life. The interest of our inform-
ants turns to a new hero. David, a Bethlehemite and a member
of the tribe of Judah, is the man who, from his introduction to
the court of Saul, becomes the central figure of the story. It is
doubtful whether his tribe was included in the kingdom of Saul,
though the relations between Judah and the rest of Israel were
friendly. The account of David's coming to court reveals the
shadow which was already overhanging the house of Saul. The
abnormal nervous constitution of the king, which had shown
itself in unusual religious exaltation, now manifested itself in
another way. The Spirit of Yahweh began to trouble him with
fits of depression, sometimes rising to acute mania, in which, as
one beside himself, he raved in his tent. The symptoms which
in his religious exaltation were interpreted as indicating the favour
of Yahweh now gave rise to anxiety, as though his God had
turned against him. His peace of mind was gone, and his irre-
sponsible moods might easily become dangerous to those about
him. The only thing that his officers could think of as likely
to give relief was music, and they therefore advised the employ-
ment of a court musician. One of them was ready to recom-
mend his friend David, who was already a soldier of repute, a
man of affairs and of good presence, as well as a skilful player on
the harp. He was sent for, and he came to court with a modest
gift sent by his father to the king.* His musical talent gave
satisfaction. Whenever the troublesome Spirit came upon Saul
in fits which threatened to suffocate him, then " David would
take the lyre and play, and Saul would breathe freely and be
well."' Nor was it the young man's music alone that com-
mended him. The personal qualities of which his friend had

^ It was not good form to approach the king without bringing a present,
which was generally in kind. Jesse sent ten loaves of bread, a kid, and a
skin of wine.

* I Sam. 1 6 ^^. The verse adds and the spirit of evil would depart from
him. The phrase spirit of evil conveys a wrong impression to us. The
passage makes it abundantly clear that the spirit was the Spirit of Yahweh,
but the author calls it a spirit of evil because it was sent to inflict evil on
Saul.

THE EARLY MONARCHY 123

boasted proved to be real, and they endeared him to his king.
Saul loved him, we are told, and made him his adjutant, thus
giving him a place where he might always be near his person.
The judgment of Saul was shared by the people at large, with
whom David became a favourite.

The mind of princes is proverbially fickle, and in the morbid
state in which Saul was, we can hardly wonder that his love
soon gave place to jealousy. The consciousness that his health
was undermined would only increase his sensitiveness, and the
sensitiveness would not long lack occasion. What finally affected
him we can no longer make out— the story of Goliath is a late
invention. The earliest of our sources relates how on the return
of the army from one of their forays, the women danced out to
meet the victors singing the couplet :

•* Saul slew his thousands,
And David his ten thousands."

But the account is not easy to credit. The couplet is probably
one current at a later time, to express the comparative merits of
the two kings. Native good sense would keep the people from
such a breach of etiquette as they would commit by singing such
a song in Saul's presence. Even supposing that David's youth
gave him especial advantages in the eyes of the singers, they
must have known that extravagant praise would bring the hero
into an equivocal position. Nor would David's own modesty
have' permitted this preference of himself to his prince.

We are compelled to confess our ignorance of any particular
occasion for jealousy ; the jealousy itself was a serious fact. In
one of the insane fits which came upon the king, he attempted
his servant's life— hurling the javelin at him as he played. This
failing (and perhaps being excused as a deed done under an in-
sane impulse), the king removed David from close attendance
upon his person, and gave him a command in the field. His hope
was that the accidents of war would take his rival out of the way.
But David throve upon the accidents of war; they served only
to bring out his prowess and his ability as a commander. The
devotion of the people became more marked than ever.

The element of romance was infused into the situation by
Saul's daughter Michal, whose heart was captivated by the youth-
ful hero. Her affection could not be concealed from those about

124 C)LD TESTAMENT HISTORY

her, and, coming to the ears of the king, it suggested a way to
get rid of the now hated officer. The courtiers were directed to
sound David on the question of becoming the king's son-in-law.
When David, with modesty and good sense, explains that he can-
not pay the price which the king would have the right to expect
for his daughter, he is told that the king will take his pay in the
lives of his enemies. One hundred of these, vouched for in a way
that will satisfy the king, is all the dowry that is asked. ^ The
secret hope of the bargainer is, that the aspirant will pay with
his own life for the one hundred which he plans to take. The
event brought disappointment ; the price was paid at the time
•stipulated, and the king had no excuse for withholding his
daughter.

But now the hostility breaks out violently and openly. The
king, maddened by his failure, sends to the house where David
has just taken possession of his bride. Not able to wait until morn-
ing to cool his rage, he commands his satellites to violate the pri-
vacy of the home — a gross outrage, according to Oriental ideas as
well as our own. They are to bring David to him, so that he may
personally take vengeance. But the king's temper had not escaped
the observation of his daughter. She is in no mind to be mocked
with a husband, and therefore urges David to escape while it is
yet time. With her own hand she lets him down from an unob-
served window, and he disappears in the darkness. To gain time
for him, she uses the Teraphim — the household god which at this
period stood at every Israelite hearth.^ This we must suppose to
be a rude image in human form. Wrapping this effigy in a gar-
ment, as the Oriental wraps himself when he sleeps, she places it in
David's bed. She then meets the messengers who demand her
husband, and tells them he is ilk As the king will brook no de-

^ The fact already noted, that the Philistines were the only uncircumcised
people of Palestine, accounts for the extraordinary nature of the vouchers
stipulated.

That a father expected to be paid for his daughters, is evident from the
case of Laban, as well as from the regulations of the Book of the Covenant
(Ex. 21 ""^\ 22^^). On Arabic analogies, cf. Wellhausen, "Die Ehe bei
den Arabern " in the Nachrichten der Gottiug. Gesellsch. der Wissenschaften
(1893) p. 433 flF.

^ The Teraphim appear in the history of Jacob, where they are mildly dis-
approved. So late as Hosea they seem to be associated with the altar of
Yahweh, Hos. 3S cf. also Judg. I7^ 18 ^^ff.

THE EARLY MOxNARCHY 1 25

lay, the Stratagem avails little. Michal is compelled to prevari-
cate in order to save her own life from her angry father.^

With this incident, David becomes the leading character of the
story. We hear little more of Saul, except that his pursuit of his
rival becomes a monomania. The most melancholy incident of
his career — until the suprem.e struggle in which he loses his life —
is the massacre of the priests of Nob. The town thus named was
not far from Gibeah, and was a religious centre. All members of
the clan that possessed it seem to have had priestly qualifications.
Their chief is identified, on somewhat precarious grounds, with
a grandson of Eli. When David was on his flight from Saul, he
received aid and comfort from this priest. The report was
brought to Saul at the time when he was irritated to the pitch of
insanity by David's escape. Certainly the kindness of the priest
looked like more than ordinary friendship. Suspecting conspir-
acy, the king summoned all the adult males of the clan — eighty-
five men in number. Without listening to their defence, he had
them all put to death. The account which has come down to us
affirms that he also sacked the town, and put the whole popula-
tion to the sword, without sparing age or sex.^ This outbreak of

^ The chapters of i Samuel which relate the fortunes of David in this pe-
riod present complicated problems, some of which still await solution. The
repeated flights and escapes of David show that more than two accounts
have been combined. In the story of Goliath, the fact of interpolation is
made clear by the testimony of the Greek version. The story in any form
is legendary — the representation of Saul's abject terror, of David's lack of
experience, of Saul's ignorance of the lad, of Jonathan's sudden friendship,
speak too loudly to be misunderstood.

I have passed by the second account of Saul's rejection (i Sam. 15) as
also thoroughly unhistorical. But I do not mean to affirm that there is no
real incident at the basis of the story. The sacrifice of Agag "before Yah-
weh " at Gilgal is quite comprehensible as the fulfilment of a vow made on
going into battle — the parallel case of Jephthah has already been consid-
ered ; cf. Schwally, Kriegsaltertihncr, I, p. 34.

^The story of the massacre, i Sam. 22 ^^^' bears all the marks of historic-
ity. The section introductory to it which relates David's interview with
the priest, may have been influenced by the author's desire to set David in
a favourable light. The giving of the consecrated bread is, to his mind, a
divine indication that David is already a consecrated person — the king bore
that character as we have seen. It may be doubted whether the priest was
as innocent as the narrative would make him out.

For historical purposes, we are obliged to pass by the account of David's
flight to Samuel at Ramah (19^®""), and also the elaborate intercession of
Jonathan in chapter 20.

126 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

rage is only too comprehensible. But it does not seem seriously
to have weakened the king's hold upon his people.

Saul maintained himself against external and internal foes for
some years. His early chronicler affirms that he made war
against Moab, Ammon, Edom, the kings of Zoba and the Philis-
tines, and that wherever he turned he was victorious} Such an
impression could not have been made had the king's life been
mainly taken up with fits of madness and fruitless expeditions
after a runaway servant. Perhaps we may conclude something
from the final effort of the Philistines. They found it impossible
to invade the country of Benjamin directly, because Saul too
vigilantly guarded all the approaches. Hence their march to the
Great Plain, where they could use their chariots. The account
which has come down to us makes a digression to tell of the for-
tunes of David. He and his men had been ordered by Achish,
in whose service they were, to march with the Philistine forces.
The dilemma in which he was placed — he must either fight against
his kinsmen or betray the cause in which he was enlisted — was
removed by the suspicions of the Philistine generals. Doubtless
they remembered the experience at Michmash, when their slaves
and auxiliaries turned against them.

Later story threw over the last days of Saul's life the shadow
of his coming doom. In this narrative a necromancer is made to
bring back Samuel from the realm of shades to pronounce again
the sentence of rejection. The interview is the final scene in
the life of a rebel against God, delivered over to despair by the
shade of the prophet whom he has disobeyed. The chapter is of
the utmost value as showing popular ideas concerning intercourse
with the dead. But its pitiless consistency in following a theo-
logical idea deprives it of all value for the history of Saul.^

The Philistines had mustered all the force they could command,
with the determination to crush out the independence of Israel.
There was nothing left for Saul except to lead a folorn hope.

1 I Sam. 14 *^ The verse is the concluding panegyric of an ancient life
of Saul. For Edom in this passage, however, we should probably read
Aram. Edom was too remote to be reached by Saul.

*To the older commentators the story presented difficulties of the gravest
sort, for that the author believed in the actual raising of Samuel's shade
must be obvious. The difficulties disappear when we discover that the chap-
ter is only the dramatic embodiment of an idea. It is poetic consistency to
make Samuel dead repeat the rejection pronounced by Samuel living.

THE EARLY MONARCHY 12/

He died fighting for the cause to which he had given so large a
part of his life. Two accounts of his death have come down to
us. One asserts that he saw his defeat and the death of his sons,
and that he was himself wounded. In these desperate circum-
stances he urged his armour-bearer to despatch him/ lest he fall
alive into the hands of the enemy. When this officer refused to
obey the order he threw himself upon his own sword. The other
account makes an Amalekite camp follower give him the finishing
stroke. It may be doubted whether either is accurate. All we
can assert with confidence is that Saul and the able-bodied men
of his house died on the field of honour.

For the time the cause seemed lost ; but we may well believe
that its hero had not lived in vain. He marked out the path in
which his greater successor was to follow. Later times judged
him too severely, making success the test of the divine favour.
The light we have on his career is uncertain and perplexing, part-
ly because it was outshone by the brilliancy of David's history,
partly because Saul himself was a perplexing character. His
whole-hearted devotion to the unity and independence of Israel,
and his sincere piety, were offset by less admirable qualities.
The jealousy that tormented him is the natural failing of a self-
made man. The ruthlessness of his treatment of Nob shows a
temptation to which almost every absolute ruler at some time
gives way. Even his zeal for Israel was not always a zeal accord-
ing to knowledge, for, contrary to right and the common con-
science, he endeavoured to exterminate the Gibeonites.

These Canaanites were protected by a solemn league and cove-
nant. Saul, in his zeal for Israel, thought the covenant could be
disregarded, and took steps to wipe out the foreigners. How far
he went, or what checked him, we do not know. A famine in
the time of David was interpreted as a vindication of the rights
of the allies — Yahweh was not unmindful of the oath to which he
was made a party. The blood brought by Saul upon his house
was therefore purged by the hanging up of his sons before Yah-
weh in Gibeon. We are not to infer that the conscience of Saul
was altogether seared. His obtuseness was the obtuseness of the
times in which he lived.

The able-bodied men of Saul's family perished with him in

' Cf. the case of Abimelech already described, and the parallel instance of
a Babylonian king, Keilinsch. Bibliothek, H, p. 137.

128 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

the battle of Gilboa. Abner, Saul's general, seems to have
found discretion the better part of valour. Himself escaping, he
carried Ishbaal — Saul's surviving son, a weakling in body and
mind — across the Jordan. Here, at the ancient Israelite town of
Mahanaim, he was able to set up the semblance of a kingdom,
with Ishbaal as its head. The Philistines were masters of the
country between the Jordan and the sea, but they seem to have
allowed Ishbaal some sort of jurisdiction on payment of tribute.
David was rising into prominence in the south, but he was to
appearance wholly devoted to the Philistine interest. It could
only give pleasure to the overlords to see the two subject king-
doms keep each other in check, and exhaust their strength by
making war on each other.

Before turning to David we may notice with sympathy the
men of Jabesh Gilead. After the battle of Gilboa, the victors
sent the armour of Saul to their chief temple as a trophy. His
body they hung up in derision on the walls of Beth-shan. The
men of Jabesh were not unmindful of their debt to their deliver-
er. In a night expedition they rescued the bones of Saul from
the ignominious exposure, brought them to their own town, and
buried them under a conspicuous tree, with appropriate expres-
sions of grief. Not all republics are ungrateful.

CHAPTER VIII

DAVID

We have already met the son of Jesse at the court of Saul,
whither he came as court musician. That a celebrated warrior
may also be a skilled musician is proved by many examples in
history. I'radition has delighted to embellish the career of this
warrior-minstrel, so that it is difficult for us to discover the
actual course of his life. If we content ourselves with selecting
what seems most authentic in the story that has come down to
us, we shall have a result something as follows :

The young officer was placed by Saul first in a confidential
position where he became acquainted with the life of the court.
He was then given a post of danger where he was schooled in the
art of war. The growing jealousy of the king taught him cir-
cumspection. When he was at last compelled to flee the court
and to depend on himself, he was able to cope with adversity, to
find resources in himself, and to maintain his influence over the
turbulent spirits which came to share his outlawry. The nucleus
of the band of which he soon became the head was formed by his
own kinsmen. In an unsettled state of society such as then pre-
vailed, a masterful spirit easily becomes the head of a band like-
minded with himself.^ Jephthah is a case in point. The king-
dom of Damascus was founded later by such a freebooter.

The Wilderness of Judah— the country along the western shore
of the Dead Sea — is adapted to furnish refuge to such bands.
Descending upon the cultivated country in a sudden raid, the
troop disappears in the trackless waste, only to make a new
attack in an unexpected quarter. To the south the wilderness
of Kadesh off'ers additional security. Edom and Amalek were
hereditary enemies of David, and the numerous Bedawin clans,
often hostile to each other, were just strong enough to make the

1 Arabic history shows numerous similar cases, of which one is the famous
poet Imru'1-Kais, cited by Procksch, Bhitrache, p. 32.

I2q

I30 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

work of plunder interesting. Blackmail has always been re-
garded as legitimate in border warfare, and that David did not
hesitate to levy it is shown by the anecdote of Nabal. This man
was one of the great sheep-masters of Southern Palestine, a Caleb-
ite by race, his tribe not yet reckoned a part of Judah. His
home was Carmel, in a rolling country, part of which is cultiva-
ble, the rest furnishes excellent pasture.^

The time of sheep-shearing is a time of feasting and rejoicing.
The Bedawy Sheikh still expects generous hospitality, or a gift
from the shepherd at this season. David, therefore, sent an em-
bassy to Nabal asking for Baksheesh. The ground given was
first, that his band had respected Nabal's rights, not exercising
the right of the strongest ; secondly, they had protected Nabal's
property from other wandering bands which might have been
troublesome. What David claimed was in fact protection money,
only he asked it in kind instead of in coin. But Nabal, strong
in the consciousness of possession, turned the messengers away
with a surly reply: *' Who is David ? Who is the son of Jesse?
There are many slaves in these days who run away from their
masters. And I must take my bread and my wine and the flesh
which I have killed for my shearers, and give them to men of
whom I know nothing ! ' ' The taunt and the refusal aroused
David's anger, and hastily arming a part of his force he was on
the point of quenching his rage in the blood of the man who had
insulted him.

The good sense with which Nabal's wife met the crisis, and
the skill with which she dissuaded David from staining his con-
science with blood, may be read in the narrative. To us they
are of less importance than the glimpse we get into the life of the
freebooter. Such a band as David's — tradition makes it to have
reached six hundred men — must have been driven to all sorts of
shifts to keep alive. Many a sheep-master of the region must
have been taxed to supply their wants. In many cases the towns
must have purchased David's help against the Amalekite or his
kindred. No disgrace attached to the captain who entered into
such an arrangement, or who insisted upon it. He was giving
as well as receiving a favour, and we know that when David ob-

* Carmel, Maon, and Ziph, which are mentioned in this part of David's
history, are all identified in the region southeast of Hebron ; compare G.
A. Smith's description, Historical Geography, p. 306 note.

DAVID 131

tained booty he was free-handed with it, making presents in his
turn to the towns which had dealt generously with him.

It is difficult to say how much Saul added to the perplexity of
the situation. Tradition makes the Ziphites so anxious to be
rid of David that they invited Saul to come against him, them-
selves acting as spies for the army. Two separate accounts are
preserved to us illustrating David's magnanimity toward his
enemy. The more original seems to be the one which makes
David, when Saul is on his track, steal into the king's camp at
night accompanied by a single follower. The guards are all
asleep; the defenceless king lies at their feet ; Abishai is eager
to pin him to the earth with a single thrust of the spear. But
David takes seriously the divinity that doth hedge a king. Saul
is to him '' the Anointed of Yahweh," a consecrated person
whom to harm would be sacrilege. Hence he refuses the per-
mission desired by his attendant, and contents himself with tak-
ing objects enough to show that he has been in the camp. The
succeeding revulsion of feeling on the part of Saul is just what we
might expect ; and on the other hand it is not strange that David
should distrust his enemy's good-will and decline to put himself
in his power. The account possesses verisimilitude, therefore,
and it presents David in the light in which he was viewed by his
contemporaries.^

Tired of the precarious struggle in the wilderness, David at
length resolved on the only course open to him. He could
enlist under the banner of a more powerful chief, one with re-
sources enough to insure him support, and with territory enough
to give him employment. Such a chief he found in Achish,
king of Gath. The location of Gath is as yet unknown to us,
but we gather that its territory was exposed to the raids of the
Bedawin, and that only a soldier who had experience in border
warfare could hold them in check. Achish at first planned to
make David captain of his body-guard, and to keep him at the
capital. But the arrangement proved impracticable. The Is-
raelites of David's command would hardly be concihatory to
the Philistines among whom they were settled. David himself

^ The account is contained in i Sam. 26. The parallel, chapter 24, is a
much less probable narrative. The difficulty in receiving either as strictly
historical arises from the improbability of Saul's being so far away from his
own domain in chase of a fugitive band which was doing him no harm.

132 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

had fought against PhiHstines in the old days, and there were
probably blood feuds to be settled. Furthermore, it was not to
David's taste to be always under the king's eye. He had been
his own master too long to become a courtier again. Moved by
these considerations, he proposed that he should receive one of
the outlying places — town and fortress — where he could more
easily reach the border ruffians.

In this way he became Emir of Ziklag, a town in the edge of
the desert, and here his men, with wives and children, made their
abode. To a late date the kings of Judah traced their title to
the town to the gift of Achish, and we may therefore suppose the
place to have been an enclave in Philistine territory. Here David
acted the part of a robber chief. He and his men were constantly
raiding the neighbouring nomads, carrying off their cattle, and
putting the people to the sword. Achish received part of the
booty, and heard with pleasure that David was carrying the war
into the borders of Judah and its affiliated clans.^ The estrange-
ment between David and his own people thus seemed to be
complete, and his devotion to his new master was regarded as es-
tablished. So great was the king's confidence, that, as we have
seen, he called David to follow him in the great Philistine cam-
paign against northern Israel. The embarrassing situation was
happily relieved by the suspicion of the Philistine leaders.

Two can play at the game of war, and fortune cannot be
expected always to favour the same side. The Amalekites had
reason to seek revenge.^ Discovering the unprotected state of
Ziklag when David and his men were called to the war, they at-
tacked the town and gained possession of it. The houses were
burned, and everything of value was carried off, including the
women and children, whom the captors no doubt expected to

^ David himself is represented (i Sam. 27 ^°) as saying that he had raided
the Negeb of Judah, the Negeb of the Jerachmeelites, and the Negeb of the
Kenites. The Kenites are known to have been allies of Israel from the
time of Moses. Jerachmeel was later absorbed in Judah. Both clans are
named among those who received presents from David, i Sam. 30 ^e-si. The
proper home of Judah seems to have been Bethlehem, while Hebron was
the seat of Caleb. Only by bearing these facts in mind do we get a correct
idea of the disintegration of the country.

2 This desert clan had been in feud with Israel ever since the exodus.
Their appearance in this narrative is proof enough that they had not been
exterminated by Saul, as is affirmed by i Sam. 15.

DAVID

133

sell in the Egyptian market as slaves. The prompt pursuit by-
David, the good fortune that threw into his hands a slave-boy
able to guide him to the camp of the plunderers, the successful
attack — all are graphically set forth in the Biblical narrative. A
good impression of David's executive ability is given by the
promptness of his pursuit, and by the decision with which he
settled the quarrel among his men about the booty. His own
share of the spoil he used to win the hearts of the Sheikhs in Ju-
dah and the allied clans — reminding us of Mohammed's policy
after the battle of Honein.^

The imagination of later times was pleased to bring David
news of the death of Saul by the mouth of an Amalekite, whose
hands also bore the royal crown and bracelet. The obvious im-
possibility of his story compels us to reject it. Probably no one
at this time thought of David as Saul's successor. In his own
mind there may have been hope of something of the kind. The
duty at hand was to strengthen himself in his own region of Ju-
dah. Here, the advantages of having a strong man as their ally
had been brought home to the Sheikhs by David's presents, as
well as by his protection. The career of Saul had familiarised
the people with the idea of a monarchy. No opposition on the
part of the Philistines was to be feared, for David was their trib-
utary, and their power had just been firmly established by the
victory at Gilboa. The more complete organisation of Judah
would (as it seemed to them) put more power into their hands.
They could hardly imagine David succeeding where Saul had
failed. We can understand their looking on with indifference, if
not with encouragement, while he negotiated with the clans.

The most important city in the region was Hebron, the capi-
tal of Caleb, or possibly of an alliance of clans afterward merged
in Judah. Hither came David with his trusty soldiers, and was
recognised as king by the Sheikhs.^ No doubt he secured the

^ The reader may supplement the account of this part of David's life by
such other sections of the Biblical text as commend themselves to his judg-
ment. With the adventures in the Wilderness of Judah, and the migration
to Gath, there seems to be no room for those at the stronghold of Adullam,
I Sam. 22 ^'2, 23. We must suppose these displaced in the compilation.

^ It is perhaps not too bold to see in the name of the city {Confederacy) a
reminiscence of its composite population. The name Kirjath-arba {City of
Foiir)^ might be traced to the same origin ; but this name occurs only in
very late documents, and any argument from it is precarious.

134 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

citadel, or built one, where his retainers could maintain him,
should the popular sentiment undergo a change. From Hebron
he could easily extend his sway over the Edomite clans on the
south and over Judah, which lay between him and Jerusalem. If
he was himself a Judahite, his own clan would in fact cling to him
among the first. The whole region had suffered the ills of tribal
society where every clan is against every other. The king's
peace is to such a people more than an empty name. The whole
period on which we look back — from the El Amarna time down
— had been conspicuously lacking in peace ; there was no king
in Israel, and every man did that which was right in his own
eyes. A king promised a stable government. If he or his body-
guard were guilty of occasional acts of oppression, the mass of
the people would yet be better off than where they had no pro-
tector. The king must keep external invasion from the boun-
daries, and he must repress private warfare within his domain.
Some such thoughts as these passed through the minds of the
burghers of Hebron as they welcomed David and anointed him
at their sanctuary. King of Caleb and Judah was what he as-
pired to be. But he aspired to a nominal headship over other
parts of Israel — so we conclude from his message of gratitude to
the men of Jabesh Gilead. It would be something for them in
their disorganised condition to feel that there was the tie of
blood between them and the able and energetic king of Hebron.
Lack of a chronology in our sources embarrasses us in attempt-
ing to follow the history at this point. Did David proceed at
once to bring Benjamin under his rule? Against this^ may be
urged the position of Jerusalem, as yet unsubdued, and the dif-
ficulty which David would experience in carrying on a war so
far from his base of supplies. Obtuse as the Philistines were — or
self-confident if one chooses — they would surely take the alarm
by the time David had consolidated his power over the country
south of Jerusalem. We may conjecture, then, that the Philistines
did take the alarm before the conquest of Jerusalem or of Benja-
min. They made Bethlehem their objective point in one cam-
paign as we know. At another time they attacked Keilah, a

* Which seems to be the theory of the Biblical writer, 2 Sam. 2-4, where,
following immediately on the anointing at Hebron, we find the war with
Abner. Compare the article of S. A. Cook: "Notes on the Composition
of Second Samuel," in the Am. Jour. Sent. Lang., XVI., pp. 145-177.

DAVID

135

border town of Judah. David was obliged to take refuge in the
fortress of Adullam. From this stronghold he was able to hang
upon the flanks of the enemy and finally to compel them to re-
treat. The relief of Keilah was one of his feats. The killing of
Goliath in a duel by one of his followers probably belongs in
the same connexion.^ Other exploits may belong with this —
the most pleasing is the one where three of David's men break
through the lines of the Philistines to bring him a drink of water
from Bethlehem.^

By what finesse David lulled his foes into security till he could
strike the decisive blow we are not told. The time came when
he could strike such a blow. In fact, two capital engagements
are recorded, one at Baal Perazim, where the Philistine idols,
which they had brought into the battle with them, fell into the
hands of Israel; the other at Bekaim, where an omen of Yahweh's
presence was taken from the "sound of marching in the tops of
the Balsams" — doubtless sacred trees in which the God was
thought to reside. The result of the campaign seems to have
been deliverance from the Philistine overlordship.^

^ In Arab warfare it is very common for a warrior to advance from the
ranks and challenge anyone from the opposing army to meet him in single
combat. The early history of Islam furnishes several instances.

^ The reason for putting these exploits here is that Adullam must have
been David's headquarters in his Philistine war. The duel with Goliath
(which in the form in which it has come down to us in i Sam. is legendary
— the earliest account is 2 Sam. 21 *^) is located in the immediate vicinity of
Adullam — the valley of Elah, i Sam. 17 2. Keilah was in the same region.

' Our text puts the break with the Philistines after the capture of Jerusa-
lem. But it is incomprehensible that David should leave his fortress at
Jerusalem to go down to Adullam. The account of the capture of Jerusalem
obviously disturbs the connexion of the passage in which it is now found.
The valley of Rephaim is perhaps named from the gigantic Philistines (sons
of the rapha) who were overcome there. The indication of 2 Sam. 23 '^,
is that it was between Adullam and Bethlehem, and nearer the former place.
The current identification with the plain that stretches southwestward from
Jerusalem can hardly be correct. Oracles from sacred trees are well known
in other religions. The rustling of the sacred oak at Dodona was regarded
as the voice of Zeus; Frazer, The Golden Bough^, III, p. 346; Evans,
"Tree and Pillar Cult," in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXI, p. 106.
Semitic analogies are given by W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp.
126, 169, 178. The latter author finds such trees in Gen. 12^, Judg. 9^^, cf.
Deut. 11'". Egyptian analogies are also found, Wiedemann, Religion of the
Ancient Egyptians, p. 155.

136 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

The Philistine campaign or campaigns probably opened the
king's eyes to the advantages of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem.
The settlement at this location must have been one of the earliest
in Southern Palestine, for it is a stronghold by nature. Two
rocky ridges with a shallow valley between them were on three
sides so precipitous that they scarcely needed the art of man to
make them impregnable. A living fountain at the base of the
eastern ridge fixed the location of the first houses. As time went
on the inhabitants added to their natural fortifications a wall,
which the Israelites had not been able at any time to scale. So
great was the confidence of the people in the place, that even
against David's veterans they manned the wall with their lame
and blind, believing these to be sufficient defenders. Whether
there may not have been some Israelites settled as clients in the
lower town before the time of David is a question easier to raise
than to answer. The fact that, though captured by Judah, the
city was always counted to Benjamin might argue for the affirma-
tive.*

The over-confidence of the garrison was its ruin. David's
seasoned soldiers took the place by storm. His clemency is seen
in the fact that Araunah, a Jebusite, was in peaceable possession
of his landed property at a later time. Very possibly David did
not at once take up his residence in the newly conquered city.
It would be of use to him as a frontier fortress, and then as a
basis from which to undertake the conquest of Benjamin, while
he retained his residence at Hebron.*

As we have seen, Ishbaal, a son of Saul, had been proclaimed
king by Abner, his cousin, the commander of Saul's army. Ab-
ner seems to have been a man of energy and ability. What ar-
rangement he made with the Philistines we do not know, but
some shadow of power must have been left to Ishbaal, even over
Benjamin. To avoid the humiliation of witnessing Philistine tax-
gatherers or garrisons in his court, we can hardly wonder that

^ The name Jebus seems to be an erroneous deduction from the clan name
of the inhabitants — the Jebusites. The name Jerusalem is older than the Is-
raelite invasion.

2 The literature on the topography and history of Jerusalem is enormous.
The articles in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible and in the Encyclopcedia
Biblica may be consulted. There seems to be substantial unanimity in the
view that the original city of the Jebusites and of David was on the eastern ridge,

DAVID 137

Ishbaal^ preferred to fix his capital across the Jordan, where a loyal
Israelite population was still found. Of course, he claimed juris-
diction over all that had belonged to his father. The Hebrew
writer enumerates Gilead, Asher, Jezreel, Ephraim, and Ben-
jamin as making up his kingdom. It is difficult to suppose that
his power was more than nominal over Asher and Jezreel.

Whatever piety David may have felt toward Saul, he had no scru-
ples about making war upon his successor.^ The success against the
Phihstines and the possession of Jerusalem stimulated his ambi-
tion to unite all Israel in a single kingdom, of which he should
be the head. The plan was statesmanlike, even if moved by per-
sonal ambition. The union of Israel was essential if the people
were to have a future, and true union could come only in a mon-
archy. Ishbaal was not man enough either to unite the people in
loyalty to himself or to throw off the Philistine yoke. David
was in the full consciousness of his own powers, ambitious to ex-
ercise those powers against the enemies of Yahweh. The first
thing was to consolidate the tribes. Ishbaal stood in the way.
Saul had been respected as king by the grace of God, but a king
by the grace of Abner had no such claims.

The offensive was taken by David, as we may judge on finding
the only battle recorded for us taking place on Benjaniite ground,
near Gibeon. The force employed on David's side was the band
of seasoned soldiers which had accompanied him in his exile and
now had become his standing army. They were under command
of Joab, David's nephew, whose courage at the taking of Jerusa-
lem had given him promotion to the generalship of the army.
We must judge the foray into Benjamin like an Arab Emir's
raid upon his neighbours-he can thereby keep his troops busy,
secure booty, perhaps harry another clan into asking his alhance.
The defence in this case was in the hands of Abner, who is rep-
resented as having the servants of Ishbaal under his command.
The phrase would imply enlisted soldiers. But they could hardly
have been the veterans of Saul's army, for these had perished
with their master at Gilboa,

1 I assume that Ishbaal was the original form of the name, which has been
corrupted by the scribes to Ishbosheth {Man of Shame). Other theories
have been advanced, but seem precarious. , t t,;. i no^iH

2 It is perhaps significant that in speaking of the death of Ishbaal, David
does not use the title Anointed of Yahweh.

138 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

As the account has come down to us ^ the two parties are seen
at the great reservoir near Gibeon. As they face each other
Abner proposes that the matter be settled by a tournament of a
few picked men — duels before the main engagement are not un-
common in oriental warfare, as we have already noted. Joab
consents, twelve men are chosen on each side, and the two com-
panies meet in sight of the armies. The result is indecisive — the
champions fall dead together, with no survivor to claim the
victory on either side.^ A general engagement follows, in which
Abner and his men are put to flight. The only incident which
is preserved to us is the death of Asahel at the hand of Abner.
Though done in self-defence and in open battle, this becomes a
reason for blood-revenge on the part of Joab, Asahel's brother.
How the revenge is taken we learn later. For the present we are
allowed to infer that Abner and his party would have been com-
pletely exterminated had not the leader called for quarter. His
plea is based on the unity of blood in Israel and Judah. The
appeal is heeded by Joab, who calls off his men and returns to
Hebron.

We must suppose that the battle is only one out of a number
that were fought before the final surrender of Israel to David.
That the process extended over a considerable time, is directly
stated by the historian, who adds that the house of Saul grew
weaker and weaker, while David was growing stronger and
stronger. Nothing succeeds like success, and we cannot wonder
that the conviction made its way in Israel that David was the man
for the hour. The course of events was hastened by a quarrel be-
tween Ishbaal and his supporter. The woman in the case was a
concubine of Saul, named Rizpah. According to ancient Semit-
ic custom, a man's wives are a part of his estate, and go to his
heirs on his death. ^ Abner took possession of Rizpah in defiance
of the right of Ishbaal. The act could be interpreted only as a
trespass ; it was therefore an open declaration that the Major
Domo knew himself to be strong enough to disregard common

^ It is possible that two events have become confused by the tradition, for
the narrative as it stands does not read smoothly.

2 The Roman legend of the Horatii and Curiatii is compared with this by
Winckler, Gesch. Israels, II, p. 194 f.

^The evidence is given by W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage, pp.
86-91.

DAVID

139

opinion and the claim of his master. Weak men are prove b
X jealous of prerogative, and least willing to recogn.se th fa
of tLir own weakness. Ishbaal called Abner to account but
the only reply he got was a taunt, and a declarat.on of re-
volt To tMs'he had nothing to reply. The fact seems to be
that Abner was getting tired of a losing struggle. He was seek-
J, a pre xt to go over to David. His influence .n Benjamm
vi co^iderable-perhaps xt was worth somethmg wUh the
She.khTof the other' tribes. He could at least negot.ate wUh
David and secure his own future.

%ence his message to David, which contained a -"d Pron.^
to brin.. all Israel over to him in case terms could be agreed
upon David insisted, as a prelimnrary, that Sauls daughter
Michal the wife of his youth, should be returned to h,m-she
S been married to another soon after David's fl.ght frovn
cTbeah. Was David moved by sentiment ? Had he cher.sned
the memory of her affection through all these years? Or, was he
:; anxious to wipe out the disgrace that attached to ,m m
another man's possessing «hat he had ^'^'^^^''^If/'^^^'^^^
only politic-did he think his possession of S^^'' ^J^^f '^;
would strengthen his position as Saul's successor? We are en
rely in the' dark in the endeavour to answer these ques Uon .
The demand was made, and Abner hastened to accede to t^
Formally it was made to Ishbaal, the execution -s >" trus d to
Abner. Possibly the affair was purposely planned in such a
way as to give Abner a good pretext for v.sUrng Dav.d. The
disLss of the woman's husband is vividly set before us. What
h r own feelings were, we are not told ; but we can readily see
th t her introduction to the court of Hebron could not hav
been very happy. Her harsh words to David at the time of the
bringing up of the Ark, were probably the breaking out of long

^'xte'^alraSient between David and Abner was easily made.
The king knew the value of the man with whom he was dealing^
A feast was held to ratify the compact between them. Abner

. 2 Sam 3«-» contains the account of Abner's trespass, his treason and
his deal' The narrative is not free from difficulties, but there seems no
reason to question its main statements. ,;„„ v>„f nrobablv all

^ A sacrificial feast is what we expect on such an occasion, but probably
feasts were sacrificial in this period.

140 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

agreed to use his influence with the Sheikhs in favour of David.
The king, on his part, must have agreed to reward Abner with a
high place at court. Perhaps he already felt the inconvenience
of having too powerful a servant, such as we know Joab to have
been ; in which case he was hoping to use Abner as a counter-
poise. One thing, however, must have been discussed. Abner
was in blood-feud with Joab on account of the death of Asahel.
There must have been some pledge of security on the part of
the king, an assurance that the king's peace was stronger than
tribal claims, and that the king's peace would be made effective in
his favour. It would imply gross carelessness to leave this
point untouched in the negotiations.

Whatever assurances passed between the parties on this point,
they reckoned without their host. Joab had been sent with his
troops on an expedition, so that Abner's visit might be made
without disturbance. Returning soon after Abner had taken his
departure, he learned what had occurred. It could not be pleas-
ing to him to have at court a possible rival and a certain enemy.
Whether he fathomed David's inner purpose or not, he needed
no concurrent motive to seek Abner's blood — the most sacred
duty of a clansman rested upon him ; for blood-revenge makes
its demand most stringently on the nearest kin, and one's own
brother is nearest of all. The severest regulations of Moham-
med, enforced by the sanctions of religion, failed in some in-
stances to control his followers in this matter, and we cannot
wonder that David, a recently elected monarch, should fail to
make the king's peace binding in the face of natural impulse
reinforced by tribal morality. Joab was impetuous and unscru-
pulous. His expostulation with David showed the freedom
which he enjoyed at court. He doubtless felt that David, him-
self a kinsman, was unfaithful to his blood in giving Abner a
safe-conduct. The safe-conduct did not avail with him. Send-
ing for Abner on the pretext that some matters of detail were yet
to be arranged, he took him aside in the city gate. His brother
Abishai kept off any meddlers, and Joab took his revenge by
stabbing Abner to the heart. The only thing strange in the
matter is the security which Abner seems to have felt. Perhaps
he was intoxicated with the prospect of the new honours he was
about to receive at the hand of David.

David was innocent in the matter, and his indignation at the

DAVID 141

violation of the king's peace showed itself in the violence of
his language. In strong objurgation he wished upon Joab's de-
scendants filthy diseases, physical weakness, effeminacy, and
poverty. But he did not venture to punish the offender. He
could not get along without Joab. Doubtless his conscience was
somewhat divided against itself. Tribal morality was still strong,
and the common sense of the people would uphold Joab. To set
up a new code might even endanger the throne. To purge him-
self from the suspicion of having been an accomphce, however,,
the king himself followed the bier of the slain man and composed
a dirge for the occasion : ^

" Should Abner die as dies the fool ?
Thy hands were not bound,
Thy feet not brought into fetters !
As one falls before ruthless men thou didst fall. "

The death of Abner threw the kingdom of Ishbaal into confu-
sion, for the incompetency of the king became manifest. Two
soldiers of fortune, enhsted in his service, thought to make their
personal profit out of the situation by the assassination of the
unfortunate monarch. It is possible that they had other reasons
for the deed.^ Their reception by David when they appeared at
Hebron was different from their anticipation. The king's sense
of justice conspired with his interest to discourage assassination,
and the self-confessed criminals were executed on the spot.*
Their hands and feet, as the guilty instruments of the crime and

1 The reader will notice the closeness with which this account has followed
the Biblical text. The greater part of 2 Sam. comes from an old and well-
informed source, which, however, is not as homogeneous as has sometimes
been assumed. In the section just reproduced (2 ^-3 ^^) there are some un-
evennesses due to interpolation. The most disturbing is 3 ^'-^^ which repre-
sents Abner as having made considerable effort to promote David's cause
before he went to Hebron. This seems improbable, and, besides, the para-
graph interrupts the thread of the story.

* The obscure notice 2 Sam. 4 '^^ seems designed to explain that the assas-
sins were not full-blooded Benjamites, but clients. It has been conjectured
that the Beerothites were among the Gibeonites attacked by Saul, in which
case these men had revenge to take.

' Winckler supposes the statement legendary, influenced by the story of the
Amalekite in 2 Sam. i. I should prefer to consider this the original. An
exact historical parallel from the life of Ahmed Ibn Tulun is given by
Stahelin, Led^n Davids (1866), p. 28.

142 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

the escape, were exposed to view in a public place. The head
of Ishbaal, on the other hand, was carefully buried in the grave
of Abner, his kinsman. The conduct of David toward the house
of Saul gives no occasion for adverse criticism.

At the same time, the new kingdom could not fail to benefit
by the death of Ishbaal. The party of Saul was left without a
competent head. Jonathan's only son was a cripple. The sons
of Rizpah, of whom we hear later, were of inferior blood on the
mother's side. The sons of Merab were reckoned to their fath-
er's tribe. No doubt the temper of Benjamin was such that any
near relative of Saul who had the qualities of leadership could
have rallied the tribe to his support. But such a man did not
appear. If Israel were to be united — and the course of events
made this increasingly necessary — David was the only possibility.
Hence the Sheikhs, no doubt after long debate among themselves,
came to him and recognised him as king. The process probably
went on gradually for a number of years. The step was often
taken reluctantly, sometimes under compulsion, sometimes has-
tened by concessions on David's part. It is a loss to history that
we have not the details, and also that there has come down to us
no copy of the " covenant" which was entered into.^ The ex-
istence of such an agreement (whether oral or written makes no
special difference) shows that the king was not regarded as an
absolute monarch. The Sheikhs made some effort to protect
the liberties of the tribes. Moreover, they did not regard the
recognition of the monarch as a pledge to continue his dynasty
on the throne. The renewal of the constitution (if this be not
too large a word) was expected at each new coronation. The
parallel m the early Caliphate, where the monarch was elected by
the suffrages of the Moslems, will occur to everyone.

The Hebrew historian's lack of interest in what we should call
political or constitutional history, leaves us in the dark concern-
ing the measures that David took to unify his kingdom. Some
such measures he must have taken. Israel was a congeries of
clans, only feebly conscious of their common blood. Some of
tliem were largely made up of Canaanite elements. Their jeal-

^ The compact was made in Hebron " before Yahweh " (2 Sam. 5 ^), and
had been preceded by a covenant with Abner, perhaps as representative of
the tribes, 3 ^^^ '•'• '^^ ; though we must not lose sight of the possibility that
the passages belong to different documents.

DAVID 143

ousies of each other were notorious. Ephraim had never taken
kindly to the leadership of any other tribe; Benjamin was only
half won over to the new king ; the wars between David and
Ishbaal must have left many a feud unsettled. It was probably
in view of the unsettled state of affairs that David removed his
capital to Jerusalem. The location was excellent — a fortress that
could easily be made impregnable, midway between Hebron, the
capital of the south, and Shechem, the capital of Ephraim, with-
out historic associations that could arouse the jealousy of any
tribe, on the border of Benjamin, where he could keep an eye
on that unruly tribe. The command of the highway from north
to south was also important ; less so the command of the road
from Joppa to Jericho. It was a stroke of genius when David
strengthened the citadel and removed his residence thither. The
history of the city since his time has justified his choice. Even
after the northern tribes had revolted from the house of David,
no king ever thought of returning to Hebron.

The choice of Jerusalem, then, is one of the steps taken to con-
solidate the kingdom. We are tempted to put alongside of it
the removal of the Ark to the new capital.^ But in doing this we
should be importing into the transaction the ideas of a later time.
It must be remembered that David had no idea of making a
single central sanctuary for the whole country. In his time the
land was full of sanctuaries. They were on every high hill and
under every green tree, as a later prophet informs us, and up to
this time no one had any idea that they were not all legitimate
places of worship for all Israel. What David had in mind was
to secure for his own residence— in fact for his own chapel — the
ancient palladium of Israel. It was probably not the only sacred
object that would grace the new place of worship. Abiathar,
who had carried the ephod in the wilderness campaigns, was
priest of the royal house, and naturally we suppose that he
brought his ephod with him. But the Ark had been connected
with the worship of Ephraim and Benjamin. Though it had
remained in comparative obscurity since the time when the Phil-
istines had returned it to its own territory, it was still venerable
from its antiquity, and might be made to contribute to the rec-
onciliation of the northern tribes. Doubtless, also, David w^as
moved by a desire to have in his citadel such a pledge of the
»?Sam. 6 1-19.

144 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

presence of Yahweh. Its ancient reputation as a leader in battle
was known to him, and we find him sending it on some of his
campaigns later. Piety and worldly interest seem to have com-
bined to recommend the removal.

David and his men therefore went to Baal Judah to bring up
the Ark. The two sons of its guardian accompanied it, and,
after the manner of the Philistines, it was carried on a cart which
had never been profaned by any other work.^ David and a select
choir of musicians joined in songs of religious exaltation before it.
But the joy was marred by an untoward accident. The procession
had already reached Jerusalem, and was climbing up the ascent to
the citadel, when the oxen slipped in the miry street. The cart
shook and the Ark seemed about to fall, when Uzzah, who was
walking by its side, put out his hand to steady it. By what the
spectators interpreted as an act of God, the rash man fell dead
on the spot. We can hardly wonder that David was angry when
he saw his care repaid by such an outbreak, or that he feared to
have so incomprehensible a God near him. The nearest house at
the time of the accident belonged to Obed-edom, one of David's
Philistine mercenaries. Hither the sacred and dangerous object
was brought, and here it was left, the aim of the day's work being
unattained.

Such is the story we find in our record, and, in spite of some
difficulties,^ there seems to be no reason why we should not ac-
cept it as substantially correct. The anger of Yahweh was in-
deed unaccountable, for there is no evidence that Uzzah violated
any regulation or tradition then in existence". But unaccounta-

^ Stahelin, Leben Davids, p. 39 speaks of sacred wagons among the
Phoenicians (Carthaginians), but I am not able to verify the reference or
to confirm the statement from other sources.

^The opening statement (2 Sam. 6^), seems to be part of another narra-
tive; it is difficult to suppose that Kirjath-jearim, at which we left the Ark
in the time of Samuel, is the same as Baal Judah, which seems to be the
place where David finds it. For these reasons, and others, Cheyne (article
"Ark" in the Enc. Bib.) thinks it more probable that David captured the
Ark from the Philistines, bringing it from the house of Obed-edom in Gath,
But it seems to me impossible to suppose that a Hebrew author of a later
time would have enrolled Obed-edom, a Gittite, among David's men, and
made him reside in Jerusalem, unless he were compelled by the facts so to do.
The death of Uzzah is indeed mysterious, but not entirely inexplicable. In
the views then held of the sacredness of the Ark, the man's own terror at his
rash act is enough to account for the stroke that came upon him.

DAVID 145

bility was then attributed to the God of Israel. What He did
here was only in line with what the people had observed else-
where. The prophets had not yet arisen to teach that the divine
acts were not arbitrary but were motived by righteousness.

After three months' experiment, it became evident that Yahweh's
anger was to have no further ill-effects. The prosperity of Obed-
edom and his household became the subject of common remark.
David Was not minded to lose such advantages, and he resolved
to bring the giver home to himself. This time, to avoid further
accident, the Ark was carried up the hill on men's shoulders.
The solemn procession was again formed, with the king at its
head. As soon as it became evident that Yahweh was disposed
to go, a sacrifice was offered.^ With shoutings and trumpetings
the train entered the fortress, the king in advance whirling and
leaping in the sacred dance, clothed in the primitive garment
usually worn by the ministers of the sanctuary. Yahweh was in-
troduced into the tent prepared for Him, lavish sacrifices were
offered, and provisions for a feast were distributed to the people.

Thus was consecrated a spot destined to become famous in the
world's history. The Ark was connected by tradition with Israel's
past ; it now became the central object of the royal sanctuary.
That sanctuary became the site of Solomon's Temple, and the
Ark continued its chief and central sacrum. To a later time it
continued to be the unique symbol of the divine presence, and the
pledge of the covenant between Yahweh and His people. Little
of this was in David's thought ; he builded wiser than he knew."''

The author of our account gives us a glimpse into the harem
as a supplement to his story. ^ Michal, Saul's daughter, had no
understanding of her husband's religious fervour, though it was
not unlike what she must have witnessed in her own father.
Watching the procession from her lattice, she marked only the

' Doubtless by the king's own hand. We know that Saul offered sacrifice,
and in the sacred character conferred by anointing, the king would find his
right to act as priest. Later times drew the line more strictly. Assyrian
parallels are given by McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, I,
p. 64. The story of Melchizedek shows how easily even a late writer joins
the offices of priest and king.

^ To the account we have been considering a late writer has appended a
Messianic promise, introduced by a statement of David's desire to build a
permanent temple, 2 Sam. 7.

^ 2 Sam. 6 "^0-26.

146 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

violation of conventional decency as the king, lightly clothed,
leaped and whirled before the Ark. Her sarcastic greeting as
he came into the house was perhaps the expression of something
more than momentary feeling. The king's reply, with its re-
minder of her father's dynasty and its fall, was not calculated to
restore good feeling. The permanent estrangement that resulted
was only too natural.

As has already been intimated, we would readily spare some of
the family history in which our authors are interested, if only we
could have a clearer view of political events. All that we learn
about David's foreign policy is, that after his defeat of the Phil-
istines he turned his arms against the people beyond the Jordan.
First attacking Moab he treated them with great severity. Two-
thirds of the males are said to have been put to the sword. For
this cruelty some special provocation has been looked for —
treachery against David's family has been suggested for one
thing.^ But it is doubtful whether any hypothesis of the kind is
necessary. The Old Testament gives evidence enough of the
bloody character of the wars carried on in those days. If we
may trust a later writer,^ Edom was even more severely treated.
What was left of these tribes was made tributary, and there
seems to have been no attempt to embody them in the kingdom
in the sense in which the tribes of Israel were embodied in it.
The case of the Ammonites was different. They gave special
provocation, and those of them who survived the war were put
at hard labour. Their allies in the region of Lebanon were com-
pelled to pay tribute.^ Thus David became king over a respecta-
ble territory, but one in which the heterogeneous elements were
likely to fall apart when the controlling hand of the monarch
loosened its grasp. The greetings of Toi, king of Hamath, and

^ The enigmatical insertion in i Sam. 22, to the effect that David intrusted
his father and mother to the care of the King of Moab gives no basis for the
suggestion.

* 1 Kings, II ^^, where we are told that Joab slew all the males. Winckler
supposes with some probability that in the first campaign Israel had been
defeated, and that the severity of Joab was exercised in revenge, A litest. Un-
tersuchtingen, p. 4.

'2 Sam. 10 ^-11 ^ 12^^"^'. From a later passage we learn that Shobi ben
Nahash gave David substantial aid and comfort during the revolt of Absalom
{ibid., i^^"^-"^^). It does not seem presumptuous to suppose that David had
made him governor of Ammon after the defeat and execution of his brother
Hanun.

DAVID 147

perhaps of the king of Tyre welcomed him into the circle of
monarchs. According to the Hebrew writer, Toi sent him pres-
ents, and the king of Tyre offered him artificers, Phoenicia be-
ing far in advance of Israel in the mechanic arts.

The court was organised on a more extensive scale than in the
kingdom of Saul. David himself was, of course, the chief jus-
tice, and was accessible to all his people. The case of the wise
woman of Tekoah is enough to show this, and Absalom's insinua-
tion of lack of due attention on the king's part to cases of wrong
must be taken as the demagogue's perversion of the truth in his
own interest. We hear now, for the first time, of an officer whose
business it was to keep track of public affairs — a monitor for the
king. Perhaps the Wezir of the Caliphate would fairly represent
him. Two chief military officers are named — Joab over the army,
and Benaiah over the Cherethites and Pelethites. We can un-
derstand this only by assuming that Joab was the commander-in-
chief, who led the whole effective force of the nation when it
was called out, while Benaiah was the second in command. The
Cherethites and Pelethites were the body-guard, a band of mer-
cenaries recruited, as the name indicates, among foreigners,
chiefly Philistines. The nucleus of the force was David's band
of followers in the wilderness. A picked force of thirty men
was distinguished by a separate organisation under their own
commander. We hear also of a scribe, apparently the king's
private secretary, and two priests are now counted among the
court officers. One of these was Abiathar, the survivor of Saul's
massacre at Nob, who had carried the ephod during the wilder-
ness sojourn. The other, Zadok, was promoted for reasons
unknown to us. The royal chapel seems to have had other func-
tionaries, among whom David's sons were enrolled. Now, for
the first time, we hear of an overseer of the forced labour, show-
ing the way in which the king construed his prerogative. There
was also a council whose members were called Friends of the
King. They were entertained regularly at the royal table.^

As we should expect in an oriental monarch, when David's
power and wealth increased, he increased also his harem. '^ In

^ The list of officers given in 2 Sam. 20 "-^^ and less fully in 8^^-^^ may
readily be supplemented from other parts of the narrative.

"^ Mohammed again furnishes a parallel, both in the increase of his estab-
lishment and in the sudden passion which seized him for his neighbour's wife.

148 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

comparison with Solomon his estabUshment was modest enough.
Six wives are known to us by name before the removal to Jerusa-
lem, not including Michal. At Jerusalem he added considerably
to the number. It is not improbable that he entered into alliance
with neighbouring monarchs by marriage, but our sources record
only one instance — Absalom's mother was a princess of Geshur
— probably a Philistine district.^ Rabbinical ingenuity counts
eighteen wives and concubines in David's establishment, but the
ten concubines left by David when he fled from Absalom can
hardly have been so large a proportion of the whole number —
more than one-half.

The story of David's adultery is so familiar, that the historian
may excuse himself from repeating it.-^ In its present form, the
account has been worked over by a comparatively late hand, but
there seems to be no reason to doubt the accuracy of its main
features — the adultery, the attempt at concealment, the murder
of Uriah. Similar incidents are common enough in the lives of
absolute monarchs. The peculiarity of this one is the fidelity
with which the moral sense of the community asserted itself in
the rebuke by the prophet.

Next to sensual indulgence, parental fondness for sons has been
the temptation of oriental rulers. In this, also, David was the
child of his own times, and of his own people. His sons grew
up without the wholesome restraints which are needed in a court,
though so difficult there to impose. The eldest gave way to his
mad passion for his half-sister Tamar. Her brother Absalom
avenged the outrage by killing the perpetrator. His banishment
from the court was ended at the intercession of Joab, but his high
temper is seen in his treatment of his benefactor. Not willing
to wait for the throne until his father should be taken away in
the course of nature, he stirred up the disaffection which he saw
smouldering in Judah, The demagogic arts with which he se-
duced the people from their allegiance are vividly described.'*
No doubt there was wide-spread disaffection. Judah was angry

' The x\ramaic Geshur was too remote for David's alliance in his early
career. It should be noted that one author makes David the possessor of
Saul's harem, 2 Sam. 12**.

^ 2 Sam. II ^^-12 2»,

'2 Sam. 15^"*. Absalom's personal charm is evident. The statement
about his hair is possibly intended to tell us that he was also a religious
devotee — in which character he would add to his influence over men.

DAVID 149

because the capital had been taken away from Hebron. Benja-
min had little reason to love its conqueror. In the other tribes
the new order of things could not fail to make some enemies.
The temper of a considerable part of the people is indicated in
oriental fashion by the conduct of Shimei.^

The extent of the disaffection was known to David, for he left
his capital and retreated to Mahanaim, the stronghold of ancient
Israelite loyalty. With him there went only his mercenaries,
now apparently two companies — veteran Cherethites and Peleth-
ites, and anew band under Ittai the Gittite. Outside the king's
own household none of the inhabitants of Jerusalem showed
their loyalty by offering to fight for him. In fact, the whole
country was aflame. Shimei would not have dared to show his
hatred had he not been sure that Benjamin at least was of his
way of thinking. The rebellion of the Bichrites under Sheba,
their Sheikh, was only a part of the general revolt.^ When it
became clear that Absalom was no improvement over David, the
people gradually took sides. In the final battle David's forces
included a considerable body of militia. But even here it is plain
that his mercenaries turned the scale. The reduction of Abel in
the extreme north of the country (near Dan) was the last act of
an extended drama. The fierce quarrel which took place when
David returned to his capital gives a vivid picture of the feeling
between Israel and Judah, and we cannot say that David was free
from bias in the way he treated it.

It is hopeless to attempt restoration of the chronological order
so plainly violated by our narratives. The two great calamities
of David's reign are recounted for us in an appendix to the main
history, and we must be content to take them in the same order.
They are too characteristic of the times to be passed over. The
first of these was one of the famines of which we hear in Pales-
tine from the earliest times. When the visitation can".e, David
inquired of the oracle for the cause of Yahweh's wrath, and re-
ceived the reply that blood rested on the house of Saul for his
slaughter of the Gibeonites. The Gibeonites, as we have already

'2 Sam. 16 5-13^ The abject submission of the rebel at David's return
(19 19 f) deprives him of the little sympathy we might give him as a kinsman
of Saul.

' Our sources present the revolt of Sheba as a sort of postlude to Absalom's
usurpation. But it would have been madness to revolt after the suppression
of Absalom.

I50 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

seen, were Canaanites who had entered into alliance with Israel.
Such alliances were the rule rather than the exception in the time
preceding the monarchy. Saul, within whose territory the Gibe-
onites were located, was moved by the same sort of zeal for a
purely Israelite nationality which later found such extreme ex-
pression in the book of Deuteronomy. He was minded, there-
fore, to disregard the solemn sanctions by which Israel was
bound, and took steps to exterminate the Canaanitish section of
the people. This was the more indefensible in that the people
of Gibeon had Yahweh as their Baal.

The interpretation put upon the famine was that Saul's disre-
gard of the ancestral oath had brought guilt upon Israel. The
blood could be wiped out only by blood. Who should suffer if
not the descendants of the guilty man? The Gibeonites show by
their language that they are acting both generously and justly
in demanding that seven descendants of the guilty man shall be
delivered over to them to be impaled before Yahweh at their
sanctuary.^

Their demand was complied with, and the impaled bodies
remained in the open air until the rains began to fall. The
ghastly story is relieved by Rizpah's pathetic devotion to the
children who were thus treated as malefactors, and whom she
must think under the curse of God. Through the weary weeks
she watched them with a mother's care. When the first rains
proclaimed that Yahweh was reconciled, David showed his appre-
ciation of her devotion by giving the bones of the unfortunates
honourable burial. The fact that the incident added to the sta-
bility of his throne should not make us impugn his motives. So
far as the record shows, we have no right to accuse him of insti-
gating the execution. The consideration which he showed to
Jonathan's son, Meribbaal, is inexplicable, in case he had a set
purpose to exterminate the house of Saul.^ Him he made a pen-
sioner, and to him he restored the property of Saul.

^2 Sam. 21 *-^. The implication is that they might have demanded vic-
tims from Israel at large.

^ Meribbaal (the name has been disfigured by the scribes to Mephibosheth)
might easily have been included among the execrated sons of Saul, had that
been David's wish. Though himself incapable of reigning (being a cripple)
his sons might have proved troublesome, and his death would have been as
much a matter of state policy as the death of the others. The narrator shows
evident interest in the house of Saul, 2 Sam. 9, 16^-*, 1924-30

DAVID 151

Almost more strange to us is the account of another calamity
which fell upon the people. This was a plague which is said to
have destroyed tens of thousands of the people. The plague itself
is not unaccountable — history has many such visitations to record.
But strange, indeed, is the Biblical writer's theory concerning it.
He supposes it to be a punishment for a census taken by David.
Modern expositors have been much put to it to reconcile such a
theory with our view of the character of God. Their conjectures
concerning David's pride, his plans for military display or activ-
ity or similar sinful motives are wholly without support from the
text in our hands. The truth is that we have here one of the ideas
common to primitive religions — that man should not inquire into
those secrets which the gods prefer to keep to themselves. The
number of inhabitants of a country is such a secret; hence the
wrath of Yahweh at the census. The difference between this
point of view and that of the priestly writer, who gives us such
elaborate statistics concerning the number of the people, must be
evident.

The account before us is interesting from its bearing on the
history of the Temple. Its main points are that when the plague
reached Jerusalem David's intercession for his people was heard;
that the pledge of favour was a vision of the destroying angel
standing over the threshing-floor of Araunah ^ the Jebusite. On
this site, therefore, there was an altar erected because of the vi-
sion, and by later tradition this altar fixed the site of Solomon's
Temple. We must distinguish between different parts of the
narrative. There is nothing improbable in the supposition that
David erected an altar in commemoration of the staying of the
pestilence. But that the threshing-floor of Araunah was in the
niimediate vicinity of the palace of David, and on the highest
point of what must have been the fortified hill of Jerusalem, is
incredible. The site of Solomon's Temple was determined by
the location of his palace. The altar erected by David must
have been only one of the numerous sanctuaries of Jerusalem in
this period. It is not surprising that the Temple attached to
itself legends that were originally concerned with other sanctu-
aries.

In the last days of David's life, when his end seemed near, the

^ The name is variously written and the original form is uncertain. Cheyne
(Enc. Bid. s. v.) proposes to correct to Adonijah.

1 52 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

palace was disturbed by those intrigues with which we are too
familiar in the history of oriental royal families. The succession
had never been settled, and the throne would fall to that son
who should be best able to maintain himself in it. To secure a
following in the court was the object of the ambitious princes.
Two of them became prominent in this struggle. No doubt it
would have been the part of wisdom for David to designate
his successor in such a way that there could be no mistake. But
as the making of a will is one of the things which a man will-
ingly postpones, so the designation of a successor is apt to be put
off by a monarch. In David's inexperience it is not strange
that he had neglected to look forward to what should take place
after his death. ^ Though there was no law of primogeniture, it
was natural for Adonijah (the oldest son living) to look upon the
throne as belonging to him. He therefore began to assume royal
state in proportion as his father kept in retirement. He counted
among his adherents the older officers of David — Joab and Abia-
thar certainly could not be accused of disloyalty to David. But
Bathsheba had maintained herself as favourite wife ever since she
had become an inmate of the harem. Her ambition was to see
her son Solomon on the throne — what mother is not ambitious
for her children ? Among his adherents we find the priest Zadok,
the prophet Nathan, and the captain of the body-guard, Benaiah.
It is only in accordance with human nature that the two priests
should take opposite sides, and that the two generals should like-
wise be arrayed against each other.

The older of the two princes desired to make his position ab-
solutely secure. He therefore invited all the high officials (except
those whom he knew to be hostile) to a banquet at the Serpent's
Stone.' The fact that he called all the men of Judah who were
officers of the king makes it probable that he was trying to
strengthen himself with the popular party. The narrator does
not assert that any overt act was committed on this occasion ;
but the festival was interpreted by the conservatives as a corona-
tion feast. Very possibly the expressions of loyalty to Adonijah

* Mohammed again furnishes a parallel, there having been no settlement
of the question of his successor.

^A sanctuary is implied by the narrative. The location is given (i Kings,
1 ') as by the side of En Rogel. The latter is quite generally identified with
the present Bir Eyyilb, in the Kedron valley, just below the junction of
Hinnom.

DAVID 153

among his friends in this harmonious assembly were warmer than
strict etiquette toward David would prescribe.

Nathan, the court prophet, was the first to take the alarm.
Very likely the lives of Solomon and his adherents would not
have been safe had the plans of Adonijah succeeded. Bathsheba
was persuaded that this was the case and at once used her influence
with the king. She reminded him that he had promised the suc-
cession to Solomon — an ambitious mother was very likely to
have secured such a promise for her son. That whatever promise
there was had been made privately to her and had not been pub-
lished to the court is plain from this narrative.

The body-guard was loyal to the old king, and it held the
balance of power. By David's express command they escorted
Solomon to another sacred place, Gihon,* just below the palace,
and less than half a mile from the Serpent's Stone. Here another
feast was held and Solomon was anointed king. When the
party returned to the palace, Solomon was seated on the royal
throne and received the congratulations of the crowd. The news,
brought to Adonijah by one of his adherents, showed his com-
pany the danger in which they were placed, and they speedily
took their leave of an enterprise now shown to be of doubtful
success. Adonijah himself fled to the asylum of the altar and re-
ceived only a conditional amnesty from the new king. His rash
and impolitic request for one of David's concubines was inter-
preted by Solomon (not unwilling to find a pretext, we may sup-
pose) as the assertion of a claim upon the throne. The popular
prince was put out of the way, and his leading adherents were pun-
ished— Joab with death, Abiathar with deposition from the priest-
hood.'

Soon after the coronation of Solomon, the aged king was called
away. His life had been an eventful one. Few of his years
were without war or turmoil, but through all difficulties he ad-
vanced to a position higher than had been held by any man of
his race. The best example of a self-made man, is what he has
recently been called. That he prepared the way for the more
showy reign of Solomon is one of the least of the things he ac-
complished. He may be said to have created a united Israel.

* Probably the present Fountain of the Virgin.

' One of the best pieces of Hebrew narrative in our possession is this of
the accession of Solomon, i Kings, i and 2.

154 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

In his personal traits David presented an enigma such as we
find in nearly all great men of antiquity. His attractive qualities
cannot be doubted. In an age when courage was the first requi-
site of a soldier, he was one of the most successful soldiers. The
force of his character is seen in the influence he exerted over his
turbulent band of adherents. Such a leadership implies charm
as well as force. He won the favour of Saul and the friendship
of Jonathan ; in a court that would naturally look askance at him
when his monarch's jealousy was aroused, he walked so discreetly
that he pleased all the people. His magnanimity is illustrated
in many of the stories that have come down to us ; he spared
Saul when he had him in his power ; he refused the water which
was to him consecrated by the valour of his intrepid soldiers ; he
was mindful of his duty to his friend Jonathan, giving his son an
honourable place at court ; he repaid the kindness of Barzillai
by attention to his son Chimham ; not to mar the happiness of
his return to Jerusalem, he spared Shimei, who had grossly insult-
ed him.^ In the light of these instances we can readily see how
he gained and kept the affection of those nearest him.

The darker shades of the picture are not lacking, and have
often given the enemies of tradition occasion to blaspheme. To
estimate the man we must remember that he was an oriental, and
therefore sensual, crafty, and cruel. In no one of these qualities
did he fall below the standard of the times in which he lived.
The case of Uriah, indeed, shocked the moral sense of his contem-
poraries. It is not our concern to hold him up as a pattern of all
the virtues. Probably few men of his time, however, would have
gone through the difficulties which he encountered and done so
little to offend the conscience of a later time.^

Later times made David a saint after their own ideal, a nursing

* Our account makes David charge Solomon to do what he himself had
sworn not to do, by putting Shimei out of the way. The present tendency
among scholars is to discredit this story, as also the injunction to put Joab
to death. It is argued that a defender of Solomon wished to relieve him
from the odium of these murders. I think it doubtful whether Solomon's
friends would have felt the need of defending him for acts entirely within
his competency as ruler ; and, on the other hand, I think it extremely prob-
able that David had a vivid recollection of the way in which he had been
treated by both Joab and Shimei.

^ On the character of David the reader will be interested to consult Cheyne,
Aids to the Devout Study of Criticism (1892), Chapter II.

DAVID 155

father of the Old Testament Church, an organiser of the Leviti-
cal system, and the author of the Psalter. It is this picture of
David which has made the most difficulty for modern apologists,
and which is impossible to reconcile with the one we have just
considered. David's piety was real, but it was in accordance
with the standard of his own times. He adorned his private
chapel with the most sacred object within his reach. He doubt-
less found peace and joy in the thought of Yahweh's presence.
But of the Temple as the unique centre of Israel's worship, he
had no thought. Instead of the elaborate ritual ascribed to him,
he was content with the very modest service rendered by two
priests. Our earliest accounts of him make him a musician, and
a musician was also a poet. But whatever the nature of the
songs which he sang as he whirled in ecstasy before the Ark,
they were not the Psalms which have come down to us under his
name. The dirges over Saul and over Abner which have come
down to us, have strong claims to be considered genuine. But
they are remarkable chiefly for the absence of any such religious
faith or feeling as we find in the Psalter. We must be content
with thinking of David's religion as of a very primitive type.

CHAPTER IX

SOLOiMON

Solomon ben David came into possession of a united king-
dom, a full treasury, and the rule over various conquered dis-
tricts. It is probable that he did not seek to carry further the
military policy of his father, but that he contented himself with
developing and enjoying the resources at his command. Between
the lines of the narrative which has come down to us we are able
to read that his method was that of the average oriental despot.
The first impression made by the record is different. Hebrew
writers of a later time, themselves oppressed and impoverished,
looked back at Solomon's reign as, in more senses than one, a
golden age. They were dazzled by the extent of his kingdom
(which indeed they imagined to be greater than it really was)
and by the amount of his wealth — he made silver in Jerusalem
like stones, and cedar timber like the sycomores of the Shephela.
This estimate has passed current to our own times.

Whether the statements of the king's wealth and luxury are
more or less exaggerated is a minor matter. The point that in-
terests us, and which the narrative sufficiently brings out, is the
mistaken statecraft of the ruler whose motto might well have
been : The state — I atn the state. In this view, a kingdom is the
private estate of the monarch, to be exploited for his personal
gain, or according to his personal fancy. Heavy taxes were laid
upon the tribes,^ and the free Israelites were made to render un-
paid service in the forests and the mines. Trade and commerce
were indeed fostered, but they were the king's enterprises,
whose profits went into his own treasury. That the personal
wealth of the king became enormous need not excite our wonder.

The list of Solomon's officers^ shows at once the greater com-
plexity of his establishment as compared with that of David.

^ Judah, the king's own tribe, was perhaps exempt.

^ I Kings, 4. Gray acutely conjectures., from the form of the names, that
many of these officers were foreigners; Hebreiv Proper Names (1896), p. 73.

156

SOLOMON 15;

We find now a special officer set over the provincial governors,
and also a steward of the palace. But the most radical innova-
tion was the partition of the kingdom into twelve districts, over
each of which a pasha was appointed. The twelve districts did
not correspond to the tribal divisions, as these are commonly
given by tradition. But we must remember that the tribes were
never strictly defined geographical divisions, whereas for the
purposes of taxation the districts must be rigidly defined.' We
might suspect the tribal boundaries ignored with the purpose
of breaking them down, and so reducing the nation to uni-
formity. But this would be attributing to Solomon a foresight of
which he gave no other evidence.

By what we should regard as a crude arrangement, each of
these pashas supplied the palace with provisions one month in
the year.^ No more recondite reason for the number of districts
need be sought than the fact that there are twelve months in the
year. The taxes were levied and paid in kind. We hear nothing
of any fixed rate, but there are some indications that a tenth of
the produce was the ordinary amount.' We may suppose that
the method of collection was left to the discretion of the officer
in charge. The way was thus opened to extortion and oppres-
sion. We must remember, also, that the levying of direct taxes
has always been objected to in the East. The sovereign has his
private estate, and a share of the booty taken in war — why should
he take the property of his subjects ? From this point of view
the offensiveness of the new order in Israel can be imagined.

More offensive, no doubt, was the corvee. This institution
is apparently as old as the monarchy in the East — Egypt has
employed it from earliest times. It goes upon the theory that
the subjects of a monarch are his slaves, and are bound to do
his work without pay. So Samuel threatens the people that the
king whom they desire will impress their sons to do his ploughing

^ The twelve divisions of Solomon may have helped fix the tradition of
twelve tribes of Israel — which never were twelve in fact; cf. Luther, " Die
Israelitische Stamme " in the Zeitsch.f. d. Alttest. Wissensch., XXI, p. 12> ff-

'The months were, of course, lunar months. This necessitated interca-
lation of a thirteenth month about once in three years. Who was responsible
for this thirteenth month? Was Judah then called upon? It would be
interesting to have more details.

^ In the passage alluded to below, Samuel threatens the people that the
king will tithe their fields and vineyards, i Sam. 8 ^^.

158 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

and reaping, and to run before his chariots. The women, also,
will be compelled to serve as embroiderers and as cooks. The re-
sult will be to make the Israehtes slaves instead of freemen. The
threat here put into the mouth of Samuel is a composition of very-
late date ; but it represents, probably enough, the feeling of the
people under every despotic ruler during their history.

Had Solomon contented himself with requiring service for
works of public utility in his own country, it would not have
been so bad. But he made a levy for service on foreign soil.
The oldest statement on the subject seems to be that he enlisted
thirty thousand men for the work in Lebanon, dividing them
into three sections, each of which was on duty one month at a
time. We have, however, an additional statement that there
were also seventy thousand carriers, and eighty thousand stone-
cutters in the mountains.^ There is nothing incredible in these
figures. For the building of the temple, in connexion with
which the Biblical author makes the statement, the figures are,
no doubt, too large, but when we consider the multitude of other
works undertaken by the king, they do not seem exaggerated.
The building mania, which had so often brought monarchs into
difficulty, attacked Solomon. He not only rebuilt his capital,
but he fortified various cities of military importance.'^ The nar-
rator knows also of other cities, cities for the chariot force, cities
where the supplies were stored, in all of which building would
be undertaken on a large scale. It should be noticed that the
writer tries to shield the king from the charge of enslaving Israel?
by insisting that he put to labour only the remnant of the Ca-
naanites. But, as we have seen, a large part of Israel was of
mixed blood ; the Canaanitish elements had been assimilated, so
that any endeavour to impress these alone would infallibly affect
Israelites also. And the revolt of ten tribes of Israel after Solo-
mon's death was based on the fact that the yoke had pressed
heavily on all alike.

' I Kings, 5 2T-30_ T^ro statements by different authors are here combined.
One refers to the work in the Lebanon region, the other to the work carried
on in Palestine itself. As we find an ofBcer of David's " over the forced
labour" (2 Sam. 20 2*) it is probable that David introduced the system, but
he cannot have carried it to such lengths as Solomon.

'^ I Kings, 9 *^^^ The cities named are at strategic points. They are all
in Palestine, so we need not longer cherish the extravagant hypothesis which
identifies one cf them with Palmyra.

SOLOMON 159

The life of Solomon presents itself to us, therefore, as that of a
decidedly worldly prince. The king's pride was his wealth,
his costly buildings, his stores of treasure. The useless luxury
of gold shields for his body-guard throws light upon his taste
and his aspirations. He thought to vie with the kings of the
world in pomp and luxury. The monarch with whom he came
most closely into contact was Hiram of Tyre — possessor of a small
country, but of great wealth.^ The relation of the two mon-
archs is not altogether clear. The statement that Solomon deliv-
ered to the Tyrian a large amount of grain and oil yearly, looks
as though he were tributary, and the fact that later he ceded a
considerable strip of territory also indicates that the Phoenicians
had the advantage What Solomon gained by the alliance was
knowledge of the Phoenician manner of trading. As ruler of
Edom he had possession of the port of Eloth, at the head of the
gulf of Akaba. Here he built ships and sent his own servants,
under Phoenician masters, to trade with Arabia. The profits
went into the king's coffers. As Arabia was a gold-producing
country, we need not suppose that South Africa was reached
by these fleets. Whether the commerce of India reached him by
this route is not certain. The list of products imported has some-
times been interpreted in this sense. But one or two obscure
words in a comparatively late text can hardly establish the con-
clusion. The money value of the importations, four hundred
and twenty talents in a single voyage, must be viewed with sus-
picion.^

Horses and chariots had never been adopted by the Israelites,
owing to the nature of their country. David hamstrung the
horses he captured in war, reserving only a few for purposes of

^ What tradition tells about Hiram has been gathered by Movers, Die
Phonizier, II, i, p. 326 ff. Our main authority is Josephus, who quotes
from Greek historians. The letters of Solomon and Hiram, with which the
history is embellished {Antiq., VIII, 50-56) are evidently Josephus's own
composition.

' I Kings, 9 2^; cf. 10^*, where a much larger sum is given as the king's
income for a year. Such data cannot be more than conjectures. The Kings
of Babylon and of Egypt engaged in commerce on their own account, cf.
Winckler in Schrader, KeilmscJu'iften unci Altes Testament ^, p. 238.
Winckler thinks that Solomon engaged in these expeditions as Hiram's vas-
sal, but there seems to be no evidence of this. His cession of twenty vil-
lages (I Kings, 9^^) only shows that Hiram was shrewd enough to get his
partner into his debt.

l6o OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

show. Solomon was the first to make extensive importation of
horses and chariots. Even here he seems to have had an eye to
the profits, for the Syrian countries were the source of supply
for Egypt, and the king might make this trade as well as the
Arabian a monopoly.^

If we may credit the Hebrew accounts, Solomon went beyond
any ancient monarch in the luxury of the harem. The enormous
number of wives and concubines attributed to him must be made
up by counting all the female slaves of the palace among the
concubines. Even then the figures must be grossly exaggerated.^
The desire to cement alliances with his neighbours led him to
take a large number of foreign princesses. The chief of these
was the daughter of the reigning Pharaoh. Her father cap-
tured the town of Gezer, till then unsubdued by the Israelites,
and gave it to her as a marriage portion. The great king-
dom of Egypt always looked down upon all smaller countries,
and doubt has been thrown upon our account for this reason.
But Palestine under a single ruler was a neighbour whose friend-
ship was well worth cultivating. The importance which this
wife had in Solomon's eyes is seen by the fact that he built a
separate palace for her alone, out of all the list.^ As it turned
out, a change of dynasty in Egypt made the alliance of short
duration.

Next to his wealth (illustrated in his harem), the wisdom of
Solomon is emphasised by the sacred writer. No doubt the av-
erage man associates the wealth and the wisdom. Solomon could
not so successfully have exploited his knigdom unless he had un-
common ability — this is the reasoning which first led men to call
the king wise. This reputation once established, tradition inter-
preted the wisdom more generously. The ruler who is chief

* The original text (i Kings, lo 2^) is probably to be corrected, according
to Winckler's conjecture, so as to state that the importers of horses brought
them from Mu^ri and Kue, countries of North Syria. The forwarding to
Egypt is therefore not indicated in the text, though it may be conjectured.

^ The received text gives 700 wives and 300 concubines. The two items
are not in the right proportion, and we are inclined to suspect that 70 wives
and 300 concubines was the original statement (so Klostermann conjectures
in his commentary).

'' A discussion of which particular Pharaoh honored Solomon with his alli-
ance will be found in the Zeitschrift der Dentschen Mo7-getil. Gisellschaft,
LIV, p. 24 f.

SOLOMON l6l

justice of his people needs shrewdness to detect the false pleas
that will be brought before him. The example of the two women
whose case he decided shows that the king was credited with
practical common-sense and knowledge of human nature in his
administration of justice. The example before us may be classed
with Sancho Panza's skilful adjudication of the test cases brought
before him when he assumed the government of his island.
Many an Arab Emir shows similar mother-wit in dealing with
litigants.

In allowing Solomon so much wisdom, we need not discredit
the tradition which ascribes to him the composition of apothegms
such as are contained in our book of Proverbs. Sententious say-
ing, enigmas to test the wit of the social circle, maxims for the
conduct of life, have been the stock-in-trade of oriental sages
from very early times. While it is impossible with any certainty
to affirm that a single one of the Proverbs comes from Solomon,
the book shows the kind of wisdom ascribed to him, and which
he very likely possessed. The questions and answers with which
he astonished the Queen of Sheba were enigmas and riddles such
as the East delights in to the present day. Intellectual keenness
is doubtless quickened by them, but they make no permanent
contribution to man's store of knowledge. Our botanical sci-
ence need not mourn the loss of Solomon's sayings concerning
trees, " from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out
of the wall."

More important for posterity than either Solomon's wisdom or
his wealth was the Temple. This importance, however, was not
dreamed of by Solomon himself To him the Temple was only
one, and that not the chief one, of the many buildings which he
erected. In the adornment of his capital he planned for the
extension and rebuilding of the city wall and the erection of
an extensive group of buildings which we might call his castle.
This group included not only the king's residence, the palace for
his chief wife, and the apartments of his other wives, but also a
great hall of audience for state occasions, a smaller hall of judgment,
and the Temple. The whole group was surrounded by a single
wall which made it a citadel. The site was in all probability that
of David's citadel, only enlarged by taking in more of the hill.
Retaining walls such as were afterward built by Herod would
make the ground sufficiently level. But that the natural uneven-

l62 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ness of the site was not wholly overcome, is indicated by the
constancy of usage which speaks of going up from the palace to
the Temple.^ We may suppose, therefore, that the highest
part of the hill was occupied by the sanctuary — as was tha case
also with the village high places. Next to it on the south was
the palace, lower down were the houses of the town.

The Old Testament writer does not make the arrangement of
the buildings altogether clear. In the nature of things we should
expect the great audience hall to be at the south side — thus more
accessible to the people. This hall, from the number of cedar
columns it contained, was called the House of the Forest of
Lebanon. It has been plausibly supposed that its upper story
was used as an armory. Its dimensions are given as one hundred
cubits by fifty. ^ From this great hall opened a smaller room
also supported by columns. This served as antechamber to the
throne room, which was also the judgment seat of the king. The
throne itself was esteemed a marvel of art, made of gold and
ivory, decorated with the figures of lions and of bulls.

Of the palace proper — the residence of the king and his house-
hold— the author can tell us nothing. All the more detailed is
his account of the Temple. The importance which this build-
ing assumed in later history justifies his pains. It was, to be
sure, not the King's purpose to build the single legitimate place
of worship for all Israel. The Temple was to him one part of
his castle — not exactly his private chapel, but the cathedral of
his capital. Such a sanctuary might overshadow, it was not
expected to supersede, others already in existence. The parallel
between him and his father is exact. As David by bringing the
Ark to Jerusalem did not interfere with the other sacred places of
the land, so Solomon in giving the Ark a more gorgeous place of
residence had no exclusive purpose. In the time of David, we
find no surprise expressed that Absalom should vow a vow to the
Yahweh of Hebron ; and both Adonijah and Solomon hold
their festivals at other shrines than the one in the palace. In
like manner Solomon gives proof of his esteem for other sanctu-
aries than the one at Jerusalem, by going to Gibeon to worship.

' 2 Kings, 19'*, 20 ^ 23 '^ Jer. 26'".

2 Say 170 feet by 85, i Kings, y'-^. A ground plan showing a plausible re-
construction of the whole group of buildings fs given by Stade, Geschichte,
I1 P- 305 ; cf. also Benzinger's Commentary on i Kings. 5.

SOLOMON 163

Here in an ancient Canaanitish city was a famous place of wor-
ship dedicated to Yahweh, which we have already had occasion
to notice. Hither, therefore, came the young king to offer his
sacrifices and to seek God's revelation.^

This example is significant, because it shows that the thought
of a single legitimate sanctuary was far from the king's mind. It
may be said indeed that the Temple was not yet built — such a
plea is in fact made by the Deuteronomic editor of the Book of
Kings. But the Ark was in existence, it was in the palace of
David, it was now in the possession of Solomon. Yet he chose
to visit the ancient and celebrated shrine at Gibeon. His inten-
tion not to displace the older high places could not be more ex-
plicitly set before us. Even in Jerusalem numerous other altars
existed down to the time of the Exile.

As we have seen, the site of the Temple was the summit of
the hill on which Jerusalem was built. The Hardm es-Shenf 2X
Jerusalem still retains its ancient sacredness. In this large area,
the central object covered by the Dome of the Rock is the orig-
inal summit of the hill. As the sacredness of hill-tops is abun-
dantly shown in the history of Semitic religion, we are author-
ised to conclude that this native summit is the original reason
for the consecration of the place. We may go further, and con-
clude that it was already consecrated to the genius loci before
David's capture of the city. In that case Yah\Veh simply adopted
the locality already occupied by another god — as at Gibeon he
had displaced the local Baal or become merged in him. This
process of amalgamation, as we know, went on at many places
throughout the country. Parallels in the history of religion are
abundant. The mosques of Islam are in many places the older
sanctuaries — some of the most notable having been Christian
churches. Christian churches often represent ancient heathen
temples. The welis or tombs of saints throughout Syria are the
successors of shrines originally consecrated to Baal or Astarte.

To erect a permanent building for Yahweh is treated by at
least some of the Hebrew writers as an innovation. This is
hardly correct, as the sanctuary at Shiloh had doors, and a cham-

^ Although it is not expressly so asserted, we may suppose that Solomon
slept in the sanctuary in order to receive the revelation by a dream. This
practice of incubation was widely spread in antiquity. Cf. Wiedemann,
Religion of the Ancient Egyptians^ p. 1C9.

l64 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ber in which the Ark was kept. Micah also had a house for his
image. But no doubt the desert God had for the most part Uved
in a tent. In the majority of Canaanitish sanctuaries the sacred
object was in the open air, though chambers were often built for
the convenience of those eating the sacrificial meal.' The altar
must, of course, be in the open air.

It is perhaps not without significance for our history, that
Hiram of Tyre was a great temple builder. We can see how his
example might influence Solomon. Unfortunately, no Phoeni-
cian temple has been preserved to us. But there are some indi-
cations that the plan of Solomon's Temple and its ornamentation
followed Phoenician models.^

The essential thing in all the High-places was the sacred enclos-
ure, within which was the altar and the object of worship. When
the worshipper thought of the sanctuary it was this area which
he had in mind — the Hardm at Mecca is a familiar example. In
this enclosure Solomon chose to place a building, as a residence
for the divinity. Its essential part was a chamber twenty cubits
on a side — cubes play a part in Semitic religion elsewhere, the
Kaaba being the most conspicuous example. In this inner cham-
ber the Ark — and it alone — was kept. The doors into the ante-
room were usually left open, as we may infer from the way in
which the Hebrew writer speaks of the staves of the Ark being
seen^ from the outer room.

The outer room was twice as long as the inner, but of the
same breadth and height. It was provided with a table for the
sacred bread, and probably with a lamp.* The altar of incense
seems to be a later addition. In front of the ante-room was a
vestibule ten cubits deep. Around three sides of the building
was a series of small chambers arranged in three storeys. These
were store-rooms for the convenience of the priests, and probably

^ As at Samuel's home, i Sam. 9^^.

"^ The simple cella which constitutes the temple of Amrit is, in idea, the
Most Holy place of Solomon's Temple. See Perrot and Chipiez, History of
Art in Phcenicia (1885), p. 105.

^ I Kings, 8 ^. The verse is not altogether clear, but warrants this conclu-
sion.

* If the modest temple of Shiloh kept a lamp burning, it is probable that
Solomon's was at least as well furnished. The statement concerning the
ten golden lamps, however, i Kings, 7 *'*, must be taken to be a late insertion
in the text.

SOLOMON 165

of the king himself. The royal treasures would nowhere be more
safe than in the immediate presence of the divinity. Contribu-
tions to the Temple were paid in kind; votive offerings would
come in abundance in the course of time; the vestments and
implements of service must be kept within the sacred area; per-
haps the sanctuary was early made a place of safe keeping for
valuables belonging to individuals, as we know it was in later
times. The need of such chambers is thus easily conceived.

The house was built to face the east. Its walls were massive,
of hewn stone. The stone was cut and fitted before it was brought
to the spot where it was to be used. Doubtless this was in defer-
ence to a superstition concerning the use of iron in building a
sacred house. The oldest legislation of the Hebrews forbids
building an altar of hewn stone, because the lifting of a tool upon
it defiles it.^ The interior was panelled with cedar wood. The
statements concerning figures carved in the panels, and concern-
ing the gold overlaying are apparently late insertions into the text.

The implements of service were cast in copper by a Phoenician
artificer. Among these the first place must be given to the two
great pillars which stood at each side of the door. These were
about thirty feet high, and had a diameter of six feet. Each of
them had an elaborate capital ornamented with pomegranates.
Their importance was such that they received names, one being
called Jachin and the other Boaz. These names are as yet un-
explained, and have perhaps been mutilated.^ We must see in
these columns enlarged examples of the ma((eboth or pillars which
always stood by the altars of Yahweh in the early time, but which
later times rejected as idolatrous. Parallels are found in the pil-
lars which stood before the temple of Melkarth at Tyre, and those

^ Ex. 20 23. Until very recent times traces of the same idea were found in
the East. Thus, the smiths constitute a separate class, caste, or clan, in
almost all oriental countries. The reluctance to have surgical operations
performed is motived by a dread of the uncanny properties of iron, Russell's
Aleppo"^ (i794)» n, p. 136. Abundant parallels from other religions will be
found in Frazer, The Golden Bough'^, I, pp. 344-352.

2 Conjectural emendations are given by Cheyne, Enc. Bib. col. 2304.
Sketches of the pillars, or a plausible reproduction, may be seen in Stade,
Geschichte, I, p. 332; in Kittel, Handkovivientar, p. 62; Benzinger, Die
Backer der Konige, p. 44, and in Schick, StiftshUtte, Tempel und Tempel-
platz (1896), p. 83. The last-named work is of great value because writ-
ten by an architect who has spent most of his life in Jerusalem. It pro-
ceeds, however, on an entirely uncritical view of the Hebrew text.

l66 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

which the author of the treatise on the Syrian Goddess^ saw at
Hierapolis, and which he took to be phalH.

Next in importance to these must be rated the great tank called
the Sea. The description is of a round reservoir ten cubits in
diameter and five deep, made of copper mounted on twelve bulls
of the same metal. Three of the bulls faced each point of the
compass. As twelve is an astronomical number, it may not be
too bold to see in these bulls symbols of the constellations, in
which case the Sea is a symbol of the great celestial reservoir
from which the earth is watered. Similar ''seas " are mentioned
in Assyrian temples, and large vases of stone found in Phoeni-
cian sanctuaries may be brought into the same class. ^ The sa-
credness of water has always been emphasised in the East, as is
seen in the worship of springs, to which the Old Testament itself
testifies. This alone would account for the great Sea in the
Temple. For the practical purpose of ablution ten smaller tanks
(lavers) were provided, each holding forty baths. ^ Each of
these was provided with a waggon on four wheels so that it could
be moved from place to place as wanted. They were ornamented
with figures in relief, of lions, bulls, cherubs, and palm trees.
The bulls were sacred to Yahweh (or Baal), lions were the sym-
bol of Astarte, the cherubs were well-known mythological figures,
and the palms were also probably sacred. The significance of
the ornamentation, therefore, is plain ; it indicated a syncretistic
purpose in the building of the Temple. The multitude of smaller
implements, pots, shovels, bowls, need not detain us, but we may
notice the table for the twelve loaves of bread kept constantly
before the face of Yahweh. This " bread of the presence " is as

^ This is reckoned among the works of Lucian. The reference is D^ Dea
Syria, XVI. The two pillars at Tyre are mentioned by Herodotus, II, 44.
See also the fa9ade of the temple of Paphos, showing two similar pillars, in
Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Phcenicia, p. 123.

2 Reconstruction in Stade's Geschichte, I, p. 336 (copied by Benzinger).
Compare the Amathus vase (nine feet in diameter) pictured in Perrot and
Chipiez, Phcenicia, p. 290.

'This amounts to over four hundred gallons for each. Figures of these
"lavers" and their bases are given in Stade, Geschichte, I, p. 341, and
Benzinger, p. 49. Cf. also the later study by Stade in the Zeitschr. fiir die
Alttest. JFissensch,XXl (1901), pp. 145-190. This illustrates its subject by
the bronze "bases" recently discovered in Cyprus, which are quite similar
(except in size) to those in the Temple. On reservoirs of water in Baby-
lonian temples see Keilinschr. und Altes Test., ^ p. 525.

SOLOMON 167

old as the time of David, i Sam. 21 *"^ though Babylonian paral-
lels are cited/

The cherubim are important for their association with other
parts of the sanctuary. Two of them, of gigantic size, were
placed in the Most Holy Place, where, with their outstretched
wings, they overshadowed or shielded the Ark. From indica-
tions in other parts of Scripture, we gather that they were com-
posite figures, intended to represent guardian demons or deities.^
The winged bulls with human heads, so common in Assyria, are
analogous, and may be the originals. But other religions show
similar fantastic creations.

Our account of the temple and its furniture makes no mention
of the altar, or rather, it makes an allusion without a description.^
It is usually supposed that this is due to a late scribe who left out
the description of the altar to make room for the old altar of the
Tabernacle, which he supposed to be transferred to the Temple.
So violent a procedure, however, must not be assumed withou.t
strong evidence. Even if a copyist had been bold enough to
make the omission, he would have given us distinct information
that the old altar was found sufficient. On the same principle,
he should have left out the table of shewbread. It remains prob-
able, therefore, that the original account said nothing of the
altar. How can this be possible ? Looking carefully at the
narrative, we discover at the end of the prayer of dedication,
this curious statement : '' In that day Solomon consecrated the
middle of the court which is before the Temple of Yahweh, for
he off'ered there the burnt-offering, and the fat of the peace-offer-
ing." The second half of the verse, which assigns the smallness
of the copper altar as the reason for the king's act, may be only
the late author's endeavour to account for a fact which had come
down to him by tradition.*

^ Keilinschr. unci A lies Test., ^ p. 600. The number twelve is common to
the two religions.

^The word cherub is not yet satisfactorily explained. On the Biblical
conception the best discussion seems to be that of Vatke, Biblische T/ieologie,
I, pp. 325-334. Compare also the articles in recent Bible Dictionaries.
Winged figures in Phoenician art are illustrated by Perrot and Chipiez,
Phceuic'ia, p. 134. It should be noted that lions are often used in decoration
in Phoenician art, as in the Temple.

' I Kings, 9 '^^. The verse is an insertion in the text.

*The verse is i Kings. 8^*. The context is recognised to be of post-
Deuteronomic authorship.

l68 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

It may be doubted, further, whether a late author would have
invented a statement of this kind. In the middle of the court
was the precise spot where the altar should have stood. Did
Solomon remove the altar after it was once set in place? This
seems impossible. Moreov r, we must raise a question whether
a copper altar is conceivable at this period. All the altars in
Israel were of stone or earth. If hewn stone was an unlawful
innovation, we should expect metal to be out of the question.

In Semitic religion, we are able to show that, in some cases
at least, the altar was the sacred stone to which the place was dedi-
cated.^ In the sanctuary at Jerusalem, the original sacred ob-
ject was the native stone summit of the hill, and this occupied
the centre of the court before the House of Yahweh. This then
constituted the original altar of the sanctuary. Whether the ex-
cavation in the rock, which reminds us of the pit at the base of
Arabic altars, existed so early, may well be doubted. But, on our
hypothesis, we find new reason for Isaiah's calling Jerusalem
Ariel — or Altar- hearth.^

Other gods than Yahweh were worshipped in the Temple.
This appears from many indications. The frequent efforts made by
kings of Judah to purify the sanctuary, that is, to unify the wor-
ship there, show how tenaciously the other gods held their places.
This they could not have done had not antiquity been on their
side. Who so likely as Solomon (the lover of horses) to intro-
duce the horses of the sun into the sacred precincts ? Ezekiel com-
plains that the abominations of the nations had shrines in the
courts of Yahweh; and when the same author describes men wor-
shipping images engraved on the walls, we think of the cherubim,
palms, and lions of Solomon's time. The worship of foreign gods
by Solomon himself is a plain matter of history. The indulgence
of the Hebrew writers for their hero causes them to shield him
by throwing the blame upon his wives. These are said to have
turned his heart to other gods. But the statement is in itself im-
probable. Granting that the wife did not adopt the god of her
husband, and that therefore the foreign princesses should have their
private chapels, this was no reason that their husband should join
in the worship. The original kernel of the account is the state-
ment that ''Solomon built a sanctuary for Chemosh, the god of

' Cf. W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 184 ff.

' Is. 29 ^ ; the word occurs also in the inscription of Mesha.

SOLOMON 169

Moab, and for Moloch, the god of the Ammonites." ^ Undoubt-
edly these sanctuaries were in Jerusalem, though the later author
could not bear to think this, and removed them to the Mount of

Olives.

The motive for naturalising these gods in Jerusalem is not far
to seek. Moab and Ammon were peoples kindred to Israel.
Their territory was part of the same kingdom. It was right, in
the view of the ruler, that these peoples should be conciliated
and that their divinities should be recognised. It is nothing
surprising, therefore, to find the tutelary deities of all Solomon's
subjects united in a pantheon— the king's new Temple at Jerusa-
lem. Statecraft would suggest such a step. The religion of
Yahweh was not at this period sufficiently exclusive to protest
against it. AVe shall be attributing later motives to the king if
we suppose him to be a universalist, to whom all religions were
equally true, and who found the one God in all the objects of
worship. Rather must we suppose him a believer in the multi-
tude of gods, each of whom ought to be conciliated in the inter-
est of the throne and the nation.

The inclusiveness of Solomon's worship did not imply that
Yahweh was no more to him than the other gods. Doubtless he
felt that Yahweh was nearer to him than the others, and that He
was the God of Israel in a sense in which the others could never
be. This was indicated by the fact that the central point of the
Temple, the Most Holy Place, was appropriated to Him. At the
dedication the king recited this verse:

Yahweh has set the sun in the heavens,
But Himself has willed to dwell in darkness.
I have therefore built Thee a house to dwell in,
A home for Thee for eternity.
It is pleasant to think that this correctly expresses the spirit in
which the building of the Temple was undertaken.'

1 I Kings II ^ The word for sanctuary is havia, which is the same often
translated High-place. The words of the Hebrew text, on the mount east of
Jerusalem, are not original, as we see from Origen's Hexapla, which puts
them under the asterisk.

•''The long prayer of dedication and the benedictions in i Kmgs, 8, are so
evidently a late composition that we must leave them out of view. The verse
given above seems to represent the earliest tradition of the dedication speech.
We cannot be sure that even this goes back to the time of Solomon. Per
correction of the text, consult the recent commentaries.

170 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

The Temple contained many things at which later Jewish ex-
clusiveness would have shuddered. Not only were symbols set
up which were later called idolatrous, but the Temple servants
were of a class later abhorred. As we know from Ezekiel, it
was the custom of the Kings of Judah to endow the sanctuary
with slaves captured in war. These were not only trained to do
the work of the Temple, but we have reason to believe that some
of them were consecrated to the obscene rites with which the
Canaanitish Baal was worshipped. That Solomon was the first
to introduce these foreign slaves into the sanctuary is perhaps
indicated by the fact that after the Exile a class of Temple ser-
vants were still called '' Sons of the servants of Solomon." ^

The reign of Solomon was not only the culmination of Israel's
worldly glory ; it was also the beginning of its decline — so soon
does decay follow maturity. The various parts of the kingdom
were held together by no internal bond. The rule of the mon-
arch enforced a unity so long as it was rigorous. But even in
Solomon's lifetime it began to relax, and the provinces moved
for their independence. The most ancient account which has
come down to us speaks of the revolt of Edom. We learn that
at the subjugation of this country by David, one prince of the
royal house (a small boy) escaped to Egypt. Here he was wel-
comed by the Pharaoh, who brought him up with his own chil-
dren. At the death of David, the now adult prince returned to
Edom and re-established himself on the throne. How extensive
his territory was we cannot say; the fact that Solomon retained
command of the caravan route to the Gulf of Akaba indicates
that Edom did not regain all that had belonged to it earlier.
The great empires of the East have continually shown the phe-
nomena which here appear on a small scale.'' The readiness of

^ Neh. 7 ^'-^^, Ezra, 2^^. In both passages they are classed with the A^'e-
thinitn, who are known to be descendants of Temple slaves, cf. Ezra 8 ^*',
That some of them were Canaanites is indicated by the tradition that Joshua
reduced the people of Gibeon to the position of slaves of the sanctuary^
Josh. 9 23-27,

'The account of the revolt of Edom, i Kings, 11 ^^-22, is confusing, be-
cause it is made up from two different documents. One tradition made
Hadad brought up by Pharaoh's wife, the other made him marry the
queen's sister. There are indications also that a Midianite prince has been
mixed up with this Hadad. Winckler {Alttest. Untersiich., pp. I-15) first
called attention to the literary phenomena. I cannot discover the necessity
for substituting the North Arabian Mucri for Egypt in this passage.

SOLOiMON

i;i

Egypt to foster disintegration in Palestine need cause no re-
mark.

From another hand we have the story of Rezon. This hero is
described as a bandit captain who estabhshed himself in the re-
gion of Lebanon, and who finally got possession of Damascus.
Here he founded a kingdom, which later became a standing
menace to Israel. He belongs in this connexion only if he took
away territory belonging to Solomon. It is probable that he
did take away such territory, for David made tributaries in this
region. The further remark that Rezon ''was Israel's enemy
all the days of Solomon," indicates that his revolt took place
early in the reign. ^

More serious was the revolt of Jeroboam ben Nebat, because it
affected the very centre of the kingdom. It was suppressed,
however, during Solomon's life, and so the discussion of it does
not belong in this chapter. Solomon is said to have reigned
forty years. Tradition magnified his wealth and his wisdom, and
as time went on the conviction arose that if he had been a wise
man, he could not have found satisfaction in luxury and idolatry.
So he became, in the latest Jewish literature, a type of the peni-
tent roue who has tried all the resources of earth, only to find
them impotent to give happiness. Whether the real Solomon
ever had such an experience is impossible to say. All that the
record pictures is an oriental despot, luxurious and oppressive,
but possibly good-natured and genial in personal intercourse.
Of statesmanship, in our sense of the word, he had not the
faintest glimmer. His religion was of the type held by his con-
temporaries. Nothing can be attributed to him that really ad-
vanced Israel in its world mission.

Concerning the social condition of the people during the
reigns of David and Solomon, we know little. On the side of
religion, we know that when the Israelites entered Canaan they
brought their God Yahweh with them. But they found a fully
developed religion already in possession of the country. Every-
where there were sanctuaries to the local Baal. This god was
worshipped as the god of fruitfulness, and the harvests which
made the peasant's wealth were his gift. We can hardly suppose

* The account, i Kings, 1 1 2^-^^, has suffered in transmission. The editor
was apparently anxious to pass as lightly as possible over these unpleasant
incidents.

172 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

the nomads to naturalise their Yahweh at once as lord of the
land. It would be their thought that the god of the cultivated
land would know better than the god of the desert how to make
the harvests grow. We can understand, if we do not excuse, the
continual tendency of the Israelites to seek the favour of Baal — a
tendency of which the prophetic writers complain without ceasing.

We may go further. We have found abundant reason to sup-
pose that the conquest of Canaan was really a gradual amalgama-
tion of Israelites and Canaanites. The two people lived side by
side (in many communities) on friendly terms. The alliances by
which they secured mutual rights were entered into by recogni-
tion of each other's divinities. Baal and Yahweh were respected,
and in some cases worshipped, by both parties. Baal admitted
Yahweh to his sanctuaries — nay, the process went so far that Baal
and Yahweh were identified. The meaning of Baal (^Lord) fa-
cilitated the identification. It was easy to say that Yahweh was
the Baal of Israel. Names borne by sons in the family of Saul,
and in the family of David (\.s\ibaal, J^aaijada.) show how deep-
rooted was the idea.^ On the other hand we find the Canaanites
adopting Yahweh. Gibeon, as we know, was an ancient Ca-
naanitish city. The people were reckoned Canaanites in the time
of David. Yet the sanctuary of their city was the sanctuary of
Yahweh, for it was before Yahweh that they impaled the sons
of Saul. More striking still, it was this Canaanitish sanctuary
which Solomon chose out of all the high places of the land, when
he wanted to honour the God of Israel.^

What had taken place here, had taken place all over the land.
YahAveh was no longer the God of the desert, or of Horeb ; ' He
had become the God of the land, and David complained that in
exile from Canaan he was banished from the presence of Yah-
weh.* The ancient sanctuaries of Canaan were in a position to
exercise a strong fascination on immigrant Israel. They had an-

* Perhaps the most significant indication is the name Baaliah (i Chr. 12^)
which is given as the name of one of David's captains and which means
Yahtveh-is-Baal. The place-names Baal-Judah and Baal- Perazim (the latter
given by David) are also significant of the amalgamation.

^Cf. what was said above (p. 163) about the adoption of old sanctuaries
in a new religion.

'Although Horeb no doubt retained its ancient sanctity. This we see
from the story of Elijah.

* I Sam. 26 19.

SOLOMON

173

tiquity in their favour; their ritual was ornate and sensuous;
they were the centres of civihsation, of trade, and of dissipation.
That they should maintain their influence is what we might ex-
pect. Syncretism resulted, even in the Temple at Jerusalem.

Socially and politically, the old tribal organisation was still
strong. The people had become cultivators, but the institutions
of the desert survived. In imposing the machinery of taxation,
the king had no thought of changing the social order. The
new pashas and the old sheikhs lived side by side. The old
customary law was still administered in the gates. Although the
king was chief justice, and an appeal to him was open to any
subject, there seems to have been no attempt to appoint subordi-
nate judges by his authority. Had Solomon been the originator
of improvements in the legal system, tradition would almost cer-
tainly have known something of it. A recently discovered mon-
ument of early Babylonian jurisprudence, shows us what might
reasonably have been expected of a Hebrew king who was noted
for his wisdom. This monument is the code of Hammurabi,
king of Babylon.^ The monarch who promulgates it regards
himself as commissioned by the gods " to establish justice in the
land, to destroy the wicked in order that the powerful may not in-
jure the weak," and a relief sculptured on the pillar possibly rep-
resents him receiving his laws from the sun-god. No doubt Baby-
lonian and Hebrew ideas are alike, in that Yahweh also was the
guardian of right and the source of legislation ; the example of
Moses shows as much. Solomon may well have looked upon him-
self as divinely commissioned to administer justice. Tradition
makes him pray for wisdom and gives a legal decision of his as an
example of the wisdom intended. But Solomon nowhere saw the
royal opportunity to codify and publish the law of the land for
the guidance of his subjects or of his officials. In this he was
behind his Babylonian predecessor.

This example is instructive as showing how little Babylonian
influence was found in Palestine. There can be no doubt that at
one time this influence had been paramount there. But that time

* A German translation is published by Winckler, Die Gesetze Hamjuur-
abPs (iqo2), and an English translation of Winckler's German is given in the
New York Independent for January 8, 15, and 22, 1903. Hammurabi's
reign is dated about 2000 B.C. ; Solomon's coronation may be placed approx-
imately at 970 B.C.

174 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

was long past. The Israelite invasion had done away with Baby-
lonian institutions. The people who came in from the desert
brought their own laws — or rather lack of laws — with them.
Now, no doubt, in a society comparatively settled, they were de-
veloping a system of common law. The earliest Hebrew code
which has come down to us ^ was published at a date consider-
ably later than the time of Solomon. But it embodies usage
which is as old as Solomon or older, and we may use it to throw
light upon the social conditions of the time. Its simplicity when
compared with the code of Hammurabi confirms its indepen-
dence. The points of resemblance, some of which are striking,
are features common to oriental society.

The chief interest of the legislator was in the rights of property.
The most important class of property was slaves, if we may judge
from its heading the list. A Hebrew might be sold into sla-
very for debt. The code provides in such case that he shall
not be held more than six years without his own consent. This,
however, seems not to have been recognised as binding law at
any time. The example shows that this code, in some cases, ex-
pressed the ideal of the writer, rather than actual practice. It is
interesting to notice that the author assumes that there will be
household gods in each dwelling — reminding us of the teraphim
in David's house.

A Hebrew girl (it is assumed) is likely to be sold into concu-
binage, which is, in fact, the recognised form of marriage. In
such a case, sale to another master will be a hardship, and the right
of the master is limited so that he must allow her own family to
redeem her. Polygamy is recognised, care being taken only that
the different wives shall be treated alike. The one discriminated
against may claim her freedom.

Murder is punished according to the custom of blood-revenge.
Unintentional killing is now differentiated from murder, how-
ever, in so far that the altar of Yahweh provides an asylum for the
manslayer if the killing be unintentional. Injury to a slave, in-
flicted by a master, was injury to a man's own property, and
was not punishable unless death ensued immediately. Ordinary
cases of injury by assault were punishable by talio — an eye for an

^The so-called Book of the Covenant, Ex. 20 ^^ — 23''. Cf. Baentsch, Das
Bundesbuch (1892), and his commentary on Exodus, p. 185 ff.; also Briggs,
Higher Criticism of the Hexateiuh (1897), pp. 211-232 and 242-255.

SOLOMON 175

eye, a tooth for a tooth, wound for wound — doubtless the penalty
was inflicted by the injured person or his next of kin. A large
amount of attention is given to injury of cattle or by cattle, to
damage of crops, to theft, and to loss of articles loaned or in safe
keeping. Seduction of a virgin is treated as a damage to property.
If, as seems probable, the Book of the Covenant has preserved
to us the first endeavour to write down some of the examples
of case law,^ its importance for literature is not inferior to its
importance in legal development. The reign of Solomon would
naturally foster literature. The new-felt unity of Israel would
lead to a collection of Israel's traditions. Legends, long cir-
culated orally, would now be put in written form. The poetic
monuments of past achievements would be zealously sought. It
is probable that considerable portions of the literature thus put
into shape have come down to us imbedded in the works of later

writers.

Among the productions of the period we may, with some con-
fidence, put the so-called Blessing of Jacob.^* A poet here puts

1 The oldest portions of the book probably contain notes of actual cases,
written down, not as authoritative legislation, but for information on prec
edents. By far the greater part of the laws in this code are in the form of
judgments (cf. Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, p. 252 ff.) which
state a case hypothetically and then give the decision, as : " If a man smite
another so that he die, he shall be put to death." It is noticeable that this
is the form of the laws of Hammurabi. It seems probable also that the
two codes were alike in arranging the laws in groups of five, though this is
not rigorously carried through in either one. Specific points of resemblance
are the following :

Thou Shalt not suffer a maker of spells to live (Ex. 22 i«) : If one cast a
spell upon a man . . . he shall be put to death (Hammurabi i).

If a man steal an ox or a sheep . . . he shall restore five oxen for an
ox and four sheep for a sheep (Ex. 22 ^) : If a man steal an ox or a sheep or
an ass or a swine belonging to a god or to the king, he shall restore thirty
fold- if it belong to a freeman he shall restore ten fold (Ham. 8).

He that stealeth a man . . . shall be put to death (Ex. 21 1«) : If one
steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death (Ham. 14).

If a thief be found breaking in and be smitten that he die, no blood shall
be shed for him (unless the sun be risen, Ex. 22^0 : ^ one breaks into a
house he shall be slain before the breach and buried there (Ham. 21).

On trespass of cattle, cf. Ex. 22 ^ and Ham. 57 f- On goods entrusted to
another for safe keeping, cf. Ex. 22^-^3 and Ham. 112. The taho is en-
forced by Ham. 196-201. The striking of a father is punished with death
in both codes.

2 Testament of Jacob would be a better name. It is found in Gen. 49.

1/6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

into the mouth of Israel, the eponym of the nation, verses char-
acterising the different tribes. Reuben has already lost his pre-
eminence. Simeon and Levi have been punished for their inhu-
manity. But Judah has the suzerainty over his brothers. Dan
and Gad live on the frontiers, where their valour defends their
country from the raiders. Joseph is second only to Judah in the
blessings which are allotted to him. With such appeals to the
clans we may suppose the poet to rouse their emulation and stim-
ulate their pride.

Other portions of the poetic anthologies cannot be pointed out
with certainty. We may assume, however, with some probabil-
ity, that the oldest sections of our historical books were written
down in this period. Interest in the dynasty of David would
make the life of that king one of the first subjects to be treated.
We may also suppose that it now became the fashion at the more
celebrated sanctuaries to have the traditions of the Patriarchs put
into written form. Solomon's own interest in literature may
have been genuine; in any case his reign was of permanent im-
portance in the development of Israel, more from the stimulus it
gave to literature than for its wealth or commerce.

CHAPTER X

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU

The attempt of an ambitious satrap to make himself an inde-
pendent monarch is a constantly recurring phenomenon in
oriental history. Such attempts in the outlying districts of Solo-
mon's kingdom we have already chronicled. Another in the
centre of the kingdom need cause no surprise when we remember
the fierce and haughty temper of Ephraim. Such an attempt was
made during Solomon's life, though suppressed for the time be-
ing. It was headed by Jeroboam ben Nebat, a man of obscure
origin, but of energetic character. According to our sources,
he attracted the attention of Solomon, who promoted him to
the position of overseer of the forced labour in the country of
Ephraim. According to an intimation in the Greek version,^ he
fortified his native place Zereda, and enlisted chariots in his ser-
vice. This almost ostentatious indication of an intention to re-
volt aroused the vigilance of Solomon, and Jeroboam was obliged
to flee to Egypt. He found an asylum with Shishak (Sheshonk)
a king not friendly to Solomon.^ Here he watched the course
of events, and apparently kept in communication with the Sheikhs
of Ephraim. Change of the throne is usually the signal for civil
disorders in the East, and so it proved in this case. As soon as
Solomon's death was announced, Jeroboam returned to his native
town, which was within easy reach of Shechem, the capital of
Ephraim.

We remember Shechem as the city in which Abimelech had
once set up his kingdom. The fact that Rehoboam, who succeeded
to Solomon's throne in Judah without opposition, found it neces-
sary to come hither for recognition shows how much of the old

1 The passage partly duplicates the Hebrew text, but is in part original. It
is printed by Swete {Old Testament in Greek), as 3 Kings, I2 2*a-f, in La-
garde's edition as 3 Kings, 12^^"^*.

2 The statement that Shishak gave him his daughter in marriage seems to
have come in by confusion with the story of Hadad.

177

178 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

tribal independence remained. Solomon had been fortunate in
that he had been crowned during his father's lifetime, when the old
king's prestige was sufficient to secure the allegiance of all divi-
sions of the kingdom. The Sheikhs of Ephraim did not conceive
that they had sworn loyalty to the dynasty of David for all time.
The temper of the tribes was different from what it had been
forty years earlier. They had experienced the rigour of despot-
ism, and the Sheikhs had no hesitation in demanding relief:
*' Thy father made our yoke heavy; lighten thou the hard ser-
vice of thy father and his heavy yoke, and we will serve thee."
Whether specific demands were made — exemption from forced
labour or a limitation of the amount — cannot now be made out.

The young king took time to consider, and to consult with
his advisers. The older men counselled moderation — it was
necessary to yield only this once in order to get the throne
thoroughly established ; afterward he would be able to do what
he pleased. But the younger courtiers, brought up to look upon
the common people as the born slaves of the monarch, advised no
concessions. These, the playmates and boon companions of the
prince, were the ones who had his ear. In accordance with their
advice he responded to the deputation when they came for their
answer: ''My Httle finger is thicker than my father's loins."
The single sentence ^ left no doubt concerning the speaker's es-
timate of his own powers, or concerning his purpose to exercise
those powers to the full.

Though Jeroboam had returned from Egypt he does not seem
to have been present at these negotiations. Probably he thought
it would be better to be called by the people than to put himself
forward as a leader. To start the revolt was easy. The cry was
raised :

" What part have we in David,
Or portion in the son of Jesse ?
To thy tents, O Israel !
Now look to thy house, David ! "

It was the old war-cry kept in memory since the time of Sheba,
the Bichrite. When it had aroused the people to arms, then

^ It was unnecessary to add an explanation in the specific threat to make
their yoke heavy and to chastise them with scorpions. This would have
been insulting, and we may charitably suppose that the narrator has ex-
panded the earliest account.

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 1 79

the need of a leader was felt, and Jeroboam was pointed out as
the man for the hour. He was sununoned from Zereda and took
his place at the head of the movement.^

No serious opposition could be offered by Rehoboam. He
had no adequate armed force with him. In his infatuation he
supposed that Adoniram, the chief overseer of the forced labour,
would overawe the crowd. But the task-master only infuriated
the people, and they stoned him to death, and the king was
obliged to flee the city to avoid a similar fate. According to
the narrative in our hands he called out the militia of Judah and
would have attempted to regain his power had not a prophet in-
terfered and warned him to desist. It is more probable that he
found enough to do to keep the country immediately about Jeru-
salem. Judah indeed was loyal, but Benjamin had never been
well affected toward the house of David, and it would now be
strongly drawn toward the kindred tribe of Ephraim.^ Hence
we must suppose Rehoboam' s work cut out for him near at hand.
In fact the most ancient sources count the tribe of Judah alone as
making up the kingdom of Rehoboam. Only such parts of Benja-
min as could be overawed from Jerusalem were kept in his power.

The judgment of posterity on Jeroboam ben Nebat has been
curiously influenced by religious prepossession. When our histor-
ical books received their present form, Judah alone was regarded
as the people of Yahweh, the northern kingdom having perished.
In seeking to interpret the ways of God, the author took the view
that the revolt of Jeroboam was (although of divine appointment)
rebellion against the legitimate rulers of Israel. It was also apos-
tasy from the true religion, for the later time viewed the Temple
at Jerusalem as the only authorised sanctuary of Israel's God.
Our books of Kings proceed at once to pronounce judgment upon
Jeroboam from this later point of view, and they repeat the

^ I Kings, 12 ^"2'' — one of the most vivid passages in the Old Testament.

2 We must recognise that the narrative from this point on shows a strong
religious bias. The latest author has no sympathy with the northern king-
dom. The prophet who is made to forbid Rehoboam's campaign against
Israel after he has called out the fighting men of Judah, is only one of sev-
eral such anonymous figures introduced simply to give a moral lesson. The
historicity of I Kings, 12 ^S is defended by some authors who reject the verses
that follow. But the whole seems to be of a piece, and there is nothing in
the language to make us divide the passage. That the relations of the two
kingdoms would be strained is probable, cf. i Kings, 14^**.

l8o OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

judgment on his successors, who " departed not from his ways."
Allowance must be made for this bias in reading the account.
At the time of the revolt there was no consciousness of anti -relig-
ious motive on the part of the northern tribes, and probably no
accusation of apostasy was made by Judah. We cannot help
thinking that the division was regrettable, because it weakened
the people. But the coherence of the tribes had never been very
strong; Judah and Ei^hraim had always lived in jealousy of each
other; the tyranny of Solomon had alienated whatever affection
David had inspired. Only a succession of wise and strong rulers
could have welded the independent clans that bore the name of
Israel into a homogeneous people. Jeroboam deserves a place
among those patriots who have roused a suffering people to throw
off the yoke of oppression. What he did was morally certain to
be done sooner or later.

If the majority should rule, Jeroboam's right was better than
the right of Rehoboam. By far the most important part of the
nation w^as Jeroboam's. He had the larger territory, the more
fertile provinces, the more numerous subjects, and greater re-
sources. The fertility of Ephraim was proverbial, while large
parts of Judah were fitted only for pasture. It was not without
right, therefore, that the northern kingdom called itself Israel.
That its boundaries extended across the Jordan is indicated by
the fact that Jeroboam fortified Penuel. The province of Moab,
as we learn later, fell to Israel instead of Judah — as David's con-
quest it would seem to belong to the latter.

Of Jeroboam's reign we know little. He built a palace at
Shechem, which had ancient claims to be considered the capital.
His interest in religion was manifested by his care for the sanctu-
aries in his domain. Of these the most celebrated were Bethel
and Dan. The former traced its sacred character to the Patriarch
Jacob, who discovered there the presence of Yahweh, as well as the
mysterious ladder which led thence to heaven. It was he, also,
who erected the sacred pillar and inaugurated the cultus by pour-
ing oil upon it. The stories mean, of course, that the place was a
sanctuary before historic times, and this suggests that it was one
of those taken over from the Canaanites. Dan also had a cele-
brated house of God, which dated from the Israelite occupation
of the city, and whose priests traced their ancestry to Moses.
Here there was an image of Yahweh, the title to which was the

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU l8l

right of the strongest, now confirmed by some centuries of pos-
session. At Bethel the object of worship was the sacred stone.

Jeroboam's zeal for religion was manifested in that he adorned
each of these sanctuaries with a golden bull. Under this form
he supposed that the God of Isaael might be worshipped, for he
expressly declared in setting them up that this was the God
which brought Israel out of Egypt. The writer who gives us this
account regards the whole transaction with disapproval,^ and he
assigns a political motive to the king — the fear that the people, by
going to Jerusalem to worship, will be weaned away from him and
turn back to Rehoboam. But this is plainly a later conception.
There was no reason why the people should go to the temple to
worship, for the land was full of sanctuaries. Even in Judah the
Temple was not regarded as the only place of worship, for, as we
know, the people were zealous in visiting the many high places
there. No danger arose, or was likely to arise, to the throne of
Jeroboam from the Temple.

We are driven to suppose, therefore, that Jeroboam was moved
by zeal for the God of Israel. He was a worshipper of Yahweh,
as is shown by his giving his son the name Abijah.^ It is not
unreasonable to suppose, further, that he was led to make the
golden bulls by the established symbolism of the times. Whether
the symbolism was the result of the adoption of Baal by Israel
cannot clearly be made out. There are distinct traces of animal
worship among the Hebrews in the earlier time, and among the
animals none was more important to them than the bull. Before
the introduction of the camel, neat cattle were the beasts of bur-
den of the nomads. There is nothing improbable, therefore, in
the supposition that in the desert Israel had worshipped Yahweh
under the form of a buU.^

1 I Kings, 12 2&-33. The passage is doubtless late, but it seems to be based
on fact. The golden bulls are called calves by the Hebrew author because of
their small size. It seems to be well established that Baal was worshipped
under the form of a bull.

^ Yahu<eh-is-father is the meaning of the name.

3 The story of the golden calf made by Aaron is too late to be taken as evi-
dence, but a certain amount of weight may be allowed it in connexion with
what has already been adduced, and it certainly assumes that so venerable
a man as Aaron was capable of worshipping Yahweh under such an image.
In one ancient passage (Gen. 49 2*) Yahweh seems to to be called the Bull
of Jacob,

l82 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Religious conservatism accounts, therefore, for the misunder-
stood act of Jeroboam. And the other deeds for which he is
blamed by the Bibhcal writer must be judged in the same way.
In appointing priests from the common people he was only fol-
lowing the example of David and Solomon. In celebrating a
festival a month later than it was observed in Judah, he was
probably conforming to the established custom of the northern
tribes.

That in matters of religion Judah was not different from Israel
is testified by the writer who is so ready to blame Jeroboam.
He enumerates the "abominations" that were found in Judah,
among which are the high places, the sacred stones, the sacred
poles, and the religious prostitutes. *' They did the like of all
the abominations of the nations which Yahweh drove out before
the sons of Israel." ^ We need no more explicit evidence of the
syncretism of the period.

The author of the Book of Kings, on whom we must depend
for our history, had a difficult task before him in following a
double line of narrative, and he has not always succeeded in
making his account entirely clear. His plan for this period is as
follows : First he gives an account of Jeroboam, of whom he has
almost nothing to tell. He then takes in order the three Judaic
kings whose reigns were wholly or partly contemporaneous with
that of Jeroboam. After carrying the last of these to its con-
clusion, he returns to the northern kingdom. Here he gives a
continuous account down to the death of Ahab. For the king-
dom of Judah he finds it necessary to give only a brief account
of Jehoshaphat, and then resumes the other thread with the son
of Ahab. This king was succeeded by his brother, within whose
reign the son and grandson of Jehoshaphat came to the throne.
The revolt of Jehu forms a convenient mark of division because
it concerns both kingdoms — Jehu slew both the reigning mon-
archs, thus making Athaliah's accession in Judah synchronous
with his own in Israel.
^ In this period, which we may estimate at about ninety years,

^ I Kings, 14 23 f. The sacred pillars {maffeboth) are stones erected at the
sanctuary, like the one set up at Bethel by Jacob. The sacred poles {asherim)
are stakes, also erected near the altar. Discussion of the significance of both
will be found in the books on Old Testament archaeology. The maffeba is
paralleled in old Arabic religion.

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 1 83

the most noticeable thing is the frequent change of dynasty in
the northern kingdom. Judah seems to have settled on the house
of David as its lawful rulers, but the principle of legitimacy
scarcely obtained a foothold in Ephraim. Jeroboam, no doubt,
had just cause against Solomon. But his success stimulated
others to follow his example whether they had just cause or not.
His own line lasted only through his son Nadab. This king was
allowed to occupy the throne but two years when his general,
Baasha by name, slew him and exterminated the family. When
the rebellion broke out, the army was besieging Gibbethon, a
Philistine fortress.^ As Baasha is called a man of Naphtali, it
may be that tribal jealousies were in play. But the revolt of a
military leader against his sovereign is so constant a phenomenon
in some stages of society, that speculation on special motives
should be indulged with caution. Baasha seems to have been a
man of ability, for he pushed his frontier down to Ramah, so
that Asa, King of Judah, was obliged to call in foreign help.
The incident will occupy us later. Of Baasha we know nothing
further. His son seems to have been a weakling who occupied
himself with the pleasures of the table in which the wine-cup had
a prominent place. While at a carouse in the house of his
major domo he was assassinated by one of his generals, Zimri
by name, commander of half the chariot force. ^ The usual ex-
termination of the family of the murdered king followed. So
cold-blooded was the deed, that the name of Zimri became pro-
verbial for an assassin.' The crime did not long benefit the per-
petrator. The greater part of the army was in the field, again
engaged before Gibbethon. Seeing that they had the power in
their hands, they proclaimed their general, Omri, king, and
marched against the royal residence. The case was seen by
Zimri to be hopeless, and he burned the palace over his own
head, and so perished after scarcely a taste of power.*

1 I Kings, 15 ^^ ; the site is not yet identified.

2 I Kings, i6®-i*'. The king's name was Elah, and his residence was at
Tirzah, a place which we know to have been celebrated for the beauty of
its situation, but which has not been certainly identified.

' So we seem to be justified in concluding from the language of Jezebel,
2 Kings, 9 ".

* The historian assigns him only seven days, but probably counts only to
the beginning of the siege. It is curious to see how the fixed idea of the
" ways of Jeroboam " affects the writer — even Zimri's death is said to be a

1 84 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Another section of the army desired to try its hand at king-
making and proclaimed its general, Tibni, as king. The ensu-
ing civil war seems to have lasted some time/ but Omri was vic-
torious. He established himself firmly on the throne, and under
himself and his son, Ahab, Israel reached its greatest outward
prosperity. Evidence that he impressed himself upon foreigners
as an unusual man may perhaps be found in the Assyrian inscrip-
tions, for in these Israel is the House of Omri, even after the rise
of another dynasty.^ The religious conflict which soon broke
out will occupy our attention later.

Turning now to the little kingdom of Judah, about all we can
say is that the house of David maintained itself through the peri-
od. The historian shows an utter lack of interest in political
questions, while he is punctiHous in pronouncing judgment upon
the religious character of the diff'erent kings. This judgment is
motived, however, by the later (Deuteronomistic) view of the re-
ligion of Israel, and utterly foreign to that which a contemporary
would have pronounced. Moreover, the grounds for the verdict
are in almost every case obscure. We must suppose that there
was a tradition concerning the attitude of the kings toward the
sanctuary — a Temple chronicle or something of the kind. Re-
hoboam is accused of folly by the record we have already consid-
ered, in his inconsiderate treatment of the best part of his kingdom,
resulting in his loss and shame. His mother is said to have been
an Ammonite princess. According to the Greek version, she
was a daughter of the Hanun upon whom David made war.'
Beyond this we know nothing of his reign, except that the King
of Egypt — the Shishak of whom we have already heard — invaded
the country, entered Jerusalem and carried off the rich treasure

punishment for his walking in these ways and making Israel to sin, though
the reign of seven days would give no opportunity for the king to show his
policy.

' Four years, if we may trust the data of the text. Compare i Kings, 16 ^^
with 16 23.

2 Cf. Schrader, Keilinschriften tmd Altes Test.'^, p. 189 {Cuneiform Insc.
and Old Test., I, p. 179).

^ I Kings, 12 2*" (Swete's O. T. in Greek). The name of the queen-mother
— the Gebira or mistress of the palace — is regularly given in connexion with
the name of the reigning monarch. In polygamous societies the mother al-
ways occupies a position of great influence, greater than that of any wife, for
the wife may be supplanted at any time by a rival.

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 1 85

Stored in the Temple.^ It has been supposed that the Pharaoh
was moved to this step by a desire to assist his friend Jeroboam.
But the lists of Shishak himself seem to show that he did not
draw the line at Judah, but also plundered the northern kingdom.
No motive beyond a desire to seize the treasure at Jerusalem need
be imputed to the invader. The smaller kingdoms were the
natural prey of the stronger. Solomon's lavish use of gold was
probably a matter of common fame. The gold shields of state
carried by the royal guard on solemn occasions were captured at
this time. They were replaced by Rehoboam with shields of
copper.^ What surprises us is that the Temple treasury, though
often plundered, was so soon replenished.

The natural sequence of Shishak's invasion would seem to be
the dependence of Judah upon Egypt and, in fact, it may have
been the great king's object to reassert the supremacy maintained
long before by his predecessors. The Hebrew writer is discreetly
silent on the subject. Nor does he tell us anything of Rehobo-
am's son, Abijam,'* and his brief reign, except that he walked in
all the sins of his father.

Asa, son and successor of Abijam, is more favourably spoken of.
He is said to have expelled the impure hieroduli from the land,
and to have deprived his mother of her position as mistress of the
palace, because she was concerned in idol worship.* The details
of the alleged reform are obscure; we may suppose it a protest
against the extreme tolerance shown by Solomon. More intelli-

1 Shishak (the name is vocalised in various ways by the Egyptologists) came
to the throne about 960 B.C. He was the founder of the twenty-second dyn-
asty. Shishak's list of plundered cities is discussed by W. Max Miiller,
Asien iind Europa, p. 166 flf., and also by Goldschmied in Zeitschr. d. Deut-
schen Morgenl. Gesellschaft, LIV, p. lyf.

2 The Greek version makes the booty to be the shields taken by David from
Zobah. As their use when the king went to the temple is mentioned, we may
suppose that the king and his guard performed their worship by a solemn
procession ( I Kings, 14 2^-^*).

3 The name was doubtless Abijah, which has become corrupted in our copies
of I Kings. His mother is called daughter of Absalom, by which the noto-
rious son of David may be meant.

* She is charged (i Kings, 15 ^'-'^) with having made a miphle^eth for the
ashera. The word viiphle^eth is entirely obscure, but from the context it is
easy to see that an idolatrous image is in the mind of the writer. The ashera,
however, was in this period an entirely innocent accompaniment of the wor-
ship of Yahweh, so that there is some confusion in the mind of the writer, or
else his text has been corrupted in transmission.

l86 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

gible, though less commendable, is Asa's action with reference to
Baasha, King of Israel. The two Hebrew kingdoms had been at
enmity from the time of the division. Because Judah was much
more affected by the Egyptian invasion than was Israel, or be-
cause it recuperated more slowly, Baasha was able to push his
frontier down to Ramah, less than five miles from Jerusalem.
Here he proposed to stay, and began to fortify the place. The
inconvenience of a hostile fortress almost overlooking the capital,
together with the shame of having a neighbour assert his predomi-
nance in the face of all the world, was more than Asa could
bear. With short-sighted policy, he resorted to a measure which
was repeated by his successors at different times with disastrous
effect. He looked around for an ally who would make common
cause with him against Ephraim. Such an ally he found in
Israel's northern neighbour, Benhadad,^ of Damascus. With the
gold and silver at his command, including what had accumulated
in the Temple since the incursion of Shishak, Asa bribed Ben-
hadad to take his part. The Syrian, nothing loath, broke off
his relations with Baasha, and by an attack on northern Israel
forced him to withdraw from Ramah. The result was a substan-
tial addition of territory to the kingdom of Damascus,'^ and the
inauguration of warfare which became chronic between Syria
and Ephraim. Judah received temporary relief, and Asa was
able to recover Ramah, whose fortifications he razed, using the
materials in strengthening his frontier at Geba and Mizpah. His
action was no doubt interpreted by the Syrians as an act of sub-
mission which involved the regular payment of tribute and which
thus laid the foundation for future troubles.

Omri, the founder of a new dynasty in Ephraim, removed the
capital to Samaria. Doubtless a city had existed on this site
from very ancient times. The strength of the position^ is shown

^ I leave the name as it is in our Hebrew text, though there is some reason
to suppose that the Aramaic original was diffeient, cf. Winckler, Alttesta-
mentliche Untersiukungen, p. 69 ff.

^ The towns named are Ijon, Dan, and Abel-beth-maachah, all of which are
in the extreme northern district. The text adds "and all Cinneroth, with the
whole land of Naphtali." This would mean the district 7vest of the Sea of
Galilee, but it is doubtful whether the Syrians could permanently hold this
part of Israel. The account is found in i Kings, 15 '^^'^^.

' " A round isolated hill over three hundred feet high," in the centre of a
fertile plain, cf. Robinson, Biblical Researches, ^ II, p. 304, G. A. Smith,
Hist. Geog., p. 346.

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 187

by the sieges which it withstood. The city remained the seat of
government down to the destruction of the northern kingdom.
Omri's ability is indicated not only by the prominence of his
name in Assyrian annals, but also by the fact that he conquered
or reconquered Moab, as we learn from the inscription of Mesha.
The Hebrew historian accuses him of walking in the sins of Jero-
boam, but this is the stereotyped charge against all the kings of
Israel. The source from which the writer drew seems to have
laid special stress upon the power of the king, but the details of
that power and its exercise are lost to us.

Ahab, the son who succeeded to the throne, receives an evil
name first because he married Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, king
of the Sidonians, or, as we should put it. King of Tyre.' The
foreign marriage was no more than had been customary with the
kings of Israel. David married a Philistine or Canaanite princess.
Solomon had not only an Egyptian king's daughter, but also
princesses from Ammon and other neighbouring nations. Jezebel,
however, was a more energetic personage than any of these. She
made herself conspicuous by the ruthless way in which she urged
Ahab to assert the royal power. In this way she made herself
not only conspicuous but hated, and the hatred easily extended
itself to all the measures associated with her name.

An example of her influence in the administration of affairs is
the outrage upon Naboth. It is refreshing to find in an oriental
monarchy a subject who is not altogether subservient to the
wishes of his sovereign. Naboth was such a subject. When the
king coveted his vineyard he sturdily refused to sell it— the family
inheritance was too precious to be alienated. Ahab understood
and perhaps valued the sturdy Israelite independence, though
his vexation at the opposition was acute. At any rate, he saw
no way to attain his desire in the face of refusal. But Jezebel
had a difl*erent idea of royal prerogative. The Sheikhs of the
town were subservient enough to act upon a hint from her.
Naboth was arraigned and executed upon false witness suborned
by them. The owner being thus put out of the way, it was easy
to seize the coveted vineyard. Such methods were abhorrent to
Israelite feeling, and this feeling was voiced by the prophet who
sought out the king as he entered upon his new possession, and

1 What is known of him may be found in Pietschmann, Gesch. der Phdni-
«Vr(i889), p. 297 f.

1 88 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

to his face denounced his crime: **Hast thou murdered and
robbed ? In the place where the dogs licked up Naboth's blood
shall they lick up thine also." ^ That the king was not hardened
in his course is evident from his repentance which followed and
which seems to have been openly expressed. To later genera-
tions, however, the blood of Naboth seemed to rest on the house
of Omri, and the fall of the dynasty was interpreted as the divine
requisition of that blood.

The marriage with Jezebel was doubtless intended to cement
an alliance of the two kingdoms represented. Ahab was also on
friendly terms with Judah. Very likely he was trying to
strengthen himself against the Syrians of Damascus, his hereditary
enemies.^ Unfortunately we are not able to make out the course
of events with any clearness. Twice during Ahab's reign the
Syrians seem to have penetrated to the centre of Israel, and to
have besieged the capital, but the final result was in favour of
Israel. Ahab was not anxious to press his advantage and made
an agreement with Benhadad, by which a quarter was to be set
apart for Israelite traders in Damascus, and a similar concession
was to be made to the Damascus merchants in Samaria. The
pledges given were not kept by Benhadad, and Ahab went to
war again with the help of Jehoshaphat, to force the promised
surrender of Ramoth Gilead. This, however, was near the close
of Ahab's life, and the whole Syrian controversy possibly belongs
in the latter part of his reign.

Our sources give a large space to the life of Elijah the prophet,
which comes within this reign. The activity of this extraordi-
nary man is described to us in terms that show what impression he
made on his contemporaries, rather than what he was in himself,
and what he accomplished for Israel. The legendary accretions
of the narrative are only too evident. Among its exaggerations
we may count the assertion that Jezebel was an active persecutor
of the religion of Yahweh. The statement that she slew all
the prophets of Yahweh is inconsistent with the fact that Ahab
maintained a band of four hundred court prophets, from whom
he inquired the will of Yahweh. In a scene which we shall con-

^ I Kings, 21 '^.

2 Winckler supposes that Ahab was incited by Assyria in his hostility to
Damascus. In fact, Assyria was beginning to take a lively interest in the
affairs of Syria; cf. Keilinschriften unci Altes Test. ^, pp. 43 and 166.

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 189

sider later, Jehoshaphat of Judah, who was certainly a faithful
worshipper of Israel's God, was present, and had no suspicion
that these were anything but genuine prophets of Yahweh. Mica-
iah, who is called in because of his independence of the court,
does not intimate that the court prophets were devoted to any
other God than his own, though he supposes them to be deceived.^
The existence of such a body of Yahweh prophets at the capital
at the very close of Ahab's life is incomprehensible if any serious
attempt had been made to suppress the ancestral religion. To
this must be added the significant fact that Ahab gave his chil-
dren names compounded with that of Yahweh.^ It may be doubt-
ed, moreover, whether Jehoshaphat would have made alliance
and intermarriage with an avowed enemy of Israel's God.

Nevertheless, we must suppose that some sort of religious con-
test went on in Israel during Ahab's reign. The origin of it may
also be attributed with some certainty to Jezebel. As Solomon's
wives had their sanctuaries in which they might worship each her
own god, so this queen had a temple of theTyrian Baal erected at
Samaria. This sanctuary received importance from the political
alliance of Tyre and Israel. Whether the fact that Jezebel's father
was a priest of Astarte increased her zeal for her own religion we
cannot say. But it would not be surprising to find a priest's
daughter industrious in adorning the religion she professed, in
such a way as to make it attractive to her subjects. The officials
at court would pay their respects to the Tyrian god for reasons
of state. It would be natural for others to join them in seeking
the advantages of a new religion. In this way a party of Baal
worshippers was formed in the capital. They were not numer-
ous even there, as we learn from their easy suppression by Jehu,
and it is not likely that many were found in the provinces.

Political and religious opposition go together in the East. We

* It is evident that our account of Ahab is made up from at least two dif-
ferent sources, one of which painted him much blacker than he was. The
account referred to above (i Kings, 22 ^-'^^) is from the older source. On the
literary questions the reader may consult Driver, LUeratiire of the Old Testa-
ment, or the recent commentaries to Kings.

2 The son who succeeded him was called Ahaziah (Yahweh is strong); the
second son, who also came to the throne, was Jehoram (Yahweh is exalted);
and the daughter who married Jehoshaphat was Athaliah (Yahweh is greatf?]).
Another son, Joash, is mentioned, whose name is of similar composition,
though one element is of unknown meaning (i Kings, 22^^).

igO OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

cannot doubt that Elijah was a pronounced opponent of the for-
eign queen. His sympathy with the common people would lead
him to denounce acts of oppression like the murder of Naboth.
Denunciation of the imported religion and customs would natu-
rally come next. And the Tyrian Baal, becoming the object of
hatred, would involve the other Baals whose worship had already
been adopted in Israel.

We have already had occasion to notice that Yahweh was orig-
inally the God of the desert, whose home was in Horeb, Sinai,
or Kadesh. Horeb was still his main seat, even down to the
writing of the life of Elijah. Although by the Ark, or by the
Tabernacle, or in some way, He had been brought by the nomads
into Canaan, He was not (in the mind of the Israelites) the God
of the land. The land was in possession of numerous local
divinities (Baals). - Yahweh might dispossess these, as in some
cases He dispossessed their worshippers. But, for the most part,
the conquest was by amalgamation rather than by violence.
Where alliances were formed with the older inhabitants their gods
were recognised. The connubium (as was rightly seen by the
Deuteronomist) involved the worship of the divinities of both
parties. Moreover, it was the na'ive idea of the desert peoples
that the Baals would be better acquainted with agriculture than
was their own God. It would be safer for the cultivator to
look to them for the fruits of the ground. Israel's constant
temptation would be to worship Yahweh and at the same time
serve the other gods — as the Assyrian colonists were reproached
with doing later. The tendency was reinforced by the greater
attractiveness of the Canaanite sanctuaries. Here all the re-
sources of the superior civilisation were brought into play to
make the people '^ rejoice before their god."

So far had this syncretism gone, that Yahweh and Baal had
become practically identified in the minds of the people at large.
This was easy, because the word Baal (Lord) could be applied
to any God. One could say without offence that Yahweh was
Israel's Baal. From this point of view, we can understand the
use of the word Baal in Israelite proper names, where there is no
thought of backsliding from the religion of Israel. Gideon was
called by a name compounded with Baal. So was a son of Saul,
and a grandson of his as well. David gave a similar name to at
least one of his sons. In all these cases there can be no suspicion

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 191

of departure from the religion of Yahweh. Nevertheless, the con-
fusion between Israel's Baal and the Baals of Canaan was dan-
gerous in its tendency, likely to lead in the long run to the
prevalence of the sensual and polytheistic religion of Canaan,
and unless counteracted certain to result in the degradation of
Yahweh to a place among a multitude of gods.

So far as we know, no protest came until the days of Ahab.
Then it seems that the introduction of the Tyrian Baal led to
more serious reflection on the nature of Yahweh, as contrasted
with the nature of the Baals in general. The result was a reaction
against the Canaanitish elements of the popular religion, in favour
of the primitive and simple worship of the desert. No doubt this
was, in part, a revolt against civilisation itself The nomad, ac-
customed to privation, sees something abnormal in the luxuries
of a wealthy society. He has reason to be shocked by the vices
of the towns. The older society into which the Israelites had
come was — in comparison with the desert life — both luxurious and
vicious, and its religion partook of both characteristics. The
prophets of a later time tell us plainly that the sanctuaries of
the land were given over to feasting and drunkenness and gross
sensuality.

In the time of Ahab we meet striking testimony to this reac-
tion in the person of Jonadab ben Rechab. This man, who was
chosen by Jehu to witness his zeal for the ancestral religion, was
himself an embodiment of zeal on this behalf He had laid upon
his clan a solemn injunction to drink no wine, to build no house,
to sow no seed, to plant and own no vineyard. They were to
live the old nomad life in tents for ever.^ Such a vow could have
none but a religious motive, and the motive in this case must
have been devotion to the ancestral religion, in opposition to
Canaanitish innovations.

Elijah was the hero and leader of the reaction of which Jonadab
was a symptom. Jonadab contented himself with the salvation
of his own clan ; Elijah preached the crusade among the people
at large. From the meagre descriptions which have come down
to us, we conclude that the prophet was a typical Bedawy — the
man clothed in a blanket of hair. His native district was Gilead,
a region where the Israelites longest retained the pastoral life.
His sudden appearances and disappearances, and his long desert
' Jeremiah, 35 *~^^

192

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

journeys, show the nomad's acquaintance with the country, its
rocks and hiding places. His protest against the current reUgion
is made known by his flight to Horeb — only here could he be
sure of the effective protection of Israel's God. He believed that
the Israelites, in forsaking their rude, primitive altars of unhewn
stone, and in thronging the luxurious sanctuaries of Canaan, were
really forsaking Yahweh. To call their new Baal by the old name
of Yahweh did not diminish their guilt. His proclamation of
the famine was a protest against the popular idea that Baal was
the giver of fruitfulness. By withholding rain and mist, and mak-
ing the judgments known to His prophet, Yahweh, God of Israel,
showed who was master of the elements in His land. It was be-
coming plain that Israel could not serve two masters. For the
first time, perhaps, it was borne home to them that Yahweh is a
jealous God, who tolerates no rival in the affections of His people.

The legend-building imagination of later times has embodied
Elijah's life-work in the scene at Mount Carmel, where the
prophet stands alone against the four hundred prophets of Baal,
and where the answer by fire brings the people back to their al-
legiance.^ We cannot suppose the incident historical in the form
in which it is narrated. After such a triumph we can find no
reason for Elijah's flight to Horeb, or for the despairing cry
there uttered, that he alone was left of the true servants of Yah-
weh. We may, however, suppose that the prophet's active op-
position to Baal-worship, combined with his championship of the
rights of the people against the tyranny of the queen ^ brought
upon him the wrath of Jezebel, and that he was compelled to
flee the country.

The weapons of this warfare were not exclusively spiritual.
The separation of church and state is a modern and occidental
idea. In an oriental society, the religious propaganda could not
be separated from political machinations. We must, therefore,
think of the prophetic party as political in their method and
aims. This is plainly the view of our documents, for at Horeb,

* I Kings, 18.

2 The prophet boldly confronted Ahab in the act of taking possession of
his plunder and denounced his punishment as was noticed above. The dif-
ficulty the narrator found in making the events fulfil the prophecy is evidence
of the genuineness of the prediction. He was obliged to assume that the
fulfilment was postponed by Ahab's repentance, or to see a meagre accom-
plishment in the blood washed from the king's chariot.

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 193

where Elijah has fled for intimate communion with Yahweh, he
receives the command to do— what? To anoint Jehu king over
Israel, and Hazael king over Damascus, that is, to foment rebell-
ion in both the kingdoms concerned. The injunction as it
has come down to us is, indeed, a reflection of the actual course
of history as seen by the later writer. But it is probably true to
the facts in its conception of the prophetic programme and
methods. Elisha, the intimate friend and disciple of Elijah, did
encourage Jehu's rebellion, and we hear of no one who con-
demned the new king's drastic and cruel measures. The party
of Elijah, therefore, was not made up of harmless religious enthu-
siasts. The prophetic guilds, of which we now hear again after a
long interval, were hotbeds of sedition as well as homes of the
contemplative life.^

Were they homes of the contemplative life ? Probably not.
We understand under this term the quietism of the mystics. Con-
vents of dervishes exist for stimulation of the religious emotions.
These emotions easily become fanaticism. Too often, under the
conviction of possessing the special favour of God, the members
of these societies set themselves above the law, and plot the over-
throw of dynasties. Their temper in the days of Ahab is made
evident from an incident that has come down to us. In the
course of the Syrian w^ars, Benhadad fell into the power of Ahab,
and an honourable peace was concluded between them. A mem-
ber of the prophetic order disguised himself as a soldier, and when
the king went by called for justice. When allowed to state his
case he pretended that he had been entrusted with a prisoner
whom he had carelessly allowed to escape, so that the man for
whom he had the prisoner in charge was now threatening his life.
The king's decision was that the life was indeed forfeit, and this
decision the prophet hastened to turn against the king himself.'
The party of no compromise has never more completely revealed
itself. In this case their policy of '' thorough " could have no
result except to embitter the feeling between the two nations.
Political wisdom had no part in their programme. Their watch-
word was war to the knife against all foreigners, and the rigidity
of their logic was proof against all considerations of expediency.

* On the prophetic guilds and Nazirites, cf. W. R. Smith, The Prophets
0/ Israel,^ p. 84 ff.
^ I Kings, 20 3^-*3.

194 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

The rank and file of the party doubtless show its worst features.
Elijah appeals to us by the courage with which he contended
against enormous odds. He was taken away before the coming
of the revolution which he planned. We may be allowed to
doubt whether he would have been satisfied with the way in which
his party secured their triumph.^ The later prophets did not hesi-
tate to pronounce severe judgment on the bloodshed by which
Jehu secured the throne.

In looking around for further light on the period now under
review, we are at first inclined to make use of the memoirs of Eli-
sha. But close consideration shows that they are, in large part,
simply a duplication of those of Elijah. Historical material can
scarcely be extracted from them. But from other sources we
discover that events were preparing for Israel in a region of
which Israel had little knowledge, and as yet no fear. The
great kingdom of Assyria began now to threaten the coast-lands
of the Mediterranean. We have already had occasion to notice
the hold which Babylon had on Palestine in a very early time.
During the period of the Hebrew invasion and conquest, the king-
doms of the Euphrates valley were busy elsewhere. Babylon had
now taken the second place, having yielded to the greater vigour
of Assyria, its northern neighbour, whose capital was Nineveh.
Assyria, in the reign of Omri, was showing new strength, and
beginning to turn its attention to the west. Asshurnazirpal (b.c.
884-860) is described as the conqueror of the region from the
Tigris to the Lebanon and the Great Sea. He himself boasts of
an expedition in which he climbed the Lebanon, cleansed his
weapons in the Great Sea, and received the tribute of Tyre and
Sidon, with other cities of the region.^ Israel seems to have lain
outside the sphere of influence thus secured, though one would think
that the experience of so near a neighbour as Tyre would have a
lesson for the most thoughtless. The next Assyrian king, Shal-
maneser II, came into contact with Ahab at the battle of
Karkar, in northern Syria. Here the kingdoms of Syria and
Palestine were united to resist the Assyrian advance. According
to the inscriptions, the allied forces included twelve hundred

* An interesting article on Elijah (by Gunkel) may be found in the Prats-
sische Jahrbiicher iox 1897, pp. 18-51.

"^ Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, pp. 95, 109. No Assyrian king had come
so far to the west since Tiglath-pileser I, more than a hundred years earlier.

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 195

chariots, twelve hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen
of Hadadezer of Damascus, while Ahab is credited with two thou-
sand chariots and ten thousand men/ The nun-iber of chariots
seems incredible, but the Assyrian may exaggerate for his own
glory. He claims a complete victory, but it is possible the re-
sult was so indecisive that the allies could deceive themselves into
thinking they had warded off any immediate danger.

It has been supposed that Ahab sent his troops to Karkar as a
vassal of Benhadad, in which case the battle must have preceded
the defeat of Syria, and the treaty between the two kings already
narrated. It is difficult to sui)pose, however, that Benhadad
could compel the attendance of such an army as is ascribed to
Ahab by the Assyrian inscription. It seems more probable that
the treaty made between the two powers was an alliance, offensive
and defensive, against the Assyrian. It must be admitted that
few men in Israel were so far-sighted as to apprehend danger
from the Euphrates kingdom. But Ahab seems to have had un-
usual political wisdom, and the fact that Tyre had been obliged
to make concessions to the invaders was likely (owing to his inti-
macy with that city) to make a strong impression upon him. It
can hardly be called unreasonable, therefore, to suj^pose that
Ahab was the moving spirit in the alliance. After Karkar, Ben-
hadad seems to have made some sort of arrangement with Assyria
that left him free to carry on the old feud with Israel.

The bone of contention was Ramoth Gilead, a fortified town
to which Israel had a title, but which Syria had in possession.
Ahab had as his ally Jehoshaphat of Judah, his son-in-law. The
council of state in which the two kings decided on the campaign
is vividly described for us. The court prophets were unanimous
in urging war. A certain Micaiah, who did not belong to their
number, had a more gloomy outlook, but his prediction did not
make any change in the king's determination. The reputation
of Ahab for courage and ability is indicated by the orders given
to the Syrian army — namely to make him the special object of
attack. In the hope of Avoiding his fate, the king disguised him-
self before going into battle. But a chance arrow found a vul-
nerable spot, and he met his death bravely fighting against the

^ The detailed enumeration is given on the great monolith of Shalmaneser
{Keilinschr. Bibliothek. I, p. 173). An annalistic inscription of the king
dates the battle in the sixth year of his reign, that is, B.C. 854 {tbid., p 133 f )

196 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

enemies of Israel. Disdaining to turn his back to the foe, he
had his attendants support him in his chariot so long as the fight-
ing continued. At sunset he died, and the body was brought
home to Samaria for burial.

Ahab's son, Ahaziah, died after a short reign and was suc-
ceeded by his brother Joram. It was perhaps during his reign
that the Syrians again besieged Samaria and reduced it to fam-
ine. The siege was lifted so suddenly that the Hebrews could
only suppose a special intervention of divine power. The camp
of the besiegers was found deserted, and their track was marked
by the weapons and accoutrements which they had thrown away
in their hasty retreat. The most natural hypothesis seemed to
be that a panic had fallen upon them in which they heard the
noise of an invading army ; that they leaped to the conclusion
that the Israelites had secured the help of the Hittites and Mu-
9rites. As a matter of fact the retreat had another reason. A
new Assyrian invasion threatened Damascus, and to meet this, all
available forces must be gathered as soon as possible at the capital.

A renewed endeavour to regain Ramoth Gilead was made,
while the Syrians were thus kept busy at home. In this cam-
paign Joram was wounded, and was obliged to return to Jezreel.
While there convalescing he was visited by his nephew Ahaziah,
of Judah. The siege was continued under the direction of Jehu
ben Nimshi, the general of the army.

The chronicle of petty wars is not complete without mention
of the Moabite revolt. This nation (or tribe) which had been
subdued by David had regained its independence under some of
the later kings, but was again subdued by the energy of Omri.*
It paid tribute to Omri and Ahab, but after Ahab's death (it
would seem) it again revolted. From the confused account of
the Hebrew text, we gather that Israel and Judah in conjunction
invaded the country and besieged the capital. So great was the
extremity that the Moabite king offered his first-born son as a
sacrifice to his god. A reverse or calamity of some kind falling
upon Israel soon after was regarded by both parties as a proof of
the efficacy of the sacrifice, and Israel retreated from the land.
Mesha, the hero of this incident, has left on record a testimonial
to the help of Chemosh the national divinity. In this he con-

^ It is possible that the poetical fragments now preserved in Num.
21 ^*'-' ^^"^" commemorate the wars of Omri.

FROM JEROBOAM TO JEHU 197

fesses that Omri oppressed Israel a long time, "for Chemosh
was angry with his land." The period of subjection is reckoned
at forty years. ^ After its expiration Chemosh was again gracious,
and with his help Moab threw off the oppressor's yoke. Mesha
was able to carry the war into the enemy's country and conquer
many of the cities of Israel. Some of these cities were ''de-
voted " to Chemosh, and the god was permitted to feast his eyes
upon the extermination of their inhabitants. This vivid state-
ment from the hand of the chief actor in the tragedy reveals
a state of things which the Hebrew historian prefers to pass over
in silence.

Concerning Jehoshaphat the King of Judah, whose reign was
for the most part contemporaneous with that of Ahab, there is
little to say. The Hebrew historian commends him on the
ground that he followed the example of Asa, his father.^ This
must mean that he reformed the cultus, and in fact it is added
that he completed the purgation of the Temple by removing the
remnant of the Temple prostitutes {Kedeshivi). Beyond this,
the historian seems to know of the king's wars, though he does
not relate them. He tells that Edom was subject, and that the
king attempted to revive the Red Sea commerce, but without
success. The earliest of our Hebrew sources seems not to have
judged Jehoshaphat harshly for his alliance with Ahab — an alli-
ance that was cemented by the marriage of the Judaite crown
prince with Athaliah, Ahab's daughter. In this writer's eyes
(we may conclude), Ahab was not an apostate from Yahweh.

The successors of Jehoshaphat are of no importance to the his-
tory. In the reign of Jehoram, Edom made its revolt good, and
Libnah, a fortified town on the border, went over to the Philis-
tines. Ahaziah, who came next to the throne, reigned but one
year, and was then involved in the catastrophe which overtook
the house of Omri.

^ The number is wholly inconsistent with the data of the Hebrew text.
The combined reigns of Omri and Ahab here cover thirty-four years. Mesha
evidently makes the oppression begin after the accession of Omri, and end
about the middle of Ahab's reign. Cf. the article "Chronology" in the
EncycL Bib., I, p. 792, note, where a somewhat different translation is pro-
posed. Cf. also Paton, Early Histoiy of Syria, p. 216, and Die Inschrift
des Konig^s Mesa by Smend and Socin.

^i Kings, 22**. The Greek version inserts the paragraph, vv.*'~^^ after
16 ^^ because it makes the accession of Jehoshaphat precede that of Ahab.

CHAPTER XI

THE HOUSE OF JEHU

Ramoth Gilead^ was still in question between the two king-
doms of Syria and Israel. Joram^ ben Ahab had again besieged
it, and when compelled by his wounds to retire to Jezreel, he
left Jehu, his general, to carry on the siege. Some indications
there are that the work was nearly done ; perhaps the town itself
was in the hands of Israel, the citadel alone remaining stubborn.
The general was one day seated in council with his officers, when
a young man, bearing the marks of travel, and labouring under
the mental excitement that marked the members of the prophetic
guild, entered the room. In response to his cry, "I have busi-
ness for thee, O General! " Jehu asked which of them was
meant, and, on being assured that he was the one concerned, took
the young man into his private apartment. Without delay, the
newcomer poured oil upon the head of the officer, with the
declaration: ''Thus saith Yahweh, God of Israel; I have
anointed thee king over the people of Yahweh, over Israel." He
then rushed out of the house and disappeared as suddenly as he
had come.^

Jehu, interrogated by his comrades as to the errand of ''this
crazy fellow," attempted to pass it off as a mad freak only, but
when pressed, he related what had actually taken place. The
enthusiasm of the army for its general readily took up the cry,
Jehu is ki?tg ; a rude throne was extemporised at the head of a
staircase, the trumpet was blown, and the new king received the
congratulations and the allegiance of his soldiers. The energy

' This is the form of the name in the received Hebrew text ; Kamath
Gilead would be the more natural vocalisation. The locality is not yet cer-
tainly identified.

'"'The Hebrew text gives sometimes the longer form, Jehoram, and some-
times the shorter form, Joram, for the son of Jehoshaphat and also for the
son of Ahab. 1 have retained one form for each monarch.

3 2 Kings, 9 'A The verses which follow, and which command the exter-
mination of Ahab's house, are a later expansion.

198

THE HOUSE OF JEHU I99

which had already made him famous marked him as the right
man to head a revokition. That it was no sudden freak of a
half-crazy journeyman prophet which put him on the throne we
may well imagine. Tradition itself makes him to have been Eli-
jah's candidate for the throne. Elisha's disciple did but fire a
train that had long been laid by the party opposed to the house
of Omri. The disability of the actual occupant of the throne
gave opportunity for striking a long-meditated blow.

Jehu's character comes to view in the prompt measures he took
to secure the throne. He first arranged that no news of the event
should precede him.^ With a small band of picked horsemen he
then set out himself for Jezreel. All depended upon overpower-
ing the wounded king before any force could be rallied to his
support. Joram was informed by the watchman of the approaching
troop, and sent out to know what it meant. But the messengers
were not allowed to return. Unwilling to believe the worst, though
evidently suspecting it, the king, with his nephew of Judah, drove
out to meet the usurper. They met him near the vineyard whose
possession had been fatal to Naboth. Ascertaining that it was in-
deed rebellion which they had to meet, the two kings turned to
flee. But Jehu, with his own bow, sent an arrow into the heart of
his sovereign. The king of Judah turned into the highway which
led southward to En-gannim, hoping (if he had any definite hope)
to escape to his own territory. He was followed by some of the
soldiers and wounded. Finding the road to the south closed
against him, he turned westward to Megiddo, and there died.^

Jehu had not followed Ahaziah, but, giving command to his
adjutant to throw the body of Joram into the vineyard of Na-
both, he himself proceeded to secure the palace. Jezebel, as
queen-mother, had continued to rule the kingdom after the death
ofAhab. Her death was even more necessary than the death of
her son. She was not ignorant of what was going on and was
doubtless aware that the hearts of the people were estranged from
her. Notliing was left her except to meet death as a queen should

^ " Let no fugitive go out of the city " (2 Kings, 9 ^^) is an indication that
the town, or at least a part of it, was in possession of the Israelites.

^Thjs account assumes that Beth Haggan, of 2 Kings, 9^^ is identical
with En-gannim. The Ascent of Gur, where Ahaziah was overtaken, has
not been identified, but Ibleam, near which it is placed, lies a little south
of Engannim.

20O OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

meet it. So she arrayed herself in her royal robes, and from a
window that commanded the palace gate, saluted the entering
enemy. ''Hail, thou Zimri, thou assassin! " was the cry that
uttered all her scorn. Jehu could only reply :^" Who are you,
to bandy words with me? " Then, as he saw the servants near
her, he commanded them to pitch her headlong from the win-
dow. None seemed able to resist his will, and the eunuchs threw
her down. Her blood spattered the wall, and her body was man-
gled by the hoofs of the plunging horses. Such was the end of
the imperious Jezebel, daughter of kings, wife of a king, mother
of kings. Her unscrupulous acts brought destruction upon her-
self and upon her children, but we can hardly refuse our tribute
of admiration to the right royal way in which she met her fate.

According to our sources, the fulfilment of Elijah's prophecies
against Jezebel and the house of Ahab was strikingly evident to
Jehu himself. The new king probably regarded himself as the
predestined instrument of the divine vengeance, having been pre-
pared for his work by the prophetic preaching. There can be
no doubt that he took himself seriously in the role thus assigned
him. At his instigation the male members of the house of Ahab
were mercilessly slaughtered at Samaria. The princes of Judah
who were within his reach were also slain, probably because of
their connexion with Ahab — the two houses were allied by mar-
riage as we have just seen. The details of the massacre may be
read in the Biblical narrative. Jehu's relations with the party of
Old Israel are indicated by the account of his friendship with
Jonadab ben Rechab.

The suppression of the worship of the Tyrian Baal was natu-
rally one of the first steps taken by Jehu. One account describes
the stratagem by which this was accomplished. It narrates how
Jehu himself pretended to be a worshipper of Baal, and pro-
claimed a great feast to him at Samaria. The Temple area was
filled with worshippers, and the sacred vestments were distributed
to them all. Jehu offered the sacrifice with his own hands, and
then the executioners were turned loose on the defenceless throng,
and cut them down in cold blood to the last man. The sequel
was the demolition of the sanctuary and the effective desecration
of its site. The account can hardly be taken literally — it is a
dramatic idealisation of what actually took place. Jehu could
^2 Kings, 9 '2. Correct the text with Benzinger, Handkommentar, p. 152,

THE HOUSE OF JEHU 201

not, with any hope of success, take the part of a worshipper of
Baal. He was known as the organ of the prophetic party ; he
had allied himself with the zealots too ostentatiously to play the
hypocrite with any hope of success. His very insistence that
Ahab served Baal little, but Jehu will serve him much would
arouse the suspicions of the Baal party. But, though we
cannot suppose such an artifice likely to be successful, we must
believe that Jehu did put down the worship fostered by Jezebel,
and that he put it down with a strong hand.

Jehu is mentioned by the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser II, as
paying him tribute, along with the Tyrians and Sidonians. The
Israelite king is called Son of Omri, which indicates that the rev-
olution had not come to the knowledge of the court of Nineveh.
This can hardly excite wonder in view of Israel's remoteness and
insignificance. It is, perhaps, noteworthy that the tribute is
spoken of in connexion with the invasion of Damascus, then
under the rule of Hazael. The Assyrians claim to have defeated
the opposing army at Saniru, in the Lebanon,^ and to have shut
Hazael in Damascus, whose environs they laid waste. From the
fact that they did not take the capital we may conclude that the
expedition was only partially successful. The tribute sent by
Jehu may have been intended to secure Assyrian help against
Hazael. In any case it created a dangerous precedent. The
Assyrian king would regard it as a recognition of his overlordship.
We may hold, also, that it was ineffectual in obtaining the help
needed. Hazael was able to preserve his capital, and as soon as
the Assyrian army was recalled, his hands were free to take ven-
geance upon his neighbours, and to recoup his losses by plundering
their territory. From this point of view we may interpret the dec-
laration of the Hebrew historian : ''In those days Yahweh began
to rage against Israel, and Hazael smote them — all the borders
of Israel." The prophetic legend also throws light upon this
period, when it makes Hazael a truculent enemy of Israel, who
burned their fortresses, slew their young men, dashed the children
against the wall, and ripped up the pregnant women.'^ Amos

1 The name reminds us of Senir, one of the names for Hermon, Dt. 3 ^ or
some part of the Antilebanon, I Chr. 5^3, Ezek. 27 ^ Cant. 4^ The As-
syrian account is given in Keilinschr. Bihliothek, I, pp. 141-143.

2 The detailed prediction of Hazael's cruelty is put into the mouth of Elisha,
% Kings, S^'^. The verse quoted above about Yahweh's rage is 2 Kings, 10^^

202 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

looks back on this time of guerilla warfare when he denounces
Damascus for threshing Gilead with iron threshing-sledges. The
misery in Israel must have been extreme.

The mention of Jehu in the Assyrian inscriptions brings to our
notice the chronological difficulties of the Hebrew record. Shal-
maneser dates the battle of Karkar, at which Ahab was present,
in the sixth year of his reign, and he received the tribute of Jehu
in the eighteenth. Within the interval of twelve years we must
find room for the two reigns between Ahab and Jehu. The Bibli-
cal data for these two reigns sum up fourteen years. The contra-
diction is obvious. On the theory that the Hebrew author
counted fractions of years as full years, we might suppose that
Ahaziah's two years only completed the year of his father's death
and began the next, in which case his accession would fall in the
year 853 b.c. But it is difficult to suppose that the campaign
of Ramoth Gilead, in which Ahab lost his life, took place the
same year with the severe losses of the battle of Karkar. In any
case, the tribute of Jehu must have been sent soon after his acces-
sion. The year of his revolt would, therefore, be the year in
which Shalmaneser mentions the tribute — 842 b.c.^ This may
be regarded as the earliest date that we can fix with any consid-
erable certainty in the history of Israel. From here we can reckon
backward to the death of Solomon, which would occur about 930,
and the accession of David would fall not far from the year 1000
B.C. But, until new sources are open to us, these figures can be
only approximate.^

(emended text). To understand Amos' language (x^mos, i ') we must remem-
ber that the oriental threshing-sledge grinds the straw to bits, cf. Is. 41 ^•\

^ The inaccuracy of the Biblical numbers becomes more glaring, if we sup-
pose, with Cheyne {Enryc/. Bibl., I, p. 92), that the defeat at Karkar fell in
the three years' peace between vSyria and Israel. On the whole subject the
reader may consult the articles on " Chronology " in Hastings' Z>/V//iV/f7;7
of the Bible, and in the Encycl. Biblica.

2 Some sarcasm has been expended upon the scholars who are so anxious
to convict the Biblical authors of error, while accepting the Assyrian state-
ments without reserve. The case is very simple; the Assyrians had a regu-
lated chronology and dated their documents by it. The Hebrews did not
have such a chronology, and the data which have come down to us are incon-
sistent with each other, as well as with what we know from other sources.
The most persistent attempts to defend the authenticity of the numbers in the
books of Kings always end in hypotheses of textual corruption, or of omitted
data — interregna or co-reigns — for which the text gives no warrant.

THE HOUSE OF JEHU 2O3

In the southern kingdom we find an interesting parallel to the
rebellion of Jehu in the usurpation of Athaliah. This daughter
of Ahab and Jezebel was now queen-mother, and therefore the
most powerful person in the palace next to her son Ahaziah.
Ahaziah, as we have seen, was murdered because of his relation-
ship with Joram whom he was visiting in Jezreel. Other mem-
bers of the royal family were visiting their cousins in Samaria
and were included in the massacre that overtook the house of
Ahab.^ We do not know who had the next right to the throne
of Judah. But we do know that his accession would have super-
seded the queen-mother, for to guard against losing her place
she resolved on a step worthy of the daughter of Jezebel. So far
as was in her power she completed the extermination of the house
of David, and in default of any other claimant, herself ascended
the throne. For six years she presented to Judah the unusual
spectacle of a woman wielding the supreme power.

The fall of the woman was made possible by the foresight of a
woman. Jehosheba, sister of the late king (but hardly a daughter
of Athaliah, we may suppose), saved her nephew Jehoash from
the fate of his uncles, brothers, and cousins. Her ability to pro-
tect him was given by the fact that she was wife of Jehoiada, the
priest who had charge of the Temple. With her husband she
seems to have had apartments within the sacred enclosure. Here
the lad found an asylum until such time as he might be pro-
claimed king. The priest thought it unsafe to wait longer than
six years, at the expiration of which time the boy king was only
seven years of age.

Jehoiada' s dependence was on the royal body-guard. As we
have already noticed, the Temple was in a separate court imme-
diately adjoining the royal residence and was a part of the same
group of buildings with it. The body-guard was organised in
three divisions, an arrangement as old as the time of David.
The standing order was that on week days two companies should
be on duty in the palace and one in the Temple, but that on the
Sabbath, when the Temple was most frequented, the proportion
should be reversed. Moreover, on that day the posts were
shifted ; the company that had been on duty at the Temple then
took its station at the palace. Jehoiada having found means to
secure the support of the officers, arranged that, on the particular
^ They were forty-two in number according to 2 Kings, 10^*.

204 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Sabbath which he fixed upon, the soldiers already in the Temple
should be detained beyond the usual hour. The consequence
was that on the arrival of the other two companies from the pal-
ace, the whole band was united at the Temple, and the palace
was left wholly without a guard. When this was accomplished,
the young king was brought out, anointed, and crowned.^ The
soldiers greeted him with acclamations, and taking him in the
midst they marched to the palace. The death of the queen was
the logical sequel.

We have no means of knowing how far religious motives were
active in this counter-revolution. It would be rather strange if
religious motives were not active in it. The daughter of Jezebel
may be suspected of being an innovator like her mother. In this
case the hands of Jehoiada were strengthened by the conserva-
tives. But on the face of it the account shows only an ordinary
palace revolution. The statements concerning the destruction
of a temple of Baal, and concerning a covenant with Yahweh
entered into by the king and people, are later insertions into the
text.^

The lad upon whom greatness was thus thrust had a lively
sense of gratitude toward his guardian, and we may well suppose
that Jehoiada was the virtual ruler for many years. The paucity
of our information concerning matters of state, however, con-
tinues throughout this period. All that the historian has thought
worthy of preservation is an extract from the Temple history.
This extract relates a dispute concerning the priests' responsibil-
ity for the repair of the sanctuary. The matter is not entirely
clear to us, but we may imagine something as follows: The
Temple was the royal chapel. At first the Temple treasure was
part of the king's property ; the income from gifts and fines be-
longed to the monarch. When this was the case the priests, as
royal officers, received their support from the palace. But the area
of perquisite is constantly extending. The priests would easily
claim that the offerings should belong to them as persons specially

^ According to a plausible emendation of the text, he also received the
royal bracelet — such we find among the insignia of Saul. On the composite
nature of the account, 2 Kings, 1 1 *-^^, see the commentaries of Kittel and
Benzinger.

''This is pointed out by Stade, Zeitsch. f. d. Alttest IVissensch.V , p. 283, f.,
and admitted by Kittel, though he thinks the difference of age not very great.

THE HOUSE OF JEHU 20$

consecrated. Logically the fines which were imposed for neg-
lected religious duties would follow the same course. If the
animal that was vowed to the sanctuary belonged to the priests,
the money which was received as its equivalent would equally
belong to them. By the time of Jehoash a custom had become
established which gave the priests a right to all these sources of
income. At the same time, the priests felt no responsibility for
the repair of the sanctuary — that belonged to the king. Jehoash
was willing explicitly to sanction the custom, but in return for
the legitimation besought to lay some responsibility on the party
benefited. He allowed the priests to receive " the money of the
sacred things," but stipulated that they should keep the House
in repair.

The result was what we might expect. The priests were willing
to receive the money as their right, but the duty of repairing the
house was still regarded by them as devolving on the royal treas-
ury. After some friction between the two parties, a new arrange-
ment was made. The money which was exacted in connexion
with the trespass offerings and sin offerings was given to the
priests without drawback. For what else came into the Temple
treasury a special chest was provided. When a considerable
amount had accumulated, the king's chancellor came and counted
it, and provided for the repairs in question. This is not the only
time that laymen have shown greater zeal and fidelity in sacred
things than have the men to whom the responsibility would more
naturally belong. As it was the twenty-third year of Jehoash
when the neglected state of the Temple caused this discussion,
its lack of repair can hardly be laid to the charge of Athaliah.'

The incident shows that Jehoash was able to release himself
from his subserviency to Jehoiada. It shows also a tendency,
which became more marked as time went on— the tendency of the
Temple officers to organise as a close corporation, which should
have revenues and privileges of its own. The rest of the acts of
Jehoash are left unrecorded, except the forced contribution which
he made to Hazael, king of Damascus. The Syrian was now at
the height of his power. Shalmaneser had again invaded his
territory, but without effectively weakening his resources.' Since

I2 Kings, i2*-i6. _ XT 1

2 In his twenty-first year he claims to have taken four cities from Hazael,
Keilinsch. Biblwthek, I, p. 143-

206 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

this time Shalmaneser had been kept at home by a rebeUion
there. His son Shamsiramman had to meet a general revolt of
the provinces, and to reconquer a large part of his empire. It
was not till the reign of the next king, Ramman-nirari III,
that Damascus suffered from the Assyrian attack. Hazael had
practically a free hand during his whole life, and he made
use of his opportunity by pressing Israel to the wall. Even
Judah was at his mercy, as is indicated by what has already
been said.^

Turning now to the northern kingdom, we see the situation as
it had been in the time of Jehu becoming worse under his son
Jehoahaz. "The wrath of Yahweh was hot against Israel, and
he gave them into the hand of Hazael, king of Syria, and into
the hand of Benhadad, his son." ^ After an interpolation we
read that the Syrian '-left to Jehoahaz only fifty horsemen,
and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen ; for the king of
Syria had destroyed them and made them like dust of the
threshing." For the time being the triumph of Damascus was
complete.

The leaf was soon turned, but Jehoash did not live to see it.
He was slain by a conspiracy of his officers. Just before his
death another Jehoash had come to the throne in Samaria, and
he was permitted to see some relief. The prophetic legend sets
this before us in its anecdote of the end of Elisha. The aged
prophet was on his death-bed when he was visited by the young
king, who regarded him as the ''chariot of Israel and its horse-
men." ^ The ruling passion roused the dying man, and he in-
structed the king to shoot an arrow out of the window toward
Damascus- -a type and promise of the deliverance to come.
Three victories were promised, and it is intimated that more
might have been gained had only the king shown sufficient zeal in
the cause of freedom. Damascus, in fact, had its hands full in

^ 2 Kings, 12^'^ ^ If Hazael was able to carry his arms successfully as far
as Gath, and even to threaten Jerusalem, his power was greater than that of
any of his predecessors.

^2 Kings, 13'^ This Benhadad must be the king called Mari (Lord) in
the Assyrian inscriptions ; according to these, he was obliged to pay an
enormous tribute to Assyria; Keilinsch. Bibliothek, I, p. 191.

^ " One blast upon his bugle-horn was worth ten thousand men" is the
modern equivalent for this saying. We can readily suppose that Elisha had
been the encourager of the royal house in the time of calamity.

THE HOUSE OF JEHU 20/

another direction. Ramman-nirari was ready to enforce the
slumbering Assyrian claims on the whole Mediterranean district.
He invaded the west with an irresistible force. He boasts of
bringing to his feet Tyre, Sidon, the land of Omri, Edom, Phi-
listia — ''the west land in all its extent." The special object of
the expedition was Damascus, which had long-standing arrears.
The city preferred not to risk a siege, and opened its gates to the
invader. It was spared the horrors of sack, but its resources must
have been heavily taxed to pay the tribute exacted.^ The king-
dom of Israel also paid tribute, but received an equivalent in the
humiliation of its hereditary enemy. We may suppose that at
this time Jehoash obtained the three promised victories, and re-
covered some of the cities which Israel had lost. That he was
able to restore the ancient boundaries of his kingdom is not in-
dicated by the narrative.

The relations of the two Israelite kingdoms at this date are
vividly portrayed in the incident next narrated by the book of
Kings. Jehoash of Judah had been succeeded by Amaziah, his
son, an energetic prince who carried war into Edom. This prince
took an important fortress called the Rock, which has sometimes
been identified with Petra the capital — but this can hardly be cor-
rect.^ Elated by his success the king sent a challenge to Jehoash
of Israel. Cause of war there seems to have been none, unless
Israel claimed the suzerainty over Judah .'^ The good-natured
contempt of Jehoash is indicated by his reply: ''The thistle
sent to the cedar saying : Give thy daughter to my son to
wife; but a wild beast trod down the thistle." Such an an-
swer was little calculated to .preserve the peace. The two little
kingdoms went to war, and the result justified the pride of Jeho-
ash. Amaziah was defeated, and himself fell into the hands of
the enemy. Either to give an example or to discourage asser-
tions of independence, the victor broke down the wall of Jerusa-

^The king specifies 2,300 talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3,000 talents
of copper, 5,000 of iron, besides stuflfs, ivory furniture, and other property.
Keilinsch. Bil>liotJiek, I, p. 191.

^ The rock of Kadesh has more claims, and is advocated by Cheyne. Edom
had revolted from Judah in the time of Jehoram, as we saw above.

^ The non-mention of Judah among the tributaries of Assyria when the
more remote Edom is included in the list, would indicate that Judah was
included in Israel. In this case Jehoash was making an effort for inde-
pendence.

208 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

lem and looted the Temple and palace. Hostages also were de-
manded and granted, and carried back into Samaria.^

The increasing prosperity of Israel continued into the next
reign — that of Jeroboam II. The Hebrew historian gives only
a brief statement, but one that is sufficiently positive: '' He re-
stored the territory of Israel from the Entrance of Haniath to the
Sea of the Arabah." ^ If this be so, and if Judah were really
tributary to Israel, Jeroboam had possession of the whole extent
of Canaan. The continued debility of Damascus allowed Jero-
boam thus to extend his rule, though we must accuse the Hebrew
writer of exaggeration when he gives him possession both of Da-
mascus and of Hamath.'

The forty-one years of Jeroboam's reign are dismissed in seven
verses of the Hebrew historian's text ; of which four are taken up
with the standing formulae which are used at the beginning and
end of each reign. The writer's lack of interest in what we call
history could not be more conspicuously shown. All that we
have is the bare mention of Jeroboam's success in war. Yet
this success must have been purchased by a long and bloody con-
flict, marked by many stirring incidents such as the memory of
Israel would cherish with pride or pathos. If a plausible inter-
pretation of a verse in Amos may be trusted, the inhabitants of
Samaria were ready to boast of their success in the capture of
Lodebar and Karnaim from the Syrian enemy.* Whatever fur-
ther exploits of this kind there may have been are lost to us for-
ever. The internal condition of the kingdom, however, has a
strong light thrown upon it by the book of the prophet Amos.
This remarkable man deserves our careful attention.

It has already been shown that a prophetic party in opposition

^The history of Amaziah (2 Kings, 14^-^*) also mentions as a remarkable
fact, that he did not slay the children of his father's assassins for the crime
of their fathers. The story of the contest with Jehoash seems to come from
a source unfriendly to Amaziah.

2 2 Kings, 14 ■-'■'. The Entrance of Hamath was some town or fortress in
the mouth of the valley which divides the two Lebanon ranges. The Sea of
the Arabah is, of course, the Dead Sea.

^ 2 Kings, 14 28. The verse is a part of the redactor's work, and as it
stands is disfigured by an unintelligible reference to Judah.

* Amos, 6 1^ : " Who rejoice over Lodebar and who say: Have we not
taken Karnaim by our own strength ? " — the translation is attributed to
Gratz by Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, V, p. 86. Lodebar and
Karnaim were towns in Gilead.

THE HOUSE OF JEHU 2O9

to the house of Omri had been led by Ehjah and afterward by
Elisha. Their poUcy had been to overthrow the worship of the
Tyrian Baal and to purge the religion of Yahweh of Canaanitish
elements. Their success in putting Jehu upon the throne had
only revealed the need of other reforms. Reflecting men, more-
over, had learned that the cause of true religion was very little
advanced by political measures. There were those who already
hoped that the pen would prove mightier than the sword. A
considerable literary activity developed in both kingdoms during
the reign of Jehu and his successors. A part of this activity, if
we may judge from the fragments that have come down to us,
aimed to lead the thoughts of the people toward religious purifi-
cation and improvement.

We may put here the memoirs of Elijah himself. For it could
not have been long after his death that his admirers put their
opinions of him into written form. The legendary exaggerations
of the narrative are precisely such as attach themselves to the
life-story of a saint within a very few years after his death. The
extravagant esteem in which the man of God is held in the East
is here painted to the life. We see the hero able to announce
the famine predetermined by Yahweh, and himself miraculously
nourished during its continuance. At his prayer the dead son of
his hostess is restored to life. With the courage of one who
knows his God to be with him, he faces the king who has vowed
his destruction. Single-handed he stands against the prophets of
Baal and brings them to confusion by the fire which consumes
his sacrifice. At the close of his life he is miraculously carried
away by a fiery chariot, doubtless to enjoy the pleasures of the
paradise of God.^ In all this w^e discover a book of edification,
designed to commend to the people the cause of which Elijah was
the champion. The biography of Elisha is so similar that we
must suppose it to have taken shape at about the same time.

Far less political bias is show^n by the poem which has come
down to us under the title of The Blessing of Moses.^ Here we
see a lover of Israel describing the different tribes; praying that
Judah may be brought into political unity with his brethren,
praising the priestly prerogatives of Levi, breaking out into rap-

^ The life of Elijah and Elisha is one of the chief sources for the book of
Kings, I Kings, 17-19, 2r; 2 Kings, i-g.
^ Inserted in Deuteronomy as Chapter ;^^.

2IO OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

tures over the fruitfiilness of Joseph. The satisfaction of the
poem with the present situation of Israel is in accord with the
popular sentiment of the times. The author is not conscious of
any breach between Israel and Yahweh, and assumes that the
people are sure of the help of their God for all time to come.
The confidence which is here expressed in noble form, was the
very confidence that Amos was compelled to denounce.

In this period also we may place that elaboration of ancestral
tradition which we call the Yahwistic element of the Penta-
teuch^ (J). The writer collects the scattered stories of the cre-
ation, the deluge, the patriarchs and the exodus, and rewrites
them in a connected narrative. His object, no doubt, is both
literary and religious — he delights in putting the story into form
for its own sake, but he is also anxious to teach a lesson. That
lesson is the power of Yahweh and the favour which He has con-
tinually shown to Israel. Yahweh is the Creator of the land of
Canaan. It is He who has been worshipped from the time of
Enoch. It is He who promised Abraham possession of the land,
and to whom Abraham erected altars in his sojourning. The
ancient sanctuaries are dwelt upon with loving interest as places
consecrated by the Patriarchs. The sojourn in Egypt and the
exodus are made to give renewed evidence of Yahweh's favour.
The conclusion of the whole matter seems to be : Fear Yahweh
and keep His commandments. By thus showing the people the
reasons for their worship, the author hopes to persuade them to
that fidelity which Elijah would enforce by sterner measures.

What the author means by the service of Yahweh is revealed to
us by his Decalogue, which we have already quoted.^ This dec-
alogue is essentially ritual. It forbids the making of molten gods,
in which prohibition we may see the beginning of a reaction
against the bulls of Jeroboam I. It commands the observance of
the religious festivals, which are also the agricultural festivals.
The firstlings and first fruits are to belong to Yahweh. Leav-
ened bread is not to be brought to the altar, and the supersti-
tious rite of boiling a kid with its mother's milk is prohibited.

' Cf. what was said above, pp. 12-15, 41-45- The book of J, like almost
all Hebrew literature, went through various editions before being united with
E. I assume that it was substantially complete in the present period, some
little time before Amos.

2 Above p. 68 f. The text of the Decalogue is taken from Ex. 34.

THE HOUSE OF JEHU 211

On the ground of such observances Yahweh made His covenant
with Israel, and we can hardly hel^) feeling that this autlior, with
all his religious earnestness, encouraged the blindness against
which Amos made such an energetic protest. Conscious opposi-
tion to the popular religion can scarcel]' be attributed to J.

Very different was Amos : He was not a literary man, though
his book begins a new stage in the literature of Israel. He was
a prophet — not one of the professed prophets, members of the
guilds, but a man on fire with a message. A native of Judah,
and a herdsman by occupation, he had felt the divine impulse,
and left his herds and home to preach to Israel. The burden of
his message was impending calamity. He saw that the long-
suffering of Yahweh was exhausted. Twice had the judgment
seemed about to fall, and twice it had been mercifully restrained.
But now, this third time, Yahweh was testing Israel as one tests
a wall with the plumb-line. The result could not be doubtful —
Israel fell so far short of the requirements that judgment was sure
to come : '' The high places of Isaac shall be destroyed, and the
sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste, and I will stand against
the house of Jeroboam with the sword." ^

With such a message, the prophet appeared at the ancient
sanctuary of Bethel. The time was probably one of the stated
festivals when the people were assembled in numbers. The presi-
ding priest, as we should expect, saw treason in the denunciation
of the reigning monarch. The activity of the prophetic order
against the house of Omri was not forgotten. The royal official
saw in Amos one of the wandering dervishes who went through
the land raving out incoherent messages, expecting to receive his
support at the hands of pious or superstitious citizens. He there-
fore gave information to the king, at the same time warning
Amos that he would better ply his trade in Judah. But the
preacher denies that he is a prophet by trade. All his life he had
been a herdsman and a gatherer of sycamore figs. Just now he
has a message from Yahweh — " when the lion roars who will not
fear, when Yahweh speaks who will not prophesy ? ' ' Yahweh

^ Amos, 7^ It seems not too daring to assume that this vision of the lo-
custs, the fire, and the plummet was the opening of Amos's activity. The
parallel cases of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel make this probable, and
there is no reason to suppose that the discourses were written down in the
order of their delivery.

212 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

had spoken, and the content of his message was : " Israel is ripe
for destruction." ^

So much information is given us by the prophet concerning
himself. His book makes the impression of an activity extended
over some time. We have reason to be grateful that he put the
outline of his discourses into written form. The message he has
recorded is a very simple one. It may be summed up in the
words : Israel is to be destroyed for its disobedience to Yahweh.
And we are not left in doubt as to the method of destruction.
\\zx, with its concomitant horrors of pestilence and famine, is to
come upon the country. The cities are to be sacked, the men
are to be slain, the women and children are to go into captivity.
As we may judge from what we have seen of literature in the pe-
riod, this was a new sort of preaching to be delivered in the name
of Yahweh. The people at large identified the cause of Yahweh
and the cause of Israel. They could not conceive that He would
deliver His people over to the enemy — what would become of
Yahweh Himself? This is the question which the astonished
hearers would put to the preacher.

The wrath of Yahweh was not, indeed, an unknown thing.
At different times in the past He had been offended with His
people ; on occasion He had, for a while, left them to themselves,
or even actively taken part against them. They had suffered de-
feat, oppression, visitations of various kinds. But sooner or later
He had been appeased. He had always come to realise that they
were His people ; had turned to them, and had intervened for
their deliverance. Yahweh was a man of war. There had always
been a Day of Yahweh in which He had gone out at the head of
His people, and had smitten their enemies. These days of vic-
tory were only precursors of a still greater Day of Yahweh in
which He would again, and finally, vindicate them against every
opposer.

This was the substance of the popular theology. It was evi-
dently based upon the covenant relation so dear to the current
tradition. It interpreted recent history in the light of this tra-
dition and of its own desires. The defeat of the Syrians and
the renewed prosperity of Israel were acts of God, evidences that

■ Amos, 8 1 '. The vision of the ripe fruit gives us one of those plays upon
words of which the prophets were fond. Amos sees a basket of ripe fruit
{A'aif) and is told that tlie end (A7/) has come upon Israel.

THE HOUSE OF JEHU 213

He was favourable to His land. How could it be otherwise?
He Himself partook of the prosperity. His altars were now
abundantly provided with sacrifices. The great festivals were
celebrated more lavishly than ever before ; the fat of fed beasts
ascended continually to His grateful nostrils; tithes and free-
will offerings were brought generously to His sanctuaries. The
people could not conceive of anything more harmonious than
their relation to their God, and they found every reason to hope
in His continued approbation.

Against this whole structure of confidence Amos threw himself
with an earnestness that may be called desperate. First of all,
he took a broader view of Yahweh. Yahweh was to him much
more than the God of Israel — He was the God of the nations.
He had, indeed, brought Israel from Egypt, but He had also
brought the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir.
One passage goes so far as to affirm that Nubians and Israelites
were alike in His estimation. Yet this seems more than the sober
reflection of the prophet would assert, for he does, in fact, recog-
nise that Israel's relation to Yahweh is in some sense peculiar.
But this rather increases the seriousness of the situation. Yah-
weh's choice of Israel has brought upon Israel greater responsi-
bility : " You only have I known of all the families of the earth,
therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities." ^ The intimate
relation between Yahweh and Israel is a reason why He should
be more strict with them ; their nearness made it impossible for
Him to overlook their deficiencies.

The all-important question, therefore, is whether Israel has
in fact obeyed the will of Yahweh. To this question Amos an-
swers with an unequivocal No ! And the answer is based upon
two propositions. The first is that what Yahweh desires is not the
cultus. It is irrelevant to the question between Him and His
people. If men crowd the great sanctuaries bringing their offer-
ings and tithes; if they sacrifice their thank-offerings and loudly
invite guests to partake of their free-will offerings, it is because
they love to have it so — not because He commands it. "I hate,
I reject, your feasts, and I find no fragrance in your solemn as-
semblies; when you bring burnt-offerings I am not pleased, and
I will not look upon your rich peace-offerings ; remove from me

^ Chapter 3 *. The declaration concerning Philistines, Syrians, and Nu-
bians is found in 9 ^.

214 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

the noise of your songs ; I do not listen to the music of your
harps. " ^ So true is this in the mind of the prophet that he does
not hesitate to appeal to history: *' Was it sacrifices and offer-
ings that you brought me in the Wilderness forty years, O House
of Israel?" The emphatic question certainly requires a nega-
tive answer.'^ It shows the same conception of history which we
find in both Hosea and Jeremiah, according to which the wilder-
ness wandering was a time when no sacrifices were brought. And
yet it was a time of undisturbed affection between Yahweh and
His people. The conclusion is plain — the luxuriant worship on
which the people rely as their security can have no real effect
upon the mind of Yahweh. He is estranged, and if there is
nothing done except to continue the elaborate ritual He will
remain estranged from Israel.

So far the negative side. Now comes the affirmation of the real
reason ; the anger of Yahweh was roused because of the moral cor-
ruption of His people. Their outward prosperity had been ap-
propriated by the leaders, and had not been allowed to reach the
common people. The nobles and governors had no regard for
their poorer brethren. Oppression and extortion were the order
of the day. The wealthy landowners in selling the necessities of
life, exacted the utmost that the traffic would bear. The middle-
men cheated both in the measure and in the quality of the grain.
The nobles sold justice to the highest bidder. And while the
poor were thus ground down, the rich dissipated their lives in
feasting. The feasting was, to be sure, carried on in the name of
religion. But it was none the better for that. The altar by
whose side the upper classes drank themselves drunk, could exer-
cise no purifying influence on such worshippers. The very gar-
ments on which the feasters lay witnessed against them, for they
were garments of the poor, taken as pledges of usurious loans.
The worship itself was infected — could drunkenness, gormandis-
ing, fornication, constitute the service of Yahweh?

Most fatal of all, perhaps, was the blindness which refused to
see that calamity was impending : " Woe to them that are at

1 Chapter 5 21 r, cf. 4 * ^

"^ 1 am aware of Professor Macdonald's ingenious discussion of this verse
(5"). Journ. of Bib. Lit. (1899), p. 214 f. But I still think the above the
most natural translation. The next following verse (5 ^6) apparently once
contained a similar question, cf. Schmidt, ibid. {1894), pp. 1-15.

THE HOUSE OF JEHU 215

ease in Zion, and secure in the mountain of Samaria .
who put the evil day far away and yet bring near the regime of
violence ; who lie on couches of ivory, and stretch themselves on
their beds ; who eat lambs of the flock and calves from the stall ;
who thrum on the harp and improvise songs like David ; who
drink bumpers of wine and anoint themselves with the choicest
perfume — but they are not grieved at the impending dootn of
Joseph' ^^ To arouse the people thus in false security is the first
duty of the prophet.

Amos' s standard of right and wrong is not applied to Israel
alone. This is strikingly brought out by the first discourse in the
book — which is also the most finished specimen of his oratory.
From it we learn that Yahweh is offended by the sins of other
nations, and that they are to suffer as well as Israel. The sins of
which they are accused, however, are not sins of religion. There
is no accusation of idolatry or polytheism, as though they had
apostatised after receiving a primitive revelation of the true God.
Their crime is violation of the cwiimon dictates of humanity.
Damascus has threshed Gilead with iron threshing-sledges, grind-
ing it down with perpetual warfare. Gaza has engaged in the
slave trade, selling men in herds to the Arabian markets. Am-
mon has ripped up the pregnant women of Gilead in the wanton
cruelty of its raids, and in the ambition of mere territorial exten-
sion. Moab has violated natural sentiment in burning the bones of
the King of Edom to lime. A threefold, yes, fourfold, burden of
guilt rests upon all these nations, and it is too late for a reprieve.

We can imagine the inner satisfaction with which the hearers,
up to this point of the discourse, listened to Amos's denunciations.
Damascus, Philistia, Amnion, Moab, these were their hereditary
enemies. It could be only a gratification to learn that the wrath
of Yahweh was kindled against them, and that their punishment
was certain. But what must have been their revulsion of feeling
when at the climax of the discourse, Israel was attacked in terms
more scathing than those which had been employed for any of
the others ; when it appeared that Damascus and the others had
been mentioned only to prepare the way for the rebuke of the
chosen people !

* Amos, 6 ^-*. I have omitted one obscure clause, as well as an interpola-
ted verse. It is doubtful whether Zion is original in the opening clause —
Ephraim or Israel is what we expect.

2l6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

*'Thiis saith Yahweh : For the threefold, yes, fourfold, guilt
of Israel I cannot hold back its sentence ; because they have
sold the righteous for money, and the needy for a pair of shoes ;
they crush the head of the poor into the dust, and thrust the
lowly into the pit ; a man and his father go to the harlot ^ to
profane my name; on garments taken in pledge they stretch
themselves by the side of every altar ; wine extorted in fines they
drink in the house of their God. Yet I destroyed before them
the Amorite, tall as the cedars and strong as the oaks ; I de-
stroyed their fruit above, and their roots beneath ; and I brought
you up from Egypt and led you forty years in the Wilderness,
to possess the Amorites' land ; and I raised up prophets of your
sons and Nazirites of your young men — is not this true, Sons of
Israel? saith Yahweh. But you made the Nazirites drink wine,
and commanded the prophets not to prophesy. Behold, I will
make the ground rock beneath your feet, as the wagon sways
under its load of sheaves ; and flight shall be cut off from the
swift, and the strong shall not show his strength, nor the warrior
save his life." '

The old phrase, the Day of Yahweh, which Amos often heard
from his contemporaries, received from him a new meaning in ac-
cordance with this conception of the divine purpose. There was
to be such a Day — a time of dir'ect intervention in the affairs of
men. But it would not be a day of deliverance. Those who
dream of it as the dawn of a millennium are deceiving themselves.
*' Alas for those who are longing for the Day of Yahweh ! What
good is the Day of Yahweh to you ? It is darkness and not
light — as if one should flee from a lion and meet a bear, or come
into the house, and lean upon the wall and be bitten by a ser-
pent. Is not the Day of Yahweh darkness instead of light, and
gloomy without a single ray of brightness ? " ^ With this new in-
terpretation of the Day, Amos opened the way to a long series
of prophetic anticipations of a great Day of Judgment for the
nations.

The working of the prophetic soul which here reveals itself, is,

* The slave consecrated to impure rites at the sanctuary is intended.

' Chapters i and 2 form a single discourse in strophical form. The latest
study of it is by Lohr, Untersuchnngen ziim Buck Amos (1901).

' Amos, 5 ^^-2°. For a recent discussion on the Day of Yahweh, the reader
is referred to the /^w. Journal of Theol. for July, 1901.

THE HOUSE OF JEHU 217

in spite of the length of time by which it is separated from us,
not only fully intelligible, but also sympathetic. To read history
in the light of conscience is what all great thinkers have tried to
do. The great fact which loomed up in Amos' political field of
vision was the coming Assyrian invasion. The great world-power
was like a black storm-cloud on the horizon. The common peo-
ple or even the nobles might ignore it. They might suppose that
with the humiliation of Damascus, the Great King had reached
the limit of his power, and that they themselves were beyond
the reach of his arm. Amos could not so judge. His intuition
showed him that such a power is always extending its boundaries ;
that the going on to new conquests is a condition of life to it ;
that for it to stop advance is to bring on a crisis. I do not mean
that the prophet distinctly formulated to himself a law of growth
and decline of great empires. But he had a vague conception of
such a law, and a very distinct conception of its concrete applica-
tion in the case before him. Where Damascus, Tyre, Philistia
had succumbed, it was not likely that Israel would escape. In the
nature of things there was no reason why the Assyrian armies
should spare Samaria. All that could save the people of Yahweh
was a special intervention of Yahweh Himself. Had Israel any
reason to hope for such a special intervention ? Amos in all
honesty could find no such ground. An essential condition for
intervention must be conformity to the will of Yahweh. But
this was wliat was conspicuously lacking. Moral corruption, dis-
obedience to the plain demands of conscience, man's inhuman-
ity to man, deadness to moral issues — these were features of the
situation that stared him in the face. Hence his almost despair-
ing denunciation of punishment. Only once does he intimate
the possibility that it is not too late : " Hate evil and love good,
and establish justice in the gate; perchance Yahweh, God of
Israel, may pity the remnant of Joseph."^ Elsewhere he treats
the doom of his people as certain.

Pessimistic preachers rarely find a hearing. The preaching of

^ Amos, 5 '. As the book now stands it concludes with a paragraph of en-
couragement (9 ^1-^^). But this is by many critics held to be the work of a
later hand. The passage as it stands concerns itself with things in which
Amos elsewhere shows no special interest — the ruined house of David, Is-
rael's possession of Edom, the replanting of the people on the land from
which they have been pulled up. Of course it is possible that an original
hope of Amos has here been expanded, but I see no evidence of it.

2l8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Amos was a testimony against the vices of the times. On those
who first heard it, it had little effect. All the more striking was
its impression upon succeeding generations of preachers as well
as readers. For our present purpose its value is in the light it
throws upon the times of Jeroboam II. Making due allowance
for the one-sided view which the prophet presents, we yet see
that the reign so brilliant externally, was in no sense the be-
ginning of a new era. Israel was socially and morally corrupt.
The renewal of prosperity brought no renovation of the moral
forces of the nation. Amos was right in his forecast of the fut-
ure. The Assyrian slorm-cloud was, in fact, gathering on the
horizon. In a little while it must break upon Israel and must
work complete destruction.

CHAPTER XII

THE FALL OF SAMARIA

The reign of Jeroboam IT showed the energy of the people,
but it was the convulsive energy of a man in a fever. The reac-
tion began with the death of the king, or even earlier. His son
Zechariah came to the throne, but reigned only six months
before his murder by Shallum. Shallum enjoyed the ill-gotten
throne but one month before he was in turn murdered by Mena-
hem, one of the generals. Civil war raged, and the ancient cap-
ital, Tirzah, was besieged and sacked by Menahem.^ The reign
of this king lasted ten years, but not without conflict, if we may
judge from the fact that he bought the help of Tiglath-pileser by
an enormous tribute. The period was, in fact, a period of an-
archy. Before looking at it more closely, we must consider two
literary monuments which belong in the closing years of Jero-
boam II, or in the brief reigns which follow.

The first of these is the work of the historian whom we have
called E, who treated from his own point of view the same mate-
rial used by J, and whose writing was afterward combined with
that of his predecessor. We can readily understand how a gentle
spirit may seek consolation for the sad state of things around
him in contemplating earlier and happier generations. Our
author is one of the earliest examples of those who thus seek
consolation. That his purpose is also hortatory is evident ; he
will hold up the examples of the Patriarchs and testify of the
goodness of God to Israel. Ignoring the primeval history, he
therefore begins with the call to Abraham. The Patriarch is
presented as a prophet and intercessor, as well as the father of the
chosen people. In contrast with the warlike aggression of later
generations is the peaceful method in which Abraham obtains a
foothold in the land, entering into covenant with the Phihstines.

In conscious or unconscious opposition to Amos, this author
lays emphasis upon the ritual side of religion. The sanctuary at

^ 2 Kings, 15 ^^ where Tirzah should probably be read instead of Tiphsah
(Stade in the Zeitsch. / d. Alttest. IVissensch., VI, p. 159 f.).

219

220 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Bethel seems especially dear to him, for he relates, with evident
interest, the story of its founding by Jacob. It is his view (as
well as that of his hero) that here is the house of God and the
gate of heaven. The ma((eba set up by Jacob is still the sacred
object in the sanctuary, and the vow of Jacob sets the precedent
for the tithes which Amos treats with such contempt. In regard
to the ma((ebot/i, the author is more nearly a representative of the
popular religion than is his predecessor, J. He even gives us an
example of a sacred pillar erected on a tomb, showing that he
had no distinct opposition t< the worship of the manes. ^ In the
matter of sacred trees, both J and E seem to have shared the
superstition of their contemporaries. But, in general, E shows a
more advanced, at least a less anthropomorphic, conception of
divine things. His fondness for dreams as the method of revela-
tion is, perhaps, due to his idea of the distance between God and
man, though popular conceptions doubtless had their influence.

The prophetic preaching of righteousness as a condition of
Yahweh's good pleasure, has doubtless influenced our author.
In his account of the covenant with Israel in the wilderness, he
inserts not a decalogue but the whole codex which we have no-
ticed under the name Book of the Covenant.^ He could hardly
be expected to see that legalism might become almost as fatal to
spiritual religion as was the sensuousness of Baal worship. In
his rehearsal of the various deliverances of the past, he doubtless
comforted himself with the thought that the future was not alto-
gether hopeless. It is possible, however, that he looked upon
the monarchy as an institution contrary to the will of God, and
that he rewrote the history of its rise under the hostile bias which
betrays itself in the later portions of the book of Samuel.' That
he had a high idea of the prophetic office has already been no-
ticed. Doubtless his political ideal was embodied in the theoc-
racy whose executive officer was Moses, and which he thought to
be revived in the time of Samuel.*

^ There seems to be no other way to account for the ma((eba on the tomb
of Rachel, Gen. 35'^°. That animism was a part of the popular religion
down to a comparatively late date cannot be doubted.

^ Ex. 20-23. Of. what was said above, p. 174 fF.

^Notably in i Sam. 7, 8, and 12 — though in their present form these
chapters are later than the time we are now considering.

* I am aware that the writing ascribed to E shows marks of various hands.
What has been said above applies to the edition published in the time of

THE FALL OF SAMARIA 221

Fuller light upon the state of things in Israel is given by the
book of Hosea. The author, who is a younger contemporary of
Amos, is in almost every respect his opposite. The strong moral
purpose and the conviction that they have a divine message to
deliver is common to both men. But in almost every other re-
spect they are as different as men could be. Amos is the stern
moralist; Hosea is the man of religious affection. Amos sees
the righteous will of Yahweh pronouncing and executing judg-
ment upon Israel ; Hosea has a vision of the loving heart of
Yahweh grieving over His erring children. The temperament
of the men is different and their experiences in life bring the
difference into high relief.

The remarkable thing in the life of Hosea is the cloud which
rested upon it, which yet gave him new light on the nature of
God. He married a woman who proved to be unworthy, and
he tenderly loved her even after she was untrue to him. He
seems to have suspected her fidelity as early as the birth of his
second child, for he called the little girl by the strange name
Unloved. His suspicions were confirmed before the birth of the
next child, whom he called Not-my-kin. Then the faithless wom-
an ran away from her home and abandoned herself to a life of
shame, the end of which was to make her an abject slave. In
spite of all her baseness Hosea found that his heart still went out
toward her, and he bought her from her master that she might
again be his own.

At the end of this experience, it was revealed to him that this
was the Lord's doing. He saw that the scenes he had gone
through were a presentation in human life of the drama in which
Yahweh and Israel had the leading parts. Yahweh had chosen
Israel as His own, but Israel had been unfaithful. The very
names that Hosea had been led to give his children were reve-
lations of the mind of Yahweh. Jezreel, the first-born, fore-
shadowed the vengeance that should be taken for the crime of
Jezreel.^ Unloved, the next child, shows the revulsion of feeling
Jeroboam II or a little later. This edition did not include the decalogue of
Ex. 20, nor the account of the golden bull now read in Ex. 32.

1 That is, Jehu's murder of the two kings and Jezebel. The blood rested
UDon the house of Jehu. The progress that is marked by Hosea, as com-
pared with the time when the Yahweh party made Jehu their instrument,
must be evident. The two passages which speak of Hosea's relations with
his wife (i ^-^ and 2 ^-^) should be read together.

222 OI-D TESTAMENT HISTORY

in the heart of Yahweh, in view of Israel's defection from Him.
Not-my-kin^ the youngest, indicates the breaking off of the rela-
tions which had existed between Yahweh and Israel. And yet
even when the final sentence of separation has been pronounced
the heart of Yahweh goes out toward His people, as the heart of
the prophet went out to his erring wife. He cannot give them
up. Though for a time He may be unable to restrain them from
wandering, yet His love impels Him to go after them. He will
seek them and lead them again into the wilderness, where, as of
yore, the covenant will be established between them. The heart
of Yahweh is revealed to us by the heart of man.

Hosea is thus the man of the affections. This is the thing
most clearly brought out by his book. But in other points also
he differs strikingly from Amos. First of these is his attitude
towards the popular religion. Both prophets reject the cultus,
but they reject it for different reasons. Amos is impressed with
the worthlessness of all ritual — " to obey is better than sacrifice
and to hearken than the fat of lambs " might be a quotation from
one of his discourses. He nowhere intimates that Israel's worship
was offered to any but Israel's God. But he believes that ritual
service has no value ; if men will only do right, this service may
be dispensed with. Hosea's position is different. He, too, re-
jects the popular ritual, but for another reason — he distinctly as-
serts that it has as its object, not Yahweh, but Baal. Here again
he shows his religious temperament. He seems to be aware of
the Canaanitish origin of the sanctuaries, and of the worship
there offered. He sees that the intention of the people is to con-
ciliate the Canaanite god of agriculture. He represents Israel as
saying : "I will go after my lovers, who give 7?ie 7?iy bread and my
water, my wool and my flax, my oil a?id my wine^ "^ This is,
in essence, heathenism — it is serving God for hire. The people,
to be sure, are unaware of the difference. They have identified
Yahweh and Baal, and, so long as they are seeking Yahweh, they
suppose they are in the right way. Hosea does not so judge. He
sees that Baal is Baal, even though he is called Yahweh. The
true God of Israel is of a different nature from Baal.

Another point is that Hosea, in contrast with Amos, looks npon

^ Lo-ammi means either Not-my kin or Not-my-people and is perhaps
chosen for the double signification.
^ Hosea 2 ^

THE FALL OF SAMARIA 223

the coming calamity not as the final destruction of the nation,
but as a chastisement, out of which the people will come purified.
It seems clear that Amos had no such hope. He believed that
the disobedient nation was to be clean destroyed. What would
follow he does not tell us. Could Yahweh exist without a
chosen nation to serve Him ? Amos does not answer the question.
If he supposed that Yahweh would make choice of a new people,
he nowhere revealed the thought. Perhaps he did not speculate.
But Hosea could not rest in the thought of Israel's final destruc-
tion. He knew that the heart of God goes out to His people
even in their erring: " Return, Israel, to Yahweh thy God, for
thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. ... I will heal their
backslidings, I will love them freely, for my wrath has turned
from them. I will be as the dew to Israel ; he shall spring up
like the lily . . . and shall be like the fruitful olive ; he
shall be fragrant as Lebanon." ^

Both in identifying the popular worship with Baal worship, and
in holding out a hope of a restoration, Hosea was the forerunner
of later writers. In truth, in uttering these two thoughts, he
was more influential than any other one man whose writings have
come down to us. The fact is clear that all late Hebrew writers
agree in condemning the earlier generations for their desertion of
Yahweh. Equally clear is it, that hope of a prosperous future
beyond the present calamities became the mainspring of speech
and of action almost from this time on.

Nevertheless, Hosea's picture of the state of things in his own
time is as dark as that of Amos— darker, if that were possible.
The religious defection which he discovered in the popular relig-
ion was accompanied by a moral defection that may well be
called desperate. There is no fidelity and no knowledge of God
in the land. False swearing, murder, theft, adultery, violence,
are seen on every hand. The reason is found in the conduct of
the leading classes. With Hosea these are not the nobles and
landowners, but the priests and prophets ; it is not strange that

1 Hosea, 14 ^-\ The passage has probably been worked over— we can un-
derstand the temptation of the later editors to mitigate the severe denuncia-
tions of the earlier prophets. A number of such modifications are found in
the Book of Hosea, and are easily recognisable as insertions. It must be
true, however, that Hosea had hopes of a restoration. If Yahweh still loves
His people though erring, there must be a future for them.

224 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

he, the man of rehgion, should find the chief guilt in the rehg-
ious leaders. They are the ones who should instruct the people
in righteousness; but instead, they lead them into sin. The
unclean rites at the sanctuaries, the orgies of the sacred seasons —
these are corrupting the heart of the people. Under the name
of religion all sorts of abominations are connived at, nay, directly
fostered by the religious leaders ; because they were enabled thus
to exploit the people for their personal gain. We may think of
the festivals at the great sanctuaries as like the Arab fairs, where
men's chief object was trade and dissipation. The chief sanctu-
aries thus become dens of robbers, where cheating and extortion
are under the protection of the guilds of priests. The guilds
of priests themselves profit by them like so many companies of
bandits. In this way the priests have become a snare for the
common people, and the royal house shares their guilt by not
putting an end to these abuses.

The people themselves have an uneasy consciousness that all is
not right with them. They have spasms of repentance in w^hich
they confess their sin. At the same time they comfort them-
selves with the thought that the door of repentance is always
open ; Yahweh is easily found, and though He has smitten, it is
easy for Him to heal. Their good thoughts are evanescent — like
the morning cloud, or like the mist that early vanishes away.^
The lack of a sense of responsibility is seen in the way they treat
the present crisis. At one time they wqll make their confession
to Yahweh, but the next day they will be seeking help from As-
syria or Egypt : " Ephraim saw his sickness and Israel his
running sore; so Ephraim went to Assyria and sent to the Great
King : but he is not able to save you or heal the running sore." ^
The nation is like the foolish dove which follows the call of the
fowler, flying to meet its doom. Israel, as though infatuated, flies
now toward Egypt, now toward Assyria : *' They make a treaty
with Assyria, and then send a present of oil to Egypt " — the very
capriciousness of their conduct is enough to work their destruc-
tion. The frivolity in domestic affairs is equally marked with
what shows itself in their foreign policy. Evidence is found in
the frequent change of dynasty. They anoint a king in false-
hood, and princes in deceit ; they rejoice in the coronation fes-

^ Hosea, 5 ^^-6*, where the verses '"^ are the lip confession of the people.
* Hosea, 5^^, correcting some errors in the text; cf. 7 '^ 8 '', 12 ^

THE FALL OF SAMARLV 225

tival, and within a few days their wrath breaks out and they
destroy the object of their uncertain loyalty. No wonder that
Yahweh declares: " They set up kings but not of my will, they
appoint princes but I take no knowledge of tkem." The mon-
archy as an institution is a punishment visited upon the people;
but it can scarcely be a relief to have the whole frame of govern-
ment swept away — " I gave thee a king in my wrath, and I will
take him away in my fury." ^

Hosea's anticipations for the immediate future were therefore
gloomy. Calamity was impending, though the love of Yahweh
might spare a remnant for Himself. The present anarchy was,
indeed, itself a manifestation of the wrath of Yahweh, but this
was only a shadow of the coming event. Whether to Assyria or
to Egypt, the people would be taken from their own land. Far
from the soil made sacred by the presence of Yahweh, they
would be condemned to eat bread desecrated by its dedication
to a strange god. It was only justice that they should be given
completely into the hand of the foreign gods to whom they had
shown favour. Though the heart of Yahweh was love, His pres-
ent mood was indignation : " Should I ransom them from the
hand of Sheol ? Should I redeem them from death ? Rather,
bring on thy scourges. Death ! Hither with thy pestilence,
Sheol ! Pity is hidden from mine eyes."^

The political outlook was rapidly growing worse for Israel, and
Hosea's gloomiest forebodings were justified. After a period of
comparative inactivity, Assyria was asserting itself with fresh
vigour under the rule of Tiglath-pileser III (b.c. 745-727). This
monarch was not only a man of great energy of character, but
he introduced a new policy for the empire. The earlier kings
had for the most part been content to leave the subject nations
some sort of autonomy. The native rulers were retained upon
the throne and their internal administration was not interfered
with, so long as the tribute was paid. Tiglath-pileser is remark-
able for the constancy with which he speaks of appointing his
governor over a conquered province. In fact, he characterizes

^ Hosea, 13 " ; cf. 7 3, 8 *• i", io». The prophet seems to anticipate that the
fall of the house of Jehu will carry with it the abolition of monarchy. I can-
not otherwise understand the threat : "I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon
the house of Jehu and will blol out the kingship of the house of Israel," i *.

2 Ibid., 13 1*. I have reproduced what seems to be the sense of the passage.

226 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

himself as the king who subjugated the upper and lower countries,
deposed their kings a)id inaugurated his vicegerents} This meas-
ure was not enough, however, for his ideas of statecraft. It was
supplemented by another to prevent the possibility of revolt.
This was nothing less than the deportation of the inhabitants of
a province, or a considerable fraction of them, and settlement of
them among strangers at a distance from their home. In their
new situation they would be unable to make common cause with
their fellow-subjects and the throne would be secure. The in-
genuity of the measure w^as not greater than its cruelty. Some of
the unhappy emigrants were settled in cities built or enlarged by
the king ; some were brought to Assyria proper ; some were
placed in remote provinces. The king has left on record various
instances of this procedure, giving account of the numbers trans-
ported and of the destination to which they were taken.^ In
this method of treatment was a new terror for the nations. The
renewed activity of Assyria meant that ancient claims upon the
nations of Syria would be revived, and if revived that they would
be enforced in ways destructive to the national life.

We have already noted that the dynasty of Jehu came to an
end with Zechariah ben Jeroboam. Shallum, his assassin, was mur-
dered by Menahem, who had a troubled reign of ten years. He is
mentioned by the Assyrians as sending tribute at the same time
with Rezin of Damascus, the kings of Gebal, Tyre, Hamath, and
a large number of other cities"^ or countries of Syria. This is
the tribute of a thousand talents of silver mentioned by the Bib-
lical writer. Menahem raised the money by a direct tax upon the
men capable of bearing arms. As they were assessed fifty shekels
apiece, there were sixty thousand householders in the kingdom.*
This was in the year 738 b. c. Whether Egypt was already acting
cannot positively be made out, but it seems that the Assyrians

^ Kt'iUnschriftliche Biblioihek, 11. p. 5. His account of his many con-
quests inserts in ahnost every case : / set my vicegerent over them.

'^ Ibid., n., p. 29 i.

"^ Ibid., II, p. 31. The name of the King of Damascus is given by the
Biblical writers as Rezin. The form Rezon (Assyrian Rasunnu) is perhaps
nearer the original.

''The owners of landed property were the only ones allowed to bear arms.
It may be proper to remind the reader that the king called Pul in 2 Kings,
15'^ is Tiglath-pileser. 1 have taken no account of the inscription of this
king {Keilinschr. Biblwthek, II, p. 27) which speaks of Azriyau of Yaitdi

THE FALL OF SAMARIA 227

kept a close watch upon the country of the Nile from a very
early date. It was the natural policy of Egypt when threatened,
to employ the Palestinian states as a buffer, if not to enlist them
actively in its service. Palestine is the natural outpost of Egypt,
and we are not surprised to learn from Hosea that an Egyptian
alliance was agitated in Israel about this time. The tribute of
Menahem kept things quiet for the time being. His son, Pek-
ahiah was allowed to rule (or only to reign) two years, when he
was cut off by one Pekah, apparently a misguided patriot who was
hoping to throw off the Assyrian yoke. In this he was encour-
aged by Rezin of Damascus, who planned a general uprising of
the western countries. Judah, where Ahaz was on the throne,
would not join the coalition. The first endeavour of the allies,
therefore, was to force Judah to join them. They invaded the
country, and were able to lay siege to Jerusalem. It was a part
of their plan to depose Ahaz, and put a Syrian prince on the
throne,^ and the terror they inspired in Ahaz indicates either
that they were greatly his superiors in power, or that there was a
strong party in Judah in sympathy with the invaders. Both may
be true, but more weight must be given to the sympathy with the
invaders. All the hot-heads and advocates of the ancient liber-
ties of Judah would urge rebellion against the Assyrian oppressor.
We may admire the courage of their programme without approv-
ing its discretion. In fact, the attempt was hopeless. Isaiah was
right in predicting the early downfall of the two kingdoms.

Ahaz was moved by his fears rather than by the assurances of
Isaiah. This is indicated by the effusiveness with which he threw
himself into the arms of Assyria. With all the valuables of his
own treasury, as well as those in the Temple, he sent the message:
'' I am thy slave and thy son ; save me from the King of Syria
and the King of Israel, who are attacking me." ^ Tiglath-pileser
needed no prompting. The refusal of tribute by Rezin and Pekah

heading a conspiracy against the Assyrians. In spite of the similarity of
names I cannot think that Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah was strong enough to
head such a movement. For the other view, cf. McCurdy, History, Proph-
ecy, and the Monuments, I, p. 347 f.

^ Or perhaps to incorporate Judah in the Kingdom of Damascus, in which
case Rezin himself is the "Son of Tabeal,"of the account in Isaiah (7^);
cf. Winckler, Alttest. Untersnchungen, p. 73 f.

2 2 Kings, 16'^. The position of Isaiah will be considered again, more in
detail.

228 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

had already set his army in motion. In the invasion which ensued
Damascus was taken, Rezin was slain, large numbers of his peo-
ple were deported to the East.^ In this campaign the Great
King carried his arms as far as Gaza. The whole land of Israel
was taken in possession. Samaria was spared the horrors of siege,
but large sections of the country were depopulated, the inhabit-
ants being carried away to the eastern provinces of the empire.
The reason that the capital was spared was that Hoshea, a creat-
ure of the Assyrians, succeeded in slaying the king, and put him-
self in his stead as the Assyrian appointee.^ The impoverished
land had to pay a tribute of ten talents of gold and a thousand
talents of silver.

The next Assyrian king, Shalmaneser IV, has left us no annals.
The Biblical writer says that Hoshea was found conspiring against
his master, because he sent messengers to So, King of Egypt,
and because he did not send the tribute. We can readily un-
derstand the delay in sending the tribute ; it was a physical
impossibility to wring anything from the exhausted country.
The negotiation with the King of Egypt is less easy to account
for. One would think that Israel had had object-lessons enough
both to teach the power of Assyria, and to warn against the un-
certainty of reliance upon Egypt. Still Egypt was a name to
conjure with in Palestine. Its early power and wealth had laid
upon its neighbours a spell that was never removed. Their re-
peated disappointments seemed to make them no wiser. At
about the period now under consideration, Egypt was showing
new activity. The king, whose name is So^^ according to the
traditional Hebrew text, is probably to be identified with the Sa-
bako of the Egyptian records. He was an energetic prince of
Ethiopian origin, who succeeded in bringing all Egypt under his
sway. His career might well make an impression on Hoshea.
Active antagonism between Egypt and Assyria developed as a

' The capture of the city and the death of Rezin are mentioned, 2 Kings,
16^. The Assyrian annals are still defective at this point.

^ Tiglath-pileser claims to have slain Pekah, and to have appointed Hoshea,
Keilinschr. Bibliothek, II, p. 33. Cf. Winckler, Alttest. Untersjichungen,^.
18. The twenty years' reign assigned to Pekah, by 2 Kings, 15 ^^, must be
an error ; see Paton, Early History of Syria and Palestine, p. 240.

^ The vocalisation is probably at fault. The Assyrian pronunciation Sib''u
would indicate that the Hebrew consonants were originally intended to be
read Sr.ce.

THE FALL OF SAMARIA 229

consequence of Sabako's ambitious plans. Doubtless he had
worked up a coalition, of which Hoshea was a member. The As-
syrian reply was an invasion which crushed out the remnants of
strength that showed themselves in this convulsive movement.
The first blow naturally fell upon Samaria. The city was in-
vested, but held out two years. Meanwhile the country experi-
enced the extremity of war. Shalmaneser did not live to see
the surrender of Israel's capital. His successor, Sargon, enrolled
it among his conquests. The other members of the coalition
fared no better than Israel. Sargon carried his arms to the ex-
treme south of Philistia, where he met the tardy Egyptian army
and defeated it. He claims to have received tribute from a Pha-
raoh as a consequence of the battle.^

The fall of Samaria took place early in the year B.C.. 721.
Sargon claims to have carried away 27,290 of the inhabitants of
the city. These we may suppose to be the well-to-do, if any
may be so described after a two years' siege. He says expressly
that he left the rest in possession of their property. The country
was formally made a province of the empire, a governor being
appointed over it. Thus the Kingdom of Israel came to an end
about two hundred years after its establishment by Jeroboam ben
Nebat. The outlying districts had been ravaged, and numbers
of the people carried away by Tiglath-jMleser, whose work was
now completed by Sargon. According to the Biblical narrative
the unfortunate emigrants were settled in the Assyrian province
of Gozan^ and in the mountains of Media.- Imagination has
busied itself with the fate of the lost Ten Tribes, as though they
must be retaining their coherence in some far-off country, ready
for the return expected and described by the prophets. The his-

* Sargon's account is to the eflfect that Hanun of Gaza, together with
Sib'u, General {Turtan) of Egypt, opposed him at Raphia. The place
may be identified with Tell Riph, just at the IVadi el Aris/i, and therefore
on the border of Egypt. Hanun had trusted in the strength of his fortifa-
cations, leaving the city to defend itself, while he and his troops effected a
junction with the Egyptians. What were the relations between Sib'u and
the Pharaoh who is named as tributary to Sargon is not clear. Cf. Keilin-
schr. Bibliothek, II, p. 55; McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and Monuments,
I, p. 422. Winckler finds here the Arabian kingdom of Mufri instead of
Egypt; Keilinschriften iind Altes Testament,'^ pp. 67, 146.

* In Upper Mesopotamia. On the text of 2 Kings, 17^, compare Winckler 's
Alttest. Untersuchungen, p. 108 ff.

230 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

tory we have traced allows us to cherish no illusions. The Ten
Tribes in captivity are a figment of the imagination. There
never was such a political or social entity. Tiie Israelites were
carried off as fragments, and as fragments they were scattered
widely apart in the provinces of Assyria. In the struggle for sub-
sistence among strangers they either succumbed to their misery
or became absorbed into the communities in the midst of which
they were planted. They had no faith in Yahweh strong enough
to resist the influences by which they were surrounded. The fate
of Israel made them doubt either the power or the affection of
their God. Why should they persist in the worship of a God
wlio had been unable to save His own, or else had cast them
off? The gods of their neighbours might be more kind or more
efficient than the God of their fathers. The prophets no
longer spoke to them ; the written Law had not yet become a
power. We can understand how in such circumstances this
should be their reasoning, and, as its consequence, that they
should adopt the religion and the customs of their new homes.

A curious monument of the antique way of looking at religion
is preserved to us in the sequel to our account. I refer to the
story of the colonists who were brought into the land of Israel to
take the place of those who had been carried away. We must, of
course, remember that no country is ever absolutely stripped of
its inhabitants. Such a thing is an impossibility. Even were it
possible, the kings of Assyria had no interest in making a desert
of any one of their provinces. Such an act would be contrary
to their own interest. Their purpose in the transfer of peoples
was to mix their subjects in such proportions that they would
lose tribal or national coherence, and would find it impos-
sible to revolt. In Samaria, as we have already noted, Sargon
left a considerable number of Israelites in undisturbed possession
of their property. Along with these he settled compulsory immi-
grants from the eastern provinces of his empire.^

• 2 Kings, 17 2*. The Hebrew writer, who livev. at least as late as the Ex-
ile, names Babylon, Kutha, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim as the native
countries of the colonists. The more remote Babylon and Kutha are the
probable sources. Possibly more than one settlement was made, since the
book of Ezra (4^) speaks of a colony settled by Esarhaddon, and a little later
(Ezra, 4 ^*') we hear the colonists ascribe their settlement to Assurbanipal
(Asnapper). On the questions involved, see Winckler, Alttestamentliche
Untersuchungen, pp. 97-110.

THE FALL OF SAMARIA 23 1

The new settlers were soon in trouble. The country, so devas-
tated by repeated wars, gave harbour to ferocious beasts. Lions
increased to such an extent as to become a serious menace. In
an age ignorant of firearms, such a calamity is always among the
possibilities — an early Biblical writer found a sufficient reason for
Yahweh's not dispossessing the Canaanites all at once in the dan-
ger that in the desolated country *' the beasts of the field should
increase" against the Israelites.^ In the case before us, the new
inhabitants of Samaria searched their consciences for a cause of
the visitation. They found it in the wrath of the God of the land
at their neglect of His worship. That they might make good their
shortcoming, and that they might do it in the manner pleasing to
Him, they petitioned the king ofAssyria for an instructor in religion.
One of the Israelite priests was therefore sent from the East "and
taught them how they should fear Yahweh." The scorn of the
narrator for the people who thus feared Yahweh, while still serv-
ing their ancestral gods, is evident, and makes us doubt the lit-
eral truth of his story. The need of a priest to teach the colon-
ists is not apparent — there were enough Israelites left in the land
to teach the traditional worship, even if we suppose the whole
body of priests to have been carried away. But the actual result
reached — the adoption of the worship of Yahweh — is probably
correctly described. It is what would be most likely to take
place in any ancient community. Yahweh was the God of the
land. To neglect Him would be dangerous to the new settlers.
We have seen just this tendency at work in the earlier times in
relation to the Baal-worship of the Canaanites and its effect on
the Israelites. And, if it made Yahweh-worshippers of the new-
comers, the same tendency working on the deported Israelites
would lead them to adopt the religion of their new homes, and
would result in the practical abandonment of Yahweh. =^

The old Israelite spirit seems not to have been wholly broken,

^ Ex. 23 '^^. Even in this age of firearms, lions seriously interfered with
the construction of a railway in Africa. See the London Spectator for March,
1900, p. 307.

2 The account in 2 Kings, 17 2*-3*, seems to be composite. The more an-
cient element represents the visitation of the lions as a chastisement by Yah-
weh, in punishment of the new people's neglect. It seems to see in there-
suit a genuine adoption of Yahweh by the newcomers. A later hand empha-
sises the syncretistic character of the new religion, doubtless with a strong
prejudice against the Samaritans.

232 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

even by conquest, siege, and the intrusion of strangers, for we
hear of a revolt of Samaria two years after the surrender to Sar-
gon/ But this was only the last convulsive gasp of the body
politic in its death-throes. With the incorporation of Ephraim
into the Assyrian province called ''Beyond the River," it ceases
to belong to the history of Israel. That history is carried on by
Judah alone, who now receives our heightened interest.

For the last period of the life of Samaria, Judah has left us al-
most no records. As we have seen, the folly of Amaziah brought
his kingdom into vassalage to Israel. It is not likely that the
relation was changed during the lifetime of Jeroboam II. The
king, whom we usually call Uzziah,^ may have had energy enough
to assert his independence. Almost the only thing that our
sources record of his fifty years' reign is that he fortified Eloth
at the head of the Gulf of Akaba and '^ brought it again to
Judah." ^ As Amaziah, his father, had conquered Edom, we
must suppose that a revolt took place at the accession of Uzziah,
but that it was quelled so far as to retain Eloth,* and with it con-
trol of the Arabian commerce, in the hands of Judah.

Uzziah was afflicted with leprosy during the latter years of his
life, and the administration of affairs was formally committed
to his son Jotham. The author of the Book of Chronicles de-
scribes the leprosy as a visitation of God, in punishment for an
act of sacrilege on the part of the king — he attempted to usurp
the priest's function so far as to burn incense in the Temple. The
Greek translator of the account emphasises the miracle by an
earthquake accompanied by a celestial voice. The legendary na-
ture of the narrative in both forms is evident. And the doubts
which it occasions naturally extend to the Chronicler's account
of Uzziah's success, both in war and in the arts of peace.^

1 Perhaps disorders incident to the deportation of the people are dignified
by the name of a revolt by Sargon.

^ In the majority of cases he is so called in the Hebrew text, but he is sev-
eral times called Azariah. The latter seems to be the original form.

^ 2 Kings, 1422. Amaziah's victory over Edom is related in 15^.

* Our Hebrew text fluctuates between Eloth and Elath as the name of the
place, and'the English version also gives both forms. I have retained Eloth
because the name was probably a plural.

^The text of 2 Kings, 15 ^ is corrupt. While we are able to make out
that Jotham administered justice in the king's stead, we are not able to say
what treatment the king himself received. Apparently he was not compelled
to isolate himself, except so far as the public business was concerned.

THE FALL OF SAiMARIA 233

The comparatively brief reign of Jotham (b.c. 739-734) gives
us nothing to record. We may well suppose that the shadow of
coming events lay upon the country, and this is perhaps indicated
by the Hebrew writer when he says that in those days Yahweh
began to incite Rezin of Syria, and Pekah of Israel against ju-
dah.^ This means that Pekah, who assassinated his master near
the end of Jotham's reign, was already pressing his plan of a co-
alition against Assyria. We need not suppose, therefore, that
sympathy with the disorganisation in Israel was acute in Judah.
The two kingdoms had long been separate, and had generally
been hostile. Only half a century had elapsed since Jehoash en-
tered the capital as a conqueror and razed a considerable part of
its fortifications. Still, the traditional hostility could hardly keep
thoughtful men in Judah from sympathising in the troubles of
those who were, after all, of the same blood as themselves. The
prophet Isaiah shows some traces of this sympathy, but his keen
sense of the justice of Yahweh makes him view the coming ca-
lamity as testimony to the sinfulness of the sister kingdom. We
may read his verdict in one of the early chapters of his book :

" For Yahweh has rejected His people

The house of Jacob ;
For they are full of divination from the East

And of magicians, like the Philistines,
And they strike hands with foreigners. " ^

The terms of the description leave no doubt that the prophet
saw the kingdom of Samaria, in apparent external prosperity, en-
tering into close alliance with other nations and adopting their
superstitions. That Judah is travelling the same road does not
make things better. More distinct is the following:

*' The Lord has sent a word against Jacob

And it has lighted upon Israel,
And the people shall know, all of them,

Ephraim and the dwellers in Samaria ;
Who stiffen their neck in pride

And in self-conceit, saying :
The bricks are fallen

But we will build with hewn stone ;

*2 Kings, 15^'. The sixteen years given to Jotham's reign must include
the years of his regency.

'^ Isaiah, 2^'. The whole passage should be read in this connexion.

234 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

The sycomores are hewn down

But we will replace them with cedars.
Yahweh will raise up his enemies against him,

And will stir up his adversaries ;
Syria in the east and Philistia in the west ;

To devour Israel with open mouth.
Even then His wrath will not turn away,

And His hand is stretched out still." *

The discourse continues with a still stronger denunciation of
punishment. In line with Amos and Hosea the prophet dis-
covers the reason for the coming calamity in the inhumanity of
the upper classes *'who issue iniquitous decrees and enact op-
pressive statutes, to shut out the lowly from justice, and to secure
a decision by intimidation in the case of the oppressed."

The unity of the prophetic teaching in the two kingdoms is
thus made evident. And that Jerusalem and Samaria were much
alike is shown further by the fact that prophecies originally di-
rected against Samaria have been adapted to the situation in
Isaiah's own city. The most convincing instance is the power-
ful passage which begins with a woe upon the "'proud crown
of Ephraim, the drunkard." The proud crown is, of course,
Samaria itself, and the threat that it shall be trodden under foot
foreshadows the doom of the city. But as it has come down to
us the paragraph has been made the text of a sermon against the
drunkards of Judah.^ In like manner the bold description of the
Day of Yahweh bringing destruction "on all that is beautiful
and brilliant, on all that is high and noble, on all the proud
cedars of Lebanon, and all the lofty oaks of Bashan " — may
well have been spoken in view of the impending invasion of the
northern kingdom.* But it is now a part of a discourse against
the people of Judah.

The youthful Ahaz (b.c. 735-730) came to an inheritance of
trouble. The temporary wave of energy in Samaria and Damas-
cus showed itself in the invasion of Judah, to which allusion has
already been made. At the same time (we may suppose) the

' Isaiah, 9"-". For the text see Cheyne's edition in Haupt's Sacred Books
of the Old Testament (1899).

''■ Ibid. , 28 '-*. The continuation is evidently by the prophet himself, but of
later date.

^ Ibid., 2 '^"". Notice the continuation in 3 ' ".

THE FALL OF SAMARIA 235

Edomites seeing their opportunity, regained the port of Eloth.*
Almost all we know of the reign of Ahaz is contained in the ac-
count of the invasion given in the book of Isaiah.^ The approach
of the allied army caused a panic in Jerusalem. As the city has
a precarious water supply, Ahaz at once proceeded to inspect the
reservoirs. While thus engaged he was sought out by Isaiah,
who had a special message of encouragement for him. It is not
difficult to suppose that the king had earlier denunciations of the
prophet in mind, and feared that the invasion portended the
great Day ofYahweh. Isaiah is now charged to tell him that
this is not the case. " Beware and keep calm ! Do not fear or
let thy heart grow faint before these two half-burnt pieces of
firewood." Isaiah saw that the strength of Syria and Ephraim
was already spent. There was no reason to fear them ; and a
sign of what the prophet expects was given. This sign is simply
a prediction that a boy to be born in the coming year shall re-
ceive the name God-with-us, because of the signal deliverance
then witnessed, and that before the same child is weaned, the two
hostile countries shall be themselves ravaged by an invader. To
make a deeper impression Isaiah calls his own son, born about
the same time, Haste-spoil-speed-prey ^ as a second sign that the
riches of Damascus and Samaria are to fall into the hands of the
king of Assyria.^

Ahaz was not impressed by the calm faith of Isaiah. He had
recourse to Yahweh in much more drastic fashion — if we may
connect with this invasion the sacrifice of his son of which the
book of Kings speaks.* At the same time he had set his heart
on a political measure — no less than complete submission to the
Assyrian power. It was from this that Isaiah sought to deter
him. The prophet's own theory was doubtless that Judah should

^ 2 Kings, 16^. as amended by Klostermann.

^ Isaiah, 7 and 8. The two chapters have been supplemented by later
hands, as is shown in Cheyne's editions (text and translation), and in Duhm's
commentary {Haitdkomtnentar, Gottingen, 1892).

^ It is evident that the two children, Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hash-baz,
are given names symbolical of the same event. The destruction of Damas-
cus (and virtually of Samaria) is to take place before one is weaned, before
the other can talk.

*2 Kings, 16 3. No other occasion in the life of Ahaz calls for so extraor-
dinary a propitiatory act. The parallel with Mesha's sacrifice to Che
mosh (32') is striking. What puzzles us is that Isaiah left no protest.

22,0 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

trust to Yahweh alone. This implied that the people (or the
monarch) should undertake social reforms, for righteousness and
humanity alone would secure the favour of Yahweh.

Political writers will probably criticise Isaiah's position as
doctrifiaire. But it is not certain that, even on the ground of an
enlightened self-interest, Isaiah was not right. The two invad-
ing kingdoms were actually in no condition to carry on a pro-
longed siege. It was certain that in the near future, Assyria
must interfere in order to conserve its own prestige. Had Ahaz
chosen to rest in the righteousness of his cause, he would have
been in a better position than he was in after his gratuitous
submission to Assyria.

What actually happened was (as we have seen) that Ahaz sent
all the treasure he could lay his hands on to Tiglath-pileser, with
an appeal for help. The great king was perhaps already on the
march. When he entered Damascus in triumph, he held a great
Durbar, at which Ahaz was present. All that the Biblical writer
tells us, is that innovations in the Temple were the result of this
visit. Ahaz was pleased with an altar which he saw at Damas-
cus, and sent the pattern to his priest at Jerusalem with orders
to make one like it This was set up in the Temple as the prin-
cipal altar. ^ Other changes were made in the Temple as the
result of this visit. A part of them — the cutting in pieces of
some of the metal implements — may be accounted for as methods
of raising money for the tribute. But structural changes belong
in a different category. Whatever they were,^ they were under-
taken for the sake of the king of Assyria, and we shall do no in-
justice to Ahaz if we suppose they were intended to introduce the
gods of Assyria to Jerusalem. Submission to the empire would
logically imply such a step. The conscience of the king would
pretty certainly find no objection to it, and the people at large
would scarcely be more sensitive. Later generations would feel
strongly the shame of such a desecration of the Temple, and it is

' Whether there was already an ahar in the Temple is doubtful; for we
have seen reason to suppose that the native rock furnished the original place
of sacrifice. In that case the reference to the "copper altar," 2 Kings,
i6'*^ is a later insertion as is, in fact, suggested by the language itself, which
moreover is obscure in its indications of what was done.

^ The text is unfortunately corrupt, but 2 Kings, i6^^, speaks of alterations
in the building, and 23 ^■^ knows of a roof chamber (?) of Ahaz. in connexion
with idolatrous altars.

THE FALL OF SAMARIA 23/

possible that the obscurity of our account comes from a purpose
to conceal the facts. Isaiah must have protested, but the protest
has not come down to us, unless it be in the denunciation of the
idols of which the land was full. And it must be remembered
that the burden upon his heart was the moral, rather than the
rehgious, obliquity of the people. This moral obliquity was, in
fact, defection from the religion of Yahweh, and a new god
more or less did not much alter the state of things.

CHAPTER XIII

HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH

The fall of Samaria, however impressive as an object-lesson,
made no great difference in the political condition of Judah.
The house of David still possessed the throne, and even breathed
more freely in that its neighbour was no longer an indepen-
dent kingdom, but a province under an Assyrian governor. The
revolt of 720 B.C., to which allusion has already been made, was a
part of the general uneasiness in Palestine. Sargon, as we know,
that year made a campaign in which Philistia was severely pun-
ished. Judah seems not to have taken part. Ahaz had, in fact,
committed himself too deeply to the Assyrians to think of revolt
so soon. The vassalage continued throughout his reign, and
into that of his successor.

The situation was, however, a difficult one for the youthful
Hezekiah, who came to the throne about this time. The tribute
was oppressive; Assyria was remote; there was a party favourable
to Egypt, looking for an opportunity to revolt; the ancient lib-
erties of Judah were doubtless remembered, and made the watch-
word of a party of zealots. Hezekiah, who thus inherited a sit-
uation not of his making, seems not to have been a man of steady
purpose, and Isaiah's influence seems not to have been strong
with him till toward the close of his life. We are not surprised
that the reign was a time of disturbances and reverses. On the
whole it is a credit to Hezekiah that he managed to keep his
throne and to hand in on to his successor. Only a man of
genius could have done more, and Hezekiah certainly was not
a man of genius.

The chronology of our Hebrew sources is clearly at fault in
regard to the accession of Hezekiah.' This must have taken place

^ His accession is dated in the third year of Hoshea (2 Kings, 18 1), and the
capture of Samaria is assigned to the sixth of Hezekiah. The ordinary He-
brew method of computation would make this the seventh, so that here is a
discrepancy of one year Now the invasion of Sennacherib is said to have

238

HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 239

about the year 720. Besides the faulty chronology, the author
gives us his religious estimate of the king in extravagant language.
Sweeping reforms are attributed to him — the abolition of the
High-places, the breaking in pieces of the pillars, the cutting
down of the sacred pole. A tormenting question always arises in
considering this description — whether the author has not been
influenced by the conceptions of a later time. One thing stands
out prominently, however, because it so evidently could not
have been a later invention — Hezekiah '' cut in pieces the cop-
per serpent which Moses made ; for until those days the Sons of
Israel kept sacrificing to it, and it was called Nehushtan." ^ The
clause which Moses j?tade, refers to a well-known narrative in the
account of the wilderness wandering. Here we read that the
people \vere bitten by serpents. Moses is therefore commanded
to make a copper serpent, and raise it upon a pole. Whoever is
bitten and looks at the serpent is healed. It must be clear that
we have here a survival from the primitive totemism of Israel.
The serpent race, the enemies of man, are worshipped in the
image which presents their counterfeit to the eye. Sacrificing to
it, which is here affirmed, is exactly the mode of worship de-
scribed in the case of numerous other divinities.''

Why Moses should have made such an image for a people no-
toriously prone to idolatry is a question that need not be dis-
cussed. How such an image, if made by Moses, came into the
Temple is also difficult to conceive. We are tempted, therefore
to suppose the words which Moses made a later addition to the
narrative and not the expression of Hezekiah's belief or of the
belief of his contemporaries. In that case we must treat the
Nehushtan as a veritable idol of the house of Israel, which had
been worshipped in the Temple from the time of its erection.

taken place in the fourteenth of Hezekiah (2 Kings, 18 ^^), But the capture
of Samaria certainly belongs in the first year of Sargon, who reigned seven-
teen years, and whose successor did not invade Judah till his third campaign,
which must have been his third year at the very earliest. The error is obvi-
ous. Sennacherib's invasion must be dated in 701, and both of the Biblical
statements are at fault. See the discussion in McCurdy, History, Prophecy,
and the Mojmments, II, p. 248(1. ; Paton, Early History of Syria, p. 247.

^ 2 Kings, 18 *. The account of Moses's connexion with the serpent is
found in Num. 21 ^^.

2 The word is D'^ltSp'O, which is incorrectly rendered burning incense.
Even if it were only burning incense, it would be an act of worship.

240 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Serpent worship is so wide-spread that we should be surprised
not to find traces of it in Israel. We know of a Serpent's Stone
near Jerusalem which was the site of a sanctuary/ and this
sanctuary was dedicated to Yahweh. This parallel makes us
conclude that the copper serpent of the Temple was also a symbol
of Yahweh. If this be so it may be attributed to Moses, though
in a different way from that taken by the Hebrew author ; for
Yahweh was introduced to Israel by Moses. Probably the ser-
pent was thought to be a congenial symbol of the god of the
lightning ^ — and that in the desert days Yahweh was the god of
the lightning, or of the thunderstorm, seems well made out.^

What moved Hezekiah to the destruction of so venerable an
object ? We can suppose only that Isaiah was concerned in the
matter. The prophet was an enemy of idol worship. He did
not think highly of ritual of any kind. But with his exalted con-
ception of Yahweh, the attempt to represent Him under animal
forms must have been particularly obnoxious. His sarcastic al-
lusion to the number of Judah's idols has already been quoted.
Other passages of this kind are not easily found in the genuine
prophecies of Isaiah. In general he is absorbed in the thought
that the popular religion is all wrong and he does not stop to
objurgate individual features of it. One thing is clear. If the
removal of Nehushtan from the Temple was due to Isaiah's in-
fluence it must have taken place toward the close of Hezekiah's
reign. And whatever other religious reforms were undertaken
belong in the same period. We have no evidence, however,
that the removal of the High-places was a part of Isaiah's pro-
gramme.

The Hebrew historian boasts further that Hezekiah '' rebelled

* I Kings, 1 ^ That Adonijah chose a sanctuary for his festival is evident.

^ On the serpent and the lightning, see Baudissin, Stiidien zur Semit-
ischen Religionsgeschichte, I, p. 264. The curious will find a collection of
material concerning serpent worship in Deane, The Worship of the Serpent

(1833)-

^ I have laid no stress on the Seraphitn of Isaiah's vision, though their
name is identical with that of the desert serpents. The name Nehushtan
must be connected with nahash (serpent). The occurrence of the proper
names Nahash, Nahshon, and Nehushta among the Hebrews is readily ac-
counted for if the serpent was an object of worship, but not otherwise.
Speculations on the Babylonian origin of the Nehushtan may be read in the
Encyclop. Biblica, sub voce.

HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 24I

against the King of Assyria, and did not serve him, and that he
smote the Phihstines to Gaza and its boundary, both watch-tower
and fortified city." ^ The tradition has here preserved only one
side of the case. Hezekiah did revolt from Assyria, and at the
time of the revolt he gained a temporary advantage over his
natural enemies the Philistines. But the sequel was sadly con-
trary to his hopes. With the help of the book of Isaiah and the
Assyrian records we are able to trace the course of events.

The seditions at the accession of Sargon have already been
alluded to, and some account has been given of this king's m vasion
of Philistiain 720. This campaign is perhaps alluded to in the
little poem of Isaiah which the editor dates in the year of Ahaz's
death :

** Rejoice not, all Philistia,

That broken is the rod that smote thee ;

For from the root of the serpent snail issue a basilisk,

And its fruit shall be a fiery dragon." ''

The rod that smote will be Shalmaneser, and the basilisk to fol-
low will then be Sargon. Certainly the character of Sargon an-
swers the description. He himself recounts how he invaded
Philistia, besieged and captured Ashdod and other towns, carry-
ing off the inhabitants. It is possible to suppose that Hezekiah,
then just come to the throne, took part in this campaign, paying
off Israel's old grudges against Philistia. But the supposition
presents some difficulties, and it seems on the whole more likely
that Hezekiah's Philistine campaign belongs in the time of
Sennacherib.

A second expedition of Sargon is recorded nearly ten years
after the king's accession. During these years Merodach-Baladan
of Babylon was a thorn in the side of Assyria. He threw off the
Assyrian suzerainty and was able to maintain himself against the
efforts of Sargon. It need hardly be said that he strained every
nerve to stir up revolt in the other dependencies of the empire.
His embassy to Hezekiah, of which the Biblical writer makes

1 2 Kings, 18 7 ' , Kittel refers the two verses to different sources, on what
grounds is not very clear.

2 Isaiah, 1428-32. On the date see Cheyne, Introduction to Isaiah, and his
edition of the text. Recent commentators are inclined to assign the piece to
a much later time

242 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

mention/ can be accounted for as an attempt to enlist Judah in
such an enterprise. We may suppose tliat Hezekiah resisted the
temptation at this time. But that he coquetted with the dis-
tinguished stranger is indicated by Sargon, who accuses Judah,
along with Edom, Moab, and PhiHstia, of sending presents to
Pharaoh, King of Egypt, '' a prince who could not save them,"
inviting him to an alliance. The disorganised condition of
Egypt at the time has caused some to doubt the possibility of its
being prominent in such a movement. But the language inti-
mates that the Palestinian states were ready to revolt — being
aware of the troubles of Assyria in the East — even without sub-
stantial help from Egypt. In the year 711 Sargon sent a flying
column against Ashdod and speedily reduced it to submission.
In the year the Tartan came to Ashdod, we are told, Isaiah pre-
dicted the defeat of Ethiopia and the captivity of its people.
The prophet had aroused attention by going barefoot and lightly
clad for some time before this event, and he was now moved to de-
clare : ''So shall the king of i\ssyria carry away the captives of
Egypt and the exiles of Ethiopia, young and old, naked and bare-
foot, with bodies exposed." He adds that the people of Judah
will say: ''Truly, if such is the plight of those to whom we
looked, and to whom we fled for help to obtain safety from the
king of Assyria, how can we ourselves hope to escape."^

Isaiah dissuaded from an alliance with Egypt and anticipated
an Assyrian invasion of that country. Just yet matters did
not proceed so far. Hezekiah was able to save his face, and per-
haps gave support to the Assyrian expedition. Merodach-Baladan
was, not long after this, defeated and driven from Babylon. His
brief success a few years later probably had no influence on tlie
fortunes of Judah.

The Egyptians, however, were not idle, and at the next change
in the Assyrian throne trouble began to brew. The allied kings
(for Egypt was now divided into several petty states) succeeded
in enlisting the Palestinian peoples in an effort for freedom.
The people of Ekron dethroned their king, Padi, because he re-
fused to join the movement, and delivered him over to Hezekiah,

1 2 Kings, 20'--^^, which is repeated with some changes in Isaiah, 39. The
section is of late date, apparently taken from a life of Isaiah.

2 Isaiah, 20 6. I have adopted Cheyne's translation in the edition of Haupt
(polychrome). Tartan is the title of the Assyrian general.

HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 243

who kept him imprisoned at Jerusalem. Sennacherib, who had
succeeded Sargon in 705, invaded Syria in his third campaign,
which would be 701. He first conquered Sidon, where he placed
a new king upon the throne. This blow was enough to satisfy-
some of the conspirators, and they hastened (Moab and Ammon
are included) to make their submission. But Philistia and Judah
held out. The Egyptians stood by their engagements so far as to
send an army to the relief of Ekron. But in a battle fought at
Eltekeh^ they received a decided check. Ekron was obliged
to surrender, and the popular leaders were impaled outside the
walls. It was then Judah's turn. Hezekiah was compelled to
deliver up his prisoner, who was again set in honour on his throne.
The country was overrun by the Assyrians, forty-six walled towns
suffered the horrors of siege and sack, over two hundred thousand
people were carried into slavery, an enormous booty fell into the
hands of the invader, Jerusalem itself was invested, though not
regularly besieged. Hezekiah was obliged to pay a heavy fine
and to send his daughters and concubines to Nineveh. Finally,
his kingdom was reduced in size, a large part of his territory
being taken away and added to adjoining states.

This is Sennacherib's account.^ It is substantially confirmed
by a paragraph in the book of Kings: "In the fourteenth year
of King Hezekiah came up Sennacherib, king of Assyria, against
all the fortified cities of Judah. And Hezekiah sent to the king
of Assyria at Lachish, saying: I have sinned; turn from me!
Whatever thou shalt lay upon me I will bear. So the king of
Assyria laid upon him three hundred talents of silver and thirty
talents of gold. So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was in
the House of Yahweh and in the palace treasury. At that time
Hezekiah stripped the doors of the Temple and the pillars of
the metal with which he himself had overlaid them and sent it to
the king of Assyria. ' ' ^

The inaccuracy of the date in this account need not detain us.

* The town is mentioned among those belonging to the southern settlement
of the tribe of Dan, Josh. 19 **.

"^ Keihnschr. Bibliothek, II, pp. 91-97.

3 2 Kings, 18 ^3-^6. Sennacherib states the sum exacted to be thirty talents
of gold and eight hundred of silver. The discrepancy may have arisen from
a confusion of the light and heavy talent. It should be noted that the con-
struction of V. '^ Is awkward, and that some other king was probably orig-
inally named as the decorator of the Temple.

244 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Otherwise, the text is in agreement with the Assyrian claims,
and its statements are not such as would be invented by a Judaite
writer. The wonder was that Sennacherib stopped when he did,
and this it is which impressed the contemporary witnesses of the
event. Why did not the cruel and revengeful monarch go on with
the siege of Jerusalem, take the city, and give it over to sack?
Perhaps the abject submission of Hezekiah is sufficient to answer
the question, especially as Jerusalem was a stronghold whose capt-
ure would call for large expenditure of time and men. The As-
syrian sources throw no light on the subject. Hebrew tradition
has an answer which we now read both in the book of Kings and
in the book of Isaiah.^ Two separate traditions seem here to have
coalesced. One of these tells how the king sent one of his chief
officers^ — Rab-shakeh is the Assyrian title — from Lachish which he
was besieging, to Jerusalem. His purpose is to stir up the people
against Hezekiah. This he does by scoffing openly at Hezekiah's
confidence in Egypt and in Yahweh. Egypt he compares (not
ineptly) to a deceitful staff which breaks when one leans upon it,
to the pain and hurt of its bearer. As for the trust in Yahweh he
claims that it is by command of Yahweh that he himself has in-
vaded the country.^ The request of Hezekiah's officers that the
colloquy may be carried on in a language unfamiliar to the lis-
teners on the wall is disregarded, and the Assyrian makes a direct
appeal to the Jerusalemites against their king. Isaiah's advice,
long disregarded, now becomes important. We may well suppose
that the clear-headed prophet commanded the respect of his king.
In response to Hezekiah's message the promise of Yahweh is
given : '' Fear not for the words which thou hast heard, where-
with the servants of the King of Assyria have taunted me. I am
about to put a spirit into him, so that he shall hear a rumour and
return to his own land, and I will cause him to fall by the sword."
From the following verses we understand that the spirit is a spirit

^2 Kings, 181^-1937, and Isaiah, 36, 37, with some differences of text.

^ He alone is mentioned in Isaiah, 36. The author of Kings has expanded
by adding the Tartan (general-in-chief) and the Rabsaris (chief eunuch ?).
On the title Rab-shakeh see Zimmern in the Zeitsch. der D. M. G., LI II.,
p. 116 flf.

3 The reference to Hezekiah's reforms, and the enumeration of the gods
which the Assyrians have overcome may be attributed to the Hebrew writer
(see Cheyne's translation in the Polychrome Bible). But the claim that
Yahweh was on the side of the invader is not improbable.

HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 245

of panic, and that the report is a report of the Ethiopian ap-
proach. But it is possible that the earhest writer had in mind
reports of rebellion in the eastern provinces. Something of this
kind seems to have affected Sennacherib's movements. The as-
sassination of the king, to which the author also alludes as a ful-
filment of the prediction, is known not to have taken place for
a number of years.

A duplicate tradition follows, in which the message of Senna-
cherib is put in the form of an unsealed (and therefore insulting)
letter, and in answer to Hezekiah's prayers Isaiah is sent to him
with the promise that the Assyrians shall not besiege the city.
The sequel is the sudden destruction of the Assyrian army, 185,-
000 soldiers being cut off in a single night. The two accounts
seem to refer to the same event. According to one the sudden
and unexpected retreat of the Assyrians was due to panic arising
from rumours of disaffection or invasion. According to the other
it was due to an act of God.

We have a third tradition, given by Herodotus, from Egyptian
sources. This is to the effect that Sennacherib's army, having ad-
vanced as. far as Pelusium, was compelled to retreat by an army
of mice, who gnawed the thongs of quivers and the strings of
bows, so that the soldiers were defenceless, and retreat was neces-
sary. The well-known connexion of the mouse with the pestilence
argues in favour of making this account refer to the event which
the Hebrew author represents as a sudden destruction of the
army. We cannot suppose, however, that the Hebrew author
borrowed from the Egyptian tradition, for the equation of the
mice and the pestilence would be unfamiliar to him. It is equally
improbable that the Egyptian tradition would consciously reduce
the pestilence to terms of mice. All that is left to us is to admit
that the suddenness of Sennacherib's return to Nineveh, was ac-
counted for in the popular mind in three ways — the king's panic,
the mice, and the pestilence.^ The deliverance can hardly have
been so signal as the narrative assumes. Had the Assyrian army
been literally destroyed by a pestilence, the wliole of Palestine
would have fallen away afresh, or else have come into the hands of
the Egyptians.

^ Divine interposition was also assumed by the Egyptians, who regarded
the mice as the army of their god, Horus — so, at least, Wiedemann inter-
prets the statue which Herodotus connects with this event.

246 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

It is held by some scholars that Sennacherib made another ex-
pedition to the west, especially directed against Egypt, and that
the Biblical accounts have united traditions which concern the
two invasions.^ The indications of the inscriptions seem hardly
definite enough to sustain the hypothesis, and it does not seem
likely that Hezekiah would revolt again after the severe lesson he
had received.

We are able to associate some of Isaiah's most vigorous dis-
courses with the campaign of Sennacherib, and thus to form
some idea of the state of things in Jerusalem at the time. The
prophet does not hesitate to repeat his earlier lament over the
fall of Samaria and make it the text for a sharp arraignment of
his own people ; the implication being that the sinfulness of Jeru-
salem will bring about the same punishment which has been visited
upon the sister city. And as in the former case the sins were not
ritual offences but offences against common morality, so it is here;

" These also stagger with wine

And reel with strong drink :
Priest and prophet

They stagger with strong drink,
They are overcome by wine,

They stagger with strong drink.
They reel in their vision,

They totter when giving judgment.
All tables are full of vomit,

Filth — no end."

It goes with this that these influential classes are impervious to
correction. They regard the prophet as a doddering idiot fit to
talk gibberish to children. This scoffing tone is not simply the
result of their abandoned drunkenness. They are inflated with the
false confidence of those who trust in political measures. Whatever
may come they feel that they have taken effective precautions :

" We have entered into a treaty with death
And with Sheol we have made a compact ;

When the scourging scourge comes on
It shall not reach us ;

For we have made a lie our trust

And in falsehood we have taken refuge." "

^ Winckler in \v\% Alttestamentliche Unterstichungen, p. 29 ff. His hy-
pothesis is accepted by Benzinger in the Ha7idkoi7imentar.

2 Isaiah, 28^^'. The preceding quotation is from 28^ '; compare also 5 ^^.

HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 247

The oriental delight in finesse has never been better expressed.
Shrewdness and subtlety are the weapons with which they think
to fight their battles. Doubtless the fine scheme of an alliance
among the western nations and a united effort against Assyria
was maturing. Under the influence of the party favourable to
Egypt, Hezekiah has sent an embassy to that country in order
to perfect the alliance. Through the desert which lies between
them and their destination, " they carry their goods on the backs
of asses, and their treasures on the humps of camels to a people
that cannot profit, whose help is idle and vain."^ This embassy
has been kept secret from the prophet and has taken the longer
and more toilsome route through the desert so as not to attract
the notice of the Assyrian officials in Philistia. But Isaiah has
discovered it and heaps his scorn upon it. Not scorn only but
open rebuke :

'• Woe to the rebellious sons, saith Yahweh ;
Who carry out a plan that is none of mine.
Who go down to Egypt but have not asked of me,
To flee to the stronghold of Pharaoh,

And to take refuge in the shadow of Egypt.
But the stronghold shall be your shame,

And the refuge your confusion.
Though his princes be in Zoan,
And his ambassadors in Hanes —
Every one shall be put to shame by a people that does not help." ^

The end of all their pains will be to see the structure so labori-
ously raised fall in hopeless ruin: 'Mike a bulge caused by a
breach in a lofty wall, ready to fall in an instant, and to which
breaking comes full suddenly — as one dashes an earthen pitcher
to pieces shattering it ruthlessly." '

1 Isaiah, ^o^. Chapter 18 seems to imply that the Ethiopians responded to
the overtures, sending an embassy in turn.

2 Isaiah, 30 '-^. I have left out an unessential couplet, and have followed
Cheyne's text. Some scholars connect these discourses with Sargon's cam-
paign of 711.

3 In interpreting these discourses, I have assumed that Egypt is the nation
intended by the Hebrew word Mip-aim. Winckler supposes that a North
Arabian kingdom of Mu(ri, of which we have traces in the Assyrian inscrip-
tions, is the country intended. While some of the Biblical passages which
now speak ot Egypt may have originally referred to such a district in x\ra-

248 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

In an earlier crisis we have seen Isaiah dissuading from foreign
alliances, and urging that attention should be paid to internal
reform. There is no reason to suppose that his principle was any
different in this later struggle. The rebuker of counsellors and
courtiers was not the spokesman of a mere political party. To
do right was the only policy he cared to urge. Yahweh is a
God of justice. He will apply the standard of righteousness to
Jerusalem as one holds a plumb-line to a wall.^ Whatever does
not conform to this standard shall be swept away. The true
policy of people and rulers is to do right, trusting in the righteous-
ness of Yahweh : *' By repenting and remaining quiet you shall
be delivered ; in resting and in trusting shall your strength con-
sist." =^

The restless ambition of the politicians found the counsel in-
sipid. They were for a vigorous foreign policy, leaving " parish
concerns" to take care of themselves. Isaiah saw that this was
to invite calamity, and he foresaw the calamity in the shape of
an Assyrian invasion. In one discourse w^e still read the woe
pronounced in view of the impending siege. ^ In another we
have a description of the invading army making its way from the
north along the road familiar to all Israelites. The successive
camping places are named till the enemy stands on the ridge just
north of Jerusalem, and shakes his fist at the daughter of Zion.*
In this anticipation the prophet takes up the thought of Amos.
Yahweh is God of the whole earth and He uses the nations to
carry out His plan. Isaiah adds that the human instrument is
not conscious that he is carrying out Yahweh's plan; he is fol-
lowing his own designs and knows nothing further :

Ah, Assyrian, rod of my wTath,

And staff of my indignation !

Against a godless nation do I send him,

And against the objects of my wrath I give him command ;

bia, this does not seem to be the case with those we have been considering.
A full presentation of the case for Mufri may be found in the article " Miz-
raim" in the Encyclop. Biblica, Vol. III.

1 Isaiah, 28 ^^ The figure is not original with Isaiah, cf. Amos, 7 ''"^

* Isaiah, 30 ^^.

■Msaiah, 29, which is obscure in places but which seems to assert that the
siege will come after one year more.

* Isaiah, lo^s-sz. The prediction was not literally fulfilled, whether we
refer it to B.C. 721 or 701.

HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 249

To take spoil and to seize booty,

And to tread them down like mire of the street.

But he does not so imagine

And his mind reckons not so ;

But only to destroy is in his mind,

And to cut off nations not a few." '

That in fact Assyria is carrying out the plan of Yahweh is
enough for the prophet to know, and this is what he is here con-
tent to af^rm. It is evident, however, that if the purpose of the
Assyrian is altogether selfish, he in turn will become obnoxious
to the divine justice, and that his punishment will follow in due
time. This thought, however, seems to have come only on later
reflection.

Isaiah's anticipation was fulfilled, as we are abundantly certified
by Sennacherib's description of his campaign. The preacher of
righteousness did not fail to improve the occasion. His dis-
course gives a vivid picture of the country at the height of the
invasion. The land was desolated, the cities burned with fire,
the crops were devoured by strangers, Jerusalem was left a wreck,
as the winter shows those frail shelters erected for the watchmen
of the vineyards now falling to pieces.

It is a common experience, however, that signal judgments of
God often bewilder or harden rather than humble and convert
the evil-doers. So it was in Jerusalem. In the very face of the
calamity some gave themselves up to feasting and revelry. The
city was a tumultuous city, a joyous town ; the people snatched at
the last opportunity for sensuous enjoyment — to-morrow we die
was their thought.^ Others, to be sure, resorted to religious ex-
ercises in the hope that Yahweh might be pacified. The altars
streamed with blood ; burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed
beasts ascended in constant clouds of smoke ; the Temple courts
were thronged with crowds who came to see the face of Yahweh.
But in the prophet's eyes all this indicates persistence in the old
error. All this ritual service is vain. Yahweh is weary of it:
** My soul hates your New Moons and your set feasts. . . .
When you spread out your hands I hide my eyes from you ;
when you multiply prayers I do not hear." The only accept-

' Isaiah, 10 ^-■'.

2 Isaiah, 22. The chapter describes the bustle in the town in face of the
expected siege, notice vv ^"^^

250 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

able service is righteousness. These worshippers instead of pre-
senting the blood that will propitiate, only bring hands red with
crime. How can Yahweh fail to see what is going on? The
judges decide against the poor, the leaders lead the people astray ;
instead of being correctors of crime they are its accomplices :
** Everyone loves a bribe and seeks after baksheesh ; the case of
the widow does not come before them, they do not give judg-
ment for the fatherless." ^

Did Isaiah anticipate the complete destruction of Judah? We
can hardly suppose so, though some things which he has left on
record seem to indicate that he did. In the passages we have
been considering he fixes his eye on the great fact that Yahweh
is about to punish evil-doers. The weight of the blow will fall
on His adversaries. Absorbed in this thought the prophet does
not pause to consider a problem which afterward became acute,
the problem of the destruction of the righteous with the wicked.
Among the Judaites carried into slavery by Sennacherib must
have been many to whom Isaiah's condemnation did not apply.
The destroyer of a city by siege or storm does not discriminate
between the righteous and the wicked. His sword devours one
as well as the other. A Pentateuchal writer, apparently not
much later than Isaiah, shows how some minds were already be-
ginning to be exercised by this problem. He sets forth the fact
that if Sodom is destroyed, the few righteous men who may be
sojourning in it will meet an undeserved fate, and this does not
accord with the justice of the Judge of all the earth.^ No such
difficulty seems to have been present to the mind of Isaiah.

The tendency of the earlier prophets to deal with the nation
as a whole here shows itself. But there is evidence that Isaiah
sometimes advanced beyond this point of view. His general
theory of his work is strikingly set forth in the account of his
inaugural vision, where he receives the command: '' Go and say
to this people : Hear on, but do not understand ; see on, but do
not perceive ! Make the people's mind stupid and their ears
dull, and plaster up their eyes — lest they see with their eyes and

' Isaiah, i , from which I have quoted the greater part of this description,
is now arranged as a single discourse, though perhaps combining what was
spoken at different times. The situation which it so vividly describes can
scarcely be any but the one at Sennacherib's invasion.

«Gen. 18 23-33.

HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 25 1

hear with their ears, and their mind apprehend and their health
be restored." ^ We can interpret this language in only one way
— the prophetic message would harden the people, and thereby
make the impending destruction only the more certain. As if to
leave no doubt on this score, the prophet declares that his mis-
sion would last till the land should be wasted without inhabitant,
and adds : " Even were there left in it a tenth part, this also
must be consumed like a terebinth or an oak of which, when it is
felled, only a stump remains." ^ The stump is not here the source
of new life; it is the dead and useless fragment which must be
dug up and burned to get it out of the way. The destruction of
the nation must be complete.

And yet — and yet there are the passages concerning the rem-
nant, and these show that the hope of the believer refused to ac-
cept so sweeping a statement. The judgment will be something
more than a vindication of the divine justice. It will result in,
or it will be followed by, a restitution. Yahweh will give His
people officers like those of the good old days, so that Zion may
again be called a city of right. More striking is the word
spoken out of the midst of the scathing denunciation we have
already considered, dating it in the time when conspiracy was
rife : '' Behold I lay in Zion a stone, a tried stone, a precious
foundation stone; he who trusts shall not be moved." ^ The
confidence of the prophet that there would be some to trust in
Yahweh, inspired him in naming his son — perhaps his first-born
— A-remna7it-will-turn. And this remnant began to realise its
mission during Isaiah's own life, for he had a band of disciples
to whose keeping he could intrust the message he had received.*

The prophet's faith came out most fully at the hour of disaster.

Hsaiah, G^*". That the actual result of the preaching shows what the
divine purpose was in commissioning the preacher, is quite in accord with
BibHcal thought.

2 Isaiah, 6 ^l Some copyist, remembering the word of Job (14'^-^) which
pictures the stump as sprouting again, has inserted a clause in this passage
to make it teach the same lesson. But the insertion was made so late that
it had not become universally current when the Greek translation was made.

3 Isaiah. 28 '^^ — text of Cheyne and others.

* Isaiah, 8 '^ In the same connexion the prophet declares that he and his
sons are signs of what shall come to Israel. He alludes to the significance
of his own name, " Deliverance-of- Yahiveh,'' which of course is hopeful for
the future.

252 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

He had been most pessimistic when the people were most confi-
dent, but when the crisis came he was the one most confident.
He was sure that Jerusalem would not be given over to sack, and
possibly even went so far as to expect the destruction of Assyria
in immediate sequence to the invasion of Palestine. The im-
pregnability of Zion as a fortress could hardly be the ground of
such confidence. It was a religious faith that Yahweh was in
the midst of His people, though they were so unworthy.

That Yahweh would deliver His city, that He would punish
the pride of Assyria, that He would bring back the good old
times — a very rudimentary Messianic faith is this, but it is al-
most all that we can attribute to Isaiah. We may suppose that
the remnant who should repent, presented itself to his mind as a
nation with a monarch at its head. This monarch would natu-
rally be of the line of David. His rule would be distinguished
by its justice, for the function of the king is to secure justice,
protecting the poor from the rapacious nobles. Commanding
the favour of Yahweh, such a reign would be a time of external
peace and internal prosperity. So much is logically implied in
the hope of the remnant, and some such picture of the future
may have been drawn by the prophet. But the various Mes-
sianic prophecies which we now read in his book have been
inserted there by later hands. ^

In the hope that we may find additional light on the period,
we turn to the prophet Micah, whom we know from a passage of
Jeremiah to have been a contemporary of Hezekiah.'^ The little
book which has come down to us under his name is, however,
only in part from his own hand, and that part has been disfigured
by the errors of copyists. So far as we can use it with confi-
dence, we find that it describes the state of things which is made
known to us by Isaiah. The opening discourse was spoken in
full view of the catastrophe which threatened Samaria, and at a
time when the author expected the same fate to overtake Jerusa-
lem. As in the earlier prophets, the reason is found in the sin-
fulness of the people. No more severe indictment against the
upper classes can be found than we here read : " Hear, ye chiefs
of Jacob and ye judges of the house of Israel ! You surely

' For example, the fine description of the ideal king in 1 1 '"*.
^ Jer. 26'^^ gives this information, citing the most strikingof Micah's pre-
dictions in order to commend the tolerance of Hezekiah.

HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 2^3

ought to know what is just ! Yet you hate good and love evil ;
you who devour the flesh of my people, tear their skin from
them, and break their bones." ^ This is the old story of rapacity
as we read it in Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. The only thing origi-
nal in Micah is the bitterness of the polemic against the popular
prophets. The opposition of different sets of prophets to each
other is no new thing ; it is at least as old as the time of Ahab,
where Micaiah takes a position contradicting that of the majority,
and where he supposes them deceived b}- a lying spirit. But our
Micah has to contend with bitter and unscrupulous opposition,
from prophets who have become mere time servers, pandering to
the wishes of the community : " Thus says Yahweh against the
prophets who cause my people to err, who, when they get some-
thing to eat, say all is well, but declare a crusade against whoever
does not put bread into their mouths." And with fine irony he
says in another place that if one comes claiming the spirit and
prophesying of wine and strong drink he will be an acceptable
prophet.^

We may suppose that Micah, living in a country district, real-
ised more vividly than Isaiah the corruption of the leading
classes. He is also less hopeful than Isaiah. His outspoken de-
nunciation of the sinfulness of Judah reaches its culmination in a
sentence which his contemporaries regarded as treason : '' There-
fore on your account Zion shall be ploughed as a field, Jerusalem
shall become ruins and the Temple mount a wooded hill." ^

It was this bold declaration, which is certainly more advanced
than anything we have from Isaiah, which impressed succeed-
ing generations. As we read these utterances we feel that we
could wish to know more of the man — a champion of right, fear-
less in denouncing oppression and wrong, and moreover who
stayed himself on God when the world was all against him. But
we are obliged to content ourselves with a mere glimpse. What
little he gives us confirms the picture painted by Isaiah.

If our supposition is correct, the lesson taught by Sennacherib

^ Micah, 3 ^ f. The vigour of the passage has been weakened in the current
text by scribal insertions.

""Ibid., 2'\ cf. 35.

^/5id., 3 ^2. These first three chapters of Micah are all that can be ascribed
with certainty to the Micah who was contemporary with Isaiah. The rest of
the book is for the most part post-exilic, as was shown by Stade, Zeitschrift
f. d. A litest. Wissensch. I., pp. 161-172.

254 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

was taken to heart by Hezekiah. The experiences of the year
701 must have thoroughly discredited the Egyptian alhance, and
must also have greatly enhanced the influence of Isaiah. The
Biblical account indicates that about this time the king had per-
sonal reasons to esteem the prophet. In a severe illness which
befell him, the prophet came to him with a message of hope
which was followed by his recovery. It can scarcely be that
such an experience would not affect the king's attitude toward
the prophet. We may plausibly suppose that during the period
which followed, Hezekiah, at the suggestion of Isaiah, undertook
the religious reforms which have been already described.

The Biblical writer indicates that the king devoted his closing
years to internal improvements, especially to the water supply of
Jerusalem. The reservoir and canal mentioned in this account^
may be plausibly identified with the tunnel which leads from the
so-called Fountain of the Virgin to the Pool of Siloam. The in-
scription discovered in this tunnel in our own times gives no clue
to the age of the work. But there is nothing in its wording or in
the form of its letters to prevent attributing it to Hezekiah. Of
Isaiah's later years we know nothing — or rather, we do not know
that he long survived the great Assyrian crisis. The tradition
that he was murdered by Manasseh has no early authentication.

Hezekiah was succeeded by his son, Manasseh (692-639), of
whose long reign the historian has little to relate. Orthodox
public opinion saw in him the incarnation of wickedness. " He
did evil in the sight of Yahweh, like the abominations of the
nations whom Yahweh dispossessed before the sons of Israel. He
rebuilt the High-places which Hezekiah, his father, had destroyed,
and he raised altars to Baal, and made an Ashera as Ahab, King
of Israel, had done, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and
served them. . . . And he offered his son in the fire, and
practised augury and magic, and made talismans and charms." ^
The indictment is certainly heavy enough, and those who drew it
up could understand the king's action only as the manifestation
of sheer depravity. For us, while it may not be true that tout
comprendre, c' est tout pardonner, there may be mitigating cir-
cumstances.

^ 2 Kings, 20 ^' ; cf. Benzinger, Hebrdische Archiiologie, p. 53 f.
^ 2 Kings, 21 •^-^. I have quoted the gist of the passage, which shows the
marks of different hands.

MEZEKlAH AND MaKASSEH 255

We have seen that Hezekiah introduced rehgious reforms, prob-
ably under the influence of Isaiah. No such reforms are ever
made without encountering opposition. When made by the
royal power they are carried through by force, rising often to vio-
lence. The directions of the Deuteronomist show how the power
of the state was invoked to carry out the programme of reform.
Violence begets violence. The destruction of the Nehushtan
doubtless outraged the feelings of many a conservative Judaite,
The time-honoured symbol of Yahweh was associated with the
history of the people from the time of Moses. Why should it be
ruthlessly destroyed by this innovating king ? Such a question
must have been asked in Jerusalem, and even in the court itself.
If we may judge by the present condition of so'ciety in the East,
the women of the palace were devoted to the ancient supersti-
tions. It is, in fact, a general rule that older religious rites and
notions are held longest by women — the necromancers and dealers
in charms or talismans are usually women according to the Old
Testament records. Manasseh came to the throne very young.
It is natural that he should be much under the influence of the
harem. It is likely, also, that the courtiers of Hezekiah were
many of them out of sympathy with his reforms. The crown
prince in any court is likely to fall into the hands of a clique be-
longing to the opposition party, and it is not extravagant to sup-
pose this case an example of the rule.

On the part of the court ladies, personal resentment at Isaiah
may have been a motive leading them to prejudice the young
prince against him. The prophet, in denouncing the vanity and
corruption of his times, did not spare the women of Jerusalem :

" Because Zion's daughters are haughty,
And walk with neck thrown back, and leering eyes,
Tripping along as they go, and making a chime with their anklets —
With scabs will the Lord incrust the crowns of their heads,

Yahweh will expose their shames ;
Instead of perfume there shall be rottenness,

And instead of a girdle a rope,
Instead of artful curls, baldness,

And instead of a flowing mantle, girding of sackcloth."*

1 Isaiah, 3 ^^' ^^' 2*. I have followed Cheyne's translation, only substituting
a pronounceable name for the unpronounceable one JAz'/i. The passage in
our Bibles has been expanded by some ladies' tailor, who has inserted a
long catalogue of finery.

256 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

So indelicate a denunciation could not fail to offend the smart
set. They remembered, also, an earlier message of the prophet,
pronouncing a woe upon Judah because a boy was their governor
and women ruled over them. Occasions of misunderstanding are
plenty in the court of a petty kingdom, and Manasseh may have
been the victim of his circumstances. All the influences by
which he had been surrounded from his youth were reactionary,
and it is not strange that he should view himself as the restorer of
Judah's ancient worship. The Nehushtan could not be restored
because it had been wholly destroyed. But the local sanctuaries
could be repristinated. They may not have been removed by
Hezekiah, but after the sweeping Assyrian desolations, they may
have been discredited in comparison with the Temple, which had
been so remarkably preserved. The Baal altars, mentioned by
the historian, may have been these same High -places which had
been adopted by the Israelites from their predecessors. The
Ashera, here so strangely associated with Ahab, was only the
sacred pole found at every altar of Yahweh. Whether it had been
removed by Hezekiah may be left an open question. That it
became obnoxious to the reformers from this time on is evident
from the bitterness of the Deuteronomist.

Whatever of magic and necromancy had been discouraged by
Hezekiah now came again to the front. The flourishing con-
dition of these arts is testified by the Deuteronomist. These
superstitions are connected with the worship of the demons, fair-
ies, cobolds or jinn, with which the earlier Semitic religions (like
all others) swarm. The sacrifice of the king's son is a return to
ancestral custom, as we have noticed in the case of Ahaz. Jere-
miah speaks of such sacrifices as common in his time, and Ezekiel
regards them as a part of Israel's early religion. Their hold on
the piety or the superstition of the people must have been very
strong.

All the measures thus far considered are a part of a conservative
reaction — a return to what had always been Israel's practice.
Another item does not stand on the same plane with these,
but is easily explicable—the restoration of altars to the host of
heaven. Sun, moon, planets, and constellations are objects of
adoration in the religion of Assyria and Babylonia. As a faithful
vassal of Assyria, Manasseh was bound to honour these gods. Ahaz
had introduced and fostered their worship. Hezekiah had ap-

HEZEKIAII AND MANASSEH 2$/

parently discountenanced it so far as he dared. But Manasseh
encouraged it and gave it renewed prominence.

What he did was no more than had been done by Solomon.
But times had changed. Though the prophets had seemed to
speak to deaf ears, yet inreahty their message had succeeded in
reaching a part of the people. Consciences were more sensitive
than of yore, and the uneasy feeling that Yahweh was a jealous
God brought forward protests against Manasseh' s measures. Men
like Isaiah and Micah left disciples. We are justified in supposing
them united in a party of opposition, weak indeed, but contain-
ing the germs of larger things. Religious opposition to the crown,
however, was political opposition, and political opposition was
treason. It is easy to interpret the declaration of the Book of
Kings, therefore, where it says that Manasseh shed innocent
blood very much, and filled Jerusalem from end to end with
blood. ^ This vigorous policy seems to have silenced open
opposition. We hear of no prophet who stood up to make public
protest.^ The silence of our records on this head may be an
unsafe guide. Whatever was done or not done in the way of
public speaking, "the prophetic party cannot have been idle, and
it is reasonable to suppose that their activity found a congenial
field in literature. The union of the two works which treat the
patriarchal history (J and E) is dated by some critics in the
reign of Manasseh. The legends of the great prophets who fought
on the side of Yahweh against the encroachments of Baal would
now have a special meaning and interest. The works of Amos,
Hosea, and Isaiah would be cherished and studied. And already
the Deuteronomist was collecting the traditions of Moses' legis-
lation, and meditating a new edition of them, enlarged by
stringent commands against Canaanitish heathenism. But we
are obliged to content ourselves with conjectures as to what was
going on in secret. In the open we see only the complete restor-
ation of the old stage of belief and ritual.

The reign seems to have been a time of peace with foreign
nations. Assyria was unbroken in strength, and Manasseh was
willing to pay his tribute, thereby purchasing peace. His relig-

*2 Kings, 21^^. Jeremiah has the same thing in mind; "Your sword
has devoured your prophets " (Jer. 2 ^°).

2 Possibly Micah's answer to the question concerning child sacrifice (Micah
6 ^-^) may be as late as Manasseh's time.

258 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ioLis enactments were in themselves a declaration of complete
submission to Nineveh. Egypt, moreover, was weak and of-
fered no temptation to revolt. Esarhaddon, who came to the
throne in 680 B.C., was, in fact, able to carry his arms against that
country, and to capture Memphis, after which the whole kingdom
made its submission. This event had been preceded by the re-
duction ofSidon, and by a successful campaign against the Arabs
of the Sinaitic peninsula. The only mention which Esarhaddon
makes of Manasseh is in the list of ''twenty-two kings of the
Hittite country who furnished timber" for the great armoury
then building at Nineveh.^

Ashurbanipal, the next king of Assyria, was also involved in
war with Egypt. Tirhaka, king of Ethiopia (that is. Nubia),
descended the Nile to Memphis, expelled the Assyrian governors,
and proclaimed himself King of Egypt. The Assyrian army,
marching to regain its province, was this time reinforced by Pal-
estinian troops. Among the kings who furnished contingents, we
find again the name of Manasseh.^ This expedition advanced as
far as Thebes, and a second expedition, rendered necessary by a
revolt of the Egyptians not long after, was equally successful.
The practical demonstration of the weakness of Egypt must have
strengthened the hold of Assyria on its subjects in the West. A
further object-lesson was the repetition by Esarhaddon of the col-
onisation of Samaria, to which allusion has been made. All in all,
the policy of fidelity to Assyria was justified by worldly wisdom.

The author of the book of Chronicles knows indeed of an at-
tempted rebellion of Manasseh, of his capture and transportation
to Babylon, where he repented and was restored to his kingdom.*
The fruits of his repentance are also recounted to us in the way
of religious reforms in Jerusalem. In view of the silence of the
earlier sources, this account must be received with caution.

"^ Keilinschr. Bibliothek, II, pp. 137, 149. In the list we find Tyre,
Edom, Gaza, Edom, and Moab. The expedition against Sidon {Ibid., p. 125)
seems to have affected that city alone. Winckler adds that Manasseh fur-
nished troops for the Arabian expedition as well as for the one against
Egypt, both which he dates 671 B.C.; cf. Keilinschriften und Altes Testa-
ment,^ p. 90.

''■Keilinschr. Bibliothek, II, pp. 161, 329.

^ 2 Chron. 33^^"^^. The mention of Babylon which formerly made a diffi-
culty does so no longer, because we know that Ashurbanipal spent a great
deal of time in that city.

HEZEKIAH AND MANASSEH 259

The brief reign of Amon is scarcely an incident in Old Testa-
ment history. All that the Hebrew historian tells us of him is
that he walked in all the ways of his father, and served the idols
which his father served. Besides this we learn only that he was
assassinated in his palace, as the result of a plot of his officers.
Whether this was a harem intrigue in favour of some other mem-
ber of the royal family will never be known with certainty. The
statement that the people of the land (that is, the people at large
in distinction from the court officials) smote the conspirators
and set Josiah on the throne, implies strong opposition between
them and the court. It is possible that Josiah was already
known as a member of the prophetic party.

CHAPTER XIV

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS

What was said above about the influence of the harem upon
a young prince would seem to' apply with equal force to Josiah,
for he was only eight years old when he came to the throne
(B.C. 637). Yet Josiah was wholly in the hands of the reform-
ing party. We might account for this partly by recalling what
was said about the crown prince being in the party of opposition.
But we do not know that Josiah was the heir apparent. He
seems to have been made king by a popular movement in oppo-
sition to a strong party at court. While Manasseh was violently
reintroducing ancient abuses, it is reasonable to suppose that
some even of his own family were unwilling to go his lengths.
The reformers, making quiet propaganda among the people, had
means of approaching the court. The blood of the martyrs is
the seed of the Church, and from those put to death for their
fidelity to their convictions some voice might penetrate as far as
the king's harem. The priest Hilkiah seems to have been one
of the reformers, and we may suppose him one of the thoughtful
men to whom the writings of Isaiah and the story of his life
would make a strong appeal.

We are told nothing of the reign of Josiah till his eighteenth
year, when there occurred an event of the first importance not
only for his time but for all succeeding ages. This was the find-
ing of the Book of Instruction.^ The Biblical account is to the
effect that in Josiah' s eighteenth year he sent his secretary, Shaph-
an, to take account of the money in the collection-box in the
Temple — we have already learned of the arrangement made by
Jehoash.^ Shaphan was to act as inspector, while Hilkiah made

^ This is the name by which the book is called in the Biblical account
(2 Kings, 22 ■'-'•^), and we may conveniently retain the title. The later Jews
applied the same name {Sepher ha-Tora) to the whole Pentateuch, which,
however, we may call the Book of the Law in order to avoid confusion.

^2 Kings. 12 *-^^ The account of the finding of the book is in 2 Kings,
22 3-20

260

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 261

his reckoning. After the main business was attended to, Hilkiah
informed Shaphan that he had found the Book of Instruction in
the House of Yahweh— in the Temple proper, would be the nat-
ural understanding of the words. How the book came to be in
this particular place, or how it came to be found at this particu-
lar juncture, is not told. We may conjecture that the priest had
been inspecting the repairs, or making ready for them ; that
he had been taking an inventory of the store chambers; that
he had been cleansing the Holy Place — plenty of occasions
exist ; and there seems to be no reason to doubt the statement
that he found the book. It was an event unexpected to him-
self, and not a mere subterfuge to get the book into the king's
hands. ^

Shaphan read the book and was so much impressed by it that
he brought it to the king and read it to him. There is no ques-
tion of illegibility or of difficulty in decipherment, such as the
scribe would have found had the book been of great age. The
book Avas of no great size, as w^e may conclude from its being
read twice after a considerable part of the day had passed in
regulating the money matters of the Temple. To all appearance
there was still time, the same day, for an embassy to Huldah
and for a third reading.

The effect upon the king was immediate and pronounced. He
rent his clothes in grief and terror, and at once took steps to dis-
cover the mind of Yahweh : '' Inquire of Yahweh for me and for
the people and for Judah concerning this book, for great is the
wrath of Yahweh which is kindled against us." To ascertain
the mind of Yahweh a distinguished embassy was sent to Hul-
dah, a prophetess, wife of one of the king's officers. She gave a
response confirming the king's fear, and denouncing the idolatry
and disobedience of the people. In our present text she is made
also to declare that punishment is inevitable, but that it will be
delayed till after Josiah's death because he himself is right-
minded toward Yahweh. There is reason to suppose that this
form of the response is due to a later writer, who wished to make
the prophecy conform to the event. Originally the response
must have been such as to encourage the king with the hope
that the door of repentance was still open. The energy with
which the king went to work to enforce the commands of the
^ Some suppose that it was such a subterfuge.

262 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

book snows that he had such a hope. But hope is what is cut
off by the response as now worded.

If anything was to be done it must be done at once. An as-
sembly of notables was therefore called without delay. The king
took his stand on the raised platform — the one which he regu-
larly occupied in observing the ritual. He first read the book ;
then speaking for himself and as representative of the people, he
registered a vow that they would carry out the ordinances and
commands therein contained. All who were present "stood to
the covenant" probably by a solemn Ame?i. The zeal of the
quickened consciences made itself manifest in the immediate de-
struction of whatever in the Temple savoured of idolatry.

The work did not stop at the Temple. The details are worth
noticing as showing how much of heathenism was extant in Judah,
a part of it imported by Manasseh, but the most of it claiming
great antiquity. A beginning was made with the Ashera — the
sacred pole which had stood by the altar of Yahweh from time im-
memorial. Of its origin and purpose we are in ignorance. Until
this time it seems not to have been obnoxious to the religious
leaders except as they rejected the whole machinery of worship.
Now the people became suddenly enlightened and cut it down.
It was brought out to the Kidron valley and burned, and the
ashes were scattered on the graves of the common people.*
These graves were of course ''unclean," and the sacredness of
the ancient emblem inhering even in its ashes could be effectually
destroyed only in some such way as this. Next the people tore
down the chambers of the Qedeshim, the ministers to unnatural
lust, which are mentioned in connection with the Temple in the
time of Asa. ^ Our historian then mentions the High-places —
the ancient sanctuaries outside Jerusalem so often alluded to with
disapproval. These country sanctuaries were attacked from Geba
to Beersheba — that is, from the northern to the southern bound-
ary of Judah — and destroyed. Their venerable character may
be realised when we recall the story of the consecration of Beer-
sheba by Abraham and Isaac. The altars were destroyed, but as
these sanctuaries were dedicated bofia fide to Yahweh, their priests

*2 Kings, 23. The account is over-full, owing to later expansion Verse*
seems to join directly to v.^.

^ I Kings, 15 ^^ Asa's reform, whatever it may have been, was evidertly
temporary,

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 263

were brought to Jerusalem and enrolled in the staff of the Tem-
ple. The king's intention to put them on a par with the regu-
lar Temple priesthood was foiled by the opposition of the latter,
who found possession nine points of the law. Our account says
the country priests did not go up to the altar though they ate
unleavened cakes among their brethren. This means that they
formed a second and inferior order of priests.^

Next came a thorough cleaning up in the vicinity of Jerusalem.
The altar in the valley of Hinnom, just under the city walls —
notorious as the place where children were sacrificed to Moloch
— was thoroughly desecrated in order to put an end to this horrid
rite.^ In the gate of the Temple was a building for the horses
sacred to the sun, '' which the kings of Judah had consecrated."
The horses were taken away, and the chariots which were conse-
crated to the same service were destroyed. The roof altars of
which we have heard in connexion with Ahaz and Manasseh,
were carried away and dumped in the Kedron valley. Solomon's
sanctuaries erected to the various gods of his subjects, and de-
signed to secure their favour^ could not escape the fate of the
others. So great was the king's zeal that he went beyond his
own proper territory and overthrew the celebrated altar at Bethel.'
That these proceedings did not evoke protest and opposition
cannot be supposed, though the wholesale slaughter of priests of
which we read at the close of the account, seems to be the inven-
tion of a later time.

To show that the reform was not to be merely negative, the
king ordered the observance of the Passover, ''according to
what is written in this Book of the Covenant." It is startling
to read that no passover like this had been observed from the

^ The precarious nature of their tenure is described by an author of about
this time who sends to Eli (representative of these priests of the Bamoth) a
message to the effect that his descendants will beg the priest of their day to
give them employment for a pie»e of bread (t Sam. 2 ^^).

2 That Moloch was identified in the popular mind with Yahweh the king
(Melech) must be conceded. The sacrifice of a son by Ahaz, and also by
Manasseh, has already come under our notice. Had these been intended for
a foreign god the fact would probably have been noted. Compare Pro-
fessor Moore's article " Molech " in the Encycl. Biblica.

'This seems to be asserted in the original account. A later hand has found
in this incident the fulfilment of a prophecy made to Jeroboam I. And
another supplementer has given into Josiah's hand all the sanctuaries of
all Samaria (2 Kings, 23 ^^ ').

264 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

days of the Judges. What the author means is that a passover
such as is enjoined in the just found book was something new.
A rehgious festival of some kind at, or near, the vernal equinox,
seems to belong to primitive Semitic religion. What it was
that made it seem a new observance is part of a larger inquiry
to which we must now address ourselves — can we identify the
Book of Instruction, which here enters into the history, and which
had so marked an effect on king and people?

If the book has survived, it must be found within the bounds
of the Pentateuch. For this is the only part of the Hebrew Bible
which contains statutes and ordinances such as are here de-
scribed. We may be sure, however, that it was not the whole
of these five books, though the Jews call these the Book of In-
struction still. It is doubtful whether in the early time these
were ever written on a single roll — the division into five is de-
cisive testimony to the size of an ancient book. Moreover, this is
too large a book to be read through at a sitting, nor could it be
read aloud twice or thrice in a single day. The account im-
plies a book in which threatenings are prominent and calculated
to make a vivid impression at once. For these reasons it has
long been held that the Book of Instruction must be some part
of the book which we call Deuteronomy. It can hardly be the
whole of that book, for this shows traces of later expansion.
The central chapters, what we may call the kernel of the book,
culminating in the great chapter of blessings and curses — the
twenty-eighth — is precisely the book to answer all the require-
ments. It is eminently a book of instruction ; it contains stat-
utes and ordinances ; it can be read in a short time ; it is writ-
ten in the style of the personal appeal, such as must go to the heart
of an impressionable hearer; it contains repeated threats of judg-
ment, and ends with a frightful denunciation of Yahweh's curse
upon those who disobey. Nothing could be more impressive to
the religious mind than this concluding denunciation :

'' But if thou dost not listen to the voice of Yahweh thy God,
then all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee:
Cursed shalt thou be in the city and cursed in the country ;
cursed shall be thy basket and tliy l)read bowl ; cursed the fruit
of thy body and the fruit of thy ground ; the fruit of thy kine
and thy ewes; cursed shalt thou be in thy coming and in thy
going ; Yahweh will send upon thee curse and confusion and evil

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 265

spell in whatever thou piittest thy hand to, till thou be destroyed.
The heavens over thy head shall become copper, and the earth
under thy feet shall become iron. Yahweh will change the rain
of thy land to sand and dust. Yahweh will let thee be smitten
before thine enemy — thou wilt go out before him one way but
flee before him seven ways ; and thou shalt become an object of
abuse to all the nations of the earth. The stranger who sojourns
as a client with thee shall keep rising above thee, while thou art
sinking lower and lower. He will lend to thee but thou wilt not
be able to lend to him.^ All these curses shall come upon thee
and follow thee and overtake thee until thou art destroyed, be-
cause thou hast not hearkened to Yahweh thy God, to keep His
commandments and His statutes which He commanded thee ;
and they shall be signs and portents in thee and in thy seed
for ever. ' '

When we remember the extraordinary power which a curse
has — and especially a written curse — upon the minds of men at
a certain stage of religious development, we can understand how
these sentences affected the young king. What is now our chief
concern is to notice that the book which contains these curses
is exactly tlie book required by the conditions of our narrative.
The evidence becomes very strong when we compare the reforms
made by Josiah with the demands of the book before us.^ The
predominant purpose of the author is to do away with the relig-
ious errors of Judah, by concentrating all public worship at the
one sanctuary in Jerusalem. The ancient sanctuaries had re-
mained in honour among the people ever since the settlement in
Canaan. The Baal there worshipped had become fully identified
with the God of Israel. But their Canaanitish origin was still
manifest to the reflecting mind, as we see in the classic example

^ The tyranny exercised by the creditor over the debtor in the East, which
gives point to this clause, is abundantly illustrated in the Bible. I may re-
mark that in this quotation (Deut. 28 1^-'^^' '^'^--^' "-*^) I am giving only vi^hat
the most recent commentator designates as part of the original book.

2 I mean the original Book of Deuteronomy, which contained at any rate
chapters 12-19, 26 and 28 of the present book. A composition of this kind
easily lends itself to expansion, and many hands have been busy in making
the book as we now have it. The reader may consult Driver's volume in
the International Critical Commentary, the article of Professor Moore in the
EncyclopiT^dia Biblica, Carpenter and Battersby in their volumes on The
Hexateuch (1900), and the commentaries of Steuernagel and Bertholet.

266 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

of Hosea. The prophets and their pupils were advancing in the
knowledge of Yahweh, and the old nature worship, though offered
to Him, was become repulsive to them. The author of the new
book proposed a novel remedy — that the worship of the one God
should be limited to one sanctuary. This stands at the head of
his commands and ordinances: "You must not do as we do
to-day, every one what he thinks good. . . . Beware lest
thou bring thy burnt offerings at every sanctuary that thou seest.
Only at the place which Yahweh shall choose in one of thy
tribes shalt thou bring thy burnt offerings, and perform all that I
command thee." The chapter repeats this exhortation to re-
dundancy.^ It was something that needed to be emphasised, if
it were to be carried through. The intention is to abrogate the
earlier permission to build altars at every place where Yahweh
revealed Himself,^ and the language is purposely chosen to show
this. The author is not unmindful of the practical difficulties
that will arise, and he makes provision for them.^

The main purpose of the book, therefore, was carried out in
the reforms of Josiah. The old sanctuaries were thoroughly de-
stroyed, though so far as they were recognised as belonging to
Yahweh their priests were brought to Jerusalem — which also is
specifically provided in the book.*

The opposition between Yahweh and the other gods was known
in Israel from a very early time. Elijah had energetically
preached that fidelity to Yahweh excluded the worship of Baal,
and in this all the prophets had agreed. But the Deuteronomist
is the first to make this principle the basis of severe practical regu-
lations. He commands specifically that any Israelite who entices
to the worship of any god but Yahweh shall be put to deatli.
He shall not be spared — he shall be delivered over — by his
nearest kin. His crime shall not be condoned, even in the face
of the most remarkable prodigies wrought in his favour. Like-

' Deut. 12 ^' ^^ ; notice also vv. ''*• ^'''.

2Kx. 20 2^

^The permission to slay animals for food elsewhere than at an altar, was
necessitated by the limitation of the sanctuaries to one. It was hardly less
startling than the first regulation. Up to this date it is probable that every
act of slaying an animal for food was an act of sacrifice.

* " When a Levite comes from any of thy towns where he lives as a client,
he may come as he desires to the place which Yahweh shall choose — he shall
have the same portion'' — 18*"^.

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 26;

wise the Israelite city which tolerates the worship of any but the

one God of Israel is to be put to the sword, and all that is in it

human beings and property — is to be utterly destroyed/

The effect of these directions is seen in Josiah's measures in the
Temple. The state policy of Ahaz and Manasseh had crowded
this building Avith other gods. Now these had to go — the roof
altars erected to the planets and constellations, the horses of the
sun at the entrance to the court. The old Solomonic sanctuaries
in the city or its suburbs could not escape. The hatred of idol,
atrous symbols was extended by the Deuteronomist to the ashera
and jfia((eba, which had been accepted as innocent accompani-
ments of the altar of Yahweh from early times. ^ Very likely they
were Canaanitish in origin, in which case the proscription is in-
telligible.^ It was effective in that it secured the destruction of
the ashera in the Temple as already recounted. It is scarcely
necessary to call attention to the prohibition of child sacrifice
and of necromancers, or to the king's measures based thereon.*
The Passover, however, should have a moment's attention.
What makes the festival a new festival is the command that it
shall be observed (being a sacrifice) at the place which Yahweh
shall choose, and the prohibition of its observance in any other
place. The nomad sacrifice of the firstlings of the flock had
been a household festival observed by each family in its own
home. This is clear from the custom of sprinkling or smearing
the blood on each doorway. Now it is made a great national
ceremony. The men of Israel must all appear at Jerusalem and
there alone may the lamb be slain, '' in the place which Yahweh
shall choose, to make His name dwell there." ^ It is as if the
American Thanksgiving from being a family reunion festival
should be changed to a great pilgrimage to some national sanct-
uary. It would be practically a new observance. This is what
the author of Kings means by the Passover's not having been
observed for centuries.

'Chapter 13 is devoted to this subject.

^ The simplest explanation of these much discussed objects is that the
ashera represents the sacred tree, while the ma99eba is the old stone fetish of
which we have a plain example in Jacob's consecration of Bethel (Gen. 28 "-^^).

^ The author is not content with directing the destruction of Canaanitish pil-
lars and poles, but forbids their erection at the altar of Yahweh (Deut. 16 '^^^).

*Deut. iS'^f, compare 2 Kings, 23 2*.

5 Deut., 16 1-8.

268 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

These considerations are sufficient to show that the Book of
Deuteronomy (in its earhest form) was the book found by
Hilkiah. It is possible we may even recover from it the form of
the covenant entered into at the sacred assembly called by the
king: " Thou hast declared Yahweh this day to be thy God, so
as to walk in His ways and to keep His statutes and His judg-
ments, and to listen to His voice. And Yahweh has declared
thee this day to be His own people." ^

It remains to inquire how so timely a book came to be in the
place where it could accomplish the most good. On this point
we have no direct information, but we may be allowed a conject-
ure that has some probability. Such a book must have originated
with the prophetic party, and it probably originated during the
times of persecution under Manasseh. The men who, in the time
of Hezekiah, had hoped and worked for religious reform, were
later debarred (as we have seen) from public activity. That
they would naturally turn to literature we have already con-
jectured. Isaiah himself had a circle of disciples with whom he
left the written monuments of his activity. '^ Secret societies have
always existed in the East, and such a society would be the nat-
ural result of Manasseh's severity. We may imagine the little
company of earnest men feeding their souls, during those evil
days, on the written word. Nor would they content themselves
with a life of silent contemplation. The strong faith that a better
day was coming would lead them to plan for its coming. One
or more of them would be moved to put on record a programme
for the future. That it should contemplate more radical reforms
than those instituted by Hezekiah is only what we should expect.

The idea most strongly borne in upon this company of faith-
ful men was that the popular religion was of Canaanitish origin.
This was not only a theological deduction from the idea of
Yahweh's righteousness, and from the discord between this and
what went on at the sanctuaries. It had historical justification
and it had been preached by the earlier prophets — most distinctly
by Hosea. The people might call the gen/us loci of any particular
High-place by the name Yahweh. Nevertheless, they were wor-
shipping a Baal. The root of all Israel's evils was this amalga-

1 Deut. 26 17-19.

2 "I will bind up the admonition and seal the instruction among my dis-
ciples"— Is. 8 1^ (Cheyne).

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 269

mation between them and the Canaanites. The only way in which
the evils could have been avoided was by the extermination of the
older inhabitants of the land. The author finds a drastic way
of expressing this, when, putting himself in the place of Israel's
venerable lawgiver, he commands not only the complete destruc-
tion of all Canaanitish objects of religion, but the extermination
of the Canaanites themselves. They are to be "devoted " — an
act which compels a complete destruction.^ If such a policy of
thorough shocks us, we may remember that its advocates had the
example of Manasseh before their eyes.

It was not the old Baal worship alone that wearied the souls of
these faithful men. Survivals in the time of Ezekiel show that
the primitive totemism was found even in the Temple. The par-
tisans of Egypt had introduced the pantheon of that country.
The Assyrian gods introduced by Ahaz may have been banished
by Hezekiah, but they had returned in full force under Manasseh.
Jeremiah describes the whole population engaged in a festival to
the Queen of Heaven — probably the Babylonian Ishtar — whose
consort or paramour, Tammuz, was bewailed by the women even
in the Temple courts down to the last days of Jerusalem.^ The
sun worship indicated by the horses and chariots already noticed,
is also described by Ezekiel. We cannot wonder that men who
had absorbed Hosea's idea of Israel's exclusive relation to Yah-
weh,^ should be both indignant and sick at heart. If Yahweh
was Israel's husband, who had cared for her in the past, who had
led her through the wilderness, who had given her the land of
Canaan, filling her heart with food and gladness — if at the same
time He was a jealous God, not tolerating rivals or partners* — then
it was plain that Israel (now represented by Judah) was in a per-

^ Deut. 20 1^^^. What this devotion or ban (Hebrew herem) means is set
forth in the story of Jericho and its conquest in the book of Joshua. Such
a religious act is not uncommon in early warfare.

* Jer. 7 ^^ "", which describes the worship of the Queen of Heaven, seems to
belong in the reign of Josiah. Stade's ingenious endeavour to show that
the Host of Heaven is meant, has not met with general acceptance. On
Tammuz (the Adonis of Greek myth) see Ezek. 8 1*.

^ The figure of a marriage is a staple in the preaching of Jeremiah and of
Ezekiel.

* The earliest assertion that Yahweh is a jealous God seems to be in J —
Ex. 34^*. In the earlier time — before Elijah at any rate — the people seem
to have worshipped many Gods without consciousness of offending Yahweh.

2^0 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ilous position. The Deuteronomist, or his successor, who formu-
lated the faith of these men gave Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
their common basis : " Yahweh thy God, is one; and thou
shalt love Yahweh thy God, with all thy mind, and with all thy
being, and with all thy strength." ^

This is not a speculative monotheism which is asserted. The
author's motive is moral and practical. The nations may have
their gods — for Israel there can be but one. Whole-souled devotion
to Him is the basis of national life and the condition of national
prosperity. Hence the sweeping and cruel measures advocated
against the Canaanites as against all renegade Israelites. The re-
quirement of a single sanctuary is the logical sequence. What
had confused the people as to the unity of their God was the mul-
tiplicity of holy places. The Baal of any particular holy place
was the presiding genius of that locality. The change of name
from Baal to Yahweh did not change the theory of the worship-
pers. In the mind of the common man the Yahweh of Beer-
sheba, the Yahweh of Hebron, and the Yahweh of Bethel were
so many local divinities. The only remedy for this inveterate
polytheism of the people was the restriction to a single sanctuary.
^ So radical a measure could not be advocated unless there were
special circumstances favouring it. We may count as one of
these the prophetic tradition concerning ritual. We have felt the
scorn which Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah poured upon the popular
service of Yahweh. As they saw it going on — luxurious, lasciv-
ious, uniting drunkenness with injustice and oppression — they
could feel only abhorrence for it. Such a service was an abom-
ination to Yahweh. The less of such a service the people had
the better it would be for them — to obey is better than to sacri-
fice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

To abolish ritual altogether was seen to be impossible. But it
was thought possible to regulate it. At a single sanctuary in the
capital city, under the eye of the king, with adequate police
supervision, the worship might be shorn of its abuses. The three
great annual festivals would be often enough for the people to
appear before Yahweh. Thus the traditional worship would be
conserved. Nor would there be any hardship involved in such
pilgrimages. The extent of Judah was small. A day's journey

' Dent. 6 * ^ cf. lo ^^-'^^. The verses may not be by the earliest Deuterono-
mist, but they express the principle of the school in the most perfect form.

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 2/1

would be all that would be required of the most remote citizen.
Such a journey would have advantages of its own in the way of
trade and acquaintance, and the festival would gain, rather than
lose, in importance by being the occasion of a formal pilgrimage.

If there were to be a single sanctuary, it must be at Jerusalem.
The Temple had been at first no more than the king's sanctuary,
receiving a certain prestige from its connexion with the court.
Solomon himself had recognised the importance of the High-
places in making his pilgrimage to Gibeon. But, as time went
on, the Temple grew in importance. The priests attached to it
had the means of making its service attractive and imposing.
Isaiah held the sanctuary to be the residence of Yahweh.^ In his
time it had received a signal proof of the divine favour, for it
had been protected when most of the sanctuaries were captured
and sacked by the Assyrians. The failure of Sennacherib to take
Jerusalem was read as proof of the inviolability of Yahweh's
earthly seat. There could be no doubt where He should be
worshipped — if at one place, it must be here.

The course of reflection which gave the Deuteronomist his
leading ideas is thus tolerably clear to us. For the form in which
he presented them we should notice that a great name of the
past was almost essential to the success of the programme. To
put the ideas on parchment as a bald programme of reform would
be to invite failure from the start. The people at large were im-
pervious to logic or theology in abstract form. But the name of
Moses would appeal to them. This name was already familiar as
that of the founder of their religion. Tradition already ascribed
to him the regulation of the social order and the establishment of
a covenant between Yahweh and Israel. The social and religious
ordinances already attributed to him might be repeated in a form
adequate to the times, and expanded by the inclusion of the re-
forms the author had so much at heart.

The conception which the Deuteronomist had of his own work,
therefore, was this : He would, in the name of Moses, remodel
the constitution of Moses and adapt it to his own time. The
character which he thus assumed allowed him to express his own
personality, with its wealth of affection for Israel, and its depth
of abhorrence for heathenism. It enabled him to speak with
authority, and to appeal, on the ground of tradition, to the best
^As we see from his inaugural vision (Is. 6).

272 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

impulses of those who should read or hear his book. In carrying
out his plan he allowed himself to embody in his code those moral
principles which the whole prophetic school had so much at
heart. He is never weary of urging justice to the oppressed,
charity for the needy, kindness to the dependent. He does not
content himself with general exhortations, but points out the spe-
cific occasions on which acts of kindness may be best exercised.
He urges this on the ground of Israel's own experience in the
past, as well as on the ground of Yahweh's will in the matter.
That he appeals to utilitarian motives is what we might expect.
Obedience will be accompanied by temporal prosperity, disobedi-
ence will be followed by calamity. That his love for his own
people co-exists with a demand for the most ruthless measures
against foreigners ^ shows how easily narrowness may be found in
the most benevolent heart.

The space we have devoted to the Book of Instruction is jus-
tified by its importance in Old Testament history. Politically,
the action taken by Josiah was a new departure — practically
nothing less than the adoption of a written constitution for the
people. Whatever ''Mosaic" codes had existed before were
compendiums for private use. Now the whole nation bound itself
in the most solemn manner to abide by certain fixed regula-
tions. That these were religious as well as civil is quite in accord
with ancient thought. The distinction of church and state was
quite unknown in Israel, as it is unknown in Islam to-day. The
church, in fact, was the state. But the adoption of a book as the
basis of a community (whether we call it church or state) was an
act of far-reaching importance.

The immediate eff"ects were, of course, various in kind. Some
minds must have been repelled rather than attracted by the en-
deavour to put the transcendent will of Yahweh into a series of
rules. The letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life, would be their
impression. It is possible that we may find a representative of
these more spiritually minded believers in Jeremiah. This
prophet must have known the book. It was published not many
years after he began to preach. His language constantly shows
its influence or the influence of its ide^s. And yet he makes no

^ The author's exhortations in favour of the stranger (as we have it in our
version) include only the stranger who has entered into relations of clientage
with Israel.

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 273

direct and clear allusion to it. If he alludes to it at all, it is with
an implication against it.^ The strong affirmation of Yahweh's
covenant with the people, which is made by Jeremiah in common
with Deuteronomy, is used by him to show that the defection of
Judah is beyond amendment. By the law is the knowledge of
sin. The attempt to put God's requirements into words shows
how far short we are of the standard.

No doubt more practical minds found satisfaction in the new
code. Here at last was something clear-cut and definite. The
exhortations of the prophets to justice and kindness and the
knowledge of God had been irritating from their vagueness.
Now the exhortations w^ere translated into commands. Yahweh's
will was now set forth in black and white. He meant to have
them destroy the High-places, to do away with the ashera, to
come to Jerusalem three times a year. No doubt the result was
to encourage obedience to these specific commands. But the re-
sult was also to encourage formalism and self-righteousness. And
the danger of a reaction was not distant. The promise of earthly
prosperity on condition of obedience was calculated to foster
extravagant hopes. Should disappointment come, the conclusions
that would be drawn are obvious. It is possible that Josiah him-
self was the victim of false hopes.

We cannot leave this subject without noticing that the actual
effect of the adoption of the Book was to bring to an end the
very institution that it was meant to establish. What stands out
clearly is that the author desired to strengthen and enforce the
authority of the prophets. He himself was a man of prophetic
spirit and aims. His composition is a prophetic oration. He
regarded Moses as only the first of a long line of inspired men,
to follow whom would make Israel's happiness. He embodied
in the Book an explicit promise that Yahweh would raise up a
succession of such leaders. In each generation there would be a
mediator between man and God, who should be instructed in the
mind of God and convey it to the people, even as Moses stood be-
tween the theophanic fire and the nation whom he was leading.

^ Jer. 8^ is sometimes supposed to be a reference to Deuteronomy, in
which case Jeremiah condemned the book because it enabled the people to
say they had the instruction of Yahweh, and consequently did not need that
of the prophet. The reference, however, is hardly certain enough to build
upon.

274 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

It is easy to see the author's expectation that this hne of inspired
instructors is to continue as long as Israel shall be a people.^ The
author could not foresee that the adoption of a written revelation
would do away with the necessity of the directly inspired leader.
Yet such was the outcome. If Moses, the greatest of the prophets,
left the revealed will of God in writing, why another prophet?
If the additional revelation only confirmed the one already given,
it would be needless. It is to be supposed that a scribe, a student
of language, will be abundantly able to interpret and expound
the sufficient revelation. We see how easily this conclusion was
drawn, and how the adoption of Deuteronomy was the first step
toward the triumph of legalism, and the supremacy of the
Scribes.^

The triumph of legalism, however, was a long way from Jo-
siah and his contemporaries. The immediate event was the tri-
umph of the prophetic party. The religious zeal of the nation
was aroused and the cultus was reformed for the time being.
Probably also there was some good done by the new-found ex-
hortations to justice, kindness, and sobriety. If we may judge by
the condition in which the book has come down to us, it was
circulated in various editions, expanded by scribes who were in
sympathy with its purpose. Some of these improvers inserted
additional regulations, drawing upon established custom, or mak-
ing the new commands more distinct. Some of them expanded
the hortatory portions and enforced the lessons of the wilderness
wandering. Our present copy seems to combine two or more of
these enlarged editions and was further added to when it was
fitted into its place in the Pentateuch.

Habit is often stronger than any fit of enthusiasm — it has
at least more staying power. Religious usage is naturally tena-
cious of life. The forbidden sanctuaries must of necessity still
hold a place in the regard of the people. The forbidden prac-
tices could not at once be forgotten, nor could the king's com-
mand make odious that which the people had cherished from

* Compare Driver's remarks, in his Commentary , on Deut. i8 ^^".

^ On Jeremiah's attitude toward Deuteronomy, compare Carpenter and
Battersby, The Hexateuch, I, p. 90. On the Babylonian worship of the
sun, the third edition of Schrader's Keilinschriften tend Altes Testament,
p. 367, and on the Queen of Heaven, alluded to above, the same work,
p. 441.

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 2/5

their youth. According to Jeremiah, the people's heart was still
uncircumcised and their guilty desires still went out to other
gods. His book gives no indication that the reform showed any
real fruits.^

The little kingdom of Judah was thus setting its house in order
according to its lights. The great outside world meanwhile was
in commotion. Ashurbanipal, the last great king of Assyria, died
not long before the time when the Book of Instruction was to
create so profound an impression in Judah. Already the cloud
was upon the horizon which should break upon Nineveh and
overwhelm it. The wanderers of the far northern steppes had
begun one of those great migrations which have changed the
face of the world. The Scythians ^ — a nomad race — overran the
empire. Beginning with Media, they swept along to the south
till they reached the border of Egypt, where they are said to
have refrained from invasion in consideration of a heavy money
payment. They ravaged the country far and wide, and although
unable to conduct a regular siege, they reduced many of the
walled towns by starvation. We are imperfectly informed of
their numbers and of their separate campaigns. Herodotus says
that they scourged Assyria twenty-eight years. The terror which
the report of them produced in Palestine may be read in Jere-
miah's description :

' ' Cry with full voice and say : Assemble and come to the
walled towns ! Lift up a signal in Zion, make haste, delay not !
For I am bringing evil from the north and a great calamity. A
lion has gone up from his lair, and a destroyer of nations has
started forth. He has come out of his place to make thy land a
desolation ; thy cities shall be destroyed without inhabitant.
Behold, like clouds they come ; their chariots are like
the whirlwind ; swifter than eagles are their horses. Woe to us,
for we are destroyed ! . . . I look at the earth, and lo, ut-

^ Caution is necessary here, as Jeremiah did not write down any of his
prophecies (so we may understand the account in chapter 36) until the fourth
year of Jehoiakim. The written copy may be more denunciatory than was
the spoken word. Still it is strange that he should not refer to the evanes-
cent revival if he approved of it at all.

2 For a description of them, cf. Rawlinson's /i«^/>«^ Monarchies, II, p.
223 ff. On their invasion Duff, Old Testament Theology, II, p. 17 ff.
Though Aryans by race (as it seems), they may be aptly compared to the
Tartar hordes which overran the East in the Middle Age.

2/6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ter confusion ! At the sky — and it gives no light. I look at
the mountains and they are quaking ; and all the hills reel to and
fro. I look and there is no man — even the birds have flown
away. I look, and the garden land has become a wilderness, and
all its cities are overthrown before Yahweh, before His hot
anger." ^

We have also an interesting document from the same period in
the little book of Zephaniah, a descendant of King Hezekiah.^
Here we see the invasion pictured as the great Day of Yahweh,
which the prophets so often have in mind. Specifically threat-
ened are the Philistine cities, which we know to have suffered
severely. The harm done to Assyria is also in the prophet's
mind, though he does not picture its fall so vividly as does his
successor Nahum. His declaration of the need of reform in
Judah is, however, as striking as anything in Jeremiah.^ Our
chronology is here uncertain, but it may be that these prophe-
cies, with the near approach of the Scythians, stimulated the
people in carrying out the reforms of Josiah.

This time Judah was spared. The scourge of God fell heavily
upon her neighbours, but the anticipation of immediate judg-
ment for Judah was not fulfilled. The invasion was in fact to
her benefit, for the Assyrian empire was so weakened that it
could no longer oppress its remote dependency. Nor was it the
Scythians alone that now pressed upon Nineveh. To the east a
new power had arisen in Media, a kingdom which was strong
enough to attempt the siege of Nineveh even before the Scythian
invasion.* This siege was indeed unsuccessful, for the Median
king (Cyaxares) was compelled to look to his defences, now
threatened by the barbarian irruption. But this was only a tem-
porary diversion. As soon as the pressing exigency was met, he
returned to his plans. Assyria had lost both strength and pres-
tige. Its most important dependency Babylon, always unruly,

^Jer. 4^-2^. Undoubtedly when Jeremiah wrote down this prophecy
he was thinking of the invasion by Nebuchadrezzar, then impending. But
the occasion of the prophet's first speaking the passage was the Scythian ir-
ruption, and the description draws its colours from this event.

^ So it is natural to interpret the opening verse of the book (Zeph. i ').

^Zeph. 3 ^"^ is evidently directed against Jerusalem, but the rest of the
chapter is of a different tenor and must be of later date.

* It may not have come to an actual siege — see Wellhausen on Nahum, i ^,
Skizzen und Vorarbeiien, V, p. 156.

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 277

had also seized its opportunity. Nabopolassar, the Assyrian
viceroy, elevated himself to the throne and made an alliance
with the Medes. The alliance was cemented by the marriage of
a daughter of Cyaxares to the crown prince Nebuchadrezzar. A
simultaneous attack was made upon Assyria, and after a pro-
longed siege Nineveh fell. The city was so completely de-
stroyed that its location was for many centuries forgotten.^

The feelings with which the people in Jerusalem saw this trag-
edy enacted are well set forth by the prophet Nahum. We
seem to read the words of an eye-witness in this vivid descrip-
tion— the great city is thrown into confusion at the approach of
the enemy , the streets are filled with troops mustering for de-
fence ; the horses gallop, the chariots rattle over the pavements,
their wheels strike fire ; the foot-soldiers with their red shields
man the walls. But all is in vain. The defences are stormed,
the palace is plundered, the queen herself is carried away in
the midst of her attendants — dishevelled, sobbing, beating their
breasts in despair. The city is given over to sack, her enor-
mous treasures fall into the hands of the invaders. The old lion
who plundered all the world for his cubs, who strangled right
and left for his lionesses — now his lair is invaded, he and his
cubs are slain. The mighty city is destroyed, the multitudes
that boasted in her strength and riches have flown like the locusts
which lodge in the hedges in swarms at night, but when the sun
gets warm take their flight and leave no trace behind.^

There is, however, more here than the natural joy of the Juda-
ite over the impending destruction of the great oppressor. The
prophets had taken pains to declare that Yahweh moves these
great nations for His own purposes. And these purposes must
be purposes of justice which His Day will declare. Isaiah was
sure that when the Assyrian had accomplished the commission
of the Holy One of Israel, he in turn would receive his reward.
Isaiah was at last vindicated. Assyria had long served as the

1 The exact date of the fall of Nineveh is not yet ascertained. The years
607 and 606 B.C., both have their advocates. Cf. the paper by Johnston in
i\iG Journal of the American Oriental Society, xxii., 2, p. 20 ff.

» Nahum 2 and 3. The text is uncertain in places, but the general sense
is plain ; cf. Nowack in the Handkotnmentar, and Wellhausen in the Skizzen
und Vorarbeiten. A free rendering of the book is given by Duff, Old Tes-
tament Theology, II, pp. 31-35-

2/8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

rod in Yahweh's hand, but now the instrument was itself pun-
ished. So we must understand Nahum's opening sentences :

*' Yahweh is a jealous and avenging God. He meditates ven-
geance on His enemies, and He plots against His adversaries.
Yahweh is patient and of great strength, but He will not leave
unpunished. In storm and whirlwind is His path, and the clouds
are the dust of His feet." ^

The God of History is showing Himself to be a just God —
this is the conviction of the prophetic school. And we can see
how the dominant party in Jerusalem under Josiah would draw a
conclusion favourable to their policy. It was shortly after the
great reform (we may suppose) when these messages came, giving
assurance of the downfall of Nineveh. The people of Yahweh
had been spared by the Scythians; now they were to see the
end of Assyria. What more evident than that their God was
smihng on their observance of His commands as laid down in
the Book of Instruction ! Jeremiah, indeed, was of another
opinion. He set small store by the people's obedience, and ap-
parently saw nothing hopeful in the fall of Nineveh. He still
harped upon justice and righteousness, forbade oppression and
fraud, hinted or asserted that Judah was worse than the sister
kingdom whose sins had been so signally punished a hundred
years before. He even went so far as to rebuke the people's
trust in the Temple, and declared that Yahweh would be as
ready to destroy this dwelling-place as he had been to destroy
the older temple at Shiloh — whose ruins near the great north
road might still be seen by the curious traveller.^

In all this, the pessimistic preacher seems to have stood alone.
His nearest friends were out of patience with him, so that Yah-
weh warned him of the machinations of his own family. To all
appearance his clan had resolved to get rid of him by treachery
and violence. Doubtless it seemed too bad that after all that
had been done to meet the will of Yahweh this Cassandra-voice
would not be quiet. There was consolation in the thought that
this was the only one — a chorus of prophets applauded king and
people, and pronounced that all was going well. The mass of

iNahum, i^.s.

"^ Jer. 7 ^^^. It is difficult to fix the exact date of these earlier chapters of
Jeremiah, but this discourse must have been pronounced at a time when the
people had special occasion to feel confidence in their sanctuary.

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 279

the people were of the opinion that Yahweh was again smiling
upon them. It was natural that Josiah himself should share their
view, and it is not difficult on this theory to account for the act
by which he lost his life.

When the fall of Nineveh was seen to be near at hand a new-
old world-power appeared upon the scene. Egypt had been un-
der the rule of Assyria and had had a period of division and
weakness. But a new dynasty had asserted itself, its founder be-
ing Psammetich I., a Libyan soldier who saw the capabilities of
Greek mercenaries, with whose help he made himself master of
the country.^ His own exploits were confined to his proper ter-
ritory and he was even compelled to pay a heavy tribute to keep
the Scythians from invading the country. But his son Necho,
who came next to the throne, was more fortunate, or more am-
bitious. In fact, it was inevitable that an Egyptian King when
once secure of his position should inherit traditions of Asiatic
conquest. The moment seemed favourable for extending the
power of Egypt over Syria — Syria which had so often been under
Egyptian suzerainty. Assyria was moribund ; its estate was about
to be divided. Necho did not know — and if he had known
might not have cared — that Babylon claimed the southern and
western provinces, allowing Media to possess the north and east.

Possession would be a strong point in Necho's favour. In the
year 608 b. c, therefore, he marched into Palestine on the way to
secure for himself all Syria as far as the Euphrates. Josiah opposed
him and was killed. The Hebrew account says that the bat-
tle took place at Megiddo in the Great Plain. This was out-
side Josiah's proper territory, and if the account is accurate we
must suppose that Josiah was called into service with other
princes of the region by the Assyrian governor. Even then it
would have been better to choose more defensible ground farther
south.' The difficulty is met if we suppose the Hebrew writer
to have confused Megiddo with some other name. Such a name
is suggested by Herodotus, who speaks of Necho as defeating the
Syrians at Magdolos. A Migdal, near the coast, which would

1 His father had been governor ot one of the districts into which the coun-
try was then divided. On this (the twenty-sixth) Egyptian dynasty, see
Wiedemann, Geschichte des Alien Aegyptens (1891), p. 171 ff.

2 If Necho (as some suppose), came by ship to Accho, he would hardly
march by way of Megiddo to reach northern Syria.

280 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

meet all the requirements, is located by the book of Joshua in the
territory of Judah not far from the Philistine border/

Josiah's motive for the attack is not given. We may suppose
that he was loyal to the Assyrian Empire and thought it his duty
to defend it. In view of the consistent hatred of foreign nations
held by the national party in Jerusalem this is hardly probable.
The alternate theory has much to recommend it — that Josiah felt
virtually independent of ^Assyria and had no mind to be brought
under the control of Egypt. Strongly under the influence of the
Book of Instruction, and persuaded that he had carried out its
directions, he looked for the favour of Yahweh, and thought this
favour must follow him in any encounter with the enemies of
Judah. He may have gone farther in his confidence and ambi-
tion. Traditions of David's great empire would naturally arouse
in him a desire to restore the ancestral glories of his house.

Few instances in history are better calculated to enforce the
lesson that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, nor His ways
man's ways. When the two armies met, Josiah was slain by the
archers — in the preliminary skirmish, it would seem — and his
officers brought the body to Jerusalem, where it was placed in the
sepulchre which he himself had prepared. ""^ The grief of the peo-
ple was intense, and to all appearances universal. Whatever the
limitations of the king may have been, his righteousness and de-
votion had won the respect of all. Three hundred years later his
death was the subject of folk-songs.' The mourning was unabated
some months after the sad event, as we learn from Jeremiah.*
From the same source we learn that Josiah was a just ruler, for
the prophet contrasts his conduct with that of Jehoiakim : ^' Did
not thy father eat and drink and act justly and rightly? Then
it went well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and the
needy — then it was well. Is not this to know me? saith Yah-

^ Josh. 15 ", where the name is given as Migdal-gad. The statement of
Herodotus is found in II, 159. Wiuckler's statement {Geschichte Israels, \,
163 f.) is convincing. Landau {Die Phdnizier -p. 14) locates the battle at
Strato's Tower, the site of the New Testament Cesarea, on the coast.

' 2 Kings, 23 29 f.

' The Chronicler must have some ground for his assertion that "the sing-
ing men and singing women have spoken of Josiah in their elegies up to the
present time " (2 Chr. 35 '*).

* " Weep not for the dead, neither bemoan him ; but weep sore for him
that goeth away " — Jehoahaz is meant (Jer. 22 ^^' ^^).

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 281

weh." Such language from the sternest morahst of the time is
high praise. It is made more emphatic by the fact that Jeremiah
never speaks with approval of the great rehgious reform on which
Josiah laid so much stress.

The rash act of Josiah, and his consequent death, brought
his kingdom into the vicissitudes of external politics. Pharaoh
Necho, it would seem, was willing, for the time being, to leave
Judah in quiet while he was securing more remote districts.
Now that Josiah had forced the issue, notice must be taken of
the succession. During the next few years the struggle between
Egypt and Babylon repeated the struggle of a century earlier be-
tween Egypt and Assyria, and Judah was a mere counter in the
game, in one case as in the other. The people's misery was in-
creased, not only by the heavy tribute exacted by whichever
master held the power, but by internal discord and by the vac-
illating policy of their kings. These kings also left much to be
desired in their personal character. Two of them reigned so
short a time as to make no impression. Of the other two, one
was a selfish and luxurious despot, the other a man of no
strength of character — a mere figure-head in the court, alto-
gether subservient to his corrupt and short-sighted officers.

On the death of Josiah (b.c. 608) the popular choice fell upon
his second son, Shallum, who assumed the name Jehoahaz on
ascending the throne. What principles were involved, or what
was the motive for passing over the older son, is not told. We
may conjecture that the party of independence was able to put
its candidate upon the throne. The Pharaoh, however, was in
actual control of the situation, and had an observant eye on so
important a fortress as Jerusalem. In his progress through Syria
he seems to have met no effective opposition, and had already
reached Ribla on the Orontes. Hither he summoned the newly
elected king. An attempt to evade the summons would have
been vain, and Jehoahaz obeyed — only to be thrown into chains
by the angry over-lord. He was carried away to Egypt, and his
older brother, Eliakim, was put on the throne. Necho changed
his name to Jehoiakim, apparently as an affirmation that it was
Yahweh who was really giving Judah into the hands of Egypt.
The victory over Josiah was interpreted as a manifestation of the
will of Judah's God — just as Sennacherib, at an earlier time,
claimed the help of Yahweh as his justification in invading Judah.

282 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

In the further exercise of his sovereignty the Egyptian laid upon
Judah a tribute of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold.
This amount Jehoiakim collected by a direct tax.^

All that we know of Jehoahaz is that his sad fate impressed
both Jeremiah and Ezekiel.'' Jehoiakim (607-597) received
more attention, but not more favourable attention, from Jere-
miah. At a time when his kingdom was impoverished by the
exactions of Egypt, he was possessed by the royal mania for build-
ing. He was more concerned to vie with Ahab in the beauty of
his palace, ''panelled with cedar and painted with vermilion,"
than he was to follow his father's example in administering justice.
He not only compelled the artisans to work for him without
wages, but he set the example of selling justice — in no other way
can we understand the accusation that he exploited his position
for gain, and that his eyes were fixed only on shedding innocent
blood, and on violence, and robbery.' This mania looks like
that which God sends upon the victims of destruction; and so
Jeremiah regarded it.

The Egyptian predominance in Syria was short-lived. While
the Babylonians and Medes were occupied in giving Nineveh the
finishing stroke, Pharaoh Necho was able to accomplish his de-
signs in the west. The various districts were taken in possession,
one after the other, until the Euphrates was reached. But the
Babylonians were not inclined to relinquish any rights. They
were the heirs of Nineveh, except so far as they were bound by
the agreement made with the Medes. Nabopolassar regarded
himself, as by right of conquest, over-lord, not only of Syria, but
of Egypt itself. The actual commander of the forces was Nebu-
chadrezzar, a prince of ability in more than one direction. The
year after the fall of Nineveh he met the Egyptian army at Car-
chemish, on the Euphrates, and inflicted upon them a crushing

^ The sum seems disproportionately divided between the two metals, and
we should, perhaps, read ten talents of gold, with one recension of the
Greek version. The passage is 2 Kings, 23 ''. See Kittel in his commentary.
The name Jehoiakim (Yahweh-establishes) may be a direct answer to the
claim made in the name Jehoahaz (Yahweh-holds-fast).

^Jer. 22 ^^ Ezek. 19^"^.

'Jer. 22^3-i9_ Some slight changes in the text are necessary, for which
the reader may consult Cornill's edition in Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old
Testament (1895). Giesebrecht finds Solomon alluded to rather than Ahab
{^Ilandkommentar).

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 283

defeat. The date (b.c. 605) marks one of the turning points in
the world's history.^ By it Babylon established its claim to the
Assyrian empire. Nebuchadrezzar followed up his success, receiv-
ing the submission of the Syrian states as far as the boundary of
Egypt. He marched with his army throughout the whole terri-
tory, but when about to enter Egypt he received news of his
father's death, and hastened by express the nearest way through
the desert to Babylon.

The whole progress from Carchemish to Philistia occupied but
a few months, and it was to be expected that so rapid a conquest
would not be permanent. The Hebrew historian relates sum-
marily as usual, saying only that in Jehoiakim's days "Nebu-
chadrezzar came up to Babylon and Jehoiakim became his serv-
ant for three years, then he turned and rebelled against him."^
From a verse in Ezekiel it has been supposed that Jehoiakim
voluntarily sent an embassy to vow allegiance to Nebuchad-
rezzar. He was, however, indebted to the Pharaoh for his
crown in the first place and it is not strange that his secret
preference was for his old master. The rebellion seems not to
have been confined to Judah, but to have included a consider-
able number of Syrian states. They depended upon Egypt,
which again proved to be a broken reed. The Hebrew narrative
is again so brief as to be obscure: "The King of Egypt came
no more forth from his land, for the King of Babylon had taken,
from the Wadi of Egypt to the river Euphrates, all that belonged
to the King of Egypt." ^

It was when the first news of the approach of the Babylonians
reached Jerusalem that Jeremiah renewed his warnings, predict-
ing that Yahweh was about to destroy His city and Temple as
He had laid Shiloh waste. To the hearers this seemed to be
treason. The bold prophet was arrested by the priests and
prophets and brought before the princes for judgment. The
princes found precedent for releasing him, in the case of Micah,
who had uttered a similar prophecy but had been spared by

^ The battle must have taken place very early in the year ; cf. Winckler
Alttestatnentliche Untersuchnngen, p. %t^.

^ 2 Kings, 24 ^ The chronological difficulties are set forth by Kittel in his
commentary. McCurdy {History, Prophecy, and the Momtments, III, p. 167)
supposes we should read six years for the three of the text.

2 2 Kings, 24''.

284 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Hezekiah. Jeremiah was therefore released — he had influential
friends as we know — but a man named Uriah who was of the
same way of thinking was so threatened that he fled to Egypt.
Jehoiakim's influence in Egypt was such that he was able to send
for the off'ender and bring him back to Jerusalem, w^here he was
executed. The incident throws light not only on the danger in
which Jeremiah was from this time on, but on the strength of
party feeling in Jerusalem.

The disorders in the Syrian states were so marked that Ne-
buchadrezzar established his headquarters at Riblah on the Orontes
for several years. Not able to finish the guerilla war by a single
blow he sent detachments of his army where the need was most
evident. This method of procedure is indicated by the Hebrew
author, who says that Nebuchadrezzar sent against Judah " bands
of Chaldeans, bands of Aram, bands of Moab, bands of Am-
mon." ^ The bands of Chaldeans were regular Babylonian
soldiers. The others were irregulars enlisted for this sort of
service. The Bedawin doubtless gave the king much trouble,
and he was obliged to employ the means which God and nature
had put into his hands. Although not himself a cruel or vindic-
tive man, it seemed to him legitimate thus to harry rebels into
submission. At last, however, he was able to appear before
Jerusalem with a regular army — or rather the army had already
invested the city when the king appeared. Jehoiakim mean-
while had died and so escaped the vengeance he had merited.
His son Jehoiachin was recognised as king by the Jerusalemites.
But as Egypt made no move, the scarcely crowned monarch saw
the necessity of surrender, and with his family gave himself un-
conditionally into the hands of the Babylonians.

The city was spared, but Jehoiachin was carried to Babylon,
where he was kept in prison — or perhaps only under guard — till
the accession of Evil-Merodach in the year 561 B.C. Jeremiah
uttered a brief lament over the fate of the young king. Ezekiel
also, who was one of the train which accompanied him to
Babylonia, describes the young lion that was taken in a pit and
brought in a cage to Babylon.'

' 2 Kings, 24 '^. On the length of time Nebuchadrezzar had his head-
quarters at Riblah, see Winckler in Keilinschr. und Altes Test. 'p. 108.

'Jer. 22 ^•*"^'', cf. 13 ^^"^\ Ezek. 19'-^. It has been suggested that Jehoia-
chin and his court were mildly treated in order to intimate that he might be

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 28$

Although the city did not suffer the extremity of siege at this
time, Nebuchadrezzar was not minded to let it go unpunished.
That he carried away the palace treasures and a part of the
vessels of the Temple is what we might expect/ More important
for history was the forced emigration of the principal inhabitants.
Besides the members of the court, the Babylonian carried away
the leading men of the city, officials, men-at-arms, and master-
artisans. His idea was to break the power of the nation, so that
it would not again rebel. We may suppose that Egyptian sym-
pathisers were especially marked for this punishment, which the
king thought would be exemplary. Or, he may have had in
mind Assyrian precedent, as we saw it in the case of Samaria,
only he hesitated to go the Assyrian length. It was natural to
suppose that the leading men of the nation being once out of the
way, there would be no more suggestion of revolt. The sequel
shows how the wisest statesmen may miscalculate.

The impression made upon faithful Judaites by these disorders,
incursions, and triumph of the Chaldeans, is reflected in the little
book which bears the name of Habakkuk. The author is known
to us only by this sigh and meditation over the problems of his
time. He seems to be one of those who felt that Judah had
shown herself righteous before Yahweh by carrying out the com-
mands in the Book of Instruction. But this righteousness had
not obtained the approval of God, or the prosperity which had
been promised. Instead of peace there had come renewed and
more cruel warfare. The Chaldeans — a hasty and violent nation —
are going through the earth to seize what is not theirs. If Yah-
weh is indeed of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, how does
this comport with His government of the world? As things are,
we see confusion and trouble, instead of the peace for which we
had hoped. Nor can we find comfort in the thought that this is
for the glory of Yahweh. The victor rejoices in his own strength,
and, if he worships at all, he worships his own weapons as divine.
With such thoughts, the prophet finds refuge in prayer, and then
receives the message on which — although it does not solve the

restored in case Zedekiah's conduct was not satisfactory ; so Erbt, Jeremia
und seine zeit (1902) p. 23.

* All the golden vessels which Solomon had made are specified by the
Hebrew author — 2 Kings, 24 ^^. It should be remembered, however, that
the Temple had been repeatedly plundered since the time of Solomon.

286 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

world -problem — he is able to stay his soul: ''The righteous
shall live in his fidelity." ^ The relation of God to the individ-
ual believer is becoming a matter of experience.

The first deportation took place in the year 597 b. c. It is an
event of the greatest importance for the future of the chosen peo-
ple. Eight thousand heads of families is the computation of a
Hebrew writer.^ This would imply a train of forty thousand
people. These were settled in Babylonia in a community of
their own. Their hope for an early return held them together
till the fall of Jerusalem. By this time they had begun to fit
themselves to the situation, and to maintain something of their
separate life as against the heathenism about them. They were
reinforced by a few of their compatriots later, and were thus
enabled to begin that life of sojourn which has been the life of
Judaism down to the present day.

The untimely death of Josiah, the success of Egypt and then
the Chaldean invasion, as well as the personal character of Jehoia-
kim, must have undone a large part of the work of reform. This
conclusion may be drawn from the nature of the case, and it is
confirmed by the discourses of Jeremiah. We have already had
occasion to quote from this remarkable man, but we may now
note more in detail the experience which he went through. The
title of weeping prophet, given him as the supposed author of the
book of Lamentations, makes a false impression. He did indeed
weep, as every oriental weeps, in time of calamity, but it would
be wrong to picture him whining or sobbing, or bathed in tears.
His general attitude is that of the stern judge, compelled by
truth and by fidelity to conscience to denounce the sinfulness
of the people whom he yet loved. His courage in thus standing
alone against the men of his time, justifies his own comparison of
himself to a brazen wall and an iron tower. He seems to have
been of a gentle and affectionate nature. His love of his country
is undoubted — the best evidence is that he loathed her shame.
He knew that if he delivered his message he would be contra-
dicted, scoffed at, abused as a traitor. The prompting of his
heart was to keep silent. But the word was too strong for him —
he could not forbear. So he went on speaking the message as it
was given him, knowing all the time that he was alienating his

* Hab. 2 *. The last chapter of the book seems to belong in a later time.
'2 Kings, 24'^. The ten thousand of v. ^* seems to be a round number.

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 28/

friends, angering the mob, offending the rulers. Privately he
expostulated with his God, pleaded with Him, wept before Him,
relieved his feelings by pouring out maledictions upon his perse-
cutors. And his only consolation was a renewed call to duty
with the assurance that the worst was yet to come.

What we find surprising in Jeremiah's long career is the uni-
formity of his message. For Josiah he had respect and even af-
fection. But the state of Judah was not satisfactory to him even
in the exaltation of the great reform. It must have been about
the time of the reform that he delivered a discourse which might
be taken as summing up his message. Speaking to Judah in the
name of Yahweh, he says :

" I remember the love of thy youth, the affection of thy honey-
moon, thy following me into the desert. . . . What fault
did your fathers find in me that they deserted me and followed
after nothingness, and themselves became vain ? . . . I
brought you into the garden-land to eat its fruit and its produce,
but you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination.
The priests do not say : Where is Yahweh ? Those whose busi-
ness is instruction, do not know me.. The shepherds of the peo^
pie have rebelled against me. The prophets prophesy by Baal
and walk after what does not help. . . . Go to the shores of
Cyprus and look, and send to Kedar and inquire carefully whether
the like of this has taken place — has any nation exchanged its
god for another ? But my people has exchanged its Glory for
that which does not help." ^

It is easy to see that Jeremiah has adopted the parable of Hosea.
Judah is Yahweh's wife. She was faithful in the first flush of
youthful affection, but now she has deserted Him, running after
the Baals. The conclusion of the discourse points out that a
woman who is married to another may not return to her first hus-
band. Hence the prophet argues that Judah is for ever taboo to
her covenant Lord, and repentance is vain. The repentance he
has in mind is probably the ebullition of feehng in the reform
movement. In a discourse which borrows the language of Deu-
teronomy he emphasised the covenant made with the fathers when
they came out of Egypt, but only to point out that the covenant
had been broken and that the outlook was hopeless: ''Can
prayers or sacrificial flesh take away thine evil, or canst thou thus

1 Jer. 2 ^-^\ cf. 3^-^, which seems to be the conclusion of the same discourse.

288 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

be delivered ? " ^ The rhetorical question is an emphatic nega-
tive. The prophet would have it otherwise. He tries to inter-
cede for his people as though to ask that their repentance may be
accepted. But he is forbidden to pray for them, and told that
though the most effectual intercessors of past times (Moses and
Samuel) were to appear on behalf of the people, all would be in
vain. The ear of Yahweh is closed.

The prophet's mind seems to have dwelt much on the burden
of guilt inherited from the past. The sins of Manasseh and his
time — how could present well-doing atone for these? On ac-
count of these alone Yahweh must punish, and to them was added
the habitual craving of the people for the old gods. Even in their
reform measures they were making the old mistake of supposing
that Yahweh was concerned chiefly about ritual. Scornfully He
inquires concerning the new enrichments of the service : '' Why
does incense from Sheba come before me and sweet cane from
a far country ? Your burnt offerings are not accepted, nor are
your sacrifices well pleasing to me." So far as Yahweh cares,
they may put their burnt offerings and their sacrifices together
and eat them themselves; and He roundly declares : *' I spoke
not with your fathers, nor did I command them in respect to
burnt offerings and sacrifices the day I brought them out of the
land of Egypt ; but this thing I commanded them : Hearken to
my voice and I will be your God and you shall be my people." ^
To hearken to the voice of Yahweh is to do right. Jeremiah is
quite clear as to what is meant. Objurgating the false confidence
in the Temple, as was noted above, he adds: '' If you practise
justice between man and man, if you do not oppress the client,
the fatherless, the widow, if you do not shed innocent blood in
this place, or go after other gods to do evil — then I will make
you dwell in this place." ^ Properly speaking, ritual has no
place at all in this list of requirements.

The recrudescence of the old abuses under Jehoiakim, to-

^Jer. II '^ — emended text.

^ Ibid., 722f_ 'phe passage shows, with a clearness which none can mis-
take, that Jeremiah knew nothing of any divinely given Levitical legislation.
On sacrifices cf. 6 2", 7^1. The allusion to incense quoted above indicates
that it is something new in the Temple service. Probably Babylonian
influence may be traced here.

^ Ibid. , 7 ^-''. The verses immediately follow the one which describes the
false confidence.

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 289

gether with the personal character of that monarch, only made
the prospect darker. It was in the fourth year of this king that
Jeremiah was pressed in spirit to give a solemn testimony. He
was prevented from going to the Temple for some ritual reason.
But it was a fast day, when the people would come to worship in
large numbers. He therefore had his friend Baruch write down
at his dictation an epitome of his discourses and read it before
the multitude. His object was, no doubt, to show the consist-
ency of his message. For twenty years this was what he had
declared to the people. So far forth he was defending his own
call— for consistency is one mark of fidelity. But the incident
only accentuated the opposition of the prophet to the leaders.
While the book was a-reading, one of the king's officers brought
intelligence of it to the royal council then in session. Perhaps
they were even then deliberating on the alliance against Nebu-
chadrezzar. They sent a messenger and brought Baruch before
them and had him read the book. Assuring themselves that it
was the genuine dictation of Jeremiah, they advised Baruch to
seek a place of concealment. At the same time they took pos-
session of the book and brought it to the king. One of them
began to read it aloud, but no more than three or four pages
were read before the king became angry, cut the roll to pieces
and threw it into the brazier burning before him.^ He also or-
dered the arrest of Jeremiah and Baruch, but they could not be
found. At the command of Yahweh, however, the contents of
the roll were recorded on another roll with additions from the
recollection of the prophet.

The roll thus rewritten probably became the nucleus of our
present book of Jeremiah. The earlier chapters of the book bear
the marks of such composition. In them we seem to hear the
author's apologia pro vita sua. He tells us how he heard the
voice of Yahweh commanding him to preach; how at this time
he foresaw calamity coming upon his people ; how he would
have refused on account of his youth ; how he has been faithful
in delivering the message. At times he records for us the strug-
gle which went on between his natural inclination and the over-
powering Word of Yahweh.^ All this was calculated to impress

^ Jer. 36. The material must have been papyrus, otherwise an intolerable
smoke would have resulted.
2 Jer. I^ 6", II 19 ^ i8i8ff.

290 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

the reader, or hearer, with the genuineness of the call, and with
the fidelity of the one who received it.

In spite of the nature of the message there was still a possibility
that the final doom might not be put into execution. ** Perchance
the house of Judah will listen to all the evil I am planning to do
them, so as to turn from their evil way — then I will forgive their
iniquity and their sin." Yahweh is not so bound by His pur-
poses that He cannot change. The potter who finds the vessel he
is making not shaped to his mind, can crush the clay together
and mould it into a different form. So Yahweh has power and
freedom. While there is life there is hope — but the hope which
hangs on to the last breath of the dying man is a very slender hope
indeed.^ Certainly if the sinfulness continues, the punishment is
sure.

The king who burned the book without even hearing it was not
likely to be deterred from any step on which he had set his heart.
And we may suppose that the incident was a turning-point in
Jeremiah's own feeling. He became convinced that the evil
would certainly come. From this time on he had the calmness of
a man who knows the worst. The testimony was kept up, that the
people might be without excuse. And we must remember that a
different school of prophets was singing in another key. There
were plenty of these to assure the people that they should not see
sword or famine. Their activity was a challenge to Jeremiah.
His silence might be construed as giving assent to their false
hopes. The sharpness of the issue was not moderated even to the
end, when Jeremiah had the poor satisfaction of seeing his pre-
diction verified in the destruction of his country.

We have already seen that the Deuteronomistic school con-
tinued their literary work after the finding of the now famous book
in the Temple. We have no reason to suppose that they were
inactive during the reign of Jehoiakim. The more discouraging
external circumstances seemed to be, the more tenaciously they
would hold on to their own point of view. They therefore sup-
plemented the book which was now their favorite study, by in-
serting further commandments and by expanding the hortatory
sections. As Yahweh seemed about to desert His people, the
record of earlier blessings became more precious. To an author

' Chapter 18 (the potter) is designed to indicate Yahweh's right to change
His plan according to circumstances.

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 29I

of this school we may attribute the poem now included in the
book of Deuteronomy and called the Song of Moses.^ The com-
position puts into rhythmical form the prophetic rebuke of Israel.
Yahweh, the Most High, chose Israel as His possession ; He led
the people in the wilderness, and brought them into the land of
milk and honey. But Israel grew prosperous and rebellious — re-
jected its God for others, and so aroused His jealousy. Hence
His threat of visitation. But the punishment will show them that
the false gods cannot save. So, when they cry to Him, He will
hear and save, and destroy their enemies. With such hopes of a
speedy sentence upon the oppressive Chaldeans, faithful men nour-
ished their hearts in this time of trouble.

Jeremiah carried on his campaign of protest in the last year of
Jehoiakim by an object lesson. When the Chaldean army in-
vaded the land, the country people took refuge behind the walls of
Jerusalem. Among them came the clan of Rechabites, which we
have already had occasion to mention in connection with Jehu.'^
Jeremiah took note of their presence, and one day brought them
to the Temple, and set wine before them. They refused to drink,
and gave as a reason the vow of their ancestor, Jonadab ben
Rechab. This vow bound them to Israel's ancient mode of life
in the desert — they were not to drink wine, or to build houses, or
to plant fields or vineyards. This they had faithfully observed,
and no pressure was strong enough to make them disobey. This
fidelity of theirs was in strong contrast to the conduct of Judah.
They were faithful to a mere human injunction ; Judah had re-
fused to keep a solemn covenant with Yahweh.

It was not without abundant monition, therefore, that the
people of Jerusalem saw their fate approaching. In one respect,
indeed, the prophet's expectation was not fulfilled by the event.
Jehoiakim died in his bed and was buried in the sepulchre of the
kings — whereas Jeremiah had declared that his unburied carcass
should be fought over by the dogs. But this is a mere matter of
detail. For the young Jehoiachin and the queen-mother, Jere-
miah had a dirge lamenting the loss of the flock, scarcely com-
mitted to them before they were carried into captivity. '

1 Deut. 32. The text is corrected in places by the commentaries.

2 Above, p. 191. The account of the incident is contained in Jer. 35.

' Jer. 13 i«-20. The parable of the spoiled girdle in the early part of the
same chapter may belong in the same period.

292 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Nebuchadrezzar appointed Jehoiachin's uncle — Mattaniah —
the third son of Josiah, to come to the throne — changing his name
to Zedekiah, the Justice of Yahweh. Whether this expresses Neb-
uchadrezzar's claim to be the executor of that justice upon the
unfortunate Jehoiachin cannot now be made out. The people
might have so interpreted it with profit to themselves. Nebu-
chadrezzar expected his '^ blood-letting " to have a sobering
and regenerating effect on the body politic. The result was the
exact opposite of the expectation.

Nor is this hard to account for. The people had for a long
time been threatened with a judgment from Yahweh. Those
who remained behind in Jerusalem felt that the judgment had
now fallen, and it had not been as bad as they had expected.
Whether Isaiah's doctrine of the Remnant had been widely
adopted or not, it was now virtually applied. The prophetic
preaching always assumed that those who should repent would be
spared — is not the justice of God pledged not to destroy the right-
eous with the wicked ? Nothing was easier than to argue that
if those who repent are to be spared, then those who are actually
spared are the ones who have repented. The dregs of the peo-
ple, left behind in Jerusalem, laid this flattering unction to their
souls: ''We have been spared by Yahweh, therefore we are
righteous in His sight." Then there was the excitement of the
new situation. The leading men had been carried away, but
the framework of the government remained. A new king was on
the throne, and his court must not lack in titles and dignities.
We can imagine the scramble for offices with high-sounding
titles. The self-sufficiency oi parvenus and their self-confidence
is proverbial. The new king was a good-natured but nerveless
man. His courtiers were ignorant, arrogant, intolerant, over-
bearing in their conduct toward their monarch.

The people at large were intoxicated with joy at their es-
cape, and at their new importance. The exiles had been obliged
to dispose of their property on such terms as they could make.
The purchasers or usurpers felt that they had great bargains.
They were now the gentry and landed proprietors of the nation.
That they showed the pride that goes before destruction is evi-
dent. Jeremiah does not hesitate to give his opinion. After
the deportation he saw two baskets of figs — the one very good,
the other very bad. The voice of Yahweh told him that the

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 293

good represented the exiles ; the bad were those who were left
behind. Ezekiel also alludes to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
who say of the exiles : ' ' They are far from the land of Yahweh ;
to us is the land given for a possession." ^ Upon men in this
frame of mind exhortation has no effect.

The new rulers were not long in trying their hands at the game
of politics. Egypt was still ready to promise great things. The
neighbours of Judah were tired of their divisions, and they began
to realise that they were oppressed by the Babylonians. Plans
were soon agitated for a common effort at independence. Am-
bassadors from Edom, Moab, Amnion, Tyre, and Sidon came to
Jerusalem to concert measures. Jeremiah appeared in a way
which we should call sensational. He made a number of wooden
yokes. One of them he wore himself; the others he carried for
the foreign ambassadors. His advice was given in words as well
as by symbols, to the effect that they should '' put their necks
into the yoke of the king of Babylon." ^ But the large majority
of the prophets was on the other side. They confidently declared
that within two years the vessels of the Temple which Nebuchad-
rezzar had carried away should be brought back, and one Han-
aniah in an ecstasy snatched the yoke from Jeremiah's neck
and broke it, with the exclamation : ''Thus saith Yahweh: So
will I break the yoke of the king of Babylon from the neck of all
the nations."

Jeremiah contented himself at this time with expressing a hope
that the word might be true — though he pointed out plainly that
the analogies of prophetic revelation were all against it. It was
only after some time that the word of Yahweh was borne in upon
him so that he could make a positive declaration. This he did
in the words : '' Thus saith Yahweh : Thou hast broken the yoke
of wood, but I will make a yoke of iron. I will put a yoke of
iron on the necks of all these peoples that they may serve the
king of Babylon." The too sanguine Hananiah received also
a personal message to the effect that he should die the same year,
which was fulfilled.

If we are to find room in the hfe of Zedekiah for the visit to

^ Ezek. II ^^: on the text, Toy's edition in Haupt's series, or Giesebrecht
in the Handkommentar. Cf. Jer. 24.

2 Jer. 27 and 28. The account is not from Jeremiah himself, but seems to
rest on good information.

294 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Babylon of which mention is made toward the close of the book
of Jeremiah^ it must be about this time. It is altogether likely
that Nebuchadrezzar would get news of the projected alliance and
would call Zedekiah to account. The statement in our book,
however, is in a very late passage and we cannot be certain that
it is based on trustworthy tradition. That Nebuchadrezzar's
headquarters were at Riblah for a considerable period we have
already noted.

The exiles in Babylonia entertained similar illusions to those
held at Jerusalem, and the idea of an early return was impressed
upon them by their prophets. There seems nothing improbable
therefore in the account of Jeremiah's letter to them, called out
by messages from Babylon hostile to the prophet. The letter
warns the exiles against false hopes of return ; seventy years must
elapse before the visitation for which they sighed. The period
of seventy years — which would allow at least two generations to
grow up — is not intended to keep alive the hopes of the people,
but to emphasise the fact that the return is a long way off. It is
necessary therefore that the people adapt themselves to their cir-
cumstances, make homes for themselves, raise up children, and seek
the welfare of the great kingdom into which they have now been
incorporated.'^ We know also from Ezekiel that the exiles were
unwilling to believe in the coming calamity for Jerusalem and we
naturally suppose that they were looking for an early return.

In cherishing vain hopes, in framing vain plots, the years passed
till 589 B. c, when Nebuchadrezzar was obliged to send an army
to Palestine. At its first appearance before Jerusalem a spasm of
repentance passed over the people. Understanding from the proph-
et that justice and kindness would obtain the favour of Yahweh,
they looked about for some of the duties left undone which they
might still perform. In the Book of Instruction they found the
ordinance, contained also in the older Book of the Covenant,'
that the slave of Hebrew birth should be set free after six years'
service. The law seems always to have been a counsel of perfec-

explicit statement (Ezek. 17'^) ; compare also the same prophet's parable of
the eagle and the cedar branch (17 '"^").

*Jer. 29. The chapter in its present form is apparently of comparatively
late date.

'Deut. 15 12-18. Ex 21 l-^ The differences do not here concern us.

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 295

tion. All the more would it be a proof of their new zeal for
obedience to Yahweh. King and people therefore entered into
a solemn engagement. According to an ancient ceremonial, a
calf was sacrificed and cut in halves. By walking between the
pieces the engagers imprecated the divine vengeance upon them-
selves in case they should violate their oath.^

For the moment it seemed as if the strenuous effort would be
rewarded. Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) marched with his army
into Palestine with the apparent intention of defending his allies.
The Chaldean army therefore temporarily withdrew from Jeru-
salem to meet the threatened attack. The Jerusalemites con-
cluded that the expected deliverance had taken place, and with
indecent haste violated their oath and forced the just liberated
slaves back into servitude. It is needless to comment on the
levity and lack of feeling of responsibility shown by this transac-
tion. No wonder that Jeremiah despaired of such a people.

The Pharaoh was again a vain help. Whether he was defeated
in a pitched battle, as is asserted by Josephus,^ or whether he re-
treated without fighting, as is implied in the account in Jeremiah,
cannot certainly be made out. The effect upon the fortune of
Jerusalem was the same, for in a short time the Chaldean army
returned and a formal siege of the city was begun. This lasted
for a year and a half, during which the city was closely invested,
and the battering-rams were kept at work. The besieged de-
fended themselves with courage and skill. Otherwise we cannot
account for the length of time they held out — weakened as they
were by the recent deportation of the flower of their army. They
suffered from famine and pestilence, and probably from internal
dissension as well. The traditions preserved for us in the book
of Jeremiah probably give a correct picture of the time, and we
may, therefore, follow the fortunes of the prophet as there re-
counted.

When the siege was temporarily raised by the Chaldeans Jere-
miah attempted to go to his own village of Anathoth. He may
have thought he could protect his little property by being on the
spot ; as a non-combatant he would be spared by the invaders;

' Jer. 34^". Note especially v.'' and compare Gen. 15^"^^ where Yahweh
and Abraham enter into covenant by a similar rite. For Babylonian analo-
gies cf. Keilinschriften und Altes Testament^, p. 597.

2Josephus, Ant., X, VII, 3; Jer. 37 ^

296 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

possibly he reasoned that if he were out of the city there would be
one mouth less to feed. But any move he might make would be
looked upon with suspicion. He had aroused the violent hatred
of the national party by opposing their plans for revolt. For a
long time he had been regarded as a traitor. It was natural that
the guard should apprehend him at the city gate and accuse him
of desertion to the enemy.

Those who had charge of him were prepared to make treason
odious, and they thrust him into the most noisome place at their
command. This was an old cistern, the floor of which was deep
with slime. The account of his experiences here may be read at
length in the Biblical text. After being released from the imme-
diate danger of suffocation — this was on the intercession of a slave
of the king — he was kept in the king's prison till the end of the
siege. The king would have set him at liberty, but could do noth-
ing against the will of the nobles. He even sent for the prophet
secretly and asked his advice. Jeremiah consistently urged him
to surrender before the final storm and sack of the city. But this
Zedekiah could not get himself to do.

From the king's fear that the Judaites in the camp of Nebu-
chadrezzar might abuse him, we gather that a considerable num-
ber had already made their peace with the Babylonians. Zede-
kiah was but a shadow king over a desperate band of men. His
interviews with Jeremiah always had the same termination.
He even asked Jeremiah to prevaricate concerning the subject of
their conversations. At last the end came. The bread in the
city was exhausted about the same time that a breach was made
in the city wall. Zedekiah, at the head of the few soldiers still
alive, tried to cut his way through the enemy, hoping to escape
down the Jericho road. In the wilderness a band of desperate
men might be able to maintain themselves even against the Baby-
lonians.

The Chaldeans were too expert to allow anything of this kind
to succeed. The sortie was fortunate in that the king eluded the
immediate besiegers. But the party was pursued and in the
Jordan valley they were overtaken and captured. Nebuchadrezzar
seems to have remained in his headquarters at Riblah. Hither
the Judaite king with his forlorn train were brought. It is
scarcely a matter for surprise that Nebuchadrezzar dealt severely
with them. Zcdekiah's sons were put to death before his eyes,

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 297

and he himself was blinded and taken to Babylon, where he
ended his days in prison. A large number of his officers were
executed.

The poor king had paid the penalty of his weakness. The
city over which he was nominal ruler was more to blame. It
had shown itself constantly inconstant. Seditious, obstinate,
and lacking in good faith, it had provoked the utmost severity of
the conqueror. It was given over to sack. The Temple was plun-
dered of all that was valuable and was then set on fire. The
houses of the people also were looted and burned. It seems to
have been the king's purpose to make the place uninhabitable.
A miserable remnant of people had survived the siege. Such as
did not perish in the sack or by the hand of the executionei
were carried away to Babylonia. Three detachmenti are men-
tioned in the book of Jeremiah, amounting to four thousand six
hundred heads of families.^ Of these only a little over eight hun-
dred were taken at the fall of the city. Of the poorer classes
there were left enough to prevent thecountry's reversion to jungle.
The district was made part of the Babylonian province and a
governor was appointed with his seat at Mizpah — an ancient
sanctuary not far from Jerusalem.

The governor appointed was one Gedaliah, a Judaite of the
Babylonian party. Jeremiah was given his choice of going to
Babylon or of remaining in his ruined country. He chose to
remain. In the circumstances we can see that barbarism was
the first danger. Gedaliah caused it to be known that there was
to be a settled government, and attempted to organise his ad-
ministration. Fugitives began to return, and some of the guerilla
bands which had been living on the country came in and sub-
mitted. The captain of one such band — Ishmael by name —
could not brook even the semblance of power in the hands of a
renegade — for such he must have held Gedaliah to be. Ishmael
himself was of royal blood, and perhaps thought to repeat the
career of his ancestor David. He was supported (secretly we
may suppose), by Baalis, King of Ammon, and perhaps, also had
Egyptian encouragement. Gedaliah, though warned against him,

^ Jer. 52 28-31. The paragraph is lacking in the text of 2 Kings, which
otherwise runs parallel to this chapter. I have adopted the conjecture of
Ewald (see Giesebrecht's commentary) which makes v.^^ refer to the seven-
teenth year of Nebuchadrezzar instead of the seven of the text.

298 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

was unsuspicious and so was assassinated. Ishmael then terrorised
the people. Discovering that he could not permanently hold the
country against the Babylonians, he started to cross over to Am-
nion, carrying with him some unwilling followers — among them
are mentioned some ladies of the royal family.

Whatever his hopes of establishing a new Judah beyond the
Jordan, they were soon frustrated. He was met by a stronger, or
more valiant, band under one Johanan ben Kareah, who was able
to rescue his captives out of his hand, It was, perhaps, after
these disorders that the Babylonians carried away the third of
the detachments of exiles mentioned above.'

The disconsolate Judaites, thus finding themselves at liberty,
looked around for some place where they might live in peace.
Egypt was the only country that seemed to hold out hopes, and
they resolved to go thither. Jeremiah advised against it, but
they not only refused to listen — they compelled him to go with
them. They were weary of their unsettled life, weary of advice,
weary of Yahweh. They refused to listen any longer to preach-
ing. When the prophet rebuked them for continued idolatry of
the** Queen of Heaven," they turned sharply upon him and
declared that when they were faithful to her service it went well
with them, but that when they gave her up and devoted them-
selves to Yahweh alone all went wrong. The prophet was con-
scious in his own soul of the falsity of their reasoning, but he
seems to have found no answer that he could make to them.
Tradition, however, ascribes to him a prediction that even in
Egypt they would be the victims of the relentless Chaldean
power. ^ With this final denunciation of disaster we lose sight
of the aged prophet. The tradition that he was murdered by
his unbelieving countrymen is a late inference from the story of
his life. The Judaites who went to Egypt at this time were
absorbed in the native population and lost all hold upon the
prophetic religion.

^ Doubt has been expressed as to the historicity of this whole account as
well as of what follows — see for example Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt's article
"Jeremiah" in the Encyclop. Biblica. But the narrative seems to me in its
main features to bear the marks of historic truth.

'Jer. 44. The chapter seems to be added by a later hand. It is not yet
clearly made out whether Nebuchadrezzar actually conquered Egypt ; cf.
McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, III, p. 389 f.

JOSIAH AND HIS SONS 299

Had the exiles in Babylonia kept no firmer hold on Yahweh,
the history of Israel would have closed with the fall of Jerusalem
in 586 B.C. We have traced the growth of a nation from the
scattered tribes which entered Canaan seven hundred years before
this. We have seen the nation under Solomon attain a respecta-
ble position among the kingdoms of Asia. We have noted also
the disruption and the consequent loss of power. The two little
kingdoms could not hope to maintain their independence against
the powerful empires of the Euphrates valley. Their misguided
attempts to resist led to their ruin. Nothing in their career
would give their history greater importance than the history of
Philistia or of Damascus, had it not been for the religion of Yah-
weh and the exile.

The feeble remnant of Judah, however, were in a position to
carry on the work of the prophets. It was not without reason
that up to this time the prophets had complained that the peo-
ple's ears were deaf to their message. In the bonds of tradition,
in the midst of wars and alarms, pressed upon by the claims of
Egypt, the claims of Assyria or Babylonia, the claims of the
party of independence, we can hardly wonder that they could not
rightly estimate the message of their preachers. But when the
bonds of tradition were loosened by removal from their land,
when they were protected from wars and alarms by their very
insignificance, when politics were no longer a concern to them —
above all, when the long-threatened blow had fallen, then they
had time for reflection. The prophets had said Yahweh would
give over to destruction the place which He had chosen '^to
make His name dwell there." The people would not believe
that He would thus deprive Himself of His chosen dwelling.
But now He had done so. The fearful catastrophe gave them
two alternatives. Either they must give up their faith in Him
and hold him to be a God too weak to protect his own, or else
they must believe in what His prophets had said. No doubt
many — like the fugitives to Egypt just spoken of — chose the
former alternative. These became worshippers of other gods,
loosened the ties of kindred, and became absorbed in the sur-
rounding heathenism. But some there were who chose the other
alternative, held on to their faith in Yahweh, and began to value
more justly the words of the prophets. It is this fraction of the
people — a sect, a church, no longer a nation — which has in-

3CX) OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

fluenced the history of the world. And it is with these that we
must now concern ourselves.

As to the poor of the people who were left in the district of
Tudah, there is not much to say. For them barbarism was the
first danger.^ They had all they could do to wring a living out
of the reluctant soil. The Bedawin from the east and from the
south overran the country. Edom was crowded upon by the
Nabateans, and pushed up into Judah. A half-century later
almost the whole of Judah's territory belonged to these invaders,
and the bitter hatred of the Edomites, which finds expression in
later times, dates from this period of encroachment. The people
of the land seem, indeed, to have kept alive the religion of their
ancestors. We read how men came with offerings to the site of
the Temple, after the sacred building had been destroyed.^ They
came in the garb of mourners, so that we cannot suppose them
ignorant of the calamity which had fallen. Evidently thesacred-
ness of the site could not be erased by the destruction of the edi-
fice. At the place which Yahweh had once chosen, men might
still hope to approach Him. This was the feeling of these poor
people. And we may suppose that during the years that followed
the sacredness of the site was in some way kept in mind — per-
haps marked by the crude offerings which a peasant or pastoral
people brings to its God.

But our main interest is now with the little community in
Babylonia, which had followed with the keenest sympathy the
fortunes of their native country, and whose grief at its conquest
was not the less poignant that they were so far away.

1 Cf. Ezek. II", 332*.

^ Jer. 41 ^. These men are said to be from Shiloh and Samaria.

CHAPTER XV

THE EXILE

It has already been told how some years before the fall of Jeru-
salem, a considerable body of Jeriisalemites were carried away by
Nebuchadrezzar, and settled in Babylonia. It would seem that
they were not made slaves, and that they were not taken to the
city of Babylon, whose proletariat we may suppose to have been
already numerous enough. The indications are that they were
settled in agricultural communities along one of the great irrigat-
ing canals, to which the country then owed its extraordinary pro-
ductiveness. The ''river" Chebar, of our text, was such a
canal.^ Babylonian supervision seems not to have gone so far
as to destroy a certain measure of autonomy. We hear of the
Sheikhs (Elders), who came to the prophet for advice, and we
naturally suppose that they preserved something of their traditi-
onal authority.

The expectations of these people have already been remarked
upon. In the face of all human probability their prophets fos-
tered a hope that they would soon return to their native land.
Jeremiah bitterly opposed these delusions, and saw plainly that
the exile would be of long duration. But even he could hardly
suppose that Yahweh would permanently leave His people in the
hands of foreigners. For the time being this hope may have
made the exiles cling together, so that they were able to adapt
themselves to their new circumstances. But it also made them
restless and unwilling to listen to the counsel of the more thought-
ful of their number. It was not till the fall of Jerusalem that they
were disposed to look the situation squarely in the face. That
they did so then, and that they were able to adhere to the faith
of Yahweh, is due to Ezekiel, in some respects the most remark-
able of Israel's prophets.

1 Ezek. I ^ and elsewhere. References in Kraetzschmar. Handkom-
tnentar (1900), and in Toy's edition of the text {Sacred Books of the Old
Testament, 1899).

301

302 ■ OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Ezekiel, like Jeremiah, caine of a priestly family. The two
men, however, were very unlike. Jeremiah was anything but a
ritualist. The terms in which he speaks of the Ark, of the Tem-
ple, of the sacrificial service, show that his interest was not in any
of these. Whether he ever officiated in the sanctuary where he
so often spoke to the people is doubtful. Ezekiel also may
never have officiated in the Temple. If so, it was because he
was carried away when too young to be admitted to a part in
the service. But he was thoroughly saturated with priestly
ideas. Ritual offences have a much larger part in his indictment
of the people than is the case with the other prophets. The
form of his vision is determined by the imagery he has seen in
the Temple. His elaborate picture of the restored Israel shows
us a commonwealth which lives by ritual. In him the ethical
ideas of the older prophets (and of the Book of Instruction) are
for the first time united with the traditions of the priestly caste.
From a modern point of view this seems a retrogression. But
men at a certain stage of culture crave ritual, and (humanly
speaking) it was necessary that the great moral ideas of the
prophets should be thus married to outward forms if they were to
be brought into the life of the people. The result was to shape
the whole later course of Jewish thought and history.

Great wit's to madness near allied — this is the thought which
comes to us as we read of the strange visions and the fantastic ac-
tions of this prophet. In fact, Ezekiel, like some other great re-
ligious geniuses, was a man nervously abnormal. The greatness
of the crisis through which he had passed so wrought upon him
that his thought has in it something morbid. And yet the ideas
which rule him are sane and sound. In fact they are for the
most part borrowed from the older prophets. His originality is
in elaborating, sometimes to grotesqueness, what his predecessors
have said. It will repay us to notice this somewhat in detail.

Like his predecessors, Ezekiel founded his claim to be heard
on a distinct call of Yahweh. This call came to him in vision.
The minuteness with which he describes the vision is what draws
our attention. It was enough for Isaiah to say that he saw Yah-
weh in the Temple seated on a lofty throne clothed in robes
whose skirts filled the House, attended by the seraphim. Eze-
kiel gives us a description of the cherubim, of the celestial char-
iot, of the throne and the canopy. From him we learn that the

THE EXILE 303

cherubim which bear the throne are composite creatures with
four faces. They have feet of quadrupeds, wings of birds, hands
of men. They are a part of the chariot of Yahweh. This char-
iot is provided with wonderful wheels full of eyes. In the
midst of the wheels is a mass of flame. Above this is a support
resting on the heads of the cherubim, and on this support is a
throne, the occupant of which in the likeness of a man was Yah-
weh Himself. The brightness of burnished brass, the clearness
of crystal, and the colours of the rainbow, dazzled the beholder
and he fell powerless to the ground.

New as is the vision thus presented to us, its elements are
furnished by tradition. Of old, Yahweh was the God of the
storm. On swift clouds He was accustomed to come to the help
of His people. Of old also the cherubim were His attendants —
was it not for this reason they were represented in the Temple?
The wheels, the throne, the fire, the rainbow were all there from
a logical necessity.

We should be wrong to suppose that we have here only a liter-
ary fiction, the result of the prophet's reflection on these features
of the traditional theophany. No doubt it was a genuine expe-
rience which he describes — whether in the body or out of the
body he would not be able to tell. And it would not be hard
for him to discover a gracious purpose in it. He was in a strange
land, far from the sanctuary which his heart yearned for. He
was tempted to feel — as his compatriots already felt — that Yah-
weh was far away. But by the vision he was taught that Yah-
weh could come to His servant though in a far land.

This mobility of Yahweh was the more important in that some
of the Judaites still cherished the fixed idea that He could not
permit the destruction of His Temple. Though Jerusalem had
once been forced to surrender, and though these very people had
been forced to go into exile, still they persisted that the city was
indestructible. Ezekiel, for his part, was sure that the city was
to be destroyed. What would become of Yahweh was a question
answered by the celestial chariot. With this at His command
He could retire at His will to the desert of His ancient sojourn,
to abide there till His time to restore His people should come.
The prophetic theory that the sins of the people had made His
land intolerable to Him was thus most emphatically presented
and enforced. The shock of the final catastrophe was thus in a

304 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

measure, also, prepared for, and the foundation laid for a new
hope.^

First of all, however, the false confidence of the exiles must be
shaken ; and Ezekiel perceives that his message is a message of
mourning, lamentation, and woe. This message is delivered him
by Yahweh in the form of a book, and in materialistic symbolism
he receives it by eating it.^ He is told that he is sent to a rebell-
ious house. But he is to speak to them whether they will hear
or whether they will forbear. In fact, they at first met the
prophet with contradiction and scoffing. But the message came
to its rights after the fall of Jerusalem.

For this first period of his activity the prophet spared no pains
to enforce the declaration that Jerusalem is to be destroyed. His
endeavours to make this plain were nothing less than grotesque.
At one time he took a clay tablet such as the Babylonians used
for writing upon. On this he drew the plan of Jerusalem. Then
he made it the centre of a miniature siege — threw up earthworks
about it, made the semblance of a hostile camp, set up the bat-
tering-rams. Between himself and it he held a sheet of iron.
The performance scarcely needed an interpreter. As he, the
creator of the toy city, was ordering its siege and holding the
sheet of iron between himself and it, so Yahweh the ruler of Jeru-
salem was arranging the attack on His own city and was making
Himself impervious to its appeals for mercy. We may imagine
the effect of such a symbolical action on the part of the prophet.^

By making a vile bread of grain, beans, spelt, and lentils,
mixed together, by eating of this a fixed ration each day, and by
drinking also a slender allowance of water, the prophet illustrated
the straits to which Jerusalem would be reduced in the siege.*
After this was sufficiently set forth he shaved his hair and his

^ In my discussion I assume the substantial unity and genuineness of the
Book of Ezekiel. Traces of editorial elaboration are somewhat more numer-
ous than has been usually admitted, and I have some reserve in regard to the
middle section of the book — Chapters 25-32.

^ Ezek. 3 ^-3. Similar language is used in Jer. 15 ^^.

^ I assume, of course, that this (ch. 4 ^-'^) and the other actions were liter-
ally carried out as described. Some readers will doubt the literalness of the
prophet's lying on his side 190 days (as should be read instead of 390 of the
text). But a prolonged illness might easily realise this feature of the vision.

*His protest (4^*) against part of the direction shows his carefulness in
matters of ritual observance.

THE EXILE 305

beard with a sharp sword. A third part of the hair thus obtained
he burned in the midst of his miniature city; a third he smote
hither and yonder with the sword ; the most of the remainder he
scattered to the winds. A few hairs he took and bound in his skirt.
But of these again a portion was thrown into the fire. Again
the symboHsm is quite clear : A third of Yahweh's people are to
perish by famine and pestilence in the siege ; another third will
fall by the sword ; the remainder will be scattered to all the
winds of heaven ; even the few who seem to be spared — the ex-
iles^— will not really be safe from destruction. All this will hap-
pen "that they may know that I am Yahweh " — that is, that
they may know Him in His essential nature as a God of justice.

If now a bill of particulars is called for, to show wherein Judah
has deserved so much severity, Ezekiel is ready with an answer.
In vision he is taken to Jerusalem and made witness of what is
going on there. Taken by the Spirit to the Temple he is allowed
to inspect what ought to be the sanctuary of Yahweh. Yahweh
Himself points out how it is polluted. Near the north gate he
sees the idol that provokes jealousy — evidently an image of another
than Israel's God. The abuses corrected by Josiah had evidently
been revived by his successors, but what god had received the
honour of a place in the Temple is unknown to us. Next, the
prophet is taken into a secret chamber within the Temple, on
whose walls are portrayed in relief all sorts of animals and reptiles.
Before them stand seventy of the chief men of Judah, at their head
one Jaazaniah. Each man has a censer in his hand and they are
offering incense to the pictures on the walls. Evidently we
have here some secret cult, totemistic in its nature. We are re-
minded of the ancient serpent worship, banished by Hezekiah,
but we are also reminded that a strong Egyptian party existed
in Jerusalem, the members of which may well have formed a
society for the practice of Egyptian mysteries.^ The idolaters
are represented justifying themselves on the ground that Yahweh
has forsaken the land — a significant indication of the effect
which the present calamities had had on many of the people.

1 Or does he mean those left in Canaan who seem to have survived the
perils of the siege ? The passage is 5 ^-*. The same lesson is set forth in
another way in 12 ^"^*'.

2 Bertholet in his commentary advocates the Egyptian origin of this cult.
Others think of Babylonian influence. The passage is Ezek. S^-^^.

306 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

The horrified visitor is next taken to the north gate, and there
he sees a company of women seated on the ground weeping for
Tammuz. Weeping for a god who has been slain is one of the
acts of worship in various rehgions. Tammuz is one of the gods
whose myth passed over to the Greeks, among whom he is known
as Adonis. His worship in Syria is very ancient and it is possi-
ble that it was naturalised in Judah at an early day. For the
present reference, however, it is sufficent to assume that he was
recently introduced from Babylon.^ While this heathenism was
going on, the prophet saw also a group of twenty-five men stand-
ing in the very entrance of the temple, between the vestibule and
the altar. But instead of being there to worship Yahweh, they
had their backs to Him, as if in deliberate insult, while their
worship was paid to the rising sun. We have already read of
this cult among those banished by Josiah. As if this were not
enough, Yahweh declares that over the whole land similar rites
send up the stench of their offerings into His nostrils.

The destruction of the city was the logical conclusion of such
a state of things, and so it was shown to the prophet in his vision.
Ezekiel, however, was a man to whom the justice of Yahweh was
manifest in His dealing with individuals. Shall the righteous
perish with the wicked? This was a question which had for
some time been agitating the more thoughtful men.'' Jeremiah
was evidently exercised by it. Ezekiel has thought it out.
He is strictly logical in affirming categorically that when the
wicked are punished, the righteous will be spared. And so in
his vision he hears a command given to an angel to put a mark
on the righteous men in the city, that the executioners of the
divine wrath may know whom to spare. When they have been
marked the decree goes forth ; the destroying angels slay old and
young, sparing only those who have the mark in their foreheads.
Then fire is taken from the altar and showered upon the devo-
ted city. The cherubim in the celestial chariot flap their wings
with thunderous sound to show that they are restive at being kept

' Tammuz, the favourite of Ishtar, is the god of the spring vegetation, and
his death is bewailed when the powerful summer sun causes the herbs to
;vither — see Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 482 f., 547;
Zimmern, in Keilinschr. u. Altes Test.^ II., p. 397; Frazer, The Golden
Bough y I., p. 278 ff.

'Cf. what was said about the story of Abraham's intercession (above, p. 250.)

THE EXILE 307

in such a scene. When all has been ordered, Yahweh mounts
His seat and takes His departure. On the Mount of OHves He
stops to take a last lingering look at His now desolate habitation,
and then — away !

Jerusalem's sin has made Jerusalem's destruction inevitable —
this is the constant theme of the prophet during this part of his
ministry, and he enforces it in all conceivable ways. At one
time the false confidence of those remaining in the city is derided.
*' They say of themselves : We are the flesh and this city is the
caldron ; the broth has been poured off, but we are safe." * The
broth that has been poured off represents the exiles who have been
carried away. Those who have escaped deportation regard them-
selves as the substance of the nation — bone and muscle — and they
think that as the pot protects the flesh from the violence of the
fire so the walls of Jerusalem protect them from destruction. The
prophet states the case so as to show the absurdity.^

Ezekiel sometimes gives an unexpected turn to the parables of
the older prophets. Isaiah had compared Judah to a vineyard
planted by Yahweh, and we may suppose that this figure had be-
come current among the people. That Judah is the vine and
Yahweh the keeper of the vineyard would be a comforting thought
in the midst of affliction. But Ezekiel puts the thought in anew
light : '' What is the vine among the trees? A mere twig among
the trees of the forest ! Is timber taken from it for any work?
Is even a peg to hang things on made from it ? Suppose, now,
it has been thrown upon the fire and both its ends and its
middle are charred; is it then good for anything? When it
was sound it was of no use ; how much less when the fire has
charred it ! " ^ The vine of Yahweh was confessedly of no
value for its fruit. But a barren vine is the most worthless of
plants. Such was Judah even at its best. But now its best
has been destroyed by the deportation of Jehoiachin. One
cannot ascribe any value to a half-burned twig.

Less to our taste — but not offensive to oriental thought — is

^Chapter ii^"^^. The messianic conclusion of the chapter is certainly a
later insertion.

^ In the later expansion of the parable (24^"'^) the prophet compares those
that are left in Jerusalem to the rust that clings to the caldron and which
must be burned off.

Ezekiel's

eyes.

308 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Ezekiel's development of the prophetic metaphor in which Israel
appears as the wife of Yahweh, or in which Israel and Judah ap-
pear as His wives. In Hosea, who first introduces this figure, we
have a delicate self-restraint. He contents himself with declar-
ing the unfaithfulness without going into a detailed description.
Jeremiah is less refined in that he plainly compares the idolatrous
passion of Judah to the blind sexual instinct of an animal. Eze-
kiel paints the actions of the shameless woman without reserve, as
the ancient law stripped her naked and exposed her to the ribald
scoffs of the vulgar. In this description ^ he not only shows more
bitterness than his predecessors : his revulsion of feeling carries
him so far that he condemns the whole past of the nation. Hosea
and Jeremiah recognise a period when Israel was faithful — the
first love of the honeymoon. Ezekiel seems to go so far as to
assert that Israel was erring from the very first — her very blood
was tainted, her father was an Amorite and her mother a Hittite.
Even in her youth she had prostituted herself to the Egyptians.

In this sweeping condemnation of all the past, Ezekiel intro-
duced a mode of thought which became prominent in later times,
What we now note is the interest with which the exiles followed
the fortunes of their native country, the certainty with which the
prophet foresaw the destruction that was coming, and the pains he
took to justify the ways of God to man. As the final revolt under
Zedekiah was planned, the prophet was outspoken in his condem-
nation. The fate of the rebel was sealed by his unfaithfulness.^
More of human sympathy is shown by the dirge over the unhappy
princes who have been carried into captivity — the two lion's cubs
trained by their mother to hunt the prey, but captured and caged,
and languishing in confinement.'

The certainty of Jerusalem's fall and the justice of Yahweh in
destroying it is the constant theme of this first period. As the
end approaches, the prophet's cry becomes a shriek. He sees the
king of Babylon marching with drawn sword. As he approaches

' Chapters i6 and 23,

^ Chapter 17, already mentioned in connexion with the life of Zedekiah.
That a cedar branch grows into a vine need not disturb us. The teaching
of the parable is perfectly plain.

' Chapter 19. The dirge is the most distinctly poetic of Ezekiel's com-
positions. The mother of the two young lions is the royal house. Some
suppose, however, that the queen-mother, Hamutal, two of whose sons came
to the throne (Jehoahaz and Zedekiah) is intendedc

THE EXILE 309

Palestine he consults his oracle/ to see which country he shall
first attack. The oracle indicates Jerusalem, and the city's
fate is sealed. The sword in Nebuchadrezzar's hand becomes
Yahweh's sword, the instrument of His vengeance on a renegade
people. And when the end had come the prophet was made an
example to the people by his personal bereavement. The day
before the news of Jerusalem's fall came to the exiles, Ezekiel's
wife was suddenly taken from him by death. So great was his
grief that he forgot the conventional mourning customs, and sat
like one turned to stone. And when the people manifested their
surprise, he came to the consciousness that he was only a sign and
a parable. Great as was his grief, so great should theirs be.
And so it turned out. A fugitive from Jerusalem made his way
over the long desert road, and brought the terrible news that Je-
rusalem had indeed fallen, and that Temple and dwellings had
been destroyed. Personal bereavement was in the message for
many, for they had relatives and friends in the far-off land. But
their grief was more than personal. They had lost home, and
native country, and hope, and the God in whom they had trusted.^

For those who were not permanently alienated from the religion
in which they had been brought up, this crisis laid a new duty
upon Ezekiel. Hitherto his message had been mourning and
lamentation and woe. It was now time to comfort those who
had been smitten, and to bind up the hearts that had been
broken. From this time on he not only changes the tone of his
message, but he speaks with a freedom which he had not hitherto
known. We may well suppose that during the period when he
was dreading the calamity which he foresaw, when also his people
heard him with incredulity, he would often find it impossible to
speak his mind. During this period he had long fits of silence,
which seemed to come from a real physical inability. When the
word of Jerusalem's fall came, the nervous shock seems to have
affected him physically, so that this debility troubled him no
longer. He had also the advantage of fulfilled prophecy on his
side. The false prophets and the necromancers who had contra-
dicted and blasphemed were thoroughly silenced. He himself
could speak as one who was accredited by the Almighty.

The first danger was the danger of despair and its consequent

1 By the divining arrows, Ezek. 21 ^^~'^^.

2 /h'd. 24 1^-". The paragraph rightly closes the first division of the book.

3IO OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

apathy. The people were now sure that they were rejected by
Yahweh. In a certain sense Ezekiel had contributed to this im-
pression. He had insisted that the guilt of the people was re-
sponsible for their calamity. Judah was ruined because she had
been incurably unfaithful. This was in line with the threaten-
ings of the earlier prophets and with the Book of Instruction.
The land of Yahweh had been desecrated, and was therefore
given over to destruction.^ The despair of the people was the
logical result of this teaching: ''Our iniquities and our sins
weigh us down, and we are rotting away in them " is their cry.
The disease was incurable, because its roots in the past could not
be reached. Or they put it in another way in a saying which
passed from mouth to mouth: ''The fathers have eaten sour
grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." The case
was one of inherited guilt. The present generation must suffer
for the sins of those who had preceded.^

When the traditional doctrine thus became a source of weak-
ness, Ezekiel did not hesitate to combat it in the most forcible
language he could command. In his vision of the sins of Jeru-
salem, he had refused to believe that the righteous would perish
with the wicked. So sure of his ground was he that he shut his
eyes to the facts of common life. In this immediate connexion
indeed he seems to admit an exception, perhaps on the theory
that the exception proves the rule. The people who actually
escaped destruction at the fall of Jerusalem and who joined the
exiles in Babylon, did not answer his description. So he af-
firmed that in this case Yahweh had spared a few of the sinners
in order, by actual sample, to convince the exiles of the quality
of their people. In this way alone could they be convinced
that the punishment was deserved.^ Allowing this exception,
however, he yet makes the most sweeping declaration — " all
souls are mine ; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the

' In addition to what has already been cited, note chapter 6, against the
mountains of Israel.

' Ezek. ^^ 1". Chapter i8 which treats the subject most thoroughly is now
among the earlier prophecies, and we may suppose that the saying which
furnishes the text was coined before the fall of Jerusalem and in view of the
first deportation. But the order of the discourses in this section is not
original, and this chapter was probably inserted out of its chronological
position.

THE EXILE 311

son. He that sins shall die. A man who is righteous and acts
justly shall live. But if he begets a son who is lawless and a
shedder of blood — the son certainly shall not live, he shall die a
violent death, and his blood shall be on himself." ^ The reverse
case is also presented. The bad father may beget a good son.
The rule (according to the prophet) applies with equal certainty
— the good son lives because of his own virtues ; the bad father
is not advantaged by his son's merits any more than the son is
condemned for his father's vices. Every man is treated strictly
according to his individual conduct.

We readily see how Ezekiel came to advocate so one-sided a
theory. Now that the blow had fallen he was making every ef-
fort to encourage his people. What he meant to enforce was the
possibility of repentance even in the worst extremity. While
there is life there is hope. Yahweh has no pleasure in the death
of the wicked, but that he turn from his ways and live. And
that life and death are, in the prophet's view, physical life and
death is obvious. The world beyond the grave gave him no
prospect of rewards and punishments. If he were to find justice
in Yahweh's dealings with men, he must find it in this life.
Under these limitations we see how his theory of individualistic
retribution was a logical necessity.

Before leaving the chapter we are considering, we may notice
the nature of the righteousness which Ezekiel demands. We
have already seen that his tendency is ritualistic. We expect
him to emphasise the people's departure from the true worship.
And so he does. In each case he puts among the sins of which
men may be guilty eating upon the mountains, by which he
means violation of the Deuteronomistic injunction of one altar.
But it is also noticeable that he preserves the good old prophetic
tradition which regards sins against one's neighbour as sins against
God. Adultery, oppression, extortion, usury are the things
which bring wrath upon the one who practises them, while res-
toration of pledges, distribution to the needy, clothing the naked,
giving honest judgment between man and man, are the things
which characterise the righteous man and which bring him Yah-

' The whole of chapter 18 is devoted to the development of this theory.
There is no attempt at argument, only repeated affirmation of the same thing.
The prolixity of the treatment shows how the prophet was wrestling with his
thought.

312 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

weh's favour. So when he closes his list of virtues with walking
in Yahweh's statutes and keeping His ordinatices we must inter-
pret the language according to the general tenor of his thought.
He stands, in fact, upon the basis of the Book of Instruction.
The idea of a ritual law is foreign to him, though he himself gave
the stimulus to the formulation of such a law.

Returning now to the doctrine of retribution — a doctrine which
gave later thinkers many an hour of internal conflict — we may
notice that for Ezekiel's contemporaries it did have a salutary
effect. They stood at the parting of the ways. The old national
religion could not endure after the death of the nation. If men
were to retain any religion at all (aside from the crass heathen-
ism which tempted them on all sides), they must learn to come
individually into relation with their God. Of course the indi-
vidual Judaite had always a dim consciousness of this relation.
And in the great religious leaders, this consciousness was more
than dim — it was a vivid realisation of the presence of Yahweh.
This we are sure of in such a man as Isaiah. But these men stood
in an official relation to Yahweh as His mouthpieces. The
officers and courtiers are in personal intercourse with their mon-
arch, whereas the nation at large can claim no such privilege.
The older prophets had preached on the basis of Yahweh's rela-
tion to the nation as a whole. They scarcely raise the question
whether the individual can have any apportionment of fate except
as he shares the lot of the whole nation. Even Jeremiah, though
he has been called the discoverer of individual religion, does not
get beyond this. His individual and personal relation to Yah-
weh is beyond doubt. But the thought which oppresses him and
with which he agonises is that in spite of this intimacy he is in-
volved in the fate of his people.

With Ezekiel the circumstances forced a new consideration of
the problem. The individual comes to the front when the na-
tion is no more. The prophet boldly declares that each man
has his fate in his own hands ; each is directly responsible to
Yahweh. The supremacy of this thought in later Judaism needs
no demonstration. The measure of Ezekiel's insistence upon
his doctrine is the rigidity with which he applies it to himself.
In the instruction which he receives concerning his office we see
this finely brought out. He regards his office as that of a watch-
man on the city walls — not to call the whole city to arms, but

THE EXILE 313

to warn the individual of his danger. We think of the walled
town liable to attack from guerilla bands. The watchman
on the wall, as he sees the dust-cloud on the horizon, cries out
to the travellers approaching the gates, so that they may make
haste and gain the place of safety. If the sword threatens and
the alarm is given and the unheeding loiterer is overtaken and
slain, then his death lies at his own door. But if the watchman
neglects his duty, gives no warning, lets the unsuspecting traveller
fall into the hands of the enemy, then the watchman will be held
responsible — the blood is upon his head.^ The doctrine of per-
sonal accountability could be no more strongly put. The work
of the prophet is the care of souls, and for each of those com-
mitted to him there will be a reckoning according to tlie meas-
ure of his opportunity.

What has been said will show something of the ferment of
new ideas which began to work among the exiles. Ezekiel's im-
portance as the exponent of these ideas is evident. But his in-
fluence does not stop with these. Such a man could not be with-
out hopes for the future. The justice of Yahweh might be
indicated by the punishment of His rebellious people. But this
could not be the end of history. He might temporarily with-
draw from a Temple too polluted for His dwelling ; but the
mind refused to think of Him as for ever dwelling apart from
those who love and worship Him. This would be an abdication
of His place as God of the whole earth, an abandonment of His
world to the very rivals who had excited His jealousy. He must
have plans for the future.

Such thoughts enable us to follow with something like sym-
pathy the constructive work which Ezekiel has left on record in
the second part of his book, and which, viewed apart from the
man and his time, has so often puzzled the student. The general
thought which we must bear in mind is the restoration of Israel in
a new and purified commonwealth. The motive of such a restora-
tion on the part of Yahweh is the vindication of His name. The
fact that He had punished His own people was misunderstood by
the heathen. They thought Him too weak or too indifferent to
protect His own. For His name's sake, therefore, and not be-
cause of any merit in His people. He will undertake a restoration.
And the thoroughness with which He will do this is seen in the

314 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

elaborateness of Ezekiel's scheme. The subject is treated in three
divisions. First comes the restoration of the people to their
land ; then, the treatment of the heathen aggressors ; finally,
the organisation of the new nation in such a way as to guard
against the errors of the past. The whole is appropriately pre-
faced by the chapter on the prophet as watchman which we have
already considered, and by a warning to the people to be doers
of the word and not hearers only.^

Without confining ourselves strictly to the prophet's own order
we may look at the details of his picture. First of all it should be
noticed that he expects the total duration of the exile to be forty
years.' This is, of course, a round number ; but he probably
expects the generation that follows his own to see the return.

The land of Judah must first be restored, for the curse of Yah-
weh has fallen on the soil. Hence we find a promise that the
mountains are to be visited and that new fruitfulness is to be their
portion for the sake of Israel and for the sake of Yahweh's name
— for the nations say: "This is Yahweh's people, yet they had
to leave His land." But this desolate land will be made like
the garden of Eden.^

More than fruitfulness of soil is necessary for the happiness of
a people. This had been proved by the old days, both in Israel
and Judah. '' Where wealth accumulates and men decay " was
the standing characterisation of Israel's prosperity on the part of
the prophets. A just government is necessary, or the fairest lands
will languish. Ezekiel is quite aware of this and sets it before us
in a chapter devoted to the shepherds of Israel. The shepherds
should care for the flock — so should the rulers care for their peo-
ple. The monarchy is in its very idea an institution that de-
fends the weak against the powerful. Too often the king becomes
a new oppressor, taking the part of the rapacious noble against
the oppressed peasant. Such had been the case in Judah, as

' That Ezekiel was nerved for greater activity by the news of the fall of
Jerusalem is indicated in this chapter — even his physical debility seems to
have been removed {t,^ "). That his prestige was increased we have had
occasion to note. He had, however, the common experience of preachers — •
in the willingness of his hearers to be entertained, and their unwillingness to
practice what he preached (33 ^*'"^'^).

^ The prophet lies on his side forty days — a day for a year — to bear the
sin of Judah (4 ^).

» Ezek. 36 20. 35 . cf. also 34 ^^^o.

THE EXILE 315

Ezekiel had seen exemplified in the case of Jehoiakim. The
shepherds had fed themselves and not the flock. They had not
defended the flock from enemies without, nor had they kept the
peace within the fold. Among sheep as among men the strong
crowd the weak out of the best pasture, keep them from the
water, wantonly foul and mar what was intended for the good of
all. Such a king as Jehoiakim must be made impossible in the
future. Yahweh will make such a king impossible by Himself
assuming the government and taking the part of the oppressed.
The human monarch is to remain (as we shall see) but he is to
be shorn of his power to oppress.^ The new David is to be not
king but prince — a title which Ezekiel consistently gives him
throughout his discussion.

And now for the foreign nations — how nmch heart-break they
had occasioned the true believers. They were doing Yahweh's
will, to be sure, and yet they were moved by their own evil pas-
sions. Has the justice of Yahweh nothing to do with them?
Isaiah has already answered that when Yahweh has made due use
of Assyria as the instrument of His chastisement, He will punish
the pride of its stout heart. So it had come to pass, for Assyria
had fallen ; but the new scourge had been as godless as the old.
There must be a day of vengeance for him also and for all who
had taken part in the spoliation of Judah. This we must suppose
to be Ezekiel's faith, and he does not hesitate to express it. Cu-
riously, he nowhere denounces the Babylonian power. Was he
afraid of the police? Or did he think it unwise to arouse hopes
among his countrymen that might lead to unrest and sedition ?
Or was he impressed with the good order and prosperity the ex-
iles were enjoying under Nebuchadrezzar, so that he regarded the
magistrate as the power ordained of God ? We ask in vain.
What stands out prominently is the enmity which the prophet
feels against Edom. This can readily be accounted for by the
fact that Edom was Judah's nearest neighbour, rejoiced most
openly over her fall, and hastened to invade her weakened terri-
tory. In revenge the prophet declares that Edom's land shall
become a desert.^

^ Chapter 34. Yahweh the good shepherd is a common figure in the Old
Testament. Perhaps the earliest passages are in Jeremiah.

2 Chapter 35 appropriately forms the preface to the promise to the moun-
tains of Israel. I have purposely left out of view the group of prophecies

3l6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Instead of insisting on the separate punishment of the various
nations which have been hostile to Judah, Ezekiel rises to a
grander conception. The peace of Yahweh's land had been dis-
turbed by more terrible powers than Edom or Moab. In the far
north was a reservoir of barbarians whence the Scythian armies
had poured forth to desolate the face of the civilised earth. Not
until they had been taught a lesson by the signal judgment of
God could these barbarian hordes be expected to refrain from
further attacks. The prophet had himself in his boyhood heard
of these invaders as a present terror. Yahweh's name would be
best vindicated by a new irruption visibly checked by His inter-
vention. So we read the prophecy of Gog, and find in it the
summing up of all that Yahweh can be expected to do against all
the Gentiles. Gog^ is the leader of the heathen powers, espe-
cially those terrible ones in the north and east.'' He is the in-
carnation of hostility to Israel. His army is held in reserve for
the last great crisis in history. When the time comes he is to
be led forth by the will of Yahweh and make the final invasion
of Israel's land : "After many days thou shalt receive a commis-
sion ; at the end of years thou shalt come against a land recov-
ered from its desolation, against those gathered from many na-
tions who dwell in security, all of them. Thou shalt come up
like a storm, like a cloud to cover the land, thou and all thy
hordes." ^ In all this — as was the case with Assyria — the invader
is moved by his own evil desires. He sees Israel dwelling in
unwalled villages and thinks to find an easy prey. But the peo-
ple that trust in Yahweh shall not be put to shame. Their de-
liverance will be sure, and so signal that none can misinterpret
it. By a great earthquake a panic will be brought upon the in-

against the foreign nations which now form the middle section of the book
(chapters 25-32) because I am not satisfied that in their present form they
are by Ezekiel.

* Gog and Magog, the phrase which is found in the New Testament (Rev.
20^) and which has passed over >nto Christian and Mohammedan tradition,
is due to a misunderstanding.

* It is strange to find Nubia and Libya in his armies. Probably there is
some corruption of the text which originally named two northern or eastern
nations ; cf. Toy in his edition of the text (Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old
Testament).

^ Ezek. 38 8. That the hosts of Antichrist, or of the hostile world-power,
are held in reserve for the last great Day is a common feature in Christian
and Mohammedan tradition.

THE EXILE 317

vader. As in the Midianite army at the time of Gideon, each
man's sword will be against his fellow. The slaughter will be
completed by pestilence, and by a hail of fire and brimstone
from heaven.

The first advantage of this programme is that it vindicates the
earher prophets. Ezekiel had before him predictions of disaster
on the enemies of Israel which had not been fulfilled. By their
non-fulfilment the name of Yahweh had suffered — as though He
were unable to carry out what He had threatened. Not only
will this reproach be removed by the great Day that is to come,
but Yahweh's name will be revered over the earth: ''That the
nations may know me, in that by thee I show my divinity before
their eyes.'" His power and His care for His people will be
universally recognised.

We must not leave this prophecy without noticing one char-
acteristic of Ezekiel which it brings into great prominence. This
is his carefulness in matters of detail, and especially on the side
of ritual. After the annihilation of the hosts of Gog, the land is
covered with their corpses. These are repulsive not only to sense
and sight, but also to religion, for the religion of Yahweh stamps
the dead as unclean ; contact with them unfits a man for worship.
Special pains must be taken, therefore, to remove every vestige
of the great slaughter. Ravenous birds and beasts are allowed to
act as scavengers. But it is ordained that when these have
wrought their work, a great valley shall be chosen on the other
side of the Jordan, whither shall be carried all that remains. This
work will occupy seven months, and, in order that it may be
thorough, inspectors are to be appointed to go through the land,
and mark every bone not yet disposed of. A final gleaning will
then remove every trace of pollution.^

The practical and prosaic sense of Ezekiel in the midst of this
grandiose description is manifested by his theory of the captured
arms of Gog and his host. These arms are of no use to Israel

' "In that I show myself holy before their eyes " gives a wrong impres-
sion. Holiness as the word is commonly understood is a moral attribute.
What the prophet has in mind is rather one of the natural attributes (to
speak theologically) — the superhuman power of Yahweh. For this reason
I translate sho7v my divinity instead of sanctify myself, or shozv myself holy.
Yahweh's holiness is precisely that quality which makes Him different from
man. His divinity. The passage is 38 ^^.

2 Ezek. 39 8-15.

3l8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

because it is a peaceful nation. Consisting of spears, bows, arrows,
and clubs, these weapons will furnish Israel with fuel for the space
of seven years. This feature of the prediction is, of course, not
purely economic. The length of time taken in consuming these
weapons, as well as the length of time required for the burial of
the bodies, is designed to impress the reader with the greatness of
the catastrophe. To the little band of exiles such a judgment
upon the Gentiles would indeed prove the greatness of their God.
In fact, the hope of such a great cataclysmic interference in the
history of the world has sustained oppressed and persecuted be-
lievers in many a dark hour from Ezekiel's time onward. The
last judgment, the end of the age, the battle with Antichrist, the
great Day — this is a conception which is coming to the front
continually in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Its definite for-
mulation we owe to Ezekiel.^

It needs no demonstration that Ezekiel in all this is thinking
strictly of a restored Israel on earth. His imagination does not
reach to a new heaven and a new earth, still less to a spiritual
heaven of everlasting bliss. This needs to be borne in mind in
considering another vision of his, which has quite as powerfully
influenced later theology — the vision of dry bones. In this vision
the prophet is brought into a valley filled with human bones from
which the flesh has long since disappeared. He is made the herald
of the divine will, and as he pronounces the words of which he is
the organ, bone seeks out his fellow-bone, sinews and flesh come
upon the articulated frames, breath comes into the new-formed
bodies, and instead of the mass of fragments, a great army of liv-
ing men stand upon their feet.' All that the prophet received
by this vision, and all that he intended to convey to his contemp-
oraries was an assurance that the dead nation should live. Judah
did indeed seem dead beyond the possibility of resurrection. The
exiles avowed in so many words, that they were only the dry
bones of a once-living organism, that their ho]ie had perished, that
their ruin was a present fact. The promise is given to those who

' The Day of Yahweh was to the older prophets (as we have seen) a day
of judgment upon Israel. Ezekiel revives the old popular view that it was
a visitation upon Israel's enemies. His originality is seen in the definiteness
with which he presents his picture. In its earliest form the conception is
mythological.

2 Ezek. 37 ^-i**. The later doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was no
doubt mightily helped by the vividness of this picture.

THE EXILE 319

speak and feel in this way. The word is : ''I will bring you out
of your graves and will bring you to the land of Israel . . .
and will put my spirit in you and you shall live." Such a work
of national restoration would be as great a miracle as to restore
the dry bones to life.

Ezekiel's hope, then, expressed itself very definitely along these
lines: there is to be a restoration; the nation will revive; it
will be put into possession of Yahweh's land; the land itself will
be renovated ; by a signal judgment the heathen will be taught
Yahweh's power and will respect His people's peace and integrity.
But a troublesome question still remains : Can the Israel of the
future be trusted to do any better than the Israel of the past had
done ? On this point the prophet must have had many misgiv-
ings. He and his contemporaries were led by their experiences
totally to condemn the old Israel. He does not hesitate to say
that the bride of Yahweh had been adulterous from her youth.
This is the attitude of later Judaism — which here again shows the
strength of Ezekiel's influence. Suppose, now, that the nation is
restored according to promise. What is to prevent its going
astray again ? Ezekiel is aware, as all theologians are aware, that
the natural heart cannot be trusted. It needs the special grace
of God if it is to be kept in the right way. The assurance that
the failure of the past will not be repeated in the future must
come from Yahweh Himself. And so at the forefront of his re-
newed Israel the prophet puts a promise of gracious influence in
the heart of man: *' I will give you a new heart, and will put a
new spirit within you ; I will take away the heart of stone, and
will give you a heart of flesh ; I will put my spirit within you,
and will cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my
judgments and do them."^ Without such gracious intervention
the history of the past would repeat itself.

One would think that this were sufficient. When it is God
that works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure we may
be trusted to work out our own salvation. But like most religious

' Ezek. 36 ^^ ' ; cf. 11'^. I suppose the similar promises in Jeremiah (24 '',
31 33^ 323a) ^Q |3g later insertions in that book and dependent on Ezekiel,
rather than the reverse. The complaint of the prophets concerning the
hardness of their hearers' hearts, was a complaint of stupidity of brain, and
the promise must be interpreted accordingly — the people will become quick
to apprehend the word of God.

320 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

leaders, Ezekiel reasons in another way. The spirit may be will-
ing but the flesh is weak. Therefore the flesh must be helped by
those external and ceremonial regulations which will prevent at
least external violations of the law. There must be organisation
and government — this is the key to the great concluding vision
of Ezekiel's book. And this government must be ecclesiastical
rather than civil — this we may understand from the prophet's
antecedents and from his observation of civil government.

It is a concession to tradition that there is to be a monarch.
But the monarch is to be shorn of most of his power, as we have
already seen.^ He becomes, in fact, the nursing father of the
Church and even that only to a limited degree. He is to receive
a very considerable landed property in the new division of the
country. This is to' secure him a sufficient income so that he
will not need to levy taxes — the oriental feeling always has been
that the monarch is rich enough to give presents rather than to
exact them. The prince, as he is consistently called by Ezekiel,
is to have power to levy one small and strictly limited tax and
this he must apply to the support of the daily worship, and of the
festival offerings.^ To guard against his intrusion in matters of
religion he is treated as a layman and not even allowed to enter
the sanctuary. He is apparently to take cognisance of civil
affairs, as he is exhorted to see that a uniform standard of weight
and measure is enforced. But his jurisdiction is not supposed to
be very extensive because so many cases are reserved for the
arbitration of the priests.

Furthermore, we have to note that the new commonwealth is
simply an adjunct to the restored Temple of Yahweh. To pre-
vent the old tribal jealousies, the land is to be divided anew
among the twelve tribes. All Israel is to be located in Canaan
proper, between the Jordan and the sea. The exposure of the
transjordanic country to contamination from the desert is, per-
ha[)s, the reason for this. The increased fruitfulness of the land
will compensate for the restricted area. Each tribe is to have a

' In 34^'* ' we find a promise that a new David shall rule over the reunited
Israel. I doubt, however, whether this is Ezekiel's own declaration.
Some similar Messianic sections in the early part of the book seem also to
be later insertions.

''■ An income-tax in kind — one-sixtieth part of the grain crop, one per cent,
of the oil and one-half per cent, of the cattle — is assessed by the prince, and
from this he is to furnish the various offerings, 45 '^-'^, and 46 '^-'^

THE EXILE

321

Strip across the country. Judah and Benjamin are to exchange
places in order the bet-ter to obhterate the old lines of division,
between these two important tribes will be the Temple.

The expectation of Yahweh's interference for His people is
carried so far as to include the physical transformation of the
country. The new Temple will be located on an exceeding high
mountain. Here Ezekiel sees it in vision, and so changed is the
topography that he does not at first recognise the building.^ The
great structure will form a unit of itself, isolated from the city of
which it has been heretofore a part. Immediately about the
sanctuary the priests will receive their allotments of ground, the
more effectually to separate city and Temple.

The elaborate measurements of the new sanctuary need not
be reproduced here. The central building is to be on the plan
of the old one which had been destroyed. Instead of the single
court in which that one originally stood, this will have two, an
outer and an inner. Entrance to the inner is prohibited to any
but the priests and Levites. Even the prince is allowed to come
only into the gateway to see his sacrifices offered. A wall ten feet
high and ten feet thick surrounds the wdiole structure, and one
of similar massiveness separates the outer from the inner court.
Each is provided with gateways, and each gateway is arranged to
accommodate a considerable guard.

What is the reason for all this elaborate fortification and regu-
lation? The reason is given by the writer. In the old days
Yahweh had been constantly offended by trespassers on His holi-
ness. We have already had occasion to notice that this word
was used to denote a physical, rather than a moral attribute of
the divinity. To understand the attitude of Ezekiel and his
contemporaries we need to remember that all things could be
divided into the two classes, sacred and profane. One class (the
sacred or holy, as we have the word rendered in our translations)
was fit for the worship of Yahweh, either naturally or because it
had been consecrated to Him. The other class was not fit to be
brought before Him and was likely to arouse His wrath. The
danger of offending Him was reason for the utmost caution in

1 The great vision — chapters 40-48— begins with this statement. Other
Old Testament passages which speak of the Mount of the House being lifted
above the mountains (Is. 2^ and the parallel in Micah) are probably de-
pendent on Ezekiel.

322 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

approaching His presence. The danger was greatest when it was
a question between Him and another god. Of old He was
known to be a jealous God who could brook no rivals. What
was dedicated to another deity was therefore especially abhorrent
to Him.

Now almost everything which is not dedicated to Yahweh is
liable to fall under the power of another god. To the average
man of ancient times the world was full of gods (demons, cobolds,
jinn, are only gods of the second class). Even so late a writer
as Augustine is able to show that every act and exigency of life
was brought into relation with some god.^ What was true of
the Roman world was even more true in the distant East a thou-
sand years earlier. Ezekiel, like all who took the will of Yah-
weh seriously, was weighed down by the thought of how easy it
was to infringe the holiness of Yahweh. Prominent among the
duties of the priests, therefore, is the instruction of the people
concerning the distinction between things sacred and profane.

Even moral offences — and we have seen that Ezekiel set up a
high moral standard — were viewed in the same light as offences
against the holiness of Yahweh. Violations of the will of Yahweh
were all in the same category. Where we distinguish between
moral and ceremonial requirements, Ezekiel made no difference.
These requirements were partly recorded in the Book of In-
struction; but they were also in part a matter of priestly tra-
dition.

As an example of what is meant, we may cite the prophet's
specification concerning the burial of the kings of Judah. The
Temple of Solomon was in immediate connexion with the palace.
In accordance with ancient custom the bodies of the kings of
Judah were buried in the palace — in the part of the palace ad-
joining the Temple. So we are told explicitly by Ezekiel him-
self.* After what was said above about the pollution of corpses,
we understand fully the offence which was given by this custom.
We may go further and say that even to a late day the manes
were worshipped in Judah, and so the burial of the kings near
the Temple brought alien divinities into the very presence of
Yahweh. It is considerations such as these which induce Ezekiel

1 De Civitate Dei, IV, 8-11.

^ Ezek. 43 " '. On the taboo communicated by dead bodies, cf. Frazer, The
Golden Bough, I, p. 169 f.

THE EXILE 323

to remove the Temple from the city, or, better, to remove the
city from the Temple, and to put between them the consecrated
persons, the priests.

New regulations are published for the priests themselves, based
on the same reflection — possibly also to some extent on tradition.
The priests are greatly limited in their mourning customs. It was
impossible wholly to do away with expressions of grief which had
become established in usage, even though they were animistic in
origin, but what could be done, Ezekiel enjoined. In like manner
he gave new regulations concerning the dress of the priests. More
important, and indeed revolutionary, was the new stipulation con-
cerning the personnel of the Temple service. It had been the cus-
tom of the kings of Judah — so we discover from the passage under
consideration ^ — to make presents of slaves to the Temple. These
were captives taken in war, we may suppose, uncircumcised in
heart and uncircumcised in flesh as Ezekiel calls them: that is,
being foreigners, they had no interest in the service to which
they were bound, and they also lacked in their flesh the sign
which should show their consecration to Yahvveh. Their presence
in the Temple must be an offence to Yahweh and such an abuse
must be guarded against in the future. Hence the service of the
Temple, even in its most menial parts, must be in the hands of
duly consecrated ministers. None but these were to enter the
inner court.

The priests, however, were historically of two classes. The
services of the Temple had been carried on since the time of Solo-
mon by the family of Zadok. They were regarded as belonging to
the general class of Levites, by wiiich name the ministers of all the
Yahweh sanctuaries were known. The writer of Deuteronomy
knew no difference between priests and Levites. In its command
to abolish the High-places, this book does not mean to have the
ministers of these sanctuaries deprived of their rights as priests of
Yahweh. It specifically ordains that they shall become part of
the ministry of the Temple.^ But it was hardly to be expected
that the house of Zadok, already in possession, would surrender

^ Ezek. 44 ^-^^. Ezekiel does not say in so many words that these foreigners
were presented by the kings, but other passages state or imply it (Ezra 8 2").

2 Deut. 18 1-^, where all members of the tribe of Levi are regarded as hav-
ing the same rights and privileges. We had occasion to notice this matter
in discussing the reform of Josiah.

324 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

their prerogatives. Under pressure from Josiah the new-comers
were enrolled in the Temple staff, but equality with the Zadokites
could not be carried through.

Ezekiel is fully aware of the history of the case. As himself a
member of the family of Zadok, he has no desire to reduce the
privileges of that family. He therefore sanctions the status quo
by a specific enactment. And this he motives by a religious
theory. The Levites (he thinks), though true priests of Yahweh,
have been guilty of defection from His worship in that they served
the High-places. Their reduction to the lower class of ministers
is a punishment for this defection. In this way what had actually
taken place is theoretically justified. And the gain of thus regu-
lating the service of the sanctuary is great. The uncircumcised
Temple slaves may now be abolished. The whole of the sacred
service will come into the hands of consecrated persons. There
will be no violation of the holiness of Yahweh, the work of the
sanctuary will be better done, and the needy Levites will be pro-
vided for. The tendency to give a special consecration to those
w4io perform even menial offices in sacred places is noticeable in
other religions as well as in Judaism. Attention should be
called in this connexion to the fact that Ezekiel, familiar as he
is with priestly ideals and priestly tradition, nowhere mentions
Aaron as in any way the ancestor or founder of the priestly
family.

The millennium of Ezekiel's dreams, therefore, was a church-
state whose constitutive fact was the dwelling of Yahweh in the
midst of His people. In order to attain this all these precautions
were necessary — the priests to offer sacrifice, the Levites to guard
the doors and care for the house, the prince to supply the offer-
ings, the people to worship at a distance. The main business
of this church was to keep itself unspotted from the world. This
means no doubt to avoid sin, for transgression of the will of Yah-
weh, whether in morals or in ritual, is violation of His holiness.
But all is looked upon from the ritual rather than the ethical point
of view.

It would seem as if all these precautions, with the help of the
people's renewed heart, would be enough. Not so thought the
prophet. In a world where so much must be classed as profane
the possibilities of defilement are constantly present. Special rites
of purification must therefore be observed at stated times. One

THE EXILE

325

can hardly be too scrupulous, for an unwitting violation of the
rules for holiness may bring down the wrath of Yahweh. With
the best will in the world one may come into contact with that
which is ritually defihng. Even the priest is not exempt from
such contagion. The sanctuary itself or its vessels may be affected
by it. To prevent so disastrous a state of things, a special class
of offerings is now brought into prominence. These are the so-
called sin offerings, which have special efficacy in removing cere-
monial defilement.

These offerings are found in early Semitic religion, where they
are expiatory in the strict sense of the word. When the god is
angry and blood alone will satisfy him, a victim is brought and
slain at his altar. His anger being cooled, the old relations are
resumed between him and his worshippers. In Israelitish relig-
ion we may suppose such offerings not unknown, though they
were always rare. The fact which had early impressed itself on
the memory of the people was that the blood of a victim restores
the lost communion with Yahweh. Exactly how it does this was
not reflected upon. The calamities of Judah made it necessary that
the people should reflect on the means to be taken to recover the
favour of Yahweh. The means were at hand in the ancient sin
offering, which Ezekiel therefore makes prominent. Every six
months (he ordains) the consecration of the sanctuary is to be
renewed by a special sin offering.' In this way the continued
presence of Yahweh will be assured. In the prominence which
Ezekiel gives to this class of offerings he is again the forerunner
of Judaism.

To complete our discussion of Ezekiel's commonwealth we need
to notice the river which he sees issuing from the sanctuary.
This river, which was suggested to him by the fountain which
flows at the base of the actual Temple hill, is to run down the
great gorge of the Kedron and into the Dead Sea. So abundant
will be its supply that it will transform this lifeless body of water
into a fresh-water lake whose waters will swarm with fish and
whose shores will cease to be desert. Ezekiel had no mystical
or allegorical meaning hidden behind this vision. It was to him
only a part of the programme for increasing fertility in the prom-
ised land. The Dead Sea and the wilderness of Judah were to be
made to do their part in sustaining the people. So distinctly
1 Ezek. 45 1^-20.

326 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

prosaic and economic is he that he allows the salt marshes to re
main in order that the people may be supplied with salt.^

From our point of view the limitations of Ezekiel are so obvi-
ous that it is easy for us to underrate him. We see in him a
man intense but narrow ; his ideals are formal, liturgical ; his
dogmatism leads him to shut his eyes to the facts of experience.
But with all this we can see not only that he was the man for the
time, but that his power came from his sterling moral qualities.
He was intensely in earnest ; he was saturated with the idea of his
own and his people's responsibility; he was faithful to duty when
all the world (his world) was against him. When the tide turned
and his predictions were justified by the event, he showed noth-
ing of pride or vainglory. If he was pessimistic when others
were hopeful, he showed most hope when they were hopeless.
No sooner did the calamity fall than he began the work of up-
building. And this he did with a sincere love for souls, watch-
ing for them as one that should give account. The system
which he evolved was no doubt narrow and exclusive. But we
see no way in which Judaism could have been carried through
its crisis, no way in which it could have been preserved for its
future mission, except by becoming for the time being narrow
and exclusive. The framework provided by Ezekiel in his vis-
ion became an ideal toward which his countrymen could work.
And as they began to realise it, even in their exile, it gave them
coherence and staying power. Ezekiel was the father of Juda-
ism. The child was tempted, when it got its growth, to disown
the relationship. But we are able to see to whom it owes its
being. To say that he is the father of Judaism means that he is
the father of legalism. The prophets in general may be said to
have prepared the way for the great casuistic system, by which
the Jews have lived so many centuries. They were constantly
preaching obedience as the condition of life. But this preach-
ing crystallised in Ezekiel. He (following in the footsteps of
Deuteronomy) laid down a system of duties, religious as well as

* Ezek. 47^"^'. How far Ezekiel expected his vision to be literally ful-
filled is a point on which the interpreters are divided. All the indications
seem to me to show that he supposed it would be literally fulfilled. As to
the details of the interpretation the reader may consult the recent commen-
taries, and especially Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II, where maps
and plans are given.

THE EXILE 327

..,v.ral, by which the people might hope to hve in the continued
enjoyment of the divine favour. And as he raised legahsm to a
system, so he inaugurated the apocalyptic school of thought
which has so powerfully influenced Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam. His vision of the future was one that could never be
realised, but it gave an outline of that good time coming which
oppressed souls are always looking for, an outline which they
were able to fill in, allegorise, or spiritualise, as met the need of
their times. Taking him all in all it is not too much to say that
Ezekiel is the most influential man that we find in the whole
course of Hebrew history.

Ezekiel's latest prophecy is dated in the year 571 b.c, and we
may suppose that his death occurred not long after. He had
taken pains to put some part of his life's work into written form,
and he had founded a school whose influence extended and car-
ried on what he had begun. Through all these years the Juda-
ites seem to have had peace under the reign of Nebuchadrezzar.
This monarch had devoted himself to the adornment of his capi-
tal, planning and carrying out the great works which made
Babylon a wonder of the world. His own inscriptions tell of
the number and magnificence of the palaces and temples which
he built, and of his rebuilding those city walls of which Greek
writers have so much to say.^ More important for the prosperity
of the country were the moats and canals which protected the
fields from inundation, or carried the water to them when needed.
On the death of Nebuchadrezzar his son Evil-merodach ' came to
the throne. He it was who released Jehoiachin from his long
imprisonment, and gave him a place at court. We hear noth-
ing of the eff"ect which this release had on the Jews in Babylonia.
It can scarcely be supposed that the Babylonian monarchs gave
much thought to the little band of exiles. They, on their part,
were probably content to escape observation. They were learn-
ing to live among the Gentiles, as in the great world and yet not
oflt— a lesson that was to prove useful to them for a long time
iThe inscriptions are contained in the Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, III, 2,
pp 10-71 A good estimate of Nebuchadrezzar's character as a man and
ruler is given by McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, III, pp.

'"^tvmel-marduk is the Babylonian form of the name. The Biblical writer
(2 Kings, 25 ■^"-=^0) dates the restoration of Jehoiachin in the thirty-seventh year
of his captivity.

328 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

to come. The reign of Evil-merodach has nothing to claim our
attention. He seems to have been a careless, ease-loving prince.
After a reign of less than two years he was murdered by his
brother-in-law, Neriglissar, who seized the throne. This king
retained, his ill-gotten power only three years, and his son, who
succeeded him, was removed by a conspiracy soon after ascend-
ing the throne. Nabonidus, on whom the conspirators conferred
the crown, reigned about twenty years, but they were years of
loss and disintegration, during which a new and formidable
power not far away was threatening Babylon.

The exiles in whom our interest is centred had, we may sup-
pose, little appreciation of the civilisation by which they were
surrounded. It was to them the ex])ression of a religion foreign
to their own, and in their eyes many of its customs must have
been abominations. The defection of some of their number to
this heathenism would make the remainder only more rigid in
strengthening the institutions which still remained to them. They
were deprived of many of the means of grace ; there was all the
more reason for holding on to what was left. Sacrifice could not
be offered in a strange land. Even if the Temple had been stand-
ing, they could not have visited it. But some of the ordinances
of Yahweh were still practicable. Two among these, because
they were practicable, and because they served to emphasise the
difference between Jews and Gentiles, received new importance.
These were circumcision and the Sabbath. Observance of them
now became a test of fidelity to Yahweh.

Circumcision was a rite originally common to a large part of
the inhabitants of Canaan, with the Egyptians and other African
peoples. Its original significance is now lost to us, but there is
no reason to doubt that this significance was religious. Wher-
ever we can trace the origin of other mutilations of the body —
tattooings, cuttings, extraction of teeth — we find them based on
religious ideas. It is probable that with the Israelites circum-
cision was a tribal mark, admitting boys or young men to full
membership in the clan, and into communion with Yahweh. As
we have seen ' the Yah wist found a tradition that Moses provoked
the wrath of Yahweh by neglecting it and that its performance
upon his infant son was the means of reconciliation. This is in
accordance \vith the early ritualistic view such as we see illus-
^ Above, p. 66 f.

THE EXILE , 329

trated by the Yahwist elsewhere. The Elohist has a variant tra-
dition. According to him the rite was introduced by Joshua at
Gilgal to remove the reproach of Egypt. ^ With him, as with
the Yahwist, therefore, it is a part of the popular religion. In
the eyes of the prophets the rite had no special value. It is not
mentioned by Amos, Hosea, or Isaiah, while Jeremiah indicates
his light esteem for it as a mere fleshly ordinance. At the same
time this prophet exhorts the people to circumcise themselves to
Yahweh, by putting away the foreskins of their hearts.^ The
language will be natural if we suppose the rite to be a rite of con-
secration. Similar expressions in Deuteronomy "^ certainly do
not favour the idea that the external rite had any value in the
author's eyes.

Ezekiel, indeed, made no direct regulation on the subject.
But he introduced a different valuation of external rites. The
whole system of clean and unclean was, in his eyes, of great im-
portance. He takes occasion to express Yahweh's abhorrence of
the uncircumcised foreigners who had been employed in His ser-
vice. We may be sure, therefore, that his influence Avould be in
favour of the retention of the rite — all the more that Israel was
now living in the midst of the uncircumcised. In several pas-
sages he expresses his contempt for the uncircumcised.* Where
such reproach was uttered, men would take pains to avoid giving
occasion for it. The Judaite who neglected the rite would soon
find himself regarded with scorn by his fellows. This is the ten-
dency that made itself felt in the exile, and which has wrought
in Judaism to the present time.

The other mark of distinction was the observance of the Sab-
bath. This seems to have been originally a Babylonian institu-
tion, naturalised in Canaan at an early day. Cessation of labour
one day in seven cannot be the thought of a nomadic or pas-
toral people. The life of the peasant is the one which gives op-
portunity for such an observance. That certain days are taboo,
because of the predominance of a hostile planet, is a thought that
comes with the systematic observation of the heavens such as we

^ Josh. 5 -• '•■ *^- ^. The intervening verses are a later insertion.
2 Jer. 4 *. In 9 " Jeremiah designates the circumcised in flesh as precisely
the ones that are uncircumcised in heart.

' Deut. 10 '^ 30 ' ; the latter is certainly a late insertion.
*Ezek. 28 '« ^i ^\ ^2 19. 21 25.

330 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

find in Babylonia. The Babylonians are said to have designated
the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth day of
each month as days of possible ill-omen, in which special care
should be taken concerning what one does or undertakes. The
phases of the moon would seem to give reason for a notion of
this kind, especially where the moon was a prominent divinity,
as it seems to have been all over the East. The Old Testament
mention of New Moon and Sabbath in conjunction would indicate
a common origin for the two festivals. With this idea we have
another. The Book of the Covenant ordains that the land shall
be cultivated six years, and lie fallow the seventh. And it treats
the Sabbath in connexion with this Sabbatic year.^ Here we find
the idea of the agriculturist that the land belongs to his god, and
that cultivation is a trespass on the god's rights. It was on ac-
count of this belief that so much care was taken to propitiate the
local divinity when new ground was brought under cultivation.
Leaving the ground fallow for a portion of the time is one way
of recognising the god's ownership.

We are here in the region of hypothesis. But as we know that
the attributes of Baal were transferred to Yahweh, and that Yah-
weh was the recognised owner of the land of Canaan, it does not
seem far-fetched to suppose that at least the Sabbatic year was an
acknowledgment of His rights in the soil, and that the Sabbath,
whatever its original connexion with the moon-god, was regarded
from the same point of view. In the earlier prophets we find no
emphasis laid upon the sacred day. Amos describes the extor-
tionate merchants as observing it, but with the wish that it might
pass quickly that they might resume their money-getting. Hosea
mentions it as one of the joyous festivals which are to come to
an end. Isaiah puts it with the New Moon and the days of as-
sembly, but finds them all an abomination to Yahweh.^

Ezekiel takes a different tone — here again the inaugurator of
a new mode of thought. Through him Yahweh says : ''I gave
them my statutes and taught them my judgments in which a
man shall live if he do them ; and also my Sabbaths I gave them
to be a sign between myself a?id them, that they might know that
I, Yahweh, am the one who consecrates them." ^ The meaning

1 Ex. 23 lo-^^,

'Isaiah, i^^, Amos 8», Hos. 2 ^^

^Ezek. 20 "^ and several times in the same chapter; cf. also 22 8. '«, 23^*

THE EXILE "331

seems to be that Yahweh has separated Israel from the nations,
and consecrated them to Himself by putting this mark upon them.
The profanation of the Sabbath is sacrilege — like the profanation
of other sacred things. A people in earnest in carrying out the
idea of consecration would find strong motives impelling them to
the observance of the sacred day. We are not surprised that
passages originating in or after the exile lay great stress upon the
day. One of the editors of Jeremiah intimates that the calamities
of the house of David might have been avoided had the princes
been careful in the matter of the Sabbath.^ Other passages
originating in or after the exile exhort to strict observance of the
day, and the climax is reached in the time of Nehemiah or later,
when desecration was punished by the civil authorities.'

Whatever we may think of the ideals cherished by Ezekiel,
there can be no doubt that he gave direction to the thoughts of
his people. The little band of exiles went to school to him, and
he left behind pupils who could carry on his work. Like their
master, these men drew a sharp line through the habits and
customs of daily life. On one side, whatever by priestly or pro-
phetic tradition was connected with the worship of Yahweh was
adopted and cherished. On the other side, whatever was not
thus approved was unsparingly condemned. The more thought-
ful of the exiles could not help following their master in extend-
ing the line of demarcation into the past. What was now hateful
to Yahweh must always have been hateful to Him. And in ap-
plying this standard it must be evident that only one verdict
could be pronounced. The fathers came short in almost every
particular.

But it might be edifying, nevertheless, to consider these short-
comings of earlier generations. So a new impulse was given to
literature. The records that had been preserved were examined

1 Ter 17 19-". The paragraph seems not to come from Jeremiah himself.
It is contrary to his whole preaching. The most striking passage on the ob-
servance of the Sabbath is Isaiah, 56 '-\ post-exilic, as we shall see. From
the early historical books we learn only that New Moons and Sabbatns were
days for visiting the prophets, and that the Temple guard was changed on
thatday (2 Kings, 4^3, 11^-9).

2Neh 13^^-22 On the Babylonian origin of the Sabbath, see Jastrow s

article in the A men can Journal of Theology, II. pp. 312 «• (April. 1898).
and the article " Sabbath " by Driver in Hastings's, Dictionary of the BtbU,
IV; Toy in the Journal of Bib. Lit., XVIII, p. 190 «•

332 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

afresh, worked over, and put in a new light. The literature that
arose was literature with a purpose. Earlier generations might
have delighted in the stories of patriarchs and judges because
they were stories of adventure or of prowess. The time was now
too serious for that. What could point a moral was valued just
because it could be used to point a moral. The idea of literary
property had not yet arisen. The material which any one found
at hand he took and copied, condensed, or enlarged as suited his
purpose. Fortunately for us, writers of tlie new school were
willing to preserve their sources (so far as they preserved them at
all) in their original words. The result is that we are able, in
many cases, to distinguish the earlier from the later material.

We may suppose that the book of Deuteronomy was the first
to engage the attention of these students. This book had be-
come the standard of the prophetical party. Ezekiel himself had
it in mind when he spoke of the statutes, judgments, and com-
mandments given by Yahweh, by observing which a man shall
live. The book had already received additions and enlarge-
ments since its first promulgation. But a code of this kind is never
complete, as is shown by the whole later history of Judaism.
The light of events had brought its teachings into fearful dis-
tinctness. It was only a kindness to succeeding generations
to put this light into the book itself. So we seethe threats made
more specific by passages which could be written only in the
exile. As a code of laws the book could still be amended from
tradition ; moreover, its place in history could be made more dis-
tinct by a historical introduction.^ The material for this intro-
duction was taken from the earlier history of the exodus known
as J E.

The main parts of the book of Joshua were rewritten about
this time from the Deuteronomic point of view. That is : the
conquest of the land was viewed as complete and thorough in-
stead of gradual and partial. We see the view of the earlier
prophets here brought out — that Israel was faithful to Yahweh in
the earlier time. This fidelity must have been shown, so the
writer supposes, in exterminating the Canaanites in accordance
with the commands of the Book of Instruction. Joshua there-
fore appears as the model of obedience to these commands, and

^ Notice Deut. 29, 30 '-'*, the unhistorical picture in 2 ^^ "; and the alluS'
ions to the exile in 4.

THE EXILE

333

the narrative gives us exactly what did not occur at the Con-
quest. Tli£ book of Judges was already substantially in its pres-
ent form, but an editor found it necessary to point its moral by
making it show how Canaanitish influence had regularly corrupted
Israel and as regularly led to disaster. It seems probable also
that the farewell address of Samuel was composed at this time,
and possibly the account of Saul's disobedience in not extermi-
nating the Amalekites was now expanded from an earlier
nucleus.^ The books of Kings we know to be an excerpt
from a more extended historical work, made from the Deu-
teronomic point of view. In the author's eyes the kings of
Israel and Judah are pronounced bad or good according as they
conform to the Deuteronomic standard. Tried by this standard
Josiah is the only one (after David) who is fully approved. The
people at large are uniformly condemned for the worship at the
High-places. That the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of
the Temple is the composition of an author of this school need
hardly be pointed out.^

It was to be expected that other codes would be formulated be-
sides the Book of Deuteronomy. That book was hortatory m
tone and its legislation did not embody all that it was desirable
to have on papyrus or parchment. Ezekiel's great idea was the
consecration of the people to Yahweh and this might be more
distinctly put in a convenient hand-book. Someone who thought
thus wrote down a collection of laws now included within the
Book of Leviticus and called the Holiness Code.^ Possibly the
author did not agree with all of Ezekiel's regulations. He quite
certainly desired to have some priestly traditions formulated
apart from the visionary second temple.

The priest must teach the people to distinguish between sacred
and profane. He must himself know what is sacred and what is
profane. The Holiness Code teaches him just this. That it

1 I Sam. 15. The farewell address is chapter 12.

2 In making these authors exilic I do not mean to date them exactly in
the thirty years between Ezekiel's death and the advent of Cyrus. The
lower limit of the exile is not a fixed date, as will be shown.

'Lev. II and 17-26. The critical questions are discussed by Baentsch,
Das Heiligkeitsgesetz (1893), Paton in the Journal of Biblical Literature
(1895. 1897, and following years), and the usual hand-books. The analysis
is indicated in Driver's text ^nd translation of Leviticus {Sacred Books of the
Old Testainent).

334 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

enumerates a large number of offences against the moral law as con-
trary to the " holiness " of Yahweh and the people, only brings
the author into accord with his predecessors. His point of view
is sufficiently indicated by his frequent repetition of the phrase
"I am Yahweh," or ''You shall be holy for I am holy." We
have already seen how fundamental in Ezek^'el's thought was this
distinction between sacred and profane. Its first application by
the author of the Holiness Code is to the subject of foods that
might be eaten. ^ Among animals the great majority were more
or less distinctly associated with some god. The swine is an ex-
ample. This does not mean that particular swine were set apart
to the god by an act of consecration, but that the whole race was
the property of that particular god — -Adonis seems to have been his
name. In the earliest stages of thought the animal was the god.
The later uncleanness is a survival of the totemistic ascription of
divinity to the animal. But an animal that was possessed by a
demon could not be brought to Yahweh, or be consistently eaten
by his worshippers.'^

Consecration of this kind is contagious. Not only is a swine
taboo (this is the most convenient word), every one that touches
him becomes taboo. To come into the presence of Yahweh in
this condition is as offensive as it would be to bring an idol be-
fore Him. It is probably not an accident that the animals men-
tioned first in the list of those forbidden are animals that play a
prominent part in other religions. The camel was sacred among
the Arabs. The hare is sacred in almost all early religions and
has not altogether lost his supernatural character even among us.^
The coney or rock- badger belongs in the same class with the hare
— the ancient observer, at least, would put them together.

It is not possible for us to go through the list and show that
all the animals forbidden to the Jews had this quality of sacred-
ness to some god. But when we remember how many animals

* Lev. II. The similar catalogue in Deuteronomy is probably a later in-
sertion.

^ Examples of the uncleanness of swine in other religions are given by
Usener, Sintfliithsagen, p. 93; Wiedemann, Religion of the Egyptians, p. 80
(where the swine is an incarnation of Set and therefore an abomination to
Horus) ; Frazer, The Golden Bough, H, p. 44 (Second Edition 11, p. 300 '^•)-

^ The negro folk-tales in which the rabbit plays so prominent a part show
how superhuman is his estimation, and the rabbit's foot that is carried for
luck is another evidence. Arabic parallels are well known.

THE EXILE 335

were worshipped by so advanced a people as the Egyptians (for
example) we shall find it altogether probable that all that were
taboo were taboo for the same reason.

But holiness (in the sense in which we are now discussing it)
works both ways. A man may carry the contagion of unclean-
ness into the presence of Yahweh to his own hurt ; he may also
carry the contagion of Yahweh' s sacred things into common life
which also would be to his hurt. The highest degree of sacred-
ness is dangerous to anyone — even the high priest must exercise
special precautions in approaching what possesses it. Some
things must not be eaten even by persons consecrated to the
divine service — they are reserved for Yahweh alone. Among
these is the blood of animals. This ganz besonderer Safl has
always affected men with awe or horror. It is so intimately con-
nected with the life that primitive thought identifies them. " The
blood is the life " is the Hebrew assertion. But the life so evi-
dently comes from God that to eat it would be to trespass on
that which belongs to Him alone. Hence the prohibition to eat
blood in any circumstances.^ And with the blood we may class
the fat of the sacrifices. This is Yahweh's portion, to eat it is to
trespass on His rights and to bring down His wrath. Of some
sacrifices the whole flesh was taboo, even to the priests. All
this is set before us in the Holiness Code, though not so much
in detail as was later found desirable.

To our conception, regulations concerning food do not belong
in a divinely given law. We read with more sympathy the next
chapter, for we also regard with abhorrence the sins which are
there forbidden. The section deals with the subject of marriage
and specifies the degrees within which marriage is prohibited,
forbidding also adultery and unnatural vice.*"' While we find

' I am not saying that there may not have been even cruder ideas at the basis
of the original prohibition. It may have been thought that it would be dan-
gerous to swallow the life of an animal. But the Hebrew idea was strictly
religious. The prohibition of blood was not a mere theoretical enactment.
Blood was eaten at certain sacramental seasons by the Gentiles, and the
Jews may have been tempted to follow such examples. The use of blood
upon the tent or upon the door-posts of the house (as at thepassover) shows
the magical power that was attributed to it, as does the care taken to
cover it with earth when an animal was slain at a distance from the sanctuary.

'Lev. 18^^". Paton shows that there are four pentades or two deca-
logues, with a concluding exhortation. The original conclusion was 19 ^ \

336 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ourselves at one with the author in forbidding what he forbids,
our point of view is different. To us these are matters of social
order. The things prohibited are contrary to God's will, no
doubt, and abhorrent to Him. But to the writer they stand in
the same class with the eating of meats prohibited. All are ab-
horrent to Yahweh because violations of His sanctity.

To understand exactly what this means, we need to go a little
further back. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Ca-
naanite Baal was the god of fruitfulness. He w^as therefore wor-
shipped with licentious rites. So far as Yahweh was identified
with Baal, these rites had invaded His worship. The tradition of
the golden calf shows us the lascivious nature of this festival.
Amos implies that prostitution went on at the altars of Yahweh.
Hosea asserts that the young women of Israel gave themselves
over to strangers at the sanctuaries.' From the time of Asa
down repeated attempts were made to clear the Temple of ob-
scene ministers to unnatural lust, whose presence and w^hose re-
turn when banished show how deeply the worst forms of sexual
vice were imbedded in the popular religion. Ezekiel testifies in
unmistakable language to the customs of Jerusalem down to the
very siege of the city : '^ In thee they have committed lewdness ;
in thee they have uncovered their father's nakedness; in thee
they have humbled her that was unclean in her separation ; and
a man has committed abomination wnth his neighbour's wife,
and another has defiled his daughter-in-law, and another has
humbled his sister, his father's daughter." ^ The language indi-
cates more than occasional crimes, it indicates something habitual
or periodic. The only reasonable hypothesis seems to be that at
the great religious festivals held in the name of Yahweh or of
some other god, there was great sexual license. The Queen of
Heaven to whom Jeremiah alludes was probably worshipped by
such excesses.'

1 Hos. 41=*; cf. Amos, 2 t, Ex. 32 «• ^s.

» Ezek. 22^1'; cf. 18 6. n. The whole subject of the influence of the sex-
ual life upon early Semitic religion has been developed by Barton in his
Study of Semitic Origins { 1901 ).

' Marriage within the prohibited degrees is alluded to in the case of a
man's marrying his half-sister on his father's side, and tradition ascribes
such a marriage to Abraham. The tradition may be the indication of an
early system of matriarchy in which kinship was reckoned only on the
mother's side. But even then the survival into a later time was immoral,

THE EXILE 337

The idea of holiness (or sacredness) comes in here with great
distinctness. The phenomena of the sexual life are so marked
that men have always attributed them to supernatural powers.
Woman was taboo at certain periods. Warriors when in actual
service were forbidden to touch a woman ; ^ their consecration
to the god of war would be broken by touching a person sacred
in another sense — sacred to one was unclean to another. The
new sense of consecration to Yahvveh which was aroused in the
exile led to stricter regulation of all that pertained to the sexual
life, especially as the religion of Babylonia sanctioned some of
the abuses which had formerly taken refuge under the traditional
customs of Israel. From this point of view we understand more
clearly the emphasis which the Holiness Code lays upon these en-
actments. They represent a protest against a heathenism which
had offended Yahweh in the past, and must not be allowed to
rouse His anger in the future. The higher moral standard was
made effective by union with ritual ideas. The term sacred ox
holy had not had ethical content ; now it begins to have it.

It would be a mistake to suppose that the collection of these
laws and their commitment to writing was undertaken in the in-
terests of the priests alone. The sacredness of the people does
indeed culminate in the priesthood. The author agrees with
Ezekiel in taking special care that the priests should keep them-
selves ritually pure.'^ But the object of one as well as the other
is to inform the people of what must be done by the priests as
well as by themselves for the continuance of Yahweh's favour
upon them. For this purpose the people must be informed what
sort of sacrifices are acceptable, what restrictions are to be ob-

and Ezekiel in struggling toward a higher moral standard is right in con-
demning it.

' I Sam. 21 *-* from an early document. On the whole subject see Schwally,
Semitische Kriegsaltertumer, I (1901) p. 60 ff. Schwally points out that the
curious regulations for warriors in Deut. 20 ^"^ are based on the sexual
taboo {I.e. pp. 75-98). See also Frazer, The Golden Boiigh,^ I., p. 170; II,
p. 232 fif. On the sacred character of women, see Procksch, Die Bliitrache
bei den vorislaniischen Arabern (1899), p. 48.

*Lev. 21 and 22. The regulations go beyond Ezekiel in excluding from
the service of the altar any one of the priestly family who has a physical
blemish. From analogy we may suppose that these unfortunates were sup-
posed either to have come into the power of another god (or demon), or
else that Yahweh's displeasure with them was manifested in their misfor-
tune, in which case they would not be acceptable to Him.

338 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

served by the priests, who are to eat of the sacred things. That
the author had some idea of enforcing the prerogatives of the
priests is possible, though this aim nowhere comes to the front.
He is genuinely interested in informing the people how Yahweh
will have them live. His purpose comes out in the concluding
exhortation of his tract, in which, after the manner of Deuter-
onomy, he lays upon the people the injunction to obey these
commands. Here we find the promise of prosperity in case of
obedience, while for disobedience there is the threat of sword
and pestilence. And the climax is reached in the declaration :
" And yourselves I will scatter among the nations . . . and
your land shall be a desolation and your cities shall be a waste.
Then shall the land be paid its Sabbaths, all the days that it
lies desolate while you are in your enemies' land; then shall the
land rest and pay off its Sabbaths." ' The exilic point of view
is distinctly visible, and the chastened temper of the people no
doubt received this message with humility.

It would be useless, however, to deliver such a message unless
there lay behind it a hope for the future. Such a hope was the
basis of Ezekiel's preaching and it furnished the motive for all
the literature of the period. The only reason for pointing out
the errors of the past was to avoid their repetition in the future.
But this itself implied that there was to be a future. In the exile,
therefore, we must locate the beginnings of what we may call the
Messianic hope. Ezekiel had gone counter to the popular desire
when he so nearly ignored the king as head of his new common-
wealth. The people of Judah had been under the rule of the
house of David for more than four hundred years. The feeling
of loyalty was strong in many hearts among the exiles. The mis-
fortunes of recent times had moved people and monarch to sympa-
thy with each other. The more the humiliations and privations
of the present were felt, the more did the traditional glories of the
founder of the dynasty come into view. There can be no doubt
that David was a man of great personal charm, while his faults
were not such as to diminish the affection of his people. Time
had served only to deepen the impression made by him. Tra-
dition magnified his exploits till he seemed in power and mag-
nificence to be on a level with the great conquerors of Assyrian
and Babylonian history. It was natural that the people in their
'Lev. 26^:«f. (Driver's translation.)

THE EXILE 339

forlorn condition should long for a new David to restore the state
to its rightful position among the nations, and to take vengeance
upon the Gentiles by whom they had been so long oppressed.

This hope was nourished by the study of the older books of
prophecy. These books were indeed not intended as programmes
for the future. The great preachers whose words they embodied
had been intent on reproof, rebuke, and exhortation of their
contemporaries. They had frequently threatened calamity for
the future, but this was in order to make an impression on the
present. They were pointing out what every preacher must
point out, — that sin is contrary to the mind of God, and that one
cannot transgress the commands of a just God with impunity.

But these threats had received startling confirmation from
events. The wrath of God had fallen in such ways as to em-
phasise the predictive element in these books. So startling a
confirmation gave the books an enormous importance, and they
were anxiously studied, not only that the people might draw the
lesson of the divine justice, but also that they might, if possible,
discover something of the divine compassion and of the divine
purpose for the future. The promises made by the earlier proph-
ets, were, indeed, few and far between. Amos seems to have had
no hope for the future. Hosea's anticipations would have been
equally dark had it not been for his confidence that Yahweh's
love was inextinguishable. Even he left the hope to be in-
ferred rather than give it distinct expression. Isaiah saw
that a remnant might turn, and when the crisis came felt that it
would be impossible for Zion to be utterly destroyed. Jeremiah
again saw only the dark side. In spite of the almost total ab-
sence of definite i)romise for the future, however, there always
was in the prophets the conviction that Yahweh is faithful and
merciful. Whenever Israel should turn to Him with all its
heart, it would surely be forgiven and restored. The exiles
of Ezekiel's congregation were sure that they had definitely
broken with the past, and this assurance gave them a larger and
more lively hope for the future. We cannot help seeing that in
this condition of things the hopeful hints in the prophets would
be made more definite. Some confident scribe at this time added
the supplement to Amos which opens a vista of peace and pros-
perity for the time to come. The discourses of Isaiah were much
more thoroughly worked over, though how much of the inserted

340

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

material belongs in this period, and how much to a still later time,
is difficult to discover. In the book of Jeremiah, as we now read
it, we find a number of similar passages which contrast strangely
with the uniformly pessimistic view of that prophet. Ezekiel
himself did not escape, though the insertions do not form any
large part of the work.

It cannot surprise us to find that this hope expressed itself in
various forms. Sometimes we have it asserting itself in connex-
ion with the name of David. Perhaps the chapter which makes
David receive a direct promise of a succession of descendants who
should possess his throne for all time to come, belongs in this
])eriod.^ We can imagine that the restoration of Jehoiachin to
liberty, possibly to a shadowy title of king or prince, might sug-
gest the chastisement which the author speaks of. At the same
time there were those who followed Ezekiel in distrusting the
kingdom altogether, and who hoped for a kingdom of God in
which there would be no earthly king. What we need to note
is that in these and in other forms, the Messianic hope began to
be a part of Israel's mental and spiritual support from the exile
on.

The exiles' love for the old home and their grief at its desola-
tion is affectingly brought to view in the little book which we call
by the name Lamentations. Tradition, which tries to associate
every literary monument with some well-known name, has attrib-
uted its composition to Jeremiah. It cannot be by him, nor in-
deed is it all by one hand.^ '' Poems by Two Friends " would
not surprise us as the title of a book in our own day ; and some-
thing like it would describe the book before us. The authors
treat the same theme — the fall of Jerusalem — from essentially the
same point of view. They are ardent patriots expressing their
grief at the calamity of their people. Jerusalem is described in
the language of the prophets as a woman bereaved of her chil-
dren and delivered into the hands of her enemies. The details
of the picture are dwelt upon with the insistence of grief. In
vivid personification the mourning mother herself speaks — ap-
pealing to the passers-l)y to know whether there has ever been
such sorrow as hers. She confesses the sin and rebellion which

* 2 Sam. 7.

' Compare the careful discussion in Driver's Literature of the Old Testa-
tnent, or the recent commentaries of Budde and Lohr.

THE EXILE 341

have brought this punishment upon her. Nevertheless, the
strangeness of the catastrophe baffles the mourning poet :

" The Lord has become like an enemy ; He has destroyed Israel.
He has destroyed all her palaces ; has ruined her fortresses.
He has multiplied in the daughter of Zion mourning and woe.
Like a robber he has violated His own dwelling ; destroyed His as-
sembly hall ;
He has made forgotten in Zion feast-day and Sabbath ;
In hot anger He has spurned both king and priest." ^

We see how the author wrestles with the thought that Yahweh
is the one responsible for the profanation of His own sanctuary.
But we see also that he will not let go either his faith in Yahweh
or his love for Israel. He may be called a type of Judah in ex-
ile. He shows the heart disciplined by suffering. This is made
evident by the element of confession so prominent in these poems.
Zion is exhorted to pray to her Lord. Not only this ; but the
author himself lifts up his heart in confession and supplication.
He cannot believe that Yahweh will be blind to the present suf-
fering of His peoi)le. It cannot be that He afflicts because He
delights in suffering, for He is long-suffering and gracious. It is
characteristic of post-exilic Judaism that the man who prays and
confesses his sin is conscious of speaking as the mouthpiece of his
people. The first steps are already taken toward the ecclesiastical
solidarity which finds its fullest expression in the Book of Psalms.

Whatever hopes the i)eople had were stimulated by events in the
political world. Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, offended
the religious susceptibilities of his subjects, especially of the
priests, by endeavouring to centralise the worship of the provin-
cial gods in the capital. Beyond this we know little about him.
The restiveness of the Babylonians made it certain that they
would welcome an invader who was strong enough to displace
their king. Such a figure was rising to prominence in the east.
Cyrus, King of Anshan, a small country beyond Elam, was con-
quering one after another of his neighbours. The most important
of these was Astyages, of Media, whose domain fell to Cyrus in
549 B.C. The consolidated kingdom now appears under the title
of the Medes and Persians. Its arms were next turned against
Croesus, of Tydia, whose fall made such a deep impression on
the Greek states. Whether Lydia was in alliance with Babylon as

1 Lam. 2 5-^ A slight correction of the traditional text is needed in v. ^

342

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

has been affirmed is not clearly made out. It was only in the
nature of things that Cyrus should next attack the most powerful
and wealthy country within his view. He was invited, more-
over, by the discontented party in Babylon itself. Nabonidus
remained in the city while his son Belshazzar commanded the
army in the field. After this army was defeated by Cyrus the
city might have defended itself a long time if its people had been
uniited. But the party disaffected to Nabonidus opened the gates
and Cyrus took possession without meeting serious opposition.

The innovations of Nabonidus had been undertaken from re-
ligious motives, as he himself claims. He rebuilt a number of
temples that had fallen to decay and he put on record his prayers
for the favour of the gods he so faithfully served. To the He-
brew onlookers his fall must have been proof of the inability of
his gods to save. Cyrus, who in a few years had made himself
master of a great empire extending from the border of India to the
shores of the ^gean, seemed much more distinctly the favourite
of the true God. But Cyrus himself had no prejudice against the
Babylonian gods and was conscious of no mission against them.
The only inscription which we have from him declares that
Merodach, the chief god of Babylon, commanded him to in-
vade the country, and that the god marched at his side as his
friend and helper. This god gave the city into his hand
without battle or skirmish, so that he was welcomed by the
inhabitants. Cyrus further declares that he took care to re-
store to their ancient dwellings the gods whom Nabonidus
had removed and he prays that Bel and Nebo may be gra-
cious to him and intercede for him with Merodach.^ In fact,
so important a city as Babylon must influence the policy of
the new king. In a certain sense it continued to be the capi-
tal of the empire. Its gods must be recognised as a matter of
state policy. Only in this way could the new reign be made
legitimate in the eyes of the Babylonians. Whatever religion
Cyrus may have adopted as a matter of personal conviction, it is
clear that he cherished no aversion to the i)olytheism of Babylon.
If the little company of exiles had any hopes of finding a conscious
agent of Yahweh in the new conqueror these hopes were doomed
to disappointment.

' The inscriptions of Nabonidus and Cyrus are given in the Keilinschrift-
luhe Bibhothek, III, 2, pp. 80-137.

THE EXILE 343

That their hopes of release and return had been raised is made
evident by two short pieces now joined into one and incorporated
in the book of Isaiah/ The theme of the first is the attack upon
Babylon by an army of fierce and cruel warriors. At the close
of the poem we learn that they are the Medes, and the work they
are to accomplish is an overthrow '' like God's overthrow of
Sodom and Gomorrha." In the second poem we have a brill-
iant sarcastic dirge over the King of Babylon whose destruction
is expected in the near future. The quiet which the earth en-
joys, now that its tyrant is slain, is shared even by the cedars of
Lebanon ; they are no more ruthlessly felled to provide timber for
Nabonidus's building. To greet the shade of the slaughtered king
the personified Sheol rouses up departed monarchs from the
thrones where they sit in state. These see with astonishment one
so exalted brought down to a level with them. The thought of
the Babylonian monarch had been that he would be deified — that
he would ascend the oriental Olympus and set his throne there
among the great gods. Instead, he is treated worse than the
meanest of his subjects : " Thou art cast out from thy sepulchre
like an abhorred abortion, like those who are pierced with the
sword ; thou goest down to the lowest pit like the corpse that is
trodden under foot." ^ The close is made by Yahweh's threat
to destroy Babylon, root and branch.

Of about the same age is another fragment also preserved to us
in the book of Isaiah.^ The author is deeply moved as he sees
the approaching conflict. As the watcher in the desert sees the
sand-storm approach so this watcher sees the band of robbers and
hears the cry : " On, Elam ! Attack, Media ! " He looks again
and a caravan approaches with the cry: " Babylon is fallen, and
all the images of her gods lie broken on the ground."

These anticipations were not realised, but the hope continued
and grew stronger with the years.

^ Isaiah, 13^-1423. The verses 14^-^ are the link, inserted later.
* Isaiah, 14 ^^. Free emendation of the text is necessary, but the author's
meaning is plain.

^ Isaiah, 21 '^-^^. The obscure verses ^^"^^ may belong in the same period.

CHAPTER XVI

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE

The occupation of Babylon by Cyrus came late in the year
539 B.c.^ It would be reasonable to expect a clear account of
the history of the Jews from this time on, for we should suppose
the literary tendency powerful enough to put on record what
actually occurred. But the expectation is grievously disappointed.
No period of the people's history is more obscure than that which
comes between the advent of Cyrus in Babylon and the mission
of Nehemiah to Jerusalem, unless it be tlie period which im-
mediately follows the work of Nehemiah.

According to tlie account given in the Biblical book of Ezra,
and until recently commonly accepted, Cyrus had no sooner es-
tablished himself in Babylon than he issued a distinct decree
that the Jews in Babylonia should be permitted to return to their
own city. The decree gives the rebuilding of the Temple as the
special purpose of the return ; and the king has no hesitation in
avowing his motive, namely, that Yahweh, God of Israel, has
given to him all the kingdoms of the earth and has commanded
him to build Him a house in Jerusalem. The decree is dated by
the Biblical author in the first year of Cyrus, by which he means
the first full year of the possession of Babylon, in our calendar
538 B.C.

The difficulties in accepting this account as it stands, are of the
most serious character. The proclamation which Cyrus is said to
have issued declares that Yahweh^ has given into the king's hands
all the kingdoms of the earth. We have already seen that Cyrus
claims Merodach, Bel, and Nebo as his patrons, and the incon-

^ On the date see an article by E. Meyer in the Zcitschr. f. d. Alttest. Wis-
senschaft {i^()?>), p. 339 ff. ; and the same author's ForscJmngeti ziir alien
Gt'schichte, II, p. 468 ff.

^Yahweh, God of Israel, we should probably read with the Greek Esdras.
See Guthe's text in Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old Testainent (1901). The
passage is Ezra i ^-*.

344

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 345

sistency of this with the alleged proclamation is obvious. The
inconsistency might not be so striking in the eyes of an oriental
— this we may cheerfully admit. But there is a vast difference
between claiming that the patron deities of Babylon have given
their own city into the king's hands and avowiiig that Yahweh,
to him the God of one of the most obscure corners of his king-
dom, has put into his power all the kingdoms of the earth. All
that we know of the Persian readiness to acknowledge and protect
all sorts of sanctuaries ^ does not justify the sweeping language of
the proclamation.

It is quite in accord with this that the alleged proclamation is
in a style unknown to the genuine edicts of the Persian kings.
These monarchs call themselves *' King of Armies," " King of
Babylon," ''Great King," but nowhere " King of Persia. " This
title was given to them only after the Greek conquest of the
East made men contrast Alexander with his predecessors who
were primarily kings of Persia.

These indications are sufficient to make us view the historicity
of the account with suspicion, and we are compelled to look more
closely at the whole narrative of which it is a part. The books
of Ezra and Nehemiah (originally one book) are a continuation
of the books of Chronicles and are by the same author. This
author wrote certainly not earlier than 300 B.C. — probably con-
siderably after that date. His distance in time from the reign of
Cyrus is sufficient to prevent his having an accurate idea of what
took place, unless he were careful and critical in the use of his
sources of information. That he was not critical is made clear
by his earlier work, where he excerpts from documents still in
our possession. His method there shows us that he was under a
strong theological or ecclesiastical bias which made it impossible
for him to see the actual process of history. This same bias af-
fects his view of what took place after the exile. He finds in
Jeremiah a prediction that the exile is to last seventy years. He
has no hesitation in asserting that the prediction was literally ful-
filled by a direct act of God upon the heart of the Great King.
Hence his free construction of the proclamation which (accord-
ing to his logic) Cyrus must have issued on the occasion.

^ See, for example, the inscription containing an order of Darius I to an
official named Gadata, protecting the rights of a sanctuary in Asia Minor,
given by Meyer, Entstehung des Jtidentitms, p. 19 f.

346 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

It is not for us to sit in judgment on the Chronicler. What
we need to know is how far his picture of the Persian period is
reliable. It is now generally admitted that his testimony alone
is of very slight historical value. Where he used other docu-
ments, these must be judged on their merits. One of these docu-
ments (the memoirs of Nehemiah) will occupy our attention in
the next chapter. For the period before Nehemiah we have
what seems on the surface a consistent story of the Jewish resto-
ration. We hear how a large number of the exiles responded to
the invitation of Cyrus. An elaborate list is given of those who
made up the caravan. No sooner were they settled in their
cities than they began the work of rebuilding the Temple. First
the altar was restored and the service was resumed. Then tim-
ber was secured from the Phoenicians, and in the second year the
foundations were laid. At this point the enemies of Judah and
Benjamin came and asked that they might help in the work. On
being asked to give account of their claims, they alleged that
they were descendants of the colonists which Esarhaddon had
settled in Samaria. They were not allowed to join in the work,
and therefore turned against the newcomers and troubled them.
Thus the work was hindered all the days of Cyrus. The form of
the hindrance is indicated by the copy of a letter sent by certain
foreigners in Palestine to the Great King.

According to the narrative, the work was resumed in the reign
of Darius, and brought to a happy conclusion. A second en-
deavour to induce the king to stop it met with no success. In
fact (or rather in theory), it produced a new decree in favour of
the work. The restored Temple was dedicated and the Passover
was observed, after which Ezra came up with the Law in his hand,
and the establishment of the Law was followed by the mission of
Nehemiah. This is all according to the programme which an
author in the Greek period would draw up ; first, the release of
the Jews ; then the sharp separation from the Samaritans — for
these, according to the author's view, were the only people left
behind when Judah was carried away ; next, the building of the
Temple ; after that, the reintroduction of the Law ; and finally,
the rehabilitation of the city by the rebuilding of the walls.

But history does not usually move along the lines we mark
out for it, and the endeavour to make a consistent histori-
cal picture on the basis of the Chronicler's account, in-

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 347

creases in difficulty with every fresh detail which comes into
view. The objections to the historicity of the decree of Cyrus
have already been noticed. We may not be wiUing to as-
sert that the Hebrew historical writers decorated their narra-
tives with imaginary decrees of kings and senates as they dec-
orated them with the imaginary speeches of their heroes.^ But
it is evident that a writer like the Chronicler might, on oc-
casion, give his conception such a form. And the obvious im-
possibility of the proclamation attributed to Cyrus throws a
shadow upon the other documents alleged in this narrative.

The next of these is a list of names — ostensibly a register of
those who returned from the Exile. This list is repeated in the
book of Nehemiah, and there we discover that it is the register of
all the families which in the time of Nehemiah or later, claimed to
belong to the district of Jerusalem, on the ground of having been
carried into exile, and having returned thence. The most that
it can show is the total number of those who had returned between
the time of Cyrus and that of Nehemiah — nearly a hundred
years. Whether it even shows this is a question. In any case,
it has no bearing on the first return for which the author
uses it.'^

The further narrative of this early period is unintelligible. The
alleged letter, by which the enemies of Judah and Benjamin
troubled them, and put a stop to the building of the Temple
does not belong in this connexion. The author of the narrative
speaks of events in the reign of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, both of

^ Stade speaks of the ''well-known custom of ancient writers" so to do
{Geschichte, II, p. 122), while Meyer denies the custom {Entstehung des
Judentums, p. 2). In this general form the discussion is unprofitable, and
Willrich may go too far in charging wholesale forgery of decrees on the
Jews of a later time {Judaica, p. 40 ff.). But for the Judaism of the third
and second centuries before Christ, the books of Daniel and Esther furnish
sufficient evidence.

^ Compare Ezra, 2 and Neh. 7 ^"'''. The extent of the agreement is shown
by Meyer, Entsteh. des Judentums, p. 141 ff. He also shows that the most
of the names occur among those who signed the covenant (Neh. 10). A
number of them are found also among those who are said to have returned
with Ezra (Ezra, 8). That the narrative of the return in Ezra, I, was origi-
nally fuller is shown by Torrey in the Journal of Biblical Literature (1897),
p. 168 f. On the whole question of the composition of the books, see Tor-
rey's Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah (Giessen,
1896).

348 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

them later than Darius. The complaint to Xerxes is only alluded
to, the one to Artaxerxes is reproduced in its Aramaic text. But
on reading it we are astonished to find that it speaks not of re-
building the Temple, but of building the walls of the city. It is
evident that these are two very different things, and they must
not be confused in our thought. To fortify the walls of the city
would be an act of doubtful loyalty. Jerusalem as a fortress had
always been difficult to conquer. We may well suppose that its
reputation in this respect was known to the Persian king. We
should expect a complaint against such a work to be received
and heeded at court. But the exiles — or whoever was at work —
were rebuilding not the walls, but the Temple, and this was a
very different matter. Against this no valid objection could be
made. A venerable sanctuary had a claim upon the tolerance
and even the favour of the monarch. The letter given in this
connexion,^ which is ostensibly directed against the rebuilding
of the Temple, really declares that the returned exiles are rebuild-
ing the walls. Only thus can the writers rouse the fear of the
king, lest the city, once fortified, should withhold the taxes.

It nmst be clear either that the letter thus cited, in answer to
which the work was stopped, was a gratuitous libel or that it does
not belong in this connexion. If it were a gratuitous libel
it ought to have been easy for the Jews to show that it was
baseless. In any case the Jews should have shown the de-
cree of Cyrus already in their hands; it is impossible to sup-
pose that they had not received and preserved a copy. The
only place in which the letter can have any meaning is in the
narrative of the rebuilding of the walls under Nehemiah. This
took place under Artaxerxes, and the enemies of Judah and Jeru-
salem were active enough to make such a letter not improbable.
But it cannot belong where the Chronicler has placed it.

The second letter (with its reply) is concerned with the build-
ing of the Temple, and it is sent by a royal official whose duty it
was to take note of what went on in his province. How much
weight we can accord to it in the narrative in which we find it
must depend upon the picture we may form from other sources.
Fortunately, other sources are within our reach in the books of

' Ezra, 4 '2"-; notice v.". The writers here claim to have been settled in
Samaria, by the j^reat and noble Asnapper (Ashurbanipal), which does not
agree with the mention of Esarhaddon in v.^.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 349

Haggai and Zechariah.' These two prophets took a prominent
part in what went on in Jerusalem at this time. Both of them
prophesied in the reign of Darius I, who came to the throne in
521 B.c.^ The change of ruler was, as so often in the East, the
signal for outbreaks in several of the provinces. It is not un-
likely that the Jews saw in these disorders signs of the approach
of their deliverance.^ For some reason the prophets felt that the
time to rebuild the Temple had come ; the people, on the other
hand, felt that the Messianic time must first be manifest, then the
Temple would be rebuilt. In the second year of Darius " came
the word of Yahw^eh by the hand of Haggai the prophet, say-
ing: Say to Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel, the pasha of Judah and to
Joshua ben Jozadak the chief priest, saying : Thus says Yahweh
Sabaoth : This people say the time has not yet come to build
the House of Yahweh. . . . Is it a time for you to dwell in
your panelled houses, while this House lies in ruins? . o .
Thus says Yahweh : Go to the hill country and fetch timber, and
build this House, and I will take pleasure in it and will reveal
my glory, says Yahweh. " * To whom were these words addressed ?
The traditional answer is that they were addressed to the re-
turned exiles. It is pleaded on their behalf that they found so
much to do in establishing themselves in their new surroundings
that they were compelled to neglect the Temple. But this is
strange. The exiles had returned (according to the account in
Ezra) for the express purpose of rebuilding the Temple. For
this they were armed with the decree of Cyrus, and for this they
had received free-will offerings from their fellow-exiles and a
valuable set of vessels from Cyrus.^ Why they should have left
everything undone for fifteen years is inexplicable.

iThe first section of Zechariah (1-8) alone comes into view here. The
rest of the book confessedly belongs in a later period.

2 The reader may remind himself that Cyrus was succeeded by Cambyses,
who carried the Persian arms into Egypt. After him came Pseudo-Smer-
dis. This impostor was slain by a band of nobles who put Darius Hystas-
pes on the throne. Cf. Justi, Geschichte des Alien Persiens, pp. 48-67.

3 This is denied by so good an authority as Wellhausen, Skizzen und
Vorarbeiten, V, p. 170.

* Haggai, i ^-*, ' ^ A clause has come into the Massoretic text by the error
of a scribe and is therefore here omitted.

5 If Torrey is correct in filling out the text of Ezra, i, from the Greek Es-
dras, the original account of the Chronicler also gave a large yearly sub-
vention in money for the building ; cf. Journal of. Bib. Lit. 1897, p. 170 ; and

350 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

We have already seen that the alleged letter to Artaxerxes ex-
plains nothing, though the Chronicler put it into his narrative for
the purpose of explaining something. Haggai, at least, knows
nothing of any earlier attempt, of any subvention, of any decree of
Cyrus, of any hindrance on the part of the Samaritan colonists.
Haggai is moving the people to rebuild the Temple. Why does
he not remind them that this was the purpose of the return?
Why does he not recall the earlier attempt as an illustration of
their zeal? Why does he not remind them that they had expe-
rienced the pain of being banished from this sacred spot ? One
would think that such arguments would be ready to his hand
and that in addition he would emphasise God's gracious purpose
in bringing them back, as well as His use of Cyrus as an instru-
ment. But these arguments are conspicuous by their absence.

Haggai knows nothing of a return of the exiles — this is the fact
for which we must account. To account for it we must get rid
of the Chronicler's theory that all Judah had been carried away
and that its land had been left empty. It is evident that this
writer knows of only two parties in the land of Israel — those who
had been in exile and the Samaritan colonists. In this he is
mistaken. No country is ever completely denuded of its inhab-
itants. Judah certainly was not thus denuded, for the Hebrew
records themselves say that Nebuchadrezzar left enough people to
care for the vineyards and plantations. That these were not
always of the lowest class of the people is made evident by the
book of Jeremiah and the history of Gedaliah there given.
Whoever and whatever these people were, they felt themselves to
be true Judaites. Ezekiel, in fact, finds that they attached too
much importance to themselves as the only true Israel. They
claimed that if Abraham, who was only one man, received the
land of promise, much more might they, who were many, hope
to make their title clear.'

In the seventy years that had elapsed since the fall of Jerusalem
this community had enjoyed peace under Babylonian and Per-
sian governors. They had been allowed to maintain some of
their ancestral institutions and had preserved the ancestral relig-

the decree of Darius which purports to reaffirm that of Cyrus, expressly
stipulates that the expense shall be borne by the royal treasury (Ezra, 6*).

' Kzekiel. .^3 24-2» ^he bitterness of the prophet is a foretaste of the exclu-
siveness wliich manifested itself in the community organised by Nehemiah.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 351

ion. It is a mark of Persian tolerance that they are now under a
governor who is a member of their own royal house. For Zerub-
babel was a grandson of Jehoiachin — that unfortunate king of
Judah who was carried to Babylon by Nebuchadrezzar. From
his name we gather that he was born in Babylonia.^ By his side
we find a priest, Joshua, doubtless of the ancient priestly line.
It is likely that worship at the site of the temple had never alto-
gether ceased. Soon after the burning of the building we hear
of men coming from Ephraim to make their offerings at the ruined
sanctuary.^ The sacredness of such a site could not be destroyed
by any act of the invading Chaldeans. In accordance with an-
cient Israelitish custom a rude altar of unhewn stone could be
erected on such a site at any time.

All the probabilities point, therefore, to a Judaite community
settled at this period in the immediate vicinity of the old capital
or even within its fragmentary walls. Time had to some degree
healed the ravages made by Nebuchadrezzar's invasion. Equally
with their brethren in Babylonia these people looked for the
restoration of the old commonwealth. But they had no reason
to suppose that there must first be a return of the exiles. This is
the community to which our prophets appealed. From their own
resources they responded to the appeal. It is likely that the
Babylonian Jews still took a keen interest in their old home and
sanctuary. The effort to rebuild their Temple would meet with
their sympathy. But no move on their part to return home was
prompted by Cyrus.

If we had the testimony of Haggai and Zechariah alone there-
fore we should not dream of a wholesale return such as the
Chronicler alleges. Let us turn now to the second letter which
he gives us as written from Palestine to Darius.^ According to

' Koster doubts the Babylonian birthplace and the Davidic descent {Wider-
herstelluttg Israels, p. 39 f.), and it is true that Haggai lays no emphasis
upon the Davidic descent. Moreover, the genealogy comes from the Chron-
icler, whose untrustworthiness has been sufficiently commented upon. It
still remains probable, however, that the Messianic expectations of Zerub-
babel's contemporaries point to his Davidic blood. Of Zerubbabel's prede-
cessor, Sheshbazzar, we know nothing, except that he bears a Babylonian
name ; cf. Meyer, Entstehung, p. 76.

2Jer. 41 s.

3 The account is Ezra, 5 '—6 '*. It is clear that if the whole account were
stricken out we should have a perfectly good connexion, 5 '' being contin-
ued directly by 6 '^.

352 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

the narrative, Tatnai, governor of the Persian province of Syria/
with his suite came to Jerusalem and discovered the work going
on at the Temple. Inquiring for the authority under which the
builders were acting, these men wrote an account to Darius. In
this they repeated the allegations made by the Jews concerning
the earlier decree of Cyrus and asked for instructions. On recep-
tion of the message the king had search made in the treasury at
Ecbatana, and the decree of Cyrus was found. Darius therefore
renewed the decree of Cyrus, or at least directed the governor to
let the Jews proceed with the building, ordering him at the same
time to reimburse them from the royal revenues what they had
already expended, and from the same source to furnish whatever
the priests should require for the services of the House. It is
easy to see the inconsistencies of the text with what Haggai and
Zechariah reveal. The writer is not even careful to preserve
verisimilitude; he makes the petitioners request that search be
made for the decree of Cyrus at Babylon, and then relates that it
was found at Ecbatana. It is inconceivable that Tatnai should
quote without comment the Jews' declaration that it was Yahweh
who gave their forefathers into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar. The
description of the Temple as sixty cubits high and sixty cubits
broad is unintelligible, as is the direction that it should be built
with three rows of cut stone and one of timber.^ Finally the
imprecation of Darius, praying that the God of the Jews would
blot out any one who should put out his hand to change the de-
cree or to destroy the House, is entirely out of place in a royal
mandate.

Is must be clear that this correspondence is simply the logical
sequel of the decree of Cyrus and can claim no more authenticity.
The author started with the theory (given him by tradition no
doubt) that Cyrus had ordered the Temple rebuilt, and that the
work had been violently stopped. Finding from the books of
Haggai and Zechariah that the rebuilding actually took place in
the reign of Darius he was obliged to remove the prohibition by
a new decree. No more impulse was needed in order to produce
the letter and decree we have been considering. They represent

^ "Beyond the River" is the name of the province which included the
region from the upper Euphrates to the border of Egypt.

2 The author was familiar with brick walls bound together with timber,
but examples of stone walls thus laid have not yet been found.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 353

what must have taken place had the primary tradition been cor-
rect. Whether the Chronicler himself composed the documents
or whether he adopted them from another narrative — a midrash
of his own school of thought — we are not able to determine and
it does not much matter.

For historical purposes we are obliged to recognise first, that
the Chronicler is dominated by a tradition which was largely the
effect of theological prepossession ; secondly, that the preposses-
sion incapacitated him from drawing a reliable picture of events ;
thirdly, that the decree of Cyrus is impossible; fourthly, that
the letter to Artaxerxes is of no use for the period under discus-
sion; lastly, that the theory of a return, of an interruption of the
work, of any interference by Darius, is contradicted by Haggai
and Zechariah, who were contemporary with the events alleged.
To this we may add that the theory of a return was not held by
Jewish writers in the postexilic period, except so far as they
came under the influence of the Chronicler. Nehemiah in his
memoirs, as quoted by the Chronicler himself, is ignorant of
any return. Malachi makes not the slightest reference to what
must have been fresh in men's minds in his time had it taken
place at all. At a still later time the author of the book of
Daniel is sure that the exile is not yet at an end. The mirac-
ulous intervention of Providence, for which the majority of the
exiles waited, never came. And the longer they waited the
more firmly they found themselves rooted in their adopted
country.

Though the people to whom Haggai preached were dwelling
in panelled houses, they complained of their poverty. They had
suffered from drought and bad harvests. Their poverty did not
come (so far as we can learn) from the fact that they were bring-
ing under cultivation land that had been for decades neglected.
Nor did they now plead anything of the kind ; at the word of
the prophet they went to work. Possibly the old solid founda-
tion walls of the Temple were still in place. At the beginning
of the work, indeed, there were not wanting voices to declare
that this house would never be like the old one. Haggai does
not hesitate to allow the material inferiority of the present build-
ing. But he is firm in his conviction that its real glory will be
greater: ''For thus says Yahweh Sabaoth : Yet a little while
and I shall shake heaven and earth and sea and land ; and I will

354 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

shake all nations and the treasures of all nations shall come and
I will fill this house with riches, says Yahweh Sabaoth." ' With
such encouragement the work went steadily foiward.

The people, however, were impatient to enjoy those material
evidences of Yahweh's favour which the prophet had promised.
This comes out in his use of a parable. Haggai is directed to
ask the priests two ritual questions. The first is this : If one
carry sacrificial flesh in the skirt of his robe and the robe touch
bread or wine, will the bread or wine then become sacred ? The
priests answer in the negative. The other question is whether, if
a man unclean (taboo) by contact with a dead body touch bread
or wine, the bread or wine will become unclean. The response
to this is in the affirmative — illogical as it seems to us. By tradi-
tion the contagion of the unclean is stronger than the contagion
of that which is consecrated. The familiar law is made use of by
the prophet to account for the delay in the promised blessing.
The people expected immediate evidence of divine favour in an-
swer to their new zeal. The prophet replied in substance that
the contagion of their former indifference had infected them too
deeply to be immediately removed. The consecration of the
new zeal could not be expected to work at once. But (the in.
timation is) it will work in time and the change will yet show
itself.

At about the same time with this discourse of Haggai, the
prophet was reinforced by his colleague, Zechariah. The purport
of Zechariah's first message is simply that though the men of former
times had passed away — prophets and leaders — yet the word of
Yahweh was abiding. That word had fulfilled itself upon the
disobedient former generation. Upon that word the people were
still depending, but its fulfilment was conditioned upon their
obedience. One feels the faint-heartedness of the people who
were thus addressed.

The fiirther visions of Zechariah make us realise the great

' Hag. 2 *■ ^ It can scarcely be accidental that the account describes the
people as the remnant of the people, or as all the people of the land. This
language flatly contradicts the theory of the Chronicler. It is perhaps super-
fluous to insist on this. But one may be allowed to notice the significant
concession of Meyer {Entstehung des Judentuvis, p. 167) that the chiefs
of the districts belonged to the clans which had not been carried into
exile, but which had possession of the land when the Jews returned under
Cyrus.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 355

change which has taken place in the behevers' theory of the uni-
verse since the time of Jeremiah. Yahweh now has His throne
in heaven, and His administration has been elaborated much after
the fashion of the Persian court. He has His servants who go
about to do His bidding. Some of these are interested in the
welfare of Judah, and the prophet is permitted to overhear their
conversation. He sees the heavenly post-riders, who bring news
of the state of things throughout the earth. He hears them re-
port : " We have gone over the earth, and all is quiet and secure.
Then he hears the angel of Yahweh ^ ask his king : '' How long
wilt Thou not pity Jerusalem: and the cities of Judah, with which
Thou hast been angry these seventy years ? ' ' We see that the
prophet had been longing to hear of those overturnings of the
nations which should herald the promised Day of Yahweh. If,
as has already been suggested, the disorders which arose at the
accession of Darius were the occasion of the prophet's first activ-
ity, these disorders must have been speedily quelled, or else must
have been confined to distant regions. We cannot otherwise ac-
count for the message before us.' The seventy years of Yahweh's
anger are the seventy years of Jeremiah's prophecy. The angel
of the vision is troubled (as is the prophet) by the fact that no
signs of Yahweh's grace are seen, though the period of punish-
ment has passed.' But the expostulating angel is comforted, and
the prophet is bidden to say that Yahweh's anger is now turned
against the nations which He employed to execute His decrees
upon Jerusalem. For in carrying out these decrees they have
gone far beyond their instructions and His intentions. Now He
is about to have compassion on Jerusalem, and His House is to be
rebuilt. We are reminded by this again of the organisation of
the Persian empire, where a powerful .satrap might easily evade or
exceed the commands of the sovereign, and not be detected unless
the sovereign's personal attention were called to the matter. This
vision is followed by another which shows the workmen ready

1 That is, the particular angel who had brought revelations to Israel in
times past, and who is, therefore, specially interested in the fortunes of this

people.

2 Zech. I ^2. Meyer says : " Syria was not aflfected by the rebellions of

521-519 B.C." EntsteJmng, p. 82.

3 The mention of this period of time seems definitely to locate the vision
in the reign of Darius I instead of in the reign of a later Darius, as has been
advocated by some critics.

356 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

with their tools to dehorn the nations which have oppressed Israel.
Yahweh is, in fact, ready to take His journey to His ancient dwell-
ing, the Temple.^

It could hardly be that the zeal of the people should be aroused
for the work of rebuilding, without Messianic hopes and expecta-
tions being also quickened. We are not much surprised, therefore,
to find the prophets urging the people not only to rebuild the
Temple, but also to take direct steps toward the realisation of the
Kingdom of God. Of course, rebellion against the Persian power
was not to be thought of — though independence was the goal
toward which the people must be moving even when not avow-
ing it to themselves. For the present, internal affairs might be
arranged in accordance with Ezekiel's programme of complete
consecration. The first and most obvious thing to do was to
make the priesthood independent of the secular power. This we
may suppose to be one interest of what we may call the Messianic
party. Others there were who looked on any innovation with
suspicion. They found reason to complain of Joshua, the chief
priest. They thought him already too powerful, or too conspic-
uous in the community. Possibly they found fault with his per-
sonal character. Zechariah is altogether on his side, and makes a
defence of him in a dramatic vision. In this vision he sees the
heavenly court of justice in session, with Yahweh in the character
of presiding judge. The official prosecutor is present in the per-
son of Satan, who here appears for the first time in Hebrew litera-
ture. He is obviously not the spirit of evil who appears in later
Jewish writings ; he is only an officer of justice, whose business
it is to see that the case against criminals is properly presented.^
Before this court Joshua is brought, clothed in the miserable ap-
parel which an accused person puts on to move the mercy of the

^ Zech. I ^-2 ^. The exhortation to flee from Babylon, which is found a
little later (2 "), is another indication that no return had yet taken place ;
cf. also 6 1^ 8 ''' 8. The desperate attempt of Sellin, Shidieyi ziir Entsteh-
ungsgesch. der Jiid. Gemeinde, II, p. 45 flf. , to harmonise Haggai and Zech-
ariah with the received view, is the best evidence that reconciliation is im-
possible. I have not seen Hoonacker's argument, a considerable part of
which is adopted by Sellin.

2 Satan is, therefore, in this period a good angel, carrying out the will of
Yahweh. In the book of Job he is virtually the same — more distinctly the
inspector of morals, perhaps. Babylonian precedents are given by Zimmern
in Keilinschr. nnd Altes Testament ^^ p. 463.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 357

court. As the matter is presented to us, we hear nothing of the
charges, but the sentence which is pronounced is in Joshua's
favour. Satan is rebuked, Joshua is clothed in seemly garments
with the tiara on his head, and he is given jurisdiction over the
house and court of Yahweh. The meaning is that the new prom-
inence of the high priest (as we may call him), has the endorse-
ment of the prophet.^ And this prominence is authorised as one
feature of the Messianic time, for in immediate connexion with
it comes a specific promise of the Branch — a name for the Messiah
possibly as old as Jeremiah. Joshua is described as a sign that
the Messiah is to come in the immediate future. In fact, in Zech-
ariah's view the man is already in Jerusalem, though not yet
crowned.^ In a later discourse he is described as the one who is
to build the Temple of Yahweh.

Careful examination of these passages leaves no doubt that
Zechariah identified Zerubbabel with the expected Messiah.
The beginning of the Temple was, in his mind, the harbinger of
the restoration of Israel under the ideal king. Zerubbabel was
to carry that work to completion and then be crowned, after
which he and Joshua were jointly to administer the government.
As if to leave no doubt in our minds, the prophet finds new oc-
casion to certify his belief. Some of the exiles, we learn, having
heard of the project of rebuilding the Temple, have sent a dele-
gation with votive offerings for the sanctuary. These men are
sojourning in Jerusalem, and Zechariah is commanded to take
the gold and silver they have brought and make of it a crown.
The crown is indeed to be kept in the Temple as a memorial of
the givers. But it is to be none the less a sign of the kingship
of Zerubbabel.' With this agrees the promise of Haggai to
Zerubbabel : "I will take thee, Zerubbabel, my servant, and

1 Zech. 3 ^ '. The description of Joshua as a drand plucked from the burn-
ing (v. 2) has been urged as evidence that Joshua had been in exile. But
the phrase is equally appropriate (even more so) if he was a member of the
the remnant community that had not been carried away.

2 Zech. 3 ^ The word Branch as designation of the Messiah is found in
Jer. 23 ^5 and 33 ^^. Both passages are of doubtful authenticity, as is Isaiah
1 1 1, a passage similar in meaning though not using the same word,
Zechariah's meaning is unmistakable; cf. 6 ^2.

3 The present text (Zech. 61^) puts the crown on the head of Joshua, but
this is an alteration of the original sense, as is evident from the whole con-
text.

358 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

will make thee like a seal ring, for thee have I chosen, says
Yahweh."^

The various visions in which Zechariah sets forth the coming
golden age may be briefly noticed. He expects the divine ad-
ministration to purge the community of the sinners, whose pres-
ence is an offence to Yahweh, by an act of supernatural efficacy.
Thus we must interpret the flying roll written over with curses,
which goes about and destroys the evil-doers together with their
houses. The conscience of the people is doubtless burdened (as in
the time of Ezekiel) by the thought of the guilt inherited from the
fathers. To relieve them, the prophet pictures the guilt in the
form of a woman who is shut up in a cask, and carried away by
two winged creatures to the land of Babylonia — a materialistic
expression of the thought that Yahweh's wrath will no longer
find its object in Judah, but in the land of the oppressor.^

That the Messianic time has dawned and that the full glory of
its day is soon to appear is the absorbing thought of Zechariah.
That its benefits will not be confined to Judah is indicated when
the prophet declares that many nations will join themselves to
Yahweh in that day and will become His people ; and again that
ten men of various nations will attach themselves to each Jew in
order to find the true God. This thought, with which Zecha-
riah closed his book, is more eloquently expressed in a passage
now imbedded in the v/orks of older prophets, but which may
belong in this period : "It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the Temple Mount shall be established as the highest of the
mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills ; and all nations
shall stream to it, and many peoples shall set forth and say :
Come, let us go up to the Mount of Yahweh, to the House of
the God of Jacob." ^

The vitality of the Messianic hope is evidenced by the fact

^ Hag. 2^* The rejection of Jehoiachin is described as the plucking the
seal ring from Yahweh's right hand (Jer. 22 2*), and the election of Zerub-
babel to the kingship could not be better set forth than by the language of
Haggai. It is indeed probable that Haggai has Jeremiah's metaphor in
mind.

■■^ The two visions are contained in Zech. 5. Chapter 4 gives the vision of
the two olive trees, and is designed to assure Zerubbabel of divine support.

'Compare Zech. 820-2:5 ^ith Isaiah, 22-5, Mic. 4 1-*. The latter passage,
deservedly beloved, must be a late insertion in the text of the two prophetic
books — as is now generally recognised.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 359

that it survived the disappointment which must have come upon
its cherishers at the close of this period. The impetus which
was given by the prophetic exhortations was sufficient to secure
the completion of the Temple (in some form) in the sixth year
of Darius/ But with this date thick darkness falls upon the lit-
tle community in Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity. It may
be that the extravagant expectations which attached themselves
to Zerubbabel made him obnoxious to the Persian court. It
may be that an attempt was made by him to rebuild the city
walls, and that this produced a crisis from which the city emerged
again in ruins. ^ More probably, however, the little common-
wealth suffered only from the accidents of its position. Evidence
of the special presence of Yahweh there was none. The city
was imperfectly fortified, and in times when the central govern-
ment was careless it must have suffered from the raids of the
Bedawin. The Edomites were pushing up from the south — small
blam^ to them, for the Nabateans were crowding on them in the
rear.

To the momentary enthusiasm aroused by the prophets, there-
fore, succeeded a period of depression. The brethren in Babylonia
may have had a sentimental interest in the restored Temple and
we may suppose that they sent occasional contributions to it.
But like the Jews of later ages they were probably willing to stay
where they found themselves well off rather than give up a cer-
tainty for an uncertain livelihood. The people in Judah were
heavily taxed. The new government — high-priest alongside of
pasha — can hardly have been without its disadvantages. Even
Zechariah had some suspicion that the two rulers might not al-
ways agree.^ In a small community facing the problems of
poverty, party feeling is sure to run high. The Persian govern-

' The date is given by Meyer as April 9, 515 B.C. {Entstehung des Jiiden-
turns, p. 54).

2 Ingenious attempts to write a history of Zerubbabel's rise and fall have
been made, of which the most elaborate is Sellin's Serubbabel (1898). His
arguments are more acute than convincing, resting on precarious theories
concerning the date of the documents. The author now admits that he was
mistaken in some of his conclusions— cf. his Stndien zur Entstehungs-
geschichte der JUdischen Gcmcinde, I (1901), pp. 230-238.

3 As pointed out by Wellhausen on Zech. 6 ^l If "one bad general is
better than two good ones," the certainty of the dual control working badly
in any time of stress may be assumed.

360 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ment removed Zerubbabel — at least we hear no more of a Davidic
pasha. We have pretty good evidence that the Temple fell into
decay and that its services were an object of contempt on the
part of the majority of the people. Doubtless the priests were
unable to support themselves ^ except by menial occupations which
kept them away from the sanctuary or interfered with the decent
observance of the rites.

The state of things in the Jerusalem of this period is vividly
put before us by the little book of Malachi — a voice and nothing

more deploring evils which were felt by a few spiritually minded

men who held fast their hope in circumstances that prompted to
despair.^ The prophet begins by encouraging his people in the
face of the Edomite invasion, giving them the assurance that
though Esau was Jacob's brother, he was hated by Yahweh in
proportion as Jacob was loved. The author's main purpose,
however, is to rebuke the laxity and faint-heartedness of both
priests and people. In the circumstances that we have surmised
we can hardly wonder that the priests have become indifferent to
the honour of their God. They bring maimed and sick animals
to the altar and say : // is no harm} The prophet points out
the indignity thereby offered to Yahweh. If they were to make
such presents to the civil ruler they would be taught a lesson:
** Bring it to the Pasha; will he look favourably upon you? "
The indignity is the more striking because it is in contrast with
the conduct of the Gentiles. They know how to render accept-
able homage to the one true God : " From the rising of the sun
to its going down, my name is great among the nations. Every-
where pure offerings are brought to my name because my name
is great among the nations ; hwlyoii keep on profaning it in that

'• The demand that the ministers of religion should be enabled to live a
menschemviirdiges Dasein seems reasonable in the interest of religion itself.

2 The book is really anonymous, Malachi (my messenger) being only a
conjecture of the editors. Perhaps the disrepute into which the prophets
fell after the non-fulfilment of the hopes fostered by Haggai and Zechariah,
led the author to conceal his identity. The text of the book has been help-
fully treated by Torrey in the Journal of Bib. Lit. for 1898, pp. I-15. On
the Edomite possession of Judah, see an article by the same author, ibid.,
p. 16 ff.

' Is it a case where the priests substitute inferior animals for those actually
presented by the worshippers ? It would seem to be to the interest of the
priests themselves to refuse unfit offerings. But by substitution they might
profit themselves.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 361

you say: The table of Yahweh is contemptible."^ The plain
teaching of the passage is that the most worthy worship of the
Gentiles is really offered to the true God.

And yet the foreign cults which are making their way into the
Jewish community are not a manifestation of true religion — prob-
ably we should feel the same way about the petty superstitions of
the Syrian peasants. These superstitions are attracting the wayward
hearts of the Jews, so that the covenant with Yahweh is likely to
be forgotten.^ The danger of such defection was less threatening,
however, than that which arose from the general scepticism of the
people. They said that good and evil were both alike to Yah-
weh; it was impossible to call Him a God of justice. The only
reply that our author can make is to repeat the promise of former
prophets — there will be a sudden revelation of that justice, a Day
of Yahweh. But as with the former prophets this Day is not
necessarily a day of good to Israel, so now we hear : " Who may
endure the day of His coming, and who can stand firm when He
shall appear ? For He is like the refiner's fire and like the fuller's
alkali. ... I will draw near ^'ow for judgment, and I will
be a swift witness against the sorcerers and the adulterers and the
perjurers and against those who oppress the hireling, the widow,
and the fatherless, and against those who abuse the client and
who do not fear Me, says Yahweh Sabaoth." ^ So we hear again
the old prophetic demand for righteousness between man and
man. The conscience of the ritualist has not been blunted by
his scrupulousness in matters of external service — though this
scrupulousness would not have been intelligible to the older
prophets.

Although the prophet rebukes the priests for their neglect of
the services, he recognises the fact that it is the people's treat-
ment of the priests which is at the bottom of the evil. The Tem-
ple service cannot be worthily maintained unless the contributions

* Mai. I ^. The universalism of the declaration is one of the most remark-
able things in the Old Testament. But it does not seem possible to under-
stand the passage in any other way than it is taken above. The universalism
is the more remarkable because of the author's ritualistic tendencies.

' This seems to be the only way to understand the passage, Mai. 2 ^^^^'
The other view, which makes it refer to intermarriage with foreigners, pre-
sents serious difificulties ; see the discussion of the passage in Wellhausen's
Skizzen iind Vorarbeiten, V.

' Mai. 3 2-5.

362 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

are regularly made. The people seem to have withheld the tithes
on the plea that the harvests are bad. Malachi holds, with the
earlier prophets> that fidelity to Yahweh will make the harvests
good. And fidelity to Yahweh will be manifested by bringing
the tithes and first-fruits. So we find a specific promise that if
the tithes and offerings are brought in full measure, the rains will
be abundant and the harvests bountiful.^ Even with prompt
payment, however, it is not certain that the tithes will be suffi-
cient to support the priests. At least, the ecclesiastical taxes
were made heavier at a later time.

The period, then, was one of great depression. The faith of
the great body of the people had grown cold. The most signifi-
cant fact is the existence of a little group of faithful spirits who
will not yield to the prevailing scepticism. They are constant in
their observance of the ancestral Law — though even they are not
certain of seeing any reward. They confess that they felicitate
the bold blasphemers who have tested the ways of God and who
find themselves none the worse for their wickedness.'^ The an-
swer of the prophets to this temptation was the assurance that the
day burning as an oven would soon come when they should tread
the unrighteous under foot. They were to wait long for that day
and die without the sight. Unknown to themselves, perhaps,
the mainspring of their action was the conviction that it must be
better to serve Yahweh even in adversity than to dwell in the
tents of wickedness. Something of this kind was in the prophet's
mind when he gave them this word of comfort : '' Yahweh has
attended and heard, and a memorandum has been written down
before Him for those who fear Him and who think on His name.
They shall be mine own, says Yahweh Sabaoth, in the day when
I act, and I will deal gently with them as a man deals with an
obedient son." The hope of that day was deferred long enough
to make the heart sick, but the thought of the book of remem-
brance stayed up the sinking spirit. If one is not forgotten of
his God, he may rest content.

The continued existence of this little band of kindred spirits — an

* Mai. 3 ''-'f'. The contrast to Amos's scornful treatment of the tithes (Amos,
4 *) will occur to everyone. Malachi, it may be remarked, shows no ac-
quaintance with the Priest-code. The tithes he has in mind are those com-
mandccl in Deuteronomy.

2 Mai. 3 '•'->^ cf. vv. 16.19.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 363

Israel within Israel — is the most important fact which this period
has to show. The future of religion lay in their keeping. The
faith and hope they kept alive were based on a true experience
of the divine presence. The traditions of the fathers were no
doubt cherished among them, and for the most part they rested
in the thought that though the day of judgment for the wicked
was postponed, it must come in external and visible form. But
from this circle one arose to protest against the whole doctrine of
the divine administration of the world as it had been formulated
by the fathers. Too clear-eyed to rest in delusive hopes, he
looked at things as they are, and put on record the struggles and
doubts which many were passing through, but were not able to
voice. The book of Job was the result, one of the great works of
the human spirit. Such a work could be the product only of a
period of doubt and depression, and our reason for dating it at
this time is that it emphasises the problems which became acute
in this period.

What was said in our discussion of Ezekiel shows how the
question of the divine justice was forced upon the people by the
experiences of the exile. How Yahweh could punish His people
and yet not inflict undeserved suffering upon some individuals
who were faithful to Him was a problem as difficult as it was
painful. Ezekiel cut the knot by the strictness of his logic.
With the energy of a determined spirit he drew the necessary in-
ference from his doctrine of the divine nature. Yahweh is just ;
therefore He punishes or rewards men according to their deserts
— the man that sins shall die, the man that does righteously shall
live. Such is the simple syllogism which he spins out to so great a
length that we see he is bound to convince himself by the itera-
tion. As the prophet had not learned to extend the sphere of
the divine justice beyond the present life, the declaration means
that the wicked are punished by early or painful physical death,
while the righteous live out the years normal to humanity. The
simplicity of the theory commends it to intense but narrow nat-
ures. Such might hold it fast — by main strength of will and by
shutting their eyes to daily experience. But the more reflective
minds could not be blind to its difficulties. Especially were the
experiences of the century that had passed since Ezekiel calcu-
lated to shake their faith. Does the theory accord with the
facts? As this question forced itself to the front, and as the facts

364 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

were more closely interrogated, it became impossible to make
the facts and the theory agree.

The conclusion being invalidated, the premisses also are
shaken. We must then give up the belief that Yahweh is just —
this is the dreadful thought which presented itself to the in-
quirer. And if he shrank from this, the problem returned to
torment him again and again. Israel was not altogether sinful;
why had it been so long scourged by the Gentiles? The Gen-
tiles were not more righteous ; why should they be allowed to
rage without hindrance? The remnant of Judah, whether in
Babylon or in Canaan, had turned to YahAveh with all their
heart — some souls among them at least dealt justly and loved
mercy and walked humbly with their God. Why should these
still be the prey of the oppressor ?

Writing with his heart's blood, the author of the book of Job
debates rather than answers questions like these. He puts the
problem in concrete form, but takes c^re to divest it of all ritual
complications. It is not a question of Israel's prerogatives or of
special divine revelation. It is a question of our common hu-
manity— does God the Creator deal with His creatures on any
principle that we can understand ? The question is stated in the
narrative of Job, a man upright and God-fearing according to
the patriarchal standard. The story had apparently been known
before. Ezekiel, at any rate, names Job^ as one of three men
distinguished for their righteousness, probably all of them also
examples of deliverance in calamity. This is hardly the Job of
our book, who is famous quite as much for his misfortunes as
for his righteousness. It is in fact the combination of the mis-
fortunes and the righteousness that makes the tragedy.

The hero of the book, a perfect example of human virtue, is a
hero of tragedy. After seeming to prove by his prosperity that
the lot of man accords with the traditional theory — the righteous
are i)rosi)ered— he is suddenly plunged into the deepest affliction.
His property is swept away in an hour, and in the same hour his
children are cut down in the flower of youth. He himself is
afflicted with a loathsome disease whose nature leaves him no
hope of life, unless a lingering death extending into years of

^Ezek. 14I*. 19. It is noticeable that Ezekiel uses the three men to sup-
port his theory of strict individual justice— by their personal righteousness
they should deliver themselves but no one else, not even son or daughter.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 365

torture may be called life. This is the presentation of the
problem.

In the treatment of the problem three separate views seem to
be embodied — another instance of the composite nature of He-
brew literature. Popular tradition, which is the source of the
story/ could not be content without poetic justice. Therefore
we find the epilogue restoring Job to health and wealth, giving
him another family and extending his life to patriarchal length
It is evident that if this be the author's mind we have no prob-
lem. A brief time of privation and suffering would be a trifle
when balanced against an additional century of health and pros-
perity. It is only when the fact of suffering becomes the lead-
ing fact, and when reasonable hope of restoration is takeaaway,
that the problem becomes acute.

We must suppose therefore that the epilogue is added or re-
tained in deference to a tradition which already recounted the
restoration of the sufferer. It is not inconsistent with this that
the prologue indicates a partial solution of the problem. The
question is: Why does God afflict the righteous? One answer
is given by the new angelology which we found coming into view
in Zechariah. In that book we saw Joshua arraigned before the
heavenly court with Satan as prosecutor; so here we see the
same court convened, but as a court of inquiry rather than as a
court for trial. The angels appear in the Presence to report on
the condition of the universe. Among them appears the prose-
cutor, whose business is now that of a detective. To the ques-
tion whether he has observed Job, the upright, he replies with an
insinuation : Job's outward integrity cannot be denied, but it is
not difficult to suppose that it is a matter of selfish calculation.
When Yahweh rewards virtue with prosperity, mere selfish motives
are enough to produce virtuous conduct. To Satan's declaration
that if Job should lose his property, his piety will go also,
Yahweh replies by giving him permission to make the experi-
ment. The test is applied and Job's disinterestedness is trium-
phantly established against this charge. But Satan takes his in-
quisitorial office seriously. He has a second count to bring
against the righteous man. Piety may be dictated by fear as well

^ This is most distinctly brought out by Duhm in his commentary {Kurzer
Handkovwientar). The theory is discussed at length by K. Kautzsch,
Das Sogenannte Volksbuch von Hiob (1900).

366 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

as by desire. Job has been overawed by the power of God dis-
played in the calamities that have overtaken him. He now cringes
before the hand that has smitten, fearing that it will be lifted
for a final stroke. But (it is added) if the hope of life is taken
away then the true state of his mind will appear — he will be seen
not to be righteous but to be depraved, and he will blaspheme
his Maker to His face. This test also is applied ; Job is smitten
with leprosy in its most malignant form so that he must despair
of life and has nothing to fear or to hope from Yahweh. He
stands the test and holds fast his integrity.

In the behaviour of Job under affliction we have undoubtedly
one answer to our problem. The writer comforts himself with
the thought that if we could see all that goes on in the divine
council we should see a reason for much that is now obscure to
us in the government of the world. Among the spiritual exist-
ences there, as among men here, there may be doubt as to the
reality of virtue — at least of human virtue. To prove that virtue
is more than selfishness there is no way except to send calamity
upon the virtuous. It concerns mankind and angels to be con-
vinced that there is such a, thing as disinterested goodness.
This we may call a real solution of the problem.

But it is far from satisfying the author of the poem. He seems,
in fact, to ignore the solution, for the poetical part of the book
makes no reference to Satan or to the desirability of testing virtue
by calamity. The author's eye is fixed upon the sufferer who is
ignorant that he is being experimented upon in the interest of
truth. The struggles of the soul under the kni fe absorb the writer's
attention. The tragedy is unfolded, as we see this soul wrestling
with the thought that, though innocent, it has lost its God. In
the dialogue this soul (which is the reflection of the writer's own
soul) reveals itself to us — its deepest experiences, its yearnings
and gropings, its passionate rejection of the popular theology.
The interlocutors are Job and his three friends. These men,
representatives of tradition and philosophy, come ostensibly to
condole with him on his misfortunes. But their silence is elo-
quent of something very different from sympathy. It shows that
in their secret thought they are pronouncing judgment upon the
sufferer. As in former times Job had concluded from a nian's
calamity that he had by sin incurred the just displeasure of God,
so these uncomforting comforters are attributing to Job himself

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 367

wickedness and hypocrisy, colossal in proportion to the greatness
of his calamity.

It is impossible for us, of a more advanced type of thought, to
realise the depth of the misery into which the sufferer is thus
plunged and which causes him to break out into curses against the
day of his birth. It is not that he values the judgment of his
friends ; it is because their theory has been his own. His life's
faith is suddenly shown to be untenable. Where he had thought
he could stay himself on God he found a void beneath his feet
and felt himself falling into a bottomless abyss. While he was
in prosperity it had been easy for him to believe that God is just
and is a rewarder of His servants. Now that faith is gone.

It is gone -just because his conscience is clear. He knows with
the certainty of inner conviction that he is not the flagrant sinner
who alone could call down such signal punishment. As to the
opposite conviction of the friends there can be no doubt, though
they try to be considerate in their statements. So far as their
convictions will allow they desire to spare their friend. But they
have no doubt that this suffering is a punishment for sin. They
show the grounds for their belief in the traditions of the ancients
confirmed by their own observation. They claim to have been
taught by divine revelation concerning the divine method of
dealing with men. With phrases of studied mildness they invite
Job now to repent of his sin, and they even promise restoration
to health and prosperity in case he follows this advice.

The terrible mockery of such promises to a man in his con-
dition only increases the perplexity and the despair of the suf-
ferer, further aggravated as the friends proceed to make direct
charges of sin against him. Turning about everywhither, he
finds no hope. The best that he can wish for is annihilation.
He accuses his friends of failing him at the time when he most
needs them. He describes his sufferings, bodily and mental.
At last in desperation, with what seems to them effrontery, he
expostulates with God. Why should he, an insignificant crea-
ture, be watched as though he were the rebellious ocean or the
primeval dragon that threatened to undo the work of creation?
Would it not be more worthy of God to forgive human failings,
seeing that the divine dignity cannot be injured by the puny
efforts of the creature ? ^

1 Job, 7 12-21.

368 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

To the friends this is but the raving of a madman, and it con-
firms them in their theory. To their insistence that God must
be just, Job now gives his assent, but in a form which shows that
he still denies. He will concede their position if might makes
right:

" Verily I know that it is so : how can man be righteous before God ?

If He should choose to bring suit against him, he could not answer
one count in a thousand.

The wise in mind and mighty in strength ! Who could oppose Him
and come forth whole ?

Before Him v^'ho moves mountains without knowing it, and over-
turns them in His wrath ! " *

One does not argue with the master of a hundred legions. But
this is no answer to the main question. If the theory of the
friends comes only to this, that God is always in the right be-
cause He has the power to crush opposition, then there is no
debate. But then, too, God is not the God in whom Job has
trusted.

This is the anguish of the situation. The God of justice has
disappeared and a powerful tyrant alone remains. This (Job
thinks) is really what the friends mean. Justice is not what they
are looking for. They look only for indications of the tyrant's
mood and then manoeuvre to keep on His side, for He is the
strongest ; just as the sycophants about an absolute monarch are
ready to justify his most cruel or most oppressive whims. It
still remains true that Job is innocent — this he will protest till
his last breath. And he could prove it to God Himself if
only they could meet on equal terms, as man meets man in ar-
gument. If God would lay aside His terrors, if there were an
umpire who would impartially consider the evidence, he would
rejoice to defend his case. Even as it is, at the risk of offend-
ing his omnipotent adversary he must declare his innocence. He
will not lie — even to curry favour with the Almighty. Hence
the protest which he addresses to God. The right of the crea-
ture must be affirmed even if the affirmation seems to be a de-
fiance of the Creator.^

It is clear that the friends with their stiff dogmatism cannot

1 Job, 92-5.

^ Read chapters 10 and 13,

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 369

comprehend this state of mind. The words of Job are to them
blasphemy, and only strengthen the conviction that he is a mon-
strous sinner — a hypocrite as well, because he insists that he is
righteous. They reaffirm their doctrine with increasing heat,
until at last they accuse him to his face of crimes for which there
is no evidence outside the exigencies of their theory. More and
more distinctly Job sees that there is no relief for him in their
way of thinking. Their theology, which has also been his the-
ology, is hopelessly bankrupt. But in proportion as he is driven
from his theology he is driven back to God. He has no other
refuge, and his heart tells him that there is a refuge here. God
must be just — not in the sense in which the friends have declared,
but in the sense in which the heart cries out for justice. This
does not tell him why he is afflicted ; that is a mystery which
he cannot solve. But somewhere, somehow, God will disprove
the false charges brought against His servant. Long after his
death, it may be, God will be his vindicator and will bring
the true state of the case to light. With this he will be con-
tent.^

The real solution of the problem is the state of peace attained
by the believer through all this struggle. It is not an intellectual
solution of the problem ; it is the experience of a soul. What
the author shows us is a man thrown into the darkness of de-
spair by God's inexplicable dealings with him. He loses his
faith for the time being, but he comes through his doubts and
finds his God again. In a way this is a justification of God's
dealing with Job. But it is the destruction of the popular the-
ology, and it is no solution of the problem of the universe. This
the author goes on to prove by the mouth of Job himself. The
fact that Job is able to rest upon God does not mean that the
friends are right in their interpretation. The popular theology is
false in asserting that this world is administered on the scheme

^ The celebrated passage, Job, 19 ^^-2^, is so overlaid with Christian asso-
ciations that we find difficulty in apprehending its real meaning. The per-
sistence with which, up to this point, Job has denied the reality of reward
or punishment beyond the grave makes it certain that he does not suddenly
adopt such a theory here. What Job actually says is this : his confidence
in God gives assurance that his vindication will come, and that he will be
permitted to know it. In the dark regions of Sheol a momentary vision
may be vouchsafed him — this is the most that he can hope for, but with this
he will be satisfied.

370 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

of rewards and punishments. Observation of the facts about us
shows not only that the righteous suffer but that the wicked pros-
per. So far is it from being true that the wicked are snatched
away by an untimely death, that we might put it just the other
way — the wicked oppressors grow old in power. They grow in
power and in wickedness, and when at last they are taken away
it is by a painless death. The problem stands out much more
boldly than Job had ever thought, until he turned his attention
to the facts. And it is insoluble. To the question, '' On what
principles then is the world governed ? " no answer can be given.
This is our author's deliberate conclusion. Yet faith is not al-
together taken away from us. As we look at the wonderful
works of God in nature we see that perfect wisdom is at work.
We can rest in the conclusion that He who is able to carry on
such a wonderful scheme of things will also be able to give a
reason for His dealings with men. His ways are unsearchable ;
we may trust that they are true and right nevertheless.^

It is doubtful whether this treatment of the problem of the
divine government was understood by the contemporaries of the
author. The book was too profound for the average mind —
nor has it been adequately apprehended in any age. The epi-
logue has probably saved it from perishing by neglect. The
author's answer to the problem of history is one in which the
believing mind could not rest. From the same circle of thought-
ful minds, and at about the same time, came another answer in
the brilliant and devout poem which we now read as the second
part of the book of Isaiah.

At the beginning of the exile the suffering of Israel could be
accounted for on the ground that the people were punished for
their sins. The longer the exile endured the more difficult it
was to accept this explanation. Continued suffering would then
imply that Israel was much worse than the Gentiles, for Israel was
afflicted while they escaped. But this could not be seriously
held. The author of the book of Job had abstracted the ques-
tion from its particular national colouring and discussed it as an
ethical question pure and simple, reaching a non liquet. The
author of the poem which now engages our attention fixed his

^ That this is the purpose of the chapters (38 and 39) which describe the
wonders of nature must be manifest. The speeches of Elihu (32-37) are
clearly a later insertion in the book and add nothing to the discussion.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 371

eye on the concrete problem. Israel is personified by him, and
is constantly before his mind. He is not content with one form
of the figure. He realises that Israel may be represented by the
half-rebuilt ruins of Jerusalem, and the still desolate cities of
Judah. These he addresses with words of encouragement and
comfort — Zion is the forlorn and sorrowing wife of Yahweh
mourning the absence of her husband ; and she is comforted
by the promise of His speedy return. But Israel is also the
nation which went into captivity, and which still in large part
sojourns in the East. This Israel, in the author's view, has a
great mission in the world. It is personified as the Servant of
Yahweh, chosen by Him and called to the work of a prophet.
This Servant, the most striking ideal figure of the Old Testament,
is also comforted and encouraged. He is introduced speaking Hke
a prophet, conscious of his high mission, reciting the word of
His God. Israel the prophet of Yahweh to the nations — this is
the author's solution of the problem of history.^

More fully than anyone who has preceded him, our author
affirms Yahweh to be the only God, the God of the whole
earth. With all the ardour of a passionate nature, this is de-
clared again and again. Yahweh is the Creator of the ends of
the earth ; He makes peace and creates evil ; He takes up the
isles as a mote ; He spreads out the heavens as a canopy ; He
marshals the constellations in their order, and for fear of Him
every star keeps its appointed place in the ranks. ^ The gods of
the nations are, on the other hand, nothing but idols. They are
sticks and stones, behind which is no spiritual power of any kind.
Scorn and contempt for these manufactured articles breathe
in every passage where they are mentioned. The process by
1 This is not the place to argue the complex critical problems which clus-
ter around the great poem which we call Deutero-Isaiah (Is. 40-66). A
whole library has been written on the subject, and the discussion is still
going on. The reader will find the main points discussed in the recent com-
mentaries on Isaiah, in the articles of the recent Bible Dictionaries and in
various monographs, some of which will be cited below. My own view is
that the work is by a single author, though not all written at one time. This
author lived some time after the date of Cyrus, and the references to that king
in 44 and 45 are later insertions. He lived, however, in the Persian period.
The text has suffered some in transmission and must be cleared of some
minori nterpolations. I am indebted to Professor C. C. Torrey for light on
some points which were to me obscure.

« Numerous references might be given— note especially chapter 40.

372 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

which they come into being is enough to show their nothing-
ness. Of the workmen in the idol shops it is said :

♦• One helps the other, and says to his fellow : Be of good courage !
So the craftsman encourages the goldsmith ; he who smoothes with

the hammer him who smites the anvil,
Saying of the soldering : It is good ; and he fastens it with nails." *

The absurdity of a god that must be nailed up in order not to
topple over is patent ; and so is the folly of the man who takes a
piece of timber, makes a fire with one half and shapes the other
into an object of worship. Such gods are nothing — a stick of
wood is a stick of wood and nothing more. Their nothingness
is indicated further by their weakness — they cannot do anything,
either good or bad. Yahweh, speaking by the mouth of his
prophet, challenges them on this head — let them do something
to show their power and men will believe in them. The chal-
lenge results in a demonstration of their impotence. And the
evidence thus given will be confirmed in the near future by the
fate that will overtake them. The crisis is not far away in which
Bel and Nebo will be involved in the ruin of their city. In the
flight of their worshippers these gods will prove a hindrance
rather than a help — loading down the jaded beasts which might
more profitably carry something of use for their masters.^

Yahweh is the God of history. He knows the end from the
beginning, directs the movements of the nations, works out His
plans by means of them. This He shows by the fact that to
His prophets He has revealed things to come. The diviners and
astrologers, prophets of the false gods we may call them, have no
knowledge of the signs of the times. Yahweh's challenge to the
other gods turns upon this. They are invited to tell how the
former things were foretold, or else to announce what is still in
the future. Yahweh by His movements throws all their supposed
revelations into confusion.'

' Isaiah, 41 ^> ''. The verses have possibly been displaced from their original
context ; cf. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, p. 299, and his edi-
tion in Ilaupt, Sacred Books of the Old Testavient.

2 Ibid.^ 46 ^"* . The contrast between Bel and Nebo who need to be car-
ried and Yahweh who has carried His people from their birth will impress
the most careless reader.

' Ibid., 41 21-23, and notice the confusion of the Babylonian astrologers in

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 3/3

This God of history is in some peculiar sense the God of Is-
raeL His choice of Israel must be the key to history. As to
the fact of the choice we are not left in doubt — it is affirmed again
and again ; and it is set forth under figures familiar to us from
our study of the older prophets, though it is nowhere so tenderly
described as here. Yahweh is Israel's husband. Zion is com-
pared to a forsaken wife, who despairs of being received again to
the affections which she has forfeited. But she is assured that so
far from being forgotten she is in perpetual remembrance — her
walls are graven on the palms of His hands. In her litde faith,
she refuses to believe that the prey can be taken from the oppres-
sor. In answer she is pointed to the incomparable power of her
Lord and her Redeemer.^

The word which we translate Redeemer is a favourite word
with our author to indicate the closeness of the bond between
Yahweh and Israel.' It denotes the next of kin upon whom in
tribal society all social duties devolve. He is vindicator of jus-
tice—when a man is slain the next of kin avenges him. He is
helper in misfortune, nourishes in famine, redeems from captivity,
takes upon him all the interests of his kinsman. Yahweh is Israel's
next of kin. Redeemer, Vindicator, Helper. It follows that
there is a coming salvation. Israel's redemption is nigh. His
scattered ones will be brought back. Zion will be rebuilt in
transcendent beauty. Her sons shall come from far and her
daughters be nourished at her side. Yahweh Himself will head
the returning train, leading them over the desert as the shepherd
leads his flock.

To what purpose then is all the suffering through which Israel
has gone? This suffering is (as we have seen) more than was
required by the divine justice. The author, in fact, is so bold as
to say that Zion has received of Yahweh's hand double for all
her sins It is in answer to this question that our author shows a
profound philosophy as well as a living faith. God's choice of
Israel is not for Israel's sake alone. The great future that opens
out before him is a future for the whole earth. All nations are
to receive the blessing of the knowledge of Yahweh, which hitherto
has been confined to Israel. Distant peoples shall come to Israel
with the conviction : - Only in thee is God, and beside there is

1 Note especially the beautiful passage, 49 ^*— 50^-

3 The Hebrew is go' el, for which we have no good equivalent in English.

374 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

none, no Godhead at all." To Him every knee shall bow and
every tongue shall swear. ^ This universality of the true religion
is the end to be attained by Yahweh's choice of Israel, and
Israel's suffering is incident to his mission to the nations. He
suffers not only for his own sins, but for the sins of others.

The theory of vicarious suffering is not so remote from ancient
thought as it is from the thought of our own day — which, indeed,
revolts from it. In a society where the clan is held responsible
for the acts of each of its members it must often happen that the
innocent suffer for the guilty. In any society the cases are not
few where the guilt of one involves many in suffering. The
solidarity of the social organism makes this inevitable. And the
result is often to bring to view conspicuous instances of suffering
on the part of those who are conspicuously innocent. The high-
est instances of virtue are found where men voluntarily take upon
themselves to suffer in order that others may be spared. Thus a
Moses offers to be blotted out of the book of God, hoping there-
by to secure the forgiveness of his people. So in the discharge
of his mission many a prophet had undergone suffering in order
to bring his people to a knowledge of the truth.

Israel, now, is a prophet-nation standing to the nations in the
same relation as that which exists between the individual prophet
and his hearers. This is the reason for Yahweh's choice — the
choice is a call to make Him known to all the world. Israel is
introduced to us declaring this to be his mission :

" Hearken ye far countries unto me, and listen ye distant

peoples,
Yahweh has called me from the womb, from my mother's

lap has He celebrated my name ;
He made my mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow of

His hand He hid me ;
He made me a polished shaft, in His quiver He stored me.
He said to me : Thou art my servant, Israel, in whom I

will glorify myself.

But now Yahweh says— He who formed me from the
womb to be a servant to Him :

1 Isaiah, 45 i*. 's, 22, 23^ ^nd notice the passages to be cited in the immediate
sequel.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 375

It is too light a thing to raise up the tribes of Jacob and

to restore the preserved of Israel ;
I set thee as a light of the nations, that my deliverance

may go to the ends of the earth." ^

And as Israel avows this to be his mission so Yahweh testifies
concerning His purposes : " Thou too shalt call nations that thou
knovvest not and peoples that have not known thee shall run unto
thee." ^ The substance of Israel's message is indicated where Yah-
weh contrasts His people with the devotees of the false gods :
'^ You are my witnesses . . . that you may acknowledge
and believe me and discern that I am He ; before me was no god
formed, nor after me shall there be any."

Where this is the work of the Servant it must be that persecu-
tion and suffering will follow. The course of history is a con-
flict between Yahweh and the other gods. The partisans of
these will not spare His witness. So Israel realises as he describes
his present oppression :

" The Lord Yahweh has given me the speech of the eloquent ;
That I may know how to revive the weary ;
In the morning He wakens my ear that I may hearken as His

disciple
And I have not been rebellious or turned back.
My back I gave to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who

plucked out the beard,
I hid not my face from insult and spitting."^

But the time is not far distant when the nations themselves will
realise that the sufferer has suffered as the result of his faithfulness
to his mission, and that therefore it was for their sake. This
realisation passes over into the public confession of the vicarious-

^ Isaiah, 49 ^-^. I have abbreviated the passage so as to bring out the main
thought. The passage is thoroughly discussed by Giesebrecht, Der Knecht
Jahve's {l()02), p. 28 ff.

2 Ibid., 55 ^ The comparison of Israel to David, whose work was to unite
the tribes in a single state, is well explained by Cheyne : " David's appointed
work could only be effected by a witness or preacher of the truth, and this
witness or preacher was to be (as this prophetic writer knows) the regener-
ated people of Israel." — Isaiah (English translation) in Sacred Books of the
Old Testament, p. 187.

^Ibid., 50*-*. Compare Yahweh's own description of His servant in
42 ^-* quoted below.

376 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ness of his suffering. In the touching chapter which has been
to countless generations a description of the suffering Saviour, ^
the nations are introduced avowing their discovery. That which
had not been told them now they see, that which they had not
heard they now perceive :

** Who could believe the report which came to us ?
And to whom was the arm of Yahweh revealed ?

He grew up before us as a sapling ; ^

And like a sprout from dry soil.

He had no beauty that we should look upon him,

And no comeliness that we should delight in him.

Despised was he and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with sickness ;
Like one from whom men hide the face,
Despised, and we esteemed him not.

But it was our sicknesses that he bore
And our sorrows he took upon himself,
While we thought him stricken,
Smitten of God and humiliated.

But he was pierced for our rebellions.

Crushed for our iniquities.

The chastisement that brought us healing was on him,

And recovery came to us through his wounds.

All we like sheep had gone astray,
We had turned every one to his own way.
While Yahweh made to light upon him
The guilt of us all."'

It cannot be that this self-sacrifice will be unnoticed by Yah-
weh. There must be a future for this Servant of Yahweh — he
shall see a seed, he shall prolong his days and the good pleasure
of Yahweh shall prosper at his hands. His great mission will be
accomplished, so that all nations will see the salvation of God.

' Chapter 53. The right to apply the description to Christ comes not from
the minute details of prediction, but from the recognition of Him as the true
fulfiUer of Israel's prophetic mission.

* A sickly spindling plant is what is meant.

'Isaiah, 53 i-«. Cf. the discussion in Giesebrecht Knecht Jahve's.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 377

And this glorious work presents itself in part as a conquest. The
opposing powers will be crushed before the triumphant hero —
Yahweh will rouse the mighty one from the East, will give peo-
ples into his power and strike terror into kings.^ But more in
accord with the prophet's ideal is the gentle work of persuasion
by which the Word will be commended to all mankind. The
messenger of Yahweh is not to strive or cry or make his voice
heard in the streets :

" A bruised reed he will not break
Nor will he quench a dimly burning wick.
Faithfully will he set forth righteousness ;
He will not grow dim nor be crushed
Till he have set righteousness in the earth.
And for his instruction the far countries wait." *

That the kingdom of God is to be advanced by gentle measures,
that present humiliation is the gateway to future exaltation, that
the true believer has a mission to comfort the lowly and to bind
up the wounds of those who are afflicted — these are the abiding
truths of religion which were put into enduring form by our
writer.

But the contrast between the ideal and the actual brings a
sharp pain to such believers. Firm as the conviction may be
that Israel is the chosen Servant of Yahweh destined to this
great work, the present reality forces itself upon the attention.
In the midst of triumphant promise and even in the exulting ex-
hortation to Zion to rise to her great mission, we find the com-
plaint that the actual Israel falls far short of his calling. Not
only is it a people robbed and plundered, it is a people wilfully
blind and deaf They have not sought Yahweh with their whole
heart — rather have they burdened Him with their iniquities.
Within the community there is a sharp distinction between those
who serve God and those who forget Him. The i)fficial class (it
is the old complaint of the prophets) who ought to be the pro-
tectors and watchmen of the people are unfaithful to their duty —

^ Isaiah, 41 ^-*. That Israel is intended is plain from v.'^ where Israel is
promised that he shall be a powerful threshing-sledge to crush down all op-
position. As the tradition arose which made Cyrus the foster-father of the
restoration, the passage was applied to him, and finally his name was in-
serted in 44^8, 45 1.

^Idid., 42, i-^andcf. 61I-*.

378 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

dumb dogs that do not protect the flock. ^ As in the picture
drawn by Malachi, the righteous are poor, and the victims of
rapacious nobles. So we find it again in the time of Nehemiah.
The present author finds a consolation in their early death; they
are taken away from the wickedness of the time.

And, as we are told also by Malachi, a considerable section of
the people is still devoted to idols. The secret cults which
flourished in the last days of Jerusalem (Ezekiel is the witness)
have vegetated on among the people of the district. It is not
the gods of Babylon or newer oriental deities that seduce their
allegiance, but they anoint themselves for the Moloch {^Melech^
the king) whom their ancestors identified with Yahweh. They
spread a table for Fortune and pour libations to Destiny —
ancient divinities of Syria. They tarry in sepulchral chambers
and lodge in secret places to perform rites of worship to the de-
ceased, and to receive revelations from them in dreams. The
ancient high-places retained something of their sanctity and at
one of them (Gerizim possibly) men were planning to build a
temple to rival that on Zion. All this arouses the scorn of our
prophet and he denounces it in no measured terms. ^

Nor was all well even with those who had not erred in this
way. The ritualistic tendency to externalism was showing
itself among those who were zealous for Yahweh. These were
religious after their fashion — they bowed themselves low at the
customary fasts, and put on sackcloth and ashes ; they mortified
themselves, perhaps even to castigation. But our prophet points
out that this is not religion. *' Is not this the fast that I choose,
says Yahweh : To loose the fetters of" injustice ; to untie the
bonds of violence ; to set at liberty those who are crushed ; to
break asunder every yoke ? Is it not to break thy bread to the
hungry and to bring the homeless into thy house ; when thou
seest the naked to cover him and not to hide thyself from thine
own flesh ?" * And with this spiritual conception of religion

^ Isaiah, ^d'^. The present tendency to ascribe Isaiah, 56-66 to a Trito-
Isaiah is illustrated by Duhm in his commentary, Cheynei n his Introdtution
and in his text {Sacred Books of the Old Testament). Cf. also Gressmann,
Ueher die in Jes. ^6-66 vorausgesetzten Zeitgeschl. Verhdltnisse (1899), and
Littmann, Ueber die Abfassingszeit des Tritojesaia (1899).

^ Notice 56 '-'2 where the language is in part borrowed from the older
prophets ; also 65 ^-^*, 66 '"*.

' Isaiah, 58 ^ '. I have followed Cheyne's translation with slight variations

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 379

goes a welcome to those outside the family of Israel who wish to
join the communion of believers: "As for the strangers who
join themselves to Yahweh to serve Him and to love His name,
every one that keeps the Sabbath and takes fast hold of my cov-
enant, I will bring them to my sacred mountain and will make
them rejoice in my house of prayer ; their offerings and their
sacrifices shall be accepted on my altar — for my house shall be
called a house of prayer for all nations." *

And so we come back to the vision of the universal reign of
Yahweh. But this does not come by the efforts of men. Yahweh
Himself must come and redeem His people. He has looked for
human instruments but has not found them. Now He will
intervene in His own person. The prophet has a vision which
has become part of the apocalyptic expectation for later times.
In it he sees Yahweh in blood-stained garments marching tri-
umphantly over all who oppose, treading them as the vintner
treads the grapes ; the day of vengeance is in His heart and
the day of redemption has come.^ But to do the writer jus-
tice we must add to this warlike picture the splendid de-
scription of the renewed Jerusalem. In language which the
New Testament has adopted and passed on to the ages, the
prophet exhorts the renewed and purified Zion to clothe herself
like a bride on the wedding day. Instead of being forsaken and
desolate, Jerusalem is to become the metroi)olis of the world.
Yahweh will take up His residence in her, and His presence will
enable her to dispense with sun and moon. The people are to
become all righteous and the reign of God on earth is to begin.'

A close parallel to this vision is found in a passage now ap-
pended to the earlier collection of Isaiah's prophecies.'* Here
we find the bitterness which the postexilic Jewish community
felt toward Edom expressed without reserve. The vengeance

'Isaiah, 56^'^ ; cf. 66^3: "all flesh shall come to worship before me,
says Yahweh."

"^ Ibid., 63 1-6. It does not appear why the redeemer should com^ from
Edom, and the text of v.' should probably be corrected with Lagarde and
Duhm so as to read : Who is this who comes in red apparel with garments
stained like the vintner ?

2 Chapter 61. The identity of the point of view in these chapters and
in chapters 40-55 is evident. It is unnecessary therefore to posit a Trito-
Isaiah ; but it is necessary to bring the whole composition to the later date.

* Isaiah, 34 and 35.

380 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

which Yahweh is about to take upon all nations will find its
chief object in Edom : '' For Yahweh has a sacrifice in Bozrah,
and a great slaughter in the land of Edom." After this day of
reprisal for Zion, the land of Edom will become a desert in-
habited only by jackals, ostriches, and hyenas. In contrast with
this will be the lot of Israel, whose waste lands shall be made to
blossom like the rose. To this land of Israel a way will be
opened on which the unclean shall not walk :

" No lion shall be there,

No violent beast shall come up thither ;
But thereon the redeemed will walk
And Yahweh's freed ones will return.

They will come to Zion with exultation
And with everlasting joy upon their head ;
Gladness and joy will overtake them,
Sorrow and sighing will flee away."

The similarity to what has been quoted above will be evident.
And the fact most prominent in the thought of both authors is
the scattered condition of the people of Yahweh. Their hope
for the future is hope of a restoration. Jerusalem is to become
the centre to which the sons of Judah will return from the far
lands.

The true significance of postexilic Israel is seen in the hopes that
it cherished. It was remarked above that the history of the nation
would have come to an end at the fall of Jerusalem had it not
been for the little band of exiles in Babylon. ^ Since then we
have considered the story of the return and have found no evi-
dence that any large number of Babylonian Jews came back to
Judah. It might seem, in view of this fact, as though we had
overrated the importance of the exiles. But this is not the case.
All the evidence goes to show that the moral strength of the
people was sustained by the Babylonian Jews. After more than
a hundred years of Persian domination there was, indeed, a little
community clustered about the Temple on Zion. But they were
poor, disheartened, the prey of designing neighbours, and divided
among themselves. Even the few who had learned that Yahweh
makes His home with the humble and contrite were upheld,
more than they realised, by the assurance that Yahweh had a
* Above, p. 299.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE 381

people in the far East, that He was keeping them separate from
the Gentiles, and that in His own time He would bring them
back with joy and gladness. In this faith they felt themselves
one with those distant brothers. The faith and the sense of unity
was kept alive by messages and tokens of affection. Although
there had been no general return, we know that as early as the
time of Zechariah a few pilgrims had come with offerings of gold
and silver for the sanctuary. As the community of Jews in
Babylon throve we must suppose that such offerings became more
frequent. The whole influence of Ezekiel had been in favour of
the Temple. His pupils must have kept alive his ideal of holi-
ness and of devotion to the sacred House. No doubt the situa-
tion in Judah was bad enough. Very few of the people there
strove after the ideals which the exiles had at heart. Even idola-
try had not been overcome — it is one of our traditional errors to
suppose that the exile or the people's experience of misfortune
crushed it out. But with all her faults, Jerusalem was still the
home of the exile's yearning. He would rather let his right
hand lose its cunning than forget Jerusalem his chief joy. It is
this affection for Jerusalem which gave Judaism its coherence and
strength during the centuries when the people were scattered
over the face of the earth. And the consciousness that their
city was the object of so much affection kept up the courage of
the little remnant which lived in Palestine, and enabled them to
endure when otherwise (humanly speaking) they must have
succumbed.

Whether the moral support would have sufficed to keep the
idealism alive for an indefinite period we are not called upon to
decide. At this juncture there arose in the East a clear-headed
man, who saw that practical measures were called for to strength-
en the beloved city and who had the energy to carry out such
measures.

CHAPTER XVII

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER

The interest with which thoughtful Jews in exile followed the
fortunes of the mother city is revealed to us in the memoirs of
Nehemiah. This man, with the facility and talent which the
Jews have always shown, made himself useful in the court of Per-
sia. He held the office of butler to Artaxerxes, whom we sup-
pose to be the second of the name.^

In the twentieth year of this monarch's reign (b.c. 385), cer-
tain Jews who had made a visit to Jerusalem returned to Susa.
Possibly they were a delegation sent from the East to report on
the actual condition of the city. They reported to Nehemiah
conce?'ning the renuiant ivho loere left of the captivity. The lan-
guage indicates Nehemiah's view that the people in Judah were
the survivors of Nebuchadrezzar's deportation, and not exiles or
descendants of exiles.^ Their condition is described as forlorn
enough — the walls of the city are in ruins, and the people are in
humiliation and disgrace, evidently because they are defenceless
against the attacks of their lawless neighbours. In distress at
what he hears, Nehemiah pours out his soul in confession to
God. He sees in the exile a fulfilment of the threats of Deuter-
onomy, and pleads with God to remember also the promise :
"If you keep my commandments and do them, though you be
scattered to the end of the heavens yet I will gather you thence

' There is as yet no agreement among the historians as to the Artaxerxes
of our text. Heretofore he has been supposed to be Artaxerxes I, Longi-
manus, but the present tendency is to identify him with Artaxerxes II, Mne-
mon (B.C. 404-361). So Marquart, Fjindamente Israel, und Jiid. Gcschichte,
p. 31, and Torrey, Cojuposilion of Ezra- Nehemiah, p. 65. A sketch of the
reign of Artaxerxes II is given by Justi, Geschichte des Alien Persiens, pp.
129-137. He was a man of weak character, easily influenced by his family
and his dependants.

'^ Various attempts have been made to explain away the plain sense of the
words (Xeh. i 2), Their force is overwhelming when we consider that they
were written by Nehemiah himself.

382

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER S^S

and bring you to the place where I chose to make my name

dwell."' , , r

Nehemiah was a practical man, and it did not take long for
him to resolve on action-possibly a long-cherished hope now
became a resolve. When a convenient opportunity came he
presented his petition to the king. It was nothing less than that
the king would send him to the city of the sepulchres of his fathers
to rebuild it. The appeal to natural piety in that phrase, "city
of the sepulchres of his fathers," touches us at once and we do
not wonder that it reached the king's heart. He appointed Ne-
hemiah pasha of Jerusalem, and gave him the customary body-
guard ' Whether he was supported at 4:ourt by a Jewish party
does not appear. It is not unlikely that the Jews of the East,
who still thought of themselves as the true Israel, were planning
a Zionist movement which would revive their depressed nation,
and give it a more worthy home in the ancestral territory. In
their life among Gentiles, they had learned to lay stress upon
purity of blood. What they learned of their compatriots in Pal-
estine showed a regrettable laxity in this respect. Nehennah
may well have been the pioneer of a movement to correct this
abuse as well as to give the commonwealth more consistency

Bv favour of his monarch Nehemiah was civil governor of the
district, and this gave him an advantage which he used to the ut-
most. Without it he would have failed in his object, for he
found himself opposed by a powerful party from *!- time o h,
arrival. Recalling what has already been said about the situa
t^ , in Palestine we can easily understand this. Party lines were
^ready drawn. There was a stricter and there was a laxer view
of pi tual (which included temporal) things, and the adherents
o one view looked upon the adherents of the other wiU. suspicion.

One sect was intent upon religion, the observance of he Law,
the Messianic hope. Its members were mostly among the lowly^
They were opposed and perhaps derided by the more worldly
2nded, the wealthy, the nobles, who wished to develop trade
■ Neh l». That the language is the language of ^-'--"■"y "!f;^ "°

Torrey, ComJ^ositwn of Ezra-NehemiaK P- 36.

384 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

and to keep on good terms with their neighbours. Of this party
Nehemiah has some knowledge — at least he supposes them to be
ill-affected from the start. Their leaders were Sanballat, a Ho-
ronite — Sheikh of the town or district of Beth-horon, ^ we may
suppose — Geshem an Arabian and Tobiah an Ammonite. All
these men were worshippers of Yahweh and had claims to be re-
garded as Israelite by blood. How Geshem got his name Arabian
cannot now be made out. Tobiah is called the Ammonite slave.
He seems to have been one of those domestic servants who so
often in the East have come to the front by force of character or
by unscrupulous devotion to their masters' interests. What
aroused these men's anger was that one was come '' to seek the
good of the Sons of Israel " — Nehemiah regards himself as cham-
pion of the true Israel. If he were pioneer of a movement to re-
establish the exiles in their old home, the power and prestige of
these native leaders \vould be diminished if not destroyed. Hence
their opposition, which made itself felt continuously from this
time on. It should be remarked that these men seem to have
lived on their own domains outside Jerusalem, and a natural re-
luctance to have the city again overshadow the country may have
reinforced their party feeling.

Nehemiah found some officials in the city and they received him
with due respect, though at first he was silent concerning the main
object of his visit. Three days after his arrival he inspected the
walls, riding out at night that he might be undisturbed. Begin-
ning at the Valley Gate (perhaps near the present Jaffa Gate) he
turned to the left and followed the line of the wall to the Kedron
valley. At this point the debris was so piled up that his riding
animal could not go on. He went some distance farther on foot,
then retraced his steps to the point from which he started. He
does not tell us how complete the destruction was, nor how recent.
Various hypotheses have been advanced concerning attacks upon
Jerusalem in the Persian period. None of them seem to rest
upon reliable evidence. We may suppose that the Chaldeans left
considerable portions of the old walls intact. We know that
Zechariah discouraged any attempt to rebuild them, on the ground
that Jerusalem would be too extensive to be thus enclosed. What
Nehemiah saw may have been the result of time and neglect. In

' The two Beth-horons are still pointed out, about twelve miles northwest
of Jerusalem.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 385

many places the original foundations would doubtless still be in
good condition.

Without delay Nehemiah called a council of the people and
proposed the rebuilding of the wall, at the same time laying be-
fore them his commission from the king. The majority agreed to
the proposition, only the three leaders already mentioned opposed
the scheme and suspected (or feigned to suspect) plans of rebell-
ion against the Persian government. They were able to effect
nothing, for Nehemiah held the king's commission. Moreover,
the project was in itself reasonable. Why should a city with a
history, the site of a famous sanctuary, the capital of a district
be left exposed to the attacks of the Bedawin ? Probably Ne-
hemiah had the right to call for labourers under the king's author-
ity. If we may trust the list which has come down to us, the
work was done not alone by the people of Jerusalem but by the
people of the Judaite towns of the district.^ Even without re-
lying upon the list implicitly, we may suppose that it represents
the method in which the work went on. Certain villages, or
guilds, or powerful families were made responsible for certain
sections of the wall, while Nehemiah took the oversight of the
whole.

The opposers at first contented themselves with scoffing. San-
ballat asked whether the builders would ever be able to finish ;
Tobiah remarked that the slight structure they were raising would
not keep out a fox. The relations of the two parties were such
that the sneers were reported at once to Nehemiah, who replied
with vigorous curses. The heart of the people was in the work,
however, and the wall soon showed the effect, the breaches being
filled up, and the line made continuous to half the height in-
tended. When it got so far, and showed signs of becoming an
effective protection to the city, more vigorous opposition was
planned. The enemies thought of making an attack in force.
We can hardly suppose serious warfare contemplated. More
likely there was to be only a sudden rush to throw the builders
into confusion and in the confusion to throw down some of the
new structure.

^ Unfortunately the detailed list in Neh. 3 shows such distinct marks of
the Chronicler's style that we must view its historicity with suspicion (so
Torrey, /. c ., p. 37 f.). It is, in fact, difficult to see why Nehemiah, in record-
ing the incidents of his own life, should insert a long catalogue like this.

386 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

But Nehemiah was equal to every emergency. The enemies'
plans were reported to him, probably losing nothing in carrying.
In the interest of peace, faint-hearted or lukewarm workers
begged their brethren to cease working. But the leader was not
to be discouraged. He dropped work only long enough to make
his army of labourers an army of soldiers. He mustered them
by their natural divisions of clans and armed them with swords,
bows, and spears. He had a body-guard who were accustomed
to the use of arms. The report of his measures of defence was
enough to daunt the enemy, and the main work was resumed
with vigour.^ In order to guard against surprise, however, the
workmen kept their weapons at hand, the leaders slept on their
arms, a regular watch was set and the body-guard was kept on
the alert. Nehemiah himself was on the wall constantly and
kept the trumpeter by him so as to rally the whole force to any
point where it might become necessary to repel attack.

These measures effectually prevented an attack from without.
But a new and threatening complication arose from within. The
work on the wall was done largely by the common people, who
seem to have responded willingly to the call of the governor.
But they worked without pay, and soon exhausted their own
slender resources. The oriental peasant is frequently heavily in
debt, borrowing money at exorbitant rates to pay his taxes, or to
tide him over a bad year. The Jewish cultivators had done this,
mortgaging their fields and houses, some of them pledging their
children. The season was a bad one, if we may judge by their
allusion to the famine. The work on the wall brought things to
a crisis. The debts must be paid, the mortgages were about to be
foreclosed ; the children were in some cases already delivered over
to the creditors. We cannot wonder that this seemed a hard return
for their meritorious and self-denying work on behalf of their city,
or that the complaints soon became loud enough to reach the ears
of Nehemiah. The governor was equal to the occasion. He called
the nobles together and rebuked them for their oppression of their

stored with some probability — the threat of attack is met with a fine show
of resistance. It should be noted that the division of chapters in the Eng-
lish liible differs from that in the Hebrew by six verses : 3 ^^-^^ of the He-
brew is 4 '-« of the English, and of course 4 ^"^^ o
the English. I cite according to the Hebrew text.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 387

poorer brethren. He and like-minded men in the distant East
(he says) had been accustomed to ransom those of their own
blood who had been sold into slavery. Now these oppressors
were doing just the contrary— selling their debtors, though Jews
like themselves, into slavery to the Gentiles. Nehemiah himself
had loaned money and corn to these poor people. This fact gives
force to his proposition that the debts should be remitted. Backed
by his strong personality the appeal was effectual, the debts were
remitted, and under solemn oath the creditors restored the pledges
in their hands. The crisis was thus successfully met. ^

The governor takes occasion by this incident to set before us
his method of life. He made no use of his right to levy a tax on the
people for his own support. The former pashas had exacted forty
shekels a day in table allowance, and their retainers had been al-
lowed in oriental fashion to make requisitions for themselves. All
this was now stopped. Nehemiah drew upon his private fortune
for his personal expenses, and from the same source kept a public
table for the nobles and guests. He provided thus regularly for
at least a hundred and fifty persons. His body-guard instead of
being a burden on the people was made a help, by being put at
work upon the wall. All this is told us with a refreshing sim-
plicity : the man was doubtless conscious of his own merits. But
then the merits were there, and the limitations of the man do
not interfere with our admiration. His generous and decided
action must have put fresh life into his discouraged country-
men. ^

As the work of the wall went on, the party of opposition con-
tinued their activity. At one time they proposed to Nehemiah
to come out to one of the villages to a conference. Why they
thought he could be induced to confer with them we are not
told. Nehemiah suspected a plot to kidnap him or to put him
out of the way by violence. The work in which he was engaged re-
quired his personal presence and he so informed them. As repeated

1 Neh 5 '-^^ The amen of the people in v. ^^ is perhaps an embellish-
ment by the Chronicler. A vivid touch is given the narrative by Nehemiah's
shaking out the skirt of his robe to strengthen his imprecation.

2 Neh 5 i*->» The fact that Nehemiah and his servants did not buy real
estale is counted among the merits. The meaning is probably that he re-
frained from buying the properties sold under foreclosure. The temptation
to speculate in real estate must have been considerable, especially when other
buyers would hesitate to bid against the governor.

388 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

verbal messages had no effect, they sent him a letter.^ In this docu-
ment they charged in so many words that Nehemiah and his party
were planning a revolt, which was to place him on the throne.
Further, they claimed that he had suborned prophets to proclaim
him king in Judah. There may have been colour to the charge
to this extent : that light-headed enthusiasts were looking for the
advent of the Messiah and were taking no pains to conceal their
expectations. So important a move as rebuilding the city walls
would almost inevitably stimulate such hopes. Nehemiah's whole
conduct acquits him of any part in this fanaticism. In reply to
the letter he drily replies that Sanballat is putting forward the
figment of his own brain. The conspirators had not yet ex-
hausted their resources. They themselves suborned prophets to
give deceitful advice to Nehemiah. This clique affected to be
alarmed for Nehemiah's safety, and proposed that he and his
friends should take refuge in the Temple — the sanctuary could
easily be made into a fortress. The right of asylum rested upon
tradition, and may have been the basis upon which they urged
their scheme. But to follow the advice would show cowardice
or an evil conscience or both. If it had been followed, the en-
trance into the Temple might be made the basis of a charge that
Nehemiah already arrogated regal privileges. But the plot was
too transparent and it failed. Nehemiah seems to have been
guided by religious principle, holding that a layman had no right
to enter the sanctuary.^ I have spoken of a clique because sev-
eral persons were concerned in this plot — a prophetess named
Noadiah is named as though she were especially active.

None of these things hindered the work, and the wall was
completed in fifty-two days.^ The opposers were astonished and

^ The letter was without a seal, which would be regarded as insulting. So,
in fact, Nehemiah interpreted it. If the senders were intending to conciliate
him they would not have offered an insult, and on this account the omission
of the seal has been taken to be an intimation that the contents of the letter
were public property. It is easier to suppose the senders simply careless
about forms.

^Neh. 6'-^*. Commentators have puzzled themselves to explain why
Nehemiah should visit Shemaiah who gave this advice. Probably Shemaiah
had sent for him, pleading matters of importance and his own (ritual) inabil-
ity to come to Nehemiah.

3 This is the assertion of our Hebrew text, Neh. 6 '5. Josephus gives two
years and four months (Ant., XI, 5, 8), which seems more reasonable; and
which is defended by Sir Henry Howorth (Proc. Soc. Bib. Arch., XXV,

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 389

put to shame. But their activity was not checked, for we learn
that the correspondence between them and their adherents m
Terusalem became more frequent. The intimacy is explained by
the fact that Tobiah was connected by marriage with leading
priestly families. But the correspondence seems to have effected
nothing For the time being, Nehemiah had triumphed. He
took measures to secure police protection for the new gates, and
(we may suppose) strengthened his party by some sort of organi-
sation Unfortunately his memoirs break off here, and we are
in the dark as to his succeeding history. Our present text tells
us that his term of office extended over twelve years. But we
can hardly suppose him to have stayed away from the court so
Ion- ■ The account of his second visit is from the hand of the
Chronicler and cannot be relied upon.^ Whatever the facts, we
can see that this work of Nehemiah gave a mighty impulse to
the stricter Judaism. The party of the pious who had been
depressed was strengthened and encouraged. They began to
draw the lines between themselves and their laxer neighbours
more sharply. The work of codifying and enriching the Law
Ttaken ui'afresh. In fact, the period which began with Nehe-
Tah's visit was the formative period for the Judaism which we
find dominant in New Testament times.

The rise of Judaism was, of course, a gradual process The
foundations we're laid by Ezekiel. But Ezekiel's ideas had no
been at once assimilated-probably they were more effective
among the Dispersed than in Palestine. Among the Gentiles the
pXy of relig ous separatism was essential. In Palestine as we
have seen, it made its way slowly. Nehemiah was one of those
po iti ^characters about whom popular parties rally. He was

Earned theil The more liberal ideas of Deutero-Isaiah gave way

p. ,8 f.). But until we know more about Josephus's sources, it seems unsafe

to rely upon any statemeiit of h.s. ,, , „„i^h did not eat the bread of

1 Neh. 5» claims that for "^'ry^f, !^f ™'t,l,y a limited furlough

sition, p. 44 ff-

390 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

before the practical exigency. Emphasis was laid upon purity
of blood and upon observance of the Law. In the course of a
century or so after Nehemiah the process was complete. Of its
details we are ignorant.

We have, however, a tradition which deserves our considera-
tion. It comes from the hand of the Chronicler, and must be
received, like all his narrative, as a picture of what he thought
must have taken place rather than a picture of what actually did
take place. Its hero is Ezra, a priest and scribe — eponym, one
might almost say, of the powerful guild which influenced the
whole history of Judaism.. The story is as follows: ^ After the
completion of the Temple, Ezra, a lineal descendant of Aaron and
skilful scribe of the Law of Moses, went up to Jerusalem. The
Temple having been completed, it was time to reintroduce the
observance of the Law. It was in the seventh year of Artax-
erxes^ that this man went up to Jerusalem with a considerable
train of returning exiles. He carried with him a firman from
Artaxerxes whose tenor is so remarkable that I reproduce it in full :

" Artaxerxes, King of Kings, to Ezra the priest, Scribe of
the Law of the God of Heaven t Greeting.

" To proceed : I have made a decree that anyone of the peo-
ple of Israel or priests or Levites, in my kingdom, who is will-
ing to go to Jerusalem shall go with thee ; because thou art
sent by the King and his seven Counsellors to hold an inquisi-
tion concerning Judah and Jerusalem with the Law of thy
God which is in thy hand ; and to bring the silver and gold
which the King and his Counsellors have offered freely to
the God of Israel whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, with all the
silver and gold which thou shalt receive in the whole province
of Babylon, with the contribution of the people and priests
who contribute for the house of their God in Jerusalem.
Therefore thou shalt punctually buy with this money oxen,
rams, and lambs, meal offerings also and libations belonging
thereto, and offer them on the altar of the house of your
God which is in Jerusalem. And whatever shall seem good
to thee and thy brethren to do with the rest of the silver and
gold, so do according to the good pleasure of your God. And
the vessels given thee for the service of the house of thy God,
deliver before God in Jerusalem. Whatever else is needed

* I follow the able analysis of Professor Torrey, Composition and Histori'
cal Value of Ezra-Nehetniah.

' Doubtless the patron of Nehemiah is the king intended by the narrator.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 391

for the house of thy God, let that be paid from the King's
treasury. And the command is given by me, Artaxerxes the
King, to all the treasurers of the province [called] Beyond-the-
river to this effect : All that Ezra the priest, the scribe of the
Law^ of the God of Heaven, shall ask you, let it be done at
once — up to a hundred talents of silver, to a hundred cors of
wheat, a hundred baths of wine, a hundred baths of oil, and
salt in any amount. All the will of the God of Heaven must
be diligently performed for the house of the God of Heaven
— why should His wrath fall upon the kingdom of the King
and his sons ? And be it known to you ^ that it is not al-
lowed to lay tax, tribute, or toll on any priest, Levite, singer,
doorkeeper, temple-servant, or workman of this sanctuary.
And thou, Ezra, according to the wisdom of thy God which
is in thy hand, appoint Judges and Justices to judge all the peo-
ple beyond the river, all such as know the commandments of
thy God ; and such as do not know you shall instruct. And
whoever does not obey the Law of thy God and the law of
the King, let strict justice be done upon him — either death or
banishment or fine or imprisonment."'

It would seem superfluous to criticise this document had not
its genuineness been strenuously upheld of late years even by some
critical scholars.^ Inscriptions of Persian kings in favour of cer-
tain temples are brought forward as parallel. These, however,
on examination prove to be anything but parallel. In one case
the servants of a temple are protected from the requisition of
forced labour and the Persian officials are forbidden to annoy
them by such requisitions, and this on the specific ground that
the divinity had given a truthful oracle to an earlier Persian
monarch. In the other case an ancient right of asylum is simply
confirmed.* In contrast with these modest advantages consider
the enormous powers conferred upon Ezra. He is to proceed to
Jerusalem and make inquisition concerning the observance of the

^ The address here changes from Ezra to the governors and tax-gatherers
but without naming them.

2 Ezra, 71^-26.

^ Especially by Meyer, Entstehting des Judentums, p. 60 ff. , who accounts
for the strong Jewish colouring of the decree by supposing it was drawn up
by Ezra and his friends at court and submitted to the king, who good-
naturedly signed it. Whether a decree in Council would be so lightly dis-
posed of is doubtful. Cf. also Marquart, Fundamente, p. 37 f.

*The Gadatas inscription is given by Meyer in his Entstehtmg, p. 19 f.;
the Tralles inscription by the same author in his Forschungen, II, p. 497.

392 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Law. He is to appoint judges to administer this Law. Such as
are not fully acquainted with it are to be instructed in it. Ac-
cording to the wording of the decree this new code is to be en-
forced throughout the whole of Syria. We may charitably sup-
pose that the author of the decree intended it to apply only to
Jewish settlers in Syria. In a royal decree, however, one ex-
pects a more precise definition of the persons affected. In addi-
tion, the ministers of the Temple, down to the most menial, are
to be exempt, not only from forced labour, as in the Gadatas in-
scription, but from tax, toll, and tribute of any kind. Enormous
sums of money are put at Ezra's disposition for the benefit of the
Temple.^ The position of Ezra, in possession of this decree, is
comparable only to that of Solomon — with the advantage that
Ezra had no foreign wars to fear, the peace being secured by the
Persian power. In fact it is difficult to consider seriously the
claim that this decree was ever issued. All the objections urged
above against the decree of Cyrus apply here with tenfold force.

But let us return to the Chronicler's picture of Ezra and his
times. The great scribe is now introduced as writing his own
memoirs. He carefully gives the genealogical status of the emi-
grants who joined his train, to assure us that none but full-blooded
Israelites were of the number. His care for the Temple service
is shown by the fact that when no Levites appeared, he sent back
to Casiphia and succeeded in enlisting over two hundred.^ The
entire company numbered over seventeen hundred males. A cara-
van of that size carrying the Y\\\g' % firman would hardly be mo-
lested on the journey, and it could require no great act of faith
to forego the military escort offered by the king.

The narrative goes on to state that the journey was safely made
and that after three days, to allow for purification, those who had
charge of the treasure delivered it safely at the Temple. Abun-
dant sacrifices were offered and the returned exiles gave the royal
mandate to the Persian officials and received the subventions
therein indicated. The heads of the clans contributed liberally

* Meyer does not find them exaggerated. But a million dollars in silver
and two millions in gold will seem to most people a disproportionate amount
for the object proposed.

2 This includes the N^ethinhn or descendants of the slaves presented to the
Temple by the kings of Judah. They are now classified with the Levites,
though so different in origin.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 393

to the Temple treasury, the census of " those who came up at the
first" was examined, then priests, Levites, and people took up
their residence in their cities.^

Two months were allowed the immigrants to settle themselves
in their homes ^ and then a popular assembly was called. There
was to be no further delay in introducing the Law; its intro-
duction being the great object of the journey. The Book was
brought. Ezra stood upon a platform which had been raised for
this occasion, opened the Book and pronounced a benediction,
to which the people responded with an Amen. The reading
began, the Levites giving their assistance. Exactly how the part
of the Levites is to be conceived is not clear. The account tells
how^ the people were affected with grief at the reading, how they
were encouraged and directed to observe the day as a joyous
festival. The next day the reading was resumed and they reached
the passage which gives directions concerning the observance of
the Feast of Booths, and proceeded at once to the observance of
this festival. We are told that it had not been observed from
the days of Joshua.'

The auspicious beginning was followed by a revulsion ; where
all had seemed so fair there was a secret blot. The first immi-
grants, for these we must understand to be the guilty persons,
had not kept their Israelite blood pure, but had intermarried with
tlie people of the land. This discovery was a grief to Ezra, now
the temporal and spiritual ruler of the community. When he
heard of it he rent his clothes, tore his hair and beard, and sat
on the ground deprived of speech. As evening approached he
made confession of sin in a long prayer, the burden of which is
the acknowledgment that intermarriage with the people of the
land has been Israel's crying sin in the past, and that this sin
still weighs upon them in the present.

A great assembly gathered about the praying scribe (we still fol-
low the narrative) and joined in lamentation as he made his con-

^ Professor Torrey makes Neh. 7^" the continuation of Ezra, 8=*^ I think
more likely 7 * is the place to make the connexion. In this case Ezra in-
spects the genealogy of those already in the land and enrolls them in the
community of which he is lawgiver, before reading the Law to them.

2 They had reached Jerusalem the first day of the fifth month (Ezra, 7^) ;
the assembly was called in the seventh month (Neh. 7").

3 Specific directions for the construction of booths are found only in
Lev. 23*'' — a part of the Holiness Code.

394

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

fession. One of the leaders encouraged him boldly to take hold
of the evil and to undertake a reform, promising that the people
would make a solemn agreement to divorce the obnoxious wives
and send them away with their children. Ezra therefore im-
posed an oath on all the leaders that they would carry out this
programme. Another solemn assembly was called and the greater
excommunication was threatened against any who should not
come. When the assembly met, Ezra made the demand that
they put away all foreign wives. Some voices were raised in
opposition, but the majority consented. In order that the matter
might be certainly carried through, it was agreed to appoint a
commission before which the offenders should come individually.
The nobles and judges of the towns were to report to this com-
mission. Every precaution was taken to make the action effec-
tive. The commission was appointed and completed their work
in three months. A list is given of those who were found guilty
and who put away wives and children.*

Three weeks later another solemn assembly is held.^ The
true Israel has now separated itself from strangers and is ready to
renew the covenant. After a public reading of the Law, a sol-
emn confession of sin is made, with a rehearsal of Yahweh's
goodness in the past. This is followed by a solemn league and
covenant signed by the leaders of the people and by the heads of
the priesthood. They are supported by the whole assembly, who
take upon themselves a solemn oath to obey the Law of God,
specifying the particulars which they need especially to guard
from negligence. First of all comes the vow not to intermarry
with the Gentiles.^ Then is emphasised the observance of the
Sabbaths and festivals by the refusal to trade with any on those
days. With this goes the observance of the Sabbatical year. The
support of the sanctuary by a poll-tax follows.* An apportionment

* Ezra, 9 and lO. The consistency of the act from the legalistic view is
praised by Whiston in his note to Josephus, Ant. XI., 5, 4. . More modern
readers are likely to condemn it as cruel, and as contrary to the true spirit
of Israel's religion,

* Following Torrey, I find Ezra, 10**, continued in Neh. 9,

^T\\& people of the land here spoken of are identified by the writer with the
ancient Canaanites. In fact, they were only such as could not prove their
pure Judaite blood.

* A third of a shekel is the amount fixed — afterward raised to a half-shekel.
This may have in mind the tax which Ezekiel allows the prince to levy for
the sacrifices.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 395

for the supply of wood for the altar is next made by lot. Further
specifications concern the first-fruits, firstlings, and tithes. The
conclusion of the account sets forth the measures taken to re-
populate Jerusalem, and gives more of those lists of which the
Chronicler is so fond.^

We have already commented upon this author's idea of the ex-
ile. He supposed the whole of Israel to have been carried away
from their land. There were left in the country only the Samari-
tans and some remains of the old Canaanitish population. He
supposed that at the close of the exile the people returned in two
sections. The first detachment came with Zerubbabel and after
some delay succeeded in building the Temple. The second and
more important caravan came with Ezra ; more important in the
eyes of the narrator because they brought the ancient Law with
them. Only with the adoption of the Law was the nation fully
reconstituted. Both returns were accomplished by the wholly
miraculous intervention of Yahweh, who moved upon the heart,
first of Cyrus, then of Artaxerxes.

That the picture is almost wholly drawn from the imagination
of the author must be evident. The decree of Artaxerxes is a
historic impossibility. It was much for a king to give Nehemiah
the power which he actually exerted. But the explanation is
ready at our hand— Nehemiah was a trusted personal servant of
the king. But Ezra had no such claims to consideration. Ne-
hemiah, moreover, received the governorship of a petty district,
with power to accomplish a certain limited work. Ezra has regal
authority and the disposition of the imperial treasury. It was much
for Nehemiah to receive such a position from a Gentile king.
For Ezra to receive so much more would have been a miracle
indeed Doubtless the favour of Artaxerxes toward Nehemiah
suggested the idea of his decree for Ezra. The question remains :
if Ezra had received his powers and prerogatives m the seventh
year of Artaxerxes, why should Nehemiah need to make his jour-
ney thirteen years later ? ^ m • u

This brings us to the most surprising fact of all. Neither
Nehemiah nor Ezra knows anything of the other. Ezra makes

1 The final chapter of Nehemiah, in which Nehemiah's memoirs seem to be
resumed, is also apparently an invention of the Chronicler.

2 I assume (as seems clear from the narrative) that the same Artaxerxes IS
intended in the two cases.

396 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

his journey first and accomplishes wonders ; but Nehemiah has
no word for him and his work. Ezra describes the dedication of
the wall, but is entirely silent as to its builder. One would think
that the two men would work together and each give due honour
to the other. If we had only the story of Ezra we should know
nothing of Nehemiah^ — and the converse is also true. And as we
look closer we see that Ezra cannot have done what he is said to
have done before the coming of Nehemiah. Where in Ezra's time
were all those turbulent nobles who were grieved that a man had
come to seek the welfare of Israel ? Were they the men to cower
before a scribe, when they plotted so persistently against the
governor of Jerusalem ? They were certainly not the men tamely
to accept the Law at Ezra's hands and to put away wives and
children at his bidding. But they nowhere appear in the nar-
rative, and this is only one of the inexplicable things in this
inexplicable story. Yet, incomprehensible as it is if taken as
history, so comprehensible is it if taken as an imaginative tra-
dition.

As has been pointed out by others, Ezra is unknown, not only
to Nehemiah, but to Jesus ben Sira, who wrote in the early part
of the second century B.C. In his catalogue of heroes of Israel
he has a place for Nehemiah, but none for Ezra. In 2 Maccabees
also it is Nehemiah, rather than Ezra, who collects the sacred
books in a library. It is impossible to suppose that either of
these writers would have passed over Ezra had he been known
to them.

What then is the historical fact which the story of Ezra repre-
sents? It is this: During the century after Nehemiah the com-
munity in Judah was becoming more rigid in its exclusiveness
and in its devotion to the ritual. Ezra is the impersonation of
both tendencies. Whether there was a scribe named Ezra is not
a matter of great importance. Very likely there was such a
scribe to whose name tradition attached itself. First it trans-
ferred the favour of Artaxerxes to him from Nehemiah. Then it
made him the hero of the introduction of the Law. And finally
it attributed to him the abrogation of the mixed marriages. It
is not unlikely that Nehemiah, after building the wall, induced
the people to take ui)on themselves obligations such as are re-

* The bare occurrence of the name at the head of those who signed the
covenant (Neh. 10 2) is only the exception that proves the rule.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 397

counted in the history.* The things emphasised there are such
as the Babylonian Jews had most at heart — purity of blood, ob-
servance of the Sabbath, and care for the Temple service. The
signing of such a covenant would put the scribes in a position
of advantage. To do them justice, these men were fully possessed
by an idea — the idea that if the Law of God could be perfectly
obeyed, Israel's future would be glorious. The Law which was
to be obeyed was in their hands and they were its authoritative
expounders. If only the Great King would give them power to
enforce it, what might they not do for Israel's benefit ! The
wish was father to the thought, and the thought gave rise to the
story of Ezra. Ezra was the ideal scribe, as Solomon was the
ideal king, projected upon the background of an earlier age.

As soon as the observance of a complicated code becomes the
most important thing in life the expounders of that code become
the most important men in the community. The rise of the
class of scribes is certainly one of the most important events of
postexilic history. It was, in fact, a process rather than an event.
It was complete by the time of the Chronicler. Several genera-
tions of earnest and self-denying men must have wrought to
secure the triumph of their order. That triumph is the logical
result of Ezekiel's theory. The new Israel is no longer a nation ;
it is a church whose whole reason for being is the sustentation
of divine service, and the conservation of that holiness which is
required for such service. The emphasis laid upon the interests
of the priests and Levites is not because the scribes usually be-
longed to this class. These interests are defended because priests
and Levites are necessary to the carrying on of the Temple service.

The ideal of holiness — that is, of complete separation from all
that is not consecrated to Yahweh — is most plainly, we might
say brutally, set before us in the account of the divorce of foreign
wives. The seed of Israel must be kept pure from intermixture;
this wholly physical precaution is the Chronicler's interpretation
of the injunction to be holy. In his zeal for purity of blood he
puts the people of the land (most of them Israelite in blood) in
the place of the Canaanites and Amorites Of which history told
him. This is no doubt the idea of Babylonian Judaism carried

^ In fact, Neh. 10 may have been expanded from something in Nehe-
miah's memoirs. It has often been remarked that the obligations of this
covenant are not specifically those of the Priest-code.

398 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

over into Palestine. It was natural for those who, in the time of
Nehemiah and after, returned to the old home, to affiliate them-
selves with the stricter party there. This party would readily
count their opponents to be heathen. The separation became
wider with time and culminated in the Samaritan schism. It
was pictured in the Chronicler's mind as a divorce between faith-
ful Jews and their Gentile wives. The cruelty of turning wife
and child out of doors would be no reason why the Law should
not be observed. But the logic of the scribe would certainly
have failed to carry through a measure of the kind had the test
been actually made. What the narrative means to do is to em-
phasise the prohibition of intermarriage ; and since to refuse to
take a Gentile wife is a very different thing from divorcing one
who has acquired rights in the home, the prohibition prevailed, at
least, among the stricter Jews.

That it did not prevail without protest is made evident by one
of the most delightful pieces of Hebrew literature that have come
down to us — the book of Ruth. This is a powerful pami)hlet on
the side of the foreign wives. Ruth, the heroine, is a Moabitess,
a member of the tribe which is specifically denied the rights of
citizenship in Israel even after ten generations.^ This foreigner
is taken to wife by a good Israelite — a native of Bethlehem.
After her husband's death she does not regard herself as freed from
the obligation to his people, but returns with her mother-in-law
to the country of Judah. There she is married to the next of
kin,^ who is set before us as a model of piety, generosity, and
chastity. The marriage is a source of blessing, not only to the
parties concerned, but also to all Israel, for from this marriage
came David, the great and pious king. The story is told with
charming simplicity and freshness and its force as an argument
is unmistakable. If in the old days Israel had acted on the
principles of the exclusive party, Ruth and her son would have
been excommunicated. Where then would have been the Judean
monarchy? Where the organization of the priesthood ? Where
the Temple itself?

* The regulation found in the Law (Deut. 23' ) means that if a Moabite
becomes a settler (client) in Israel, his descendants shall never acquire full
rights of citizenship.

* Or rather to the nearest kinsman of her husband who is willing to exer-
cise his right.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 399

But the protest was of no avail. The stricter party had a final
answer in their steady reaffirmation of the principle : the holy
seed must be kept pure. The Chronicler affirms that the rigid
law, directed primarily against the Moabite and Ammonite, was
extended so as to cover every case where mixed blood was sus-
pected. One Eliashib, a prominent member of the priestly order,
having authority in the Temple, gave storage to the effects of
Tobiah — apparently the Ammonite who opposed Nehemiah.* In
connexion with the excommunication of the mixed multitude,
these goods were summarily thrown out and the room was re-
stored to its original use. It is evident that such measures must
have involved also the banishment of Eliashib.

It is possible that we have here a confused account of the Sa-
maritan schism. Concerning this we have Josephus's narrative as
follows : One Sanballat was appointed satrap of Samaria by
Darius, the last king of Persia. He gave his daughter in mar-
riage to Manasseh, brother of the Jewish high-priest. The elders
of the Jews, however, were indignant at the marriage of one of
priestly blood with a foreigner, and demanded that Manasseh
should divorce her. He, supposing himself to be next in suc-
cession to the high-priesthood (the highest dignity in Judea),
told his father-in-law that though he loved his wife he was not
willing on her account to be shut out from the high-priesthood.
On this representation Sanballat promised Manasseh that he
would make him high-priest and governor in Samaria and would
build him a temple on Mount Gerizim. Manasseh agreed to
this, and on migrating to Samaria was joined by many priests
and Levites who left Jerusalem because of the proscription of
mixed marriages. So far Josephus.^

The Sanballat of this account is doubtless the Horonite who
gave Nehemiah so much trouble.^ It is not improbable that the
quarrels between Nehemiah and the country party led to a defi-
nite separation. In that case Josephus's date is not accurate.
But what is quite certain is that the stringency of the Jews in
Jerusalem in the matter of foreign alliances led to the formation

^ The story (Neh. 13) is told as if by Nehemiah. But it is difficult to place
it in his memoirs and the style is that of the Chronicler.

^Josephus, Atitiquities, XI, 8, I.

'Neh. 13 '•^^ gives Sanballat's connexion with Eliashib; a daughter ot San-
ballat was married to one of Eliashib's grandsons.

400 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

of the Samaritan community. Each party was sure that it was
the true Israel and the people of Yahweh. When the Temple at
Jerusalem was closed to all who could not prove their genealogy
or who would not subscribe to the new regulations, those who were
shut out were obliged to organise about another centre. Mount
Gerizim naturally suggested itself. It was an ancient sanctuary, as
is evident from the way it is treated in the book of Deuteronomy.
As a sanctuary of Yahweh it could claim greater antiquity than
the one at Jerusalem. There was no reason why this might not
be a second Jerusalem with a Temple rivalling the other. So
the schism became fixed and incurable, and the hatred of one
sect for the other was as bitter as the hatred of brothers estranged
usually is. But it must be remembered that the Samaritans were
Jews to all intents and purposes.^ They even adopted the Law
in the form in which it is recorded in the Pentateuch and ob-
served its precepts, though rejecting the later Rabbinical refine-
ments.

What has been said about Ezra shows that the account given
of the introduction of the Law by him belongs in the category
of legend rather than fact. But the great historical fact remains
that in this period the codification of ancient customs and regu-
lations reached its conclusion.^ The result was the highly com-
posite and perplexing work which we call the Pentateuch. Cer-
tain elements of this book have already been considered. In its
final form it included as part of itself the ancient Covenant Code,
the patriarchal history which we have called J E, the enlarged
book of Deuteronomy, and the Holiness Code, which shows the
influence of Ezekiel. What is left after separating these earlier
documents represents several stages of development. We have no
difficulty in recognising one hand in the historical work which is
usually assigned to a priestly writer,^ and which fiirnished the
framework into which the earlier documents were fitted. Its
peculiarities have already been considered in the early chapters

* Rabbinical recognition of the difference between Samaritans and heathen
is pointed out by Schiirer, Gesch. d. Jiid. Volkcs,'^ IT p. lyf.

'^ Or at least reached a provisional conclusion. There can be no doubt
that the process of legal development went on, and in principle there is no
dividing line between the Tora and the Mishna.

^And is therefore usually designated as P. It is not so certain as has
been supposed, that the historical sketch was composed as an introduction
to a code.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 401

of the present history.^ We need only recall that P rewrote the
narrative of the creation, the deluge, the patriarchs, the exodus,
and the wandering, with the idea of displacing the earlier stories
which were in many respects distasteful to him. In doing this
his purpose is to give the correct view of God, who is to him
spiritual and transcendental. He therefore avoids the anthropo-
morphisms of his predecessors. He also desires to mark the
stages of exclusion by which Israel came to be the true people of
Yahweh. Beginning with the creation and passing rapidly to
the Deluge he narrows his view to Abraham, and in the family
of Abraham dismisses first Ishmael and then Esau, so as to con-
fine his view to Jacob. That his picture of the patriarchs re-
veals no sins on their part has already been remarked, as also
that the result is to give us figures without life and scenes with-
out colour. That he emphasises genealogies and chronologies
shows a tendency prominent in later Judaism, as is illustrated by
the book of Chronicles.

One thing interested the priestly writer, however, and that
w^as the origin of Israel's institutions. The account of the crea-
tion, as he gives it, culminates in the Sabbath. It is not so
much that he thinks the Sabbath obligatory on all mankind (for
he gives no command for its observance), as that he conceives of
God Himself as obedient to the Law.^ The Deluge culminates
in a covenant with Noah, sealed by the rainbow, and embracing
the prohibition of blood as food. Here we can have no doubt
that the author enacts a law for all mankind. It is interesting to
note that he does not command sacrifice. Sacrifice was intro-
duced (according to his theory) by the commands given at
Sinai and was lawful only at the single sanctuary of Israel.
Therefore he gives mankind permission to slay and eat, only for-
bidding the use of the blood. With the prohibition of blood,
he also supposes the death penalty for murder to have been m-^
troduced. In fact the institution of blood-revenge is one of
the earliest of social customs.

In the patriarchal period, the author thinks it worth while to
dwell upon two incidents only. The first is the custom of circum-
cision This is solemnly enjoined as a seal of the covenant with
Abraham. The author probably knew of the observance of this

1 Above, pp. II, 12, 31. 35-

3 Parallels in the literature of later Judaism are well known.

402 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

rite among what we may call the Abrahamic peoples. The second
is the purchase of the cave of Machpelah by Abraham from the
l)eople of the land. It seems almost as if he were asserting
Israel's right to the ancient burial-place of the patriarchs as
against the Edomites, or at least as if he were asserting Israel's
equal right with the Edomites. Among all the sacred places
of the land outside Jerusalem, this is the only one in which the
author has an interest. From his predecessors he takes the ac-
count ot Yahweh's revelation of His name to Moses, and the in-
stitution of the Passover at the exodus. In connexion with
the latter he ordains the reform of the calendar.' His use of the
miracles in Egypt has been already commented upon. The gift
of manna, which is placed at the very beginning of the wander-
ing, is made the occasion for emphasising anew the observance
of the Sabbath.

Most characteristic of this author is the elaborate provision
made for the sanctuary. The idea that Yahweh dwelt among
His people even in the wilderness is old. The earlier history
speaks of the Tent of Meeting which Moses pitched outside the
camp.' Possibly the Ark was a still earlier provision for Yah-
weh's journey. But the priestly writer was not content without
making the Dwelling a worthy one, according to later ideas.
It was not difficult to argue that the holiness of Yahweh should
be guarded in the wilderness as strictly as it was afterward
guarded in Jerusalem. Hence he makes Moses on the mount,
first receive the command to make the Tabernacle, with elaborate
specifications — ^just as Ezekiel began his reconstructed common-
wealth with a plan of the new Temple.

It would be sacrilegious to suppose that a more perfect plan
could be devised for the Dwelling than the one revealed to Solo-
mon and afterward substantially duplicated in the vision vouch-
safed to Ezekiel. This plan therefore our author took and
showed considerable ingenuity in making on its lines a movable
instead of a stationary structure. The Tabernacle of his devis-
ing is, in fact, the shadow of the Temple thrown upon the back-
ground of the desert life. It has its inner chamber, the private
apartment of the divinity. This is made of beams ingeniously
fitted together to make a cubical room — the shape was that of

' This is really dating postexilic usage back to the time of Moses.
»Kx. 33 7-" (K), Num. ii ^^, 12*.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 403

the Most Holy in the Temple, only here the dimensions are half
those of Solomon's building. Within this room the Ark is
placed. In the description of this long-lost palladium it was
easy to overlay it with gold, and for the two gigantic cherubim
of Solomon to give it two small ones of gold overshadowing the
cover. This central room being provided, it was only logical to
make the anteroom with its table of bread and its candelabrum.
Heavy curtains, the inner of fine texture, the outer of leather,
cover the whole structure. Around all is a court fenced off by
curtains stretched upon posts, to keep the area sacred from in-
trusion. For the sacrificial worship a copper altar is provided,
or rather, one of wood overlaid with metal. ^

Such a sanctuary must be provided with a corps of attendants.
For the priesthood (in the narrower sense) Aaron and his sons are
chosen. Elaborate vestments are wrought for them. The first
act of sacrificial service in the history of Israel — and so the first
legitimate sacrifice in the history of the world — is the offering by
which Moses consecrates them to the priesthood. Only after the
provision of this elaborate sanctuary does Moses receive the two
tables which are the sign of the covenant and which are to repose
in the Ark. And only after the consecration of the priests is the
ritual law given to the people.^ The first act of the newly con-
secrated priests is to offer the sacrifice which makes the people
ritually fit to approach God. But the danger of an unacceptable
service is set before us by the fate of Nadab and Abihu, two of
Aaron's sons. By an act of criminal carelessness they '^offered
strange fire" in their censers and were smitten by a fire from
Yahweh so that they died.^ The incident is made the occasion
for regulating the manner of Aaron's entrance into the sanctuary.*

Aaron and his sons having been consecrated, it is time to intro-
duce the Levites, their subordinates and helpers. Our narrative

' How far these devices would be practicable if the endeavour were made
to use them as working directions is a question that did not much trouble the
author and need not detain us.

^ Recent commentators have shown that the account of the actual building
of the Sanctuary (Ex. 35-40) is a very late insertion of the narrative. That
we have several strata of P to deal with, is clear from the duplication of the
command for Aaron's consecration (Ex. 29, and Lev. 8).

^ Lev. 10 '■^. The only sin of the two men seems to have been that they
took fire from somewhere else than the altar.

^ Ibid., 16, The chapter has been worked over more than once.

404 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

therefore tells of the choice of the tribe of Levi for this purpose.
They were substituted for the first-born males of Israel, to which
Yahweh had a claim since the exodus.^ The congregation is
now prepared to take up its march and soon comes to the border
of the promised land. Here the obstinacy of the people comes
out in their refusal to invade the country. No sooner is this
matter settled than a band of Levites headed by Korah claims
priestly prerogatives and presumes to offer incense. In this act
they are smitten by the avenging fire of Yahweh.^ Not long
after this the congregation murmur again at Moses and Aaron,
and these two leaders are betrayed into sinful impatience. This
shows that they have reached the end of their usefulness. Aaron
dies at Mount Hor after Eleazar has been inducted into his
office.^ A few days later, when the border of Canaan is reached,
Moses is directed to take a look at the Promised Land. At his
request Joshua is appointed as his successor, being confirmed by
Eleazar. Moses ascends Mount Nebo and there ends his career.*
As we are here concerned with the formation of the Jewish
book of the Law we may leave to one side questions concerning
the conclusion of P's narrative. Undoubtedly the author went
on to describe the conquest and division of the land. But the
compiler of the book of Joshua did not make this narrative the
basis of his work in the same way as did the compiler of the first
five books. This editor took the history of P and made it the
framework into which with commendable piety he fitted the
other documents of which we have spoken. He, or his school,
also supplemented the legislation already in their hands with
such fragments of tradition as they could discover not yet pub-
lished. These fragments preserve for us some ancient customs,
so that we find united in this code institutions and observances
representing all stages of Israel's religious development except
the polytheistic. The interest of the final redactor, or school of

peculiar difficulties. I have followed, in the main, Carpenter and Battersby,
The Ilexat-eiuh.

' Num. 19. The account of Korah is now fused with that of Dathan and
Abiram.

^ Ibid., 20l-'3, 22-29.

* The original order was Deut. 32 *^-'^^, Num. 27 ^^-2^, Deut. 34. This
order was necessarily disarranged when Deuteronomy was inserted as the
testament of Moses.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER

405

redactors, was to make of Israel the church-nation, separate as
far as possible from secular affairs and wholly consecrated to
Yahweh. The sanctity of the people is guarded not alone by the
provisions of the Holiness Code. These are extended and made
more rigid. The defilement which may be contracted from un-
clean animals, from childbirth, from leprosy and other diseases
is defined, and directions are given for its treatment. The in-
terest of the author is not sanitary but religious. He gives no
directions for the medical treatment of leprosy (for example),
but he is very stern in shutting the leper out of the congregation,
because his presence there is an offence to Yahweh' s holiness.

A curious example of the way in which ancient religious ideas
have been carried over into these new and strenuous regulations
is seen in the law for the great Day of Atonement. In order
that the sacredness of the people may be kept intact it is enjoined
that once a year there shall be an expiation made to cover what-
ever defilement may not have been purged by the ordinary ser-
vices. Besides the sacrifices appropriate to such a day we have
the command for the scapegoat.^ This is a goat laden (sym-
bolically) with the sins of the people and then sent off into the
wilderness for Azazel, that is, for one of the wilderness demons
which the people formerly worshipped.^

Some other archaic features of this code are of interest here.
Among them we are tempted to count the specific permission to
offer doves at the altar. The dove was anciently sacred to As-
tarte, and we should expect it to be taboo to the worshippers of
Yahweh. Not to lay stress upon this, we may justifiably pause
at the bells and pomegranates of the high-priest's robe. The
pomegranates are certainly a relic of early heathenism, and the
bells which notify Yahweh of the minister's approach (for so
we must account for their use) do not accord with the postexilic
theory of God's spirituality and omniscience. More striking is
the jealousy ordeal which is conserved for us in the ritual. It
is plain that the curses which are written out and then washed
into the water which the woman drinks are regarded as materi-

' I retain the ordinary term because I do not know any better one to sub-
stitute. The law for the Day is found in Lev. 16, imbedded in the general
directions for Aaron's entrance into the Sanctuary.

^ The sections which mention Azazel are a later insertion in the text of P.
But it is evident that they represent very ancient usage.

406 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ally conveyed into the woman's body where they work magi-
cally upon her.^ The Nazirites who are mentioned in the im-
mediate sequel also represent an early stage of Israel's religion.

We should misunderstand the priestly writers were we to sup-
pose tliem compiling a manual for the priestly caste. They are
fully imbued with the notion that correct performance of the
sacred rites is necessary to the well-being of Israel — not alone for
the Jews in Palestine, but for those in Babylonia as well. So
long as the cultus was carried on, they could be sure of the
favour of Yahweh ; should it be interrupted or be desecrated no
Jew could rest in security. The book of the Law was intended
to inform the people not only how they must live themselves but
how the priests must carry on the service. The result was to
make the laymen the sharpest critics of the priests. The result-
ing bitterness of the Pharisees against careless priests is a well-
known feature of the later history. In this view of the cultus we
miss the spontaneity of the earlier documents. The sacrificial
system was originally man's natural expression of his feeling
toward God. To eat and drink and rejoice before Yahweh was
a ritual that needed no exhortation and which received little
regulation. The postexilic time had really outgrown sirch ex-
pressions of piety. God was greater, more spiritual, and farther
away than He had seemed to be in the earlier time. The cultus
had become a thing ordained by Him as the expression of His
will; therefore it must be punctiliously performed. We may
almost imagine its most devoted supporters sometimes wishing
that God had been pleased to enjoin some other method of
serving Him.

If the elaborate service of the sanctuary is to be regularly
performed the order of ministers must be worthily supported.
It was not because the men whom we have called the priestly
writers were themselves priests that they so carefully regulated
the tithes and other sources of Levitical income. Probably the
writers were not themselves members of the guild whose in-
terests they had so much at heart. They were laymen who felt
that the service of the sanctuary was the most important thing in
the world. All the weight of tradition in favour of giving tithes

■ Num. 5 "-^'. I do not mean that this regulation is of heathen origin,
but that it represents the early religion of Tsrael. A parallel is found in
Egyptian religion, cf. Wiedemann, Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, p. 58.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER

407

and first-fruits and a share of the offerings to the priests was
therefore emphasised by them. The result was to lay upon Israel
a yoke which no people could long bear. But no considerations
of mere expediency influenced the consistent theorists with which
we now have to do.

In one respect, however, we must modify what has been said
about the cultus. There was, no doubt, a real religious feeling
expressed in the sin-offerings which had now become so promi-
nent. The theory that the whole Law must be thoroughly and
scrupulously obeyed had as its result the depressing conviction
that this was an almost impossible task. Every hour of the day a
man was subject to contagion. Any moment of carelessness might
cause him to forget some one of the regulations of his code. For
intentional violation of the Law there was nothing but punishment,
either excommunication from the chosen people or visitation by
an act of God. But what should be done in case of uninten-
tional sin ? This sin was truly sin, it was an offence against the
sanctity of God ; it might work ruin, not only upon the guilty
party, but also upon all his race. Fortunately a class of offerings
had existed from of old (though not emphasised in the pre-exilic
time) whose effect was to appease the anger of God. These now
become prominent in the service and it is provided that they
may be offered by individuals who discover or who suspect their
own neglect. It is provided also that they shall be offered on
stated occasions, to make amends for the possible carelessness of
priests and people. It follows that the system of the completed
Law is on the whole sombre in its tone. In this it no doubt
reflects the prevailing mood of post-exilic Israel. For, as we have
seen, the experiences of exile and of oppression had fostered just
this frame of mind.'

It is partly because of the sorrowful experiences of the present
that the priestly school finds its ideal in the past. In their view
Israel in the wilderness possessed the strength and majesty which
should belong to the people of God. The organization of the
twelve tribes, each wath fifty thousand warriors, more or less, is

^ How far Babylonian influence can be traced in the Priest-code is not
yet satisfactorily made out. It would be strange not to find some such influ-
ence ; cf. Haupt in the Johns Hopkins University Circulars, May, 1900,
and in the Journal of Bib. Lit. XIX, pp. 55-81 ; also Keilinschrtften tmd
Altes Testament,'^ p. 589 f.

408 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

complete. When they march they move like an army with ban-
ners, and when they camp, they camp in perfect order in a square
whose centre is the Tabernacle. Next to the sanctuary is the
tribe of Levi to guard it from profanation, and this tribe has its
standing orders concerning the removal and carriage of the sacred
tent.' All this embellishment of the history has no direct prac-
tical value. It only expresses the conviction that in some sense
the wilderness sojourn was the golden age of Israel's life. There
at any rate the theocracy was in full sway. When that should
again be the case there would be room for another forward move
in history. For the authors had a dim idea of progress. Their
world periods are marked by the Deluge and the exodus. But
within the periods there is no movement. Evidently all that
can be done in the present time is to conserve the system in-
troduced by Moses at its beginning. During the period now
under review the stricter party in Jerusalem were holding on to
the observance of the Law with the idea that they were thus liv-
ing up to the perfect standard set by Yahweh Himself. In this
observance they found comfort and satisfaction under manifold
afflictions. Doubtless the more ritually inclined found in the
Law the complete response to their soul's need. But others were
meanwhile cherishing the Messianic hope and searching the
prophetic writings which had come down from earlier times.
We shall not go astray, in fact, if we locate in this period the col-
lection into one corpus of the books, Joshua to Malachi, which
form the second part of the Jewish canon. ^

In this collection is a little book which probably originated in
this time and which throws light upon the mind of the people.
This is the book which bears the name of Joel. Its immediate
occasion is a ])lague of locusts such as often devastates the lands
bordering on the desert. In animated language the author de-
scribes the invading host and calls the people to lament over its
desolating career. In sharp contrast to the theory of the earlier
prophets he lays emphasis upon fasting and sackcloth as means of
influencing Yahweh. The priests are urged to lead in the suppli-
cation— evidence of their present importance in the community.

* Num. 7 and lo. The regulations belong to the latest stratum of priestly
legislation.

* One or two sections which bear marks of a later date will be considered
soon.

NFHEMIAH AND AFTER 409

The description of the plague shows that the author identifies
it with the invasion of Gog predicted by Ezekiel. The prayers
of the people (united at the Temple) are effective with Yahweh.
He inclines to His people and removes the plague from them.
Renewed and increased fruitfulness will recompense them for
the years which the locust has eaten.

The great invasion is looked upon as the forerunner of the
Day of Yahweh. After the plague has been removed the Mes-
sianic time will come. The Spirit — the incentive to prophecy —
will be poured out upon all flesh. Men-servants and maid-servants
shall partake of the wonderful endowment. The extraordinary
manifestations of the Spirit will moreover be ushered in by con-
vulsions of nature — blood and fire and columns of smoke. Yah-
weh will muster all nations in the Valley of Judgment/ and call
them to strict account for their oppression of Israel. With what
measure they have meted it shall be measured to them. Judah
will now take possession of the Gentiles and sell them as slaves
to the far countries. Or in another figure borrowed from an earlier
prophet, Yahweh is presented as the treader of grapes ; the nations
are the vintage and He will crush them as the grapes are crushed
in the wine-press. After the judgment, Judah will dwell safely,
and Jerusalem shall be uncontaminated by the Gentiles. Palestine
will abound in wine and milk, but Egypt shall be a desolation
and Edom shall lie waste.

The Messianic expectation has here become almost stereotyped.
Vengeance is to be taken on the heathen ; Judah is to have a
golden age of agriculture ; prophecy is not to be monopolised
by the select few — these features are all that stand out distinctly.
The personal Messiah does not appear at all. Moreover, there is
no thought of a great moral reformation. There is, to be sure, a
call to repentance, fasting, and mourning. But we feel that this
is only because these spiritual exercises are the traditional way of
approaching Yahweh. The people are conscious that they are
living in accordance with the Law and are the people of Yahweh.
Of the conversion of the heathen there seems to be no thought.
The Gentile nations are brought into judgment simply that they

^ The valley of Jehoshaphat appears here for the first time. Doubtless
the n2SCL^ {Yahweh judges) was coined by Joel. That he locates the great
judgment at Jerusalem is probable, and to this extent the application of the
name to the Kedron is justified.

410 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

may be destroyed and that Judah may be no more molested.
The author seems to look for the Day of Yahvveh in the im-
mediate future. Yet there is a certain pallor about the expecta-
tion. We feel that there will be no acute disappointment should
there be delay. The people are not ambitious for great things.
If only the locust and the drought can be removed they will be
fairly content to go on as they are. They have no desire to be-
come a world-power. The mood is that of a small and exclusive
sect— enjoying their snug exclusiveness and willing to let the
world ignore them if only they can be undisturbed.

The idea of the judgment of the nations here adopted, or ex-
panded, from Ezekiel, is a common theme of later apocalyptic
writers. Not long after the writer we have just considered, it
was borne in afresh upon men's minds. The Persian monarchy
was showing signs of decay. The invasion of the heart of the
empire by Cyrus the Younger and the retreat of the ten thou-
sand Greeks revealed an unsuspected weakness. Egypt soon
stirred Syria to revolt and the flames of war again passed over
Palestine. Under Artaxerxes Ochus (b.c. 361-336) an im-
mense army flooded Phoenicia and Egypt, working havoc wher-
ever it went. Whether Jerusalem had taken part in the revolt
is not clear. Josephus, who tells us that Bagoses, the Persian
general, desecrated the Temple, does not speak of any injury
done to the Temple or the city walls. He says only that
Bagoses punished the Jews by imposing a tax on the daily
sacrifices.^

These events stimulated the apocalyptic imagination of the
Jews, and they saw again in the swift invader the advance guard
of the great Day. Recent scholars^ find a monument of these
disturbances in the latest section of the book of Isaiah — chapters
24-27. The chapters take up and expand Joel's picture of the
judgment of the nations. Yahweh is represented desolating the
earth ; people and priest, servant and master, buyer and seller
are involved in a common fate. Wrath shall be poured out, not
only on the kings of the earth, but also upon the heavenly host
— the angels who were appointed to administer the aff"airs of the

^Josephus (Anf. XI, 7, i) makes the occasion of Bagoses' invasion to be
a quarrel about the high-priesthood.

2 Preceded by Vatke ; cf. Che^ne, lyttrodnction to the Book of Isaiah, p.
160.

NEHEMIAH AND AFTER 41 1

world and who have been unfaithful.^ But the dispersed of Judah
are to be spared — a remnant Uke the ohves left on the tree after
the crop has been gathered. These shall see the new day, the
rule of Yahweh on Mount Zion :

" On this mountain will Yahweh Sabaoth make to all peoples
A feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees.
Of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well strained.
On this mountain will He annihilate
The veil w^hich veils all peoples,
The covering which covers all nations :
Yea, the Lord Yahweh will wipe away tears from all faces.
And the reproach of His people will He take away throughout all
the earth." ^

This expectation differs from any we have yet met in the pa-
thetic expression : *' Yahweh will wipe away tears from all faces"
— a hope that has passed over into Christian literature. As we
read it we ask ourselves : Can it be any earthly clime in which
this hope is to be realised ? Is not the Messianic kingdom cut-
ting loose from earth and seeking its habitation in another world ?
Certainly the way is preparing for the celestial city.

Reviewing the period whose history we have now tried to
trace, we are impressed again with the importance of Nehe-
miah and his work. Without him the separation of the stricter
party would not have been accomplished, or else the party
would have lacked staying power and have been ground to
pieces by the adverse tendencies of the times. The separation
once accomplished, the prominence of the Law and its ex-
pansion followed as a matter of course. The Law in turn
strengthened the party which cherished it, and made their ex-
clusiveness more marked. The religious emotions easily learn to
express themselves in the forms hallowed by tradition and sanc-
tioned by a divine command. While the legalism, which we
find fully fledged at the end of the period may sometimes have
fostered formalism and hypocrisy, this was by no means univer-
sally true. The Psalms show how many a pious soul learned to
delight in the Law of Yahweh after the inward man. To such

1 The conception that the angels have been appointed satraps of the prov-
inces under Yahweh's rule, is found in some other late passages, and is more
fully developed in the book of Daniel.

*-* Isaiah, 25 ^^ ; Cheyne's translation.

412 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

souls it was a boon to have prescribed forms in which to express
their devotion — this is illustrated in other religions besides
Judaism. For a time of temporal ill-fortune it is a comfort to
have one's thoughts turned to what may be done for God. And
that this will of God was in a book was also a boon to the op-
pressed and heavy laden. Study is the solace of many an ach-
ing heart. By attending to the sacred Book the mind learns to
detach itself from the cares of this life and fix itself upon what be-
longs to God. In the period under review the external fortune
of the Jews was at a low ebb. Complaints of oppression, of per-
secution, of the scoffing of the proud, are almost a common-place
of the Psalms, many of which date from this period. But along
with these complaints we find testimonies that God is near the
humble and that He sustains those who trust in Him. In this
experience the pious found the reward of obedience, though this
reward was not the one upon which they had fixed their hopes.

CHAPTER XVIII

THE GREEK PERIOD

Alexander of Macedon defeated the Persian army at Issus in
the year 333 B.C. To break the naval power of his adversary it
was necessary for him to get full possession of the Syrian coast.
He therefore marched at once toward Egypt, making everything
secure as he went. At only two points was there opposition —
at 1 yre and at Gaza, both which cities had furnished contingents
to the Persian fleet. Tyre fell after an obstinate resistance of
seven months. The length of the siege of Gaza is given at two
months. Thus the maritime plain was in Greek possession and,
with this secure, the interior of Palestine must also yield. The
cities of the highland can hardly have been of much importance.
Jerusalem was no longer the capital of the country in any sense.
Its wealth had long departed and the Arabian trade, once ex-
ploited by Solomon, now went to the Philistine towns.

A Jewish legend preserved by Josephus recounts that in his
progress toward Egypt Alexander sent a message to the high-
priest summoning him to acknowledge his new master. The
high-priest (the story correctly represents him to be the political
head of the community) replied that his allegiance was sworn
to Darius and that to him he would be true. Alexander there-
fore marched from Gaza to punish the contumacious city. The
high-priest's loyalty to his oath was of no very enduring quality.
In the old days the citizens would have manned the walls and
stood a siege. In the present emergency the ruler took refuge in
spectacular devices. Warned by a dream he arranged a proces-
sion to meet the king. Without arms but in full pontificals,
accompanied by a train of priests and citizens all clothed in
white, he marched out of the city to the hill (Scopus) over
which the conqueror was approaching. Alexander, to the sur-
prise of his staff, without waiting for the obeisance of the ap-
proaching train, himself did obeisance to the high-priest and
declared that this was the figure which he had seen in a dream

413

414 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

early in his career and which had promised him the dominion of
Asia. In consequence of the interview he showed favour to the
city, offered sacrifice in the Temple, and exempted the people
from paying tribute every seventh — that is, the Sabbatical — year.

This story is indeed the stuff that dreams are made of. It is
unnecessary to dwell upon its improbabilities.^ Not to speak
of Greek authors who know nothing of the incident, the tradi-
tion if reliable would have been known to the author of Daniel,
for he shows himself familiar with the history of the Ptolemies
and Seleucids, and so edifying a story would have impressed
itself upon him. Legends about Alexander began to circulate
soon after his death. Which one of these Josephus used to em-
bellish his history we cannot make out. Whatever it was, w^e
are unable to use it for the history of the Jews. Probably Jeru-
salem had no such importance in Alexander's eyes as to call for
a ))ersonal visit. It was only one town out of many in the prov-
ince of Syria. This province had been secured by the surrender
of the Persian governor. The Greek sources say distinctly that
the rest of Palestine had made its submission to Alexander before
the siege of Gaza.'^

The only early impression concerning Alexander recorded in
a Jewish source, is that given in the book of Daniel. Here the
Greek power is pictured to us as the most ferocious among the
ferocious beasts which the sage sees in his vision : *' The fourth
beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; it had
great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped
the residue with its feet." ^ We can see that the rapidity and
thoroughness of Alexander's conquests were enough to strike ter-
ror into the hearts of those who were conquered. More im-
pressive even than his conquests was his method of unifying his
empire Ijy his numerous Greek colonies. The Greek was con-
scious of a world mission. The Babylonian and Persian had
been content for the most part to leave the subject peoples with
their own customs. The new power was a source of discomfort

' Atitiqiiities, XI, 8. The improbabilities are most conclusively shown
by Will rich, Juden und Griechen vor der Makkabdischen Erhebung, p. 6
fT. He refers to St. Croix, who took the same position in his Exavien Cri-
tique in 1775. This book I have not seen.

' Arrian as cited by Willrich, Jiidett und Griechen, p. 15. I have not
seen Donath's dissertation, Die Alexandersage, mentioned by Willrich.

•'' Uan. 7\ cf. v."-*^ and 8^-8.

THE GREEK PERIOD 415

to its subjects, not only because the mercenaries plundered and
oppressed them, but also because it insisted on reconstructing
their social and political fabric. The full import of this comes
out a little after Alexander.

Alexander died before consolidating his empire. The period
of bloodshed which followed his death has left no traces on
the history of Judea,^ or rather, the traces have disappeared from
the records. The little district about Jerusalem often changed
masters, as did the city itself, during those troublous times, and
each change brought oppression and suffering. Palestine was
the bone of contention between Ptolemy and Antigonus, later be-
tween the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. The first Ptolemy is
said to have captured Jerusalem on a Sabbath, when the citizens
would not fight, holding to the observance of the Law, even at
the cost of slavery.^

At this time therefore a large number of Jews were carried as
slaves into Egypt. The large Jewish population in Alexandria,
of which we hear much at a later period, probably had its begin-
nings at this date. When once a nucleus was established by the
manumission of some of these slaves the community would grow
by attracting other Jews. The people had learned in Babylon how
to live and yet preserve their separateness from the Gentiles. In
Palestine the means of livelihood were scanty, and the miseries of
war were chronic. Emigration would be the natural method of
relief, and the fertile country of the Nile would attract those who
sought a new home. It is not necessary to suppose that the
Ptolemies colonised Alexandria with Jews or that a wholesale
manumission of Jewish slaves took place, such as is attributed
to Ptolemy Philadelphus.'* The age was an age of migration
and the Jews felt the impulse. It was also an age in which the

^ At about the period of Alexander's conquest some authors now place
the discourses against the nations contained in the book of Jeremiah (chap-
ters 25, 46-51). The arguments, however, seem precarious. Cf. Schwally
in the Zeitschr.f. d. Alttesi. IVissensch., VIII, 177 ff., and Giesebrecht in his
commentary.

^ This question of the Sabbath again became a burning one in the time of
the Maccabees. The incident under Ptolemy I. is taken by Josephus {Ant.^
XII, I, axid Against Apiori, I, 22) from a Greek author. The manner in which
this author (Agatharchides of Cnidus) treats it, is a strong guarantee of its
correctness, as is pointed out by Willrich, Juden und Griechen, p. 22.

^ In the letter of Aristeas, 12-26.

4l6 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

cities assumed new importance under the influence of Greek
ideas.^

Ptolemy's possession of the country was contested by Antigonus,
who in 315 B.C. took possession of Syria down to the Egyptian
frontier. The Egyptians repulsed him (or his son Demetrius) in
a hard-fought battle at Gaza three years later. The next year,
however, Antigonus returned and again took possession of the
country with the expectation of carrying the war into Africa.
Although the invasion of Egypt was not successful, Syria re-
mained six years in his power. But now Antigonus (perhaps
the ablest of the aspirants to Alexander's empire) was opposed by
a coalition and by them defeated and slain in the year 301 b.c.^
By tliis battle Seleucus was secured in the possession of the
eastern provinces of Alexander's empire. The two kingdoms
witli which the Jews had now to deal were Syria and Egypt.
The former, under the rule of the house of Seleucus, extended
from the bay of Issus to the frontiers of India. By express
agreement, Egypt and the Ptolemies were to have Coelesyria
as it was called, that is, Palestine and the Lebanon. But now,
as in the old days, the Mesopotamian power felt that its natural
outlet toward the west was by the ports of the Mediterranean.
Scarcely had Ptolemy taken possession of Palestine, therefore,
when Seleucus with his victorious elephants advanced to contest
his claim. The complicated struggle which ensued is difficult to
follow intelligently, and its details do not specially concern an Old
Testament historian. Seleucus seems to have been in control in
Palestine in the year 295 B.C. Twenty years 4ater Ptolemy Phila-
delphus came to the front and extended his sway as far as the
Lebanon.^ Antiochus IIL, called the Great, vindicated the Se-
leucid claim in 219 B.C., but was obliged to retreat. A second at-
tempt in 198 B.C. was more successful. From this time down to

' An inscription recently discovered shows that a synagogue was dedicated
in one of the smaller towns of the Delta in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes
(247-222 B.c ); see Schiirer in the Theol. Literaturzeitnng, 1903, col. 156.

2 The battle of Ipsus in this year is one of the decisive battles of history.
Cf. Stark, Gaza und die Philistdische Kiiste (1852), p. 359 flF. ; Droysen,
Geschichte des Hellenistnus ^"^ TI, 2, p. 216 ff.; Mahaffy, Alexander'' s Empire,
p. 67.

^Schurer, Gesch. des Jiid. Volkes^ II., p. 74. A chronological table
covering the period from the death of Alexander to the Roman conquest of
the East is given by Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, pp. xiv-xxxii.

THE GREEK PERIOD 417

the Roman supremacy the kingdom of Syria was supreme in
Palestine.^

Both Ptolemies and Seleucids were Greek by blood. Both
families regarded themselves as legitimate successors of Alexan-
der, and both desired to continue Alexander's policy of Hellen-
ising the East. The most conspicuous feature of this new civili-
sation was the predominance of the city as a political entity.
Semitic society is based on the tribe. This we see in the history
of Israel. The cities — Hebron, Shechem, Samaria — nowhere
take part in political movements ; these movements spring from
the tribes, Judah, Ephraim, or Benjamin. In the era now before
us, the tribe disappears from view and the city takes its place.
Nothing strikes the student more forcibly than the number of
new cities that now come to the front. The old towns when
conquered or surrendered are rebuilt and reorganised. By their
side many new ones spring into existence. The kings are pre-
eminently patrons of these cities, and whether the cities are re-
built, enlarged, or newly founded, they receive Greek colonists.
Alexander himself is said to have founded more than sixty of
these cities in his brief career. The number founded by his suc-
cessors rises into the hundreds. In Palestine, as elsewhere, old
and new cities received the Greek organization. Besides the
chief places in Philistia and across the Jordan, we read that
Joppa, Dor, Accho, Bethshan (all Israelite by tradition) belong
in this class. The state of things in Jerusalem is not revealed to
us by any express declaration, and in the small district of which it
was now the capital, we do not find any cities on the new model.

It was in accord with the Greek idea that the city should have
its autonomy. This was carried out, so far as the supremacy of
the king was not encroached upon. The seat of power was rec-
ognised to be the demos ^ the body of freemen. Along with
them the city was inhabited by slaves and clients who had no
voice in the Assembly. The administration was in the hands of
a Council chosen from the freemen. So long as the taxes were
paid, and so long as complaints of injustice were not heard, this
body was allowed to carry on the government. The surround-
ing country and its villages naturally fell under its jurisdiction.
The franchise was not confined to men of a single race. In

^ As against any foreign claimant, that is ; the actual condition under the
Maccabean princes will be considered at length in the next chapter.

4l8 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

some instances it is clear that it was possessed by both Jews and
Greeks in the same city.^

Although we have no distinct assertion concerning Jerusa-
lem in this period, we may readily suppose that the tendency
toward new civic autonomy had a favourable effect on the de-
pressed commonwealth of the Jews. Jerusalem under a Persian
governor, though the centre of the district, had little opportunity
to assert itself. Under the new system its predominance in the
district would be emphasised. The headship of the community
had been vested in the high-priest. The democratic organisa-
tion would readily associate with him a committee of influential
citizens, and give him in some respects more real power than he
had ever had. It does not seem forced, therefore, to suppose
that the period before us saw the rise of the Sanhedrin — a senate
whose importance for the later history of Judaism can scarcely be
overestimated. At a later time we find that the smaller towns
also had their Councils, but these do not emerge into view in the
present period.

Greek colonies carried Greek culture, and Greek culture
brought with it Greek religion. No city could be founded or
repopulated by Alexander or his successors without receiving a
patron deity from the Greek pantheon.^ The gymnasium, the
theatre, and the baths were consecrated each to its proper divin-
ity. This would not be objectionable to most orientals. Syr-
ians and Phoenicians discovered their own gods in those which
came in with the new colonists. Melkart and Heracles were, in
fact, identical in origin, and so were Aphrodite and Ishtar. Even
where the identification could not be made, toleration was the
rule. In polytheistic religions, a few gods more or less do not
make much difference. The attractiveness of the Greek mythol-
ogy in itself is evident from the spell which it still exercises on
men of taste. The aggressive power of Greek art and literature
(manifest throughout the new empire of Alexander) implied ag-
gressive power also in Greek religion.

* Statements of Jewish writers on this subject are, however, to be re-
ceived with caution. It was evidently to their interest to claim for their peo-
ple everything that belonged to the most favoured nation.

*The importance of religion to the Greek city is well set forth by Fustel
de Coulanges, La Cite Antique (I have the seventh edition, 1879; the
English translation is dated 1877).

THE GREEK PERIOD 419

We cannot indeed suppose that the East was more than su-
perficially Hellenised. Only the more educated or the more
thoughtful minds could appreciate Greek literature, art, and phi-
losophy. But the mass of men would be attracted by the bright-
ness and gaiety of Greek life. Among the Jews we have found
reason to suppose there were already two parties. The laxer one
would not be slow to feel the new attraction. The stricter one
had already adopted the maxim that Yahweh is a jealous God.
His Law, which they were already translating into life, had pro-
tected His worshippers from contamination by Baal. It would
prove sufficient to repel the seductions of Dionysus or Aphro-
dite. After some centuries, the thinking few discovered that it
was possible to adopt Greek thought and (to a considerable ex-
tent) Greek culture without giving up Hebrew religion. But
for the present the alternatives seemed to exclude each other.

The first effect of the new civilisation among the Jews was, as
we might expect, a stout affirmation of the validity of the old
system. On this supposition we can readily account for the
book which we call Chronicles, one of the most important liter-
ary products of the period.^ The author has in mind to write a
complete history of his people in a form that will edify his con-
temporaries, and he does this with a thoroughness which in the
view of his school must have left little to be desired. We have
no difficulty in discovering what he thinks necessary to edify his
contemporaries; it is to show the divine origin of the Hebrew
commonwealth, its divine guidance, and its organisation from
;he beginning in the form it has taken in his own time.

Now, as we have seen, the postexiUc community at Jerusalem
was a church and not a state. Its centre was the Temple. The
reason for its existence was the conservation of the Temple wor-
ship. In all honesty therefore the Chronicler held this thesis:
The Temple is the central object of all human history. And his
work is really a defence of this thesis. First we have an intro-
ductory section consisting of genealogies. These genealogies are
made up from the older historical books and they are designed to

1 Under Chronicles we include Ezra and Nehemiah. On the date and
nature of the composition the discussion of De Wette in his Beitrdge, I
(1806), is still worth reading. Cf, also Wellhausen, Prolegomena; Driver,
Tntrodnctio7i, and the articles in Hastings' Bible Dictionary and in the En-
-.yclopcedia Biblica.

420 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

show Israel's place among the nations of the earth, to show also
that postexilic Israel is the legitimate descendant of old Israel.
We have seen how much emphasis the community organised by
Nehemiah laid upon purity of blood. Possibly even the more
liberal party had learned the use of genealogy. That the gene-
alogies on record were often fictitious agrees with what we ob-
serve in other ages.

If it was important to show that the Jews as a whole were of
pure blood it was even more important to show this for the
priests and Levites. Not only did they form a sort of aristoc-
racy in the community ; their right to take part in divine ser-
vice (whose conformity to the divine Law was a sine qua non for
the well-being of the nation) was based upon their blood. We
can understand how important and how practical was this part of
the work before us.

The historical p?rt of the work, counting from the death of
Saul to the end of Nehemiah's administration, falls into three
almost equal parts. The first embraces the reigns of David and
Solomon. The author had no really historical information ex-
cept what is contained in our books of Samuel and Kings. ^ And
in using these sources the author kept his main purpose steadily
in view. With him history begins with David. Saul is left
entirely out of view, for he was rejected and his kingdom was il-
legitimate. And in the history of David and Solomon much
that does not bear on the main object is resolutely omitted.
That main object is to show David and Solomon wholly devoted
to the work of the Lord in building the Temple and organising
its services. David spends his life in collecting the material for
the sanctuary. He organises the Levites on the lines of the
postexilic system. While yet in full strength he sets Solomon on
the throne and hands over to him the plan and the materials for
the Temple with a solemn charge for the completion of the great
work. We are reminded of Ptolemy I. abdicating in favour of
his son while still in full possession of his powers.^

' For the present purpose this is enough to say about the sources. The
author probably had various documents at his hand not much older than his
own time which had worked over the history in the same spirit by which he
himself was moved. Cf. Kittel in the Handkommcntar.

2 This took place in 285 B. c, according to Mahaffy, Greek Life and
Thought, p. 200. How far the Chronicler's picture differs from that of the
earlier history need not be pointed out.

THE GREEK PERIOD 42 1

It would not be difficult for the Jewish student to read be-
tween the lines a comparison of his own kings with the Ptol-
emies in other respects — to the advantage of the former. If the
kings of Egypt were religious in their way, David and Solomon
were more religious in their way, with the advantage that theirs
was the true way. Seen through the vista of the centuries
David's prowess was more than Alexander's, and Solomon's
wealth was greater than any upstart Greek dynasty could show.
If the later kings were great builders, so was Solomon a great
builder and a coloniser as well. Did he not settle Israelites in
the cities given him by the Phoenicians and in the cities of
Hamath? Did he not build Tadmor in the wilderness and
other strongholds ? And as for military preponderance, let the
twelve great divisions of David's standing army answer, each con-
taining twenty-four thousand men,^ and these not foreign mer-
cenaries ready to go over to an opponent if tempted by higher
pay, but true sons of Israel each ready to shed the last drop of
his blood for Yahweh and His anointed. Doubtless the resem-
blance and the contrast were in the mind of the historian. If
he made his kings patrons of literature also, like the contempo-
rary Ptolemies, he found tradition ready to his hand, for both
David and Solomon were already counted authors of the first
rank, with whom neither Ptolemy or Seleucid could vie.

In the second section of the history — from Solomon to the
exile — there was much to pass over in silence. The revolt of
Jeroboam was a revolt against the divine order. It was, in fact,
so considered by the author of the book of Kings. To the
Chronicler the effects were more far-reaching. By the revolt, as
he regarded it, the ten tribes cut themselves off from the divinely
ordered commonwealth. Judah alone now becomes the heir of the
promises, and with Judah alone our history concerns itself. The
fortunes of the larger half of the nation are resolutely cut out of the
narrative. Even the heroic struggle of Elijah against the Tyrian
Baal has no interest for our author. His only use for Elijah is in
having him write a letter to rebuke one of the kings of Judah.^

'i Chron. 27. Solomon's 4,000 chariots (2 Chron. g^^) belong in the
same category, though here tradition had already invaded the earlier book of
history.

2 2 Chron. 21 ^'^-^^. The theory of temporal punishment for sin is illus-
trated in the crassest manner in this passage.

422 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

The Chronicler's theory of history is writ large in all this
narrative. The kings who conserve the institutions of the Law
are rewarded with long life and prosperity. Those who depart
from the Law are punished by invasion and calamity and their
reigns are cut short. The prophets are always at hand to make
plain the causal connexion of sin and misfortune, and the good
kings themselves not infrequently ascend the pulpit and edify us
by justifying the Avays of God to men. Thus Abijah expounds
to Jeroboam and his men the sin of which they had been guilty
in throwing off their allegiance to David's house. The dis-
course is emphasised by a tremendous victory. Jehoshaphat
encourages his men to trust in Yahweh and sets a choir of
Levites before the army. The spiritual arm is mighty and the
enemy is discomiited. That the hint given by the book of
Kings concerning Hezekiah's reforms gives the author opportu-
nity to make of this king a saint after his own heart does not
surprise us ; and that Manasseh's long reign is accounted for by
an act of repentance does not move us more.

It is plain that we have here to do not with a history but with
an argument. The Temple with its corps of officials is a
wholly divine institution — this is the thesis which comes again
and again to the front. After the organisation of the priesthood
by David the sole purpose of the commonwealth is to keep the
Temple and its services in honour. The Davidic dynasty was
not necessary to this ; when they were rejected, foreign kings
took their place. To show this is the object of the third section
of the work (now called by the names Ezra and Nehemiah).
Here we find Gentile monarchs becoming nursing fathers of the
theocracy. Cyrus gives command to rebuild the Temple and
defrays the cost from the royal revenues. Darius rebukes the
enemies of Israel and commands the work to go forward.
Artaxerxes sends Ezra back to reintroduce the Law and clothes
him with regal i)owers as well as makes a magnificent donation to
the Temple. The same Artaxerxes gives Nehemiah authority to
rebuild the walls, and to enforce the peculiar institutions of
Judaism. That the greater part of this is not history we have
had occasion to note. It sliould be doubly clear to us now that
we see how completely the author is possessed by his ideal.
And this is what i)ious and narrow men were dreaming when
Greek art and (ireek thought were making their way in western

THE GREEK PERIOD

423

Asia. They were holding on the more tenaciously to their own
system the more it was threatened by another civilisation.
They were perhaps reconciling themselves to the possibility that
the Messiah was not to come for some time. In that case they
consoled themselves with the thought that God could move Gen-
tile kings to do all that was necessary for the support of the true
religion.^ All that the priestly caste really needed was to be pro-
tected in the exercise of their functions. And this protection
they found, often at least, under Gentile kings.

But this protection could not always be counted upon, and
when war or sedition came, the hope of a Son of David quickly
revived. This is shown by an obscure document which we now
find in the Book of the Twelve. ^ Its descriptions of what is
going on in Jerusalem are no longer intelligible to us. But we are
able to make out that the kingdoms of Syria and Egypt have
taken the place of the ancient enemies of Israel. The writer be-
gins by prophesying that Yahweh Avill take possession of the land
of Syria and subdue to Himself the Philistine cities. Then the
Messiah will come, but not wdth pomp and circumstance like
the rulers of this world : " Rejoice, daughter of Zion ! Shout,
daughter of Jerusalem ! Righteous and victorious is he ; meek
also and riding upon an ass, upon the foal of an ass. He shall
cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem ;
the warlike bow shall be destroyed and he shall speak peace to
the nations, and shall rule from sea to sea and from the river to
the ends of the land." ^

These verses give the author's expectation. The rest of the
prophecy shows the various ways in which the wished-for con-
summation is to be attained. The Messiah indeed is a prince of
peace. But His reign can begin only after the defeat of the

1 The Messianic hope is not prominent in the Chronicler's narrative.
The only trace of it seems to be the promise that David's throne should be
established for ever. The non-fulfilment of this promise may have been
accounted for by the unfaithfulness of David's descendants. Probably the
author, who is interested in the hierocracy, may have had the uneasy feeling
that a new David would not be a comfortable man to get along with.

2 Which we call the Minor Prophets. The passage is Zechariah, 9-14.
The chapters are so near together in point of time that the question whether
they are by a single author is of subordinate importance.

3 Zech. 9 ^ ■■. It is plain that this passage makes the Messiah's kingdom ex-
tend as far as Solomon's, but no farther.

424 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Gentiles, and this is the work of Yahweh Himself. He will take
Judah as His bow and Ephraim as His arrow and direct them
against the enemy. The same thing is expressed in the figure
that the sheep of Yahweh will become war-horses against the
oppressive shepherds. The shepherds are the Gentile rulers of
Israel. When they are trodden down, the scattered Sons of Is-
rael will return to their own country and fill it so that even
Gilead and Lebanon shall not suffice for them. This will be
only after a time of trial and purification, but in the end the
remnant will be the people of Yahweh and He will be their
God.^

A variation upon the same theme follows, showing all nations
besieging Jerusalem. But Yahweh Himself will descend upon
the Mount of Olives and make war against them. First, how-
ever, will come the extremity of suffering. The city will be
taken and plundered — only half the people will escape and they
will flee through the passage opened by the dividing of the
Mount of Olives. This will be followed by the victory of Yah-
weh which will usher in His reign — a reign that will not be
earthly in its character, for heat and cold and day and night will
cease. Jerusalem will become the ecclesiastical centre of the
earth, to which all nations will make pilgrimage. Those which
refuse will be punished by the withholding of their rain — or
if it be Egypt (which is not dependent on rain) then by some
other plague. The ritual character of the city is indicated by
the declaration that all the cooking vessels in the city will be
consecrated to Yahweh, so that the multitude of worshippers may
be able to use them for the festival sacrifice.^

The pious were still holding on to the Messianic hope, and
the hope was beginning to take the fantastic shape of later apoca-

^ The promise, 13 ^-^ seems the continuation of the discourse against the
shepherds ; see Nowack in his commentary {Handkommentar, 1897). It is
unnecessary here to discuss the obscure passage concerning the three shep-
herds cut off in one month. It seems to refer to frequent changes in the
high-priesthood under the Syrian rule, or perhaps in the change from Syria
to Egypt and back again.

^Zech. 14 2°^ This chapter seems to be an independent composition and
differs somewhat from the rest of the book. Its statement that Jerusalem
will be taken by the enemy before the deliverance comes may be the basis
for later speculations concerning the Antichrist. The reputation into which
the prophets had fallen is indicated by 13 ^-^

THE GREEK PERIOD 425

lyptic visions. The high-priestly regime was far from satisfying
the requirements of those who cUing most closely to the Law.
This is what we learn from this part of the book of Zechariah.
What the mind of the more rigidly pious Jews was toward the
Gentiles is revealed to us by the striking polemic which we find
in the book of Jonah. The little tract seems strangely out of
place among the works of the ancient seers. It purports indeed
to relate the adventures of one of them, in the endeavour to
escape from the duty divinely laid upon him. But we easily dis-
cover that the narrative is a parable. The hateful world-power is
presented to us under the figure of that Nineveh which was famous
at one time as the capital of the world. That it will be destroyed
is assumed to be the hope of Jews of the Jonah type. Therefore
when the prophet is sent to announce the doom of the city, he
flees — not from cowardice, but because he knows the merciful
nature of Yahweh. If he announces the coming vengeance, the
people will repent and then they will be spared. But this is not
what he wants — he wants the hated world-power to be destroyed.

As he anticipated, so it turned out. Miraculously brought
back from his flight, he witnessed the repentance of the great
city. But not willing to give up his hope that it would be de-
stroyed, he took up his station just outside the walls and watched
for the threatened catastrophe. Angry at the patience of Yah-
weh, he was taught a lesson by the vine in whose shade he has
rejoiced. Smitten by a worm, the vine withers and exposes the
prophet to the hot Assyrian sun. As he laments over the death
of the ephemeral plant the divine voice asks him : Should not
God take pity on the hundred thousand innocent infants in
Nineveh, not to speak of the cattle to whose charge no sin could
be laid ?

The man who could thus write was a bold man. Who ever
rebuked the narrowness of the sect to which he belonged without
incurring their suspicion or hatred? To the stricter Jews the
Gentiles had become objects of hatred only. For them Jonah
is intended to hold the mirror up to nature. The author of the
book beheved God to be the God of the Jews not only, but also
of the Gentiles. This God has compassion on the works of His

1 At the present day it seems difficult to imagine anyone taking it for any-
thing else. The embittered controversy over the historicity of the book
may now be counted a thing of the past.

426 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

hands ; even the heathen who repent of their sins find accept-
ance with Him. And Jonah may be something more than a
type of that narrow exclusiveness which the author abhorred.
It is possible that missionary ideas are here embodied. If Israel
was in possession of the true religion, had it not a duty to per-
form in enlightening those who were deprived of this knowl-
edge ? Some such questions could not fail to be started by this
little book. For the time being, however, it had no visible
effect.

The Ptolemies were patrons of Greek literature. Philadel-
phus, the second of the line, was in accord with his father in the
desire to make Alexandria a literary centre. The older king
founded, and the younger fostered, the celebrated Museum and
library which were counted among the wonders of the world.
The direct influence of these institutions on the Jews of Palestine
could not have been large. And yet they may have given some
stimulus to the study of old Hebrew literature. Some such mo-
tive may be assumed at this time for the collection and preserva-
tion of the poems contained in the book called the Song of Songs,
that is, the most perfect song. A Hebrew scholar, knowing of
the boasted beauty of Greek erotic poetry, desired to show that his
own country and language could show something as beautiful.

The Song of Songs is made up of lyrics whose common sub-
ject is the joy of the wedding time. For the week given over to
the wedding festivities, the bride and groom are queen and king
of their little village. They receive the homage of their friends
in terms borrowed from the pomp of Solomon. They speak in
these folk-songs, describing each other's charms or expressing the
delights they find in each other's company. The frankness with
vv^hich these charms and these delights are i)ortrayed is not in ac-
cordance with modern taste. To judge the poems rightly, we
must remember that it is wedded love which forms their sub-
ject. What we can appreciate is the love of nature which here
reveals itself — a trait of the Hebrew temperament which we rarely
find elsewhere. The intoxication of the newly wedded pair is
enhanced by the fresh blooming of the flowers, the singing of
the birds, the ]:)erfume of the opening spring. Such a book
owes its place in the canon to a thorough misunderstanding. It

' The Museum was a school for critical and grammatical studies ; see Ma-
haffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 91 ff.

THE GREEK PERIOD 4^7

was early interpreted as an expression of Yahweh's love for His
people— Hosea's immortal parable had impressed itself on the
thought of the scribes.' But while it is true that oriental mys-
tics have often described their religious raptures in terms bor-
rowed from sensual love, there is no evidence that the author or
editor of these poems was one of their number.' While we are
compelled to reject this interpretation, we may still be grateful
that so charming a specimen of Hebrew literature has been pre-
served to us, and also that so human a document has found a

place in our Bible. tj i r

Some of the poems which were later combined in our Boole ot
Psalms doubtless originated in the period before us, but their
consideration may properly come later, in the period in which
the whole collection was put in circulation. More characteristic
of the epoch we are now considering was the rise of what we call
the Wisdom literature. This includes a group of books, part of
which (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) found a place in the Canon of
Scripture, while a part (Sirach, Wisdom) was never so received
by the Palestinian Jews-though their circulation among Greek-
speaking Jews introduced them to the Church. Their common
features are so striking that we cannot doubt their belonging to
the same period.^ Fortunately we are able to date one of them
approximately, and thus to locate the whole group, which belongs
in or near the period now under discussion. The traiislator of
ben Sira, who is the grandson of the author, expressly states
that he came into Egypt in the thirty-eighth yeai of Ptolemy
Euercretes This must be the second Euergetes, because the first
reigi^ed but twenty-five years. This writer therefore came to
E.ypt in the year 132 B.C. We may assume that his grandfather s
txhe parable was taken up and drawn outbyEzekiel (chapters 16 and23),

" "TtT.eToric'aMnterpre.a.ion of the Song has now generally been given
UP by Pro Lnt scholars. Until recently, however, the book was supposed
:o'b/d' Lie in its structure-portraying the "^'^^^^^^-'-^''ZZl.Z
he seductive attempts of a royal suitor. This hypothesis - ^"y ■^^'^ f;"^
bv Driver (Mr.d„ai.n. pp. 436-448). On the whole subject ^e ■• |der

Ly consul, the recent comnien.arics by Siegfried (^"<*--^«.*2
II Buddc (J^uner NanM«m,,n-nfar, ,898), also Budde's article in the^^..-
1^.mL 1894. An extended bibliography is given in the commen.aries.
: T /ee of them are ascribed .0 Solomon, the fourth bears the an hor s o , n

name. Probably this was the reason why the last was not receded by

Rabbis.

428 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

book was completed some years earlier.^ As it contains no clear
reference to the Maccabean struggle, we may date it before, but
probably not much before, the year 170 B.C.

The work which thus claims our attention seems to show Greek
influence — not so much in what it says as in what it implies.
The translator begins by extolling the great things which have
been handed down by the Law, the Prophets, and those who
have followed them — ''on account of which one must praise
Israel for culture and wisdom." The language looks like a
direct challenge to the boasted philosophy of the Greeks, as
though to say that Israel has a superior culture derived from a
more venerable tradition. The energy of the protest shows the
extent to which thinking men were conscious of the Greek
claim.

We shall wrong the author, however, if we suppose him in-
terested in philosophy for its own sake. The Semitic mind has
little use for merely speculative thinking. The wisdom, in refer-
ence to which the author reckons Israel no whit behind the very
chiefest of the peoples, has little ambition to explain the origin of
things or to bring the universe into a rational scheme. It feels
deeply the practical problems of life and aims to aid in their
solution. This wisdom, then, is the guide of life, guaranteed to
lead its disciples into ways of righteousness and therefore into
paths of peace. Its resemblance to the earliest teachings of
Greek wise men easily impresses the reader.

This wisdom is to her devotees the subject of unbounded
panegyric. By their imagination she is personified as a beauti-
ful and majestic being — goddess the Jew could not call her — the
constant friend, companion and counsellor of those who seek her.

" Wisdom instructs her sons ;
And warns those who attend to her.
Those who love her love life ;
And those who seek her early find acceptance.
Those who hold her fast attain honour ;
And abide in the blessing of Yahweh.

^ A discussion of the various theories about the book will be found in
Kautzsch, Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alien Test. (1900), p. 235 f.
(by Ryssel). The grammatical difficulty of the passage in the prologue on
which all depends is relieved by parallels cited by Deissmann, Bibelstttdien,
p. 255; cf. also Schiirer, Gesch. des Jud. Volkes,^ III, p. 159.

THE GREEK PERIOD 429

Those who serve her serve the Holy One ;

And her lovers Yahweh loves.

He who hearkens to her shall judge rightly ;

And he who listens to her shall abide in her house." *

This wisdom is not the possession of man alone. She is an
attribute of God Himself. When the author exhorts her to utter
her own praise, she declares that she came forth from the mouth
of the Most High, that she has her throne in the heights, that
she alone has circled the earth, and walked through the depths of
the abyss.^ It is evident that the personification has gone far
toward making wisdom the supreme emanation from the God-
head. But we soon see that cosmogonic speculation is far from
the author's thought. For this wisdom, after visiting all the na-
tions of the earth, has her abiding-place assigned her in Israel.

" Then the Creator of all things commanded me ;
And my Maker gave me a home.
And He said : In Jacob take up thy dwelling,
And in Israel receive thy possession."

And after an extended panegyric of the delights of wisdom, the
author adds :

** All this is the Book of the Covenant of the Most High,
The Law which Moses commanded
As a possession for the congregation of Jacob." ^

This then is where we come out : the true wisdom had visited
all the nations of the earth. But in none of them had she chosen
to abide except in Israel. Here she had taken permanent form
in the Law given by Moses. In Palestinian circles at least the
pressure of Greek thought had driven men to take a firmer hold
on the Law as the sufficient philosophy. By studying the Law
and living according to it, all the practical problems of life are
solved. It was perhaps with a view to discourage speculative
disc-ussion that an author of this school inserted into the book of
Job a chapter in praise of wisdom which, though justly admired

1 Ecclus. 4^^-^'. I have followed the Hebrew text as given by Peters, Der
Jiingst Wiederaiifgeficndene Hehrdische Text des Biiches Ecclesiastkics
(1902). Similar panegyrics are found in 14^^"^'^, 15 ^"^.

"^ Ibid., 24I-*.

' Ibid., 24^"^^. Read the whole passage.

430 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

fur the beauty of its thought, is an evident intrusion in the com-
position of which it now forms a part/ In this chapter it is
declared in effect that wisdom in the highest sense— the philos-
ophy that would solve the problems of the universe — is the prop-
erty of God alone. At the same time there is a wisdom for
man, which consists in the fear of God — that is, in religion —
and in departing from evil — that is, in a righteous life. Sirach
would not formulate it in this way, but he would accept the
general principle that speculation is useless. And he would go
one step farther than the interpolator in declaring that God has
in the Law communicated enough of the heavenly wisdom to
serve man's need.

But if indeed the philosophia ultima is contained in the book
of the Law, then the study and exposition of this book become
of the first importance. And as one can study better under a
master than by himself, the teacher becomes an important char-
acter in the community. Our author has a high opinion of the
profession of scribe, as we shall have occasion to notice a little
later. And to his mind the scribe is an ethical teacher. In his
system little stress is laid upon liturgy, but much upon manners
and morals. The boundary line between manners and morals is
not more distinctly drawn here than is the case in most ancient
systems. The result in the case of ben Sira is not unpleasing.
His ideal includes patience, courage, modesty, kindness, temper-
ance, chastity, and prudence. Particular cautions are given
with reference to evil associates. Friendship is praised as one of
the best of privileges. Intimacy with those in high station and
with the wealthy is deprecated. Enjoyment of the good things
of life is commended if only due moderation be observed.

With this ethical cosmopolitanism, however, the blood of the
Israelite asserts itself in hatred of the old-time enemies — Philis-
tines and Edomites — and of the new sectaries, '• the foolish peo-
ple that dwell in Shechem." The present rule of the Gentiles is
felt as a reproach ; a prayer is uttered that it may come to an
end and that the tribes of Jacob may again be set in their own
land. There is no zeal, however ; there are no fantastic dreams
of a personal Messiah, coming in the clouds of heaven. No
more is there any hope of a future life in our sense of the word ;
nor is there any hint of a resurrection. In the abode of the

1 Job, 28.

THE GREEK PERIOD

431

departed none praise God.^ All the more reason is there that
men should repent in this life. The lot of men is apportioned
by God according to justice and also with mercy. The problem
which wrung the heart of the author of the book of Job seems
not to give any more trouble. And yet our author stands on
the ground of complete individualism — he believes that God
deals with every man directly.

The roll of fame in which this book praises the great men of
Israel omits the names of Ezra and of Daniel — a phenomenon of
the utmost importance. To those names which we know from the
earlier Scriptures it adds one, that of Simon the high-priest,
apparently a contemporary of the author. This man, apparently
a worthy head of the community, is praised for his care of the
Temple. He is said to have strengthened the building and to
have provided it with a reservoir. It has been plausibly con-
jectured that such works were undertaken in the time of Antio-
chus the Great, who, when he took possession of Syria, found
it to his interest to conciliate the Jews. But of this we can have
no certain knowledge.

The passage devoted to Simon gives us a vivid impression of
the effect which the Temple worship must have had upon the
faithful Jew. We read of the magnificent presence of the high-
priest in his robes, accompanied by his train of inferior clergy.
In solemn array they lay the wood upon the altar and the chief
minister pours out the libation. The trumpets sound a mighty
blast and the worshippers fall upon their faces and offer their
supplications:

" Then the singers made melody with their voices,
And over the multitude sounded sweet harmony.
The people of the Most High uttered their prayers
In supplication before the All-pitying ;
Until he ^ had completed the service of Yahweh,
And had brought before Him that which was commanded.
Then he came down and lifted his hands
Over all the congregation of Israel,
And the blessing of Yahweh was on his lips
And in the name of Yahweh he made his boast.
Yet a second time they prostrated themselves
To receive the benediction from his lips."^

^ Ecclus. ij'^'' ^ ^ Simon is here the subject.

^Ecclus. 5o"*-2i. The whole chapter is most interesting.

432 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

In possession of this imposing liturgy and confident that it had
a perfect rule of life revealed in the Tora, Judaism was reconcil-
ing itself to the apparently insignificant place which it held
in the economy of the world — is not consciousness of the favour
of God more than worldly wealth and position ? And yet the
faithful must sometimes have found it hard to hold fast to their
belief. Their lot was not an enviable one. Our author himself
betrays that life had many anxieties. There were, first of all, dan-
gers to personal security. Our author's prayer for protection says
in so many words that his life had been endangered by slander —
" an accusation to the king from an unrighteous tongue." ^ So
serious was the situation that he despaired of life. In another
passage he speaks of the frequent and dangerous journeys which
he had undertaken. In the conflict between Syria and Egypt,
the adherents of either kingdom might easily be in danger when
the other party was in power. His grandson's final emigration
to Egypt shows the necessity to which many Jews yielded in this
period. Faithful to the Law and wandering over the face of the
world — our author was a type of his race.

The book of Proverbs adds almost nothing to the picture
drawn for us by the son of Sirach. The book differs from the
one we have been considering in that it represents several stages
of growth and in that it has a pseudonym at its head. The body
of the work is a collection of maxims which remind us of Sirach
and which may be called somewhat more primitive in tone,
though the point of view is substantially the same.^ This nucleus
contains directions for a prudent life, based on the Law and
ignoring speculation. The use of the name of Solomon must be
judged as in the case of other books of the time. To show that
the ancient kings of Israel were patrons of literature like the
Ptolemies has already been seen to be one of the aims of the
Jews in this period. This part of the book may be a century
older than Ecclesiasticus. Some time after it was put into circu-
lation it received as a preface the elaborate panegyric on wisdom
which fills the first nine chapters of our text. This also reminds
us of Sirach, though it is more elaborate. In it the personifica-

' Kcclus. 51 2. The whole chapter, which in tone reminds us of the Psalms,
should be read. A prayer for the people is contained in 36 {^^) ^-^^.

2 Prov. 106 — 22 ". The minor appendices to this collection, though inter-
esting, give no additional light on the date.

THE GREEK PERIOD 433

tion of wisdom, even more distinctly than in Sirach, makes her an
emanation of the divine :

'• Yahweh formed me as the beginning of His creation,
The first of His works in days of yore.
From of old was I fashioned,
In the beginning at the origin of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no fountains of water.
Before the mountains were planted,
Before the hills was I brought forth ;
When He had not made the earth
Nor the first of the clods of the world.
When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He marked off the horizon on the face of the deep.

Then I was at His side as a master workman ;
I was His delight day by day,
Sporting before Him at every time
Rejoicing at the completion of His world." *

The advance in the thought as compared with Sirach (quoted
above) is in the greater distinctness with which wisdom is
affirmed to be the Demiurge— \h^ executive officer of the supreme
divinity. It is not possible to avoid seeing Greek influence
here ; and that here is the germ of later Gnostic speculation,
Jewish and Christian, is equally obvious. The writer, however,
is far from the abstruse theology of a Philo. We have no reason
to seek for allegories beneath his animated poetry. Monotheism
is, of course, completely established. There is no longer a pos-
sibility of other gods coming into competition with Yahweh.
Yahweh's character also is known. He is a God of justice. His
reward is given to the righteous and it is given in this life. God
deals with the individual ; each is responsible to Him. But re-
ward and punishment are not looked for beyond this life. Sheol
continues to be the obscure abode of the shades, a place in which
there is no opportunity to praise God. The duties of life are
justice, temperance, social righteousness. The cultus seems to
be taken as a matter of course. There is no mention of the
Messiah. In all these respects the marks of date seem to be the
same that we find in Sirach.^

1 Prov. 8 22-2T, 30 f. Slight changes in the text may be justified from the com-
mentaries cited below.

2 For this reason, as well as on linguistic grounds, recent scholars are pretty

434 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

We have no reason to doubt that the author we have been
considering agreed with Sirach in making the Jewish Law the
text-book of ethics. The wisdom of God was therein embodied
for the instruction of men. The natural result of this exaltation
of a book was the increased importance of the guild of scribes,
and also the greater prominence of meetings for instruction in the
life of the people. Some provision for making the Law known
must have been made comparatively early. Deuteronomy com-
mands that the Levites (though at long intervals) should read the
Law to the peo[)le. This command was not carried out, so far as
we know, before the exile. But in the time ofMalachi we found
an allusion to gatherings in which those who were in earnest in
obeying God talked to each other of the things of religion. The
Chronicler gives an account of a great assembly at which the Law
was read by Ezra and expounded by the Levites. This is in-
deed an imaginative sketch, but it reflected an actual need of the
people. As time went on the need became more pressing. The
ancient language of Israel, in which the Law was written, was
falling more and more into disuse. The Jews of Alexandria and
other Hellenistic cities were learning Greek ; the Jews of Pales-
tine and the eastern provinces were adopting Aramaic. In this
state of affairs new methods of making the Law known were
called for. The result was the development of what is called the
synagogue.

As religion is social in its working, it is very possible that the
beginnings of the synagogue may go back to the time of the ex-
ile. We learn from Ezekiel that the people frequently came
about him to hear his revelations. Such informal gatherings
were not allowed to worship in the strict sense of the word — for
worship, that is, sacrifice, could be offered only at Jerusalem. But
prayer and the study of the Law could not be confined to a single
place. After it was thoroughly understood that the Law was
Israel's rule of life, the Sabbath was improved in reading and
studying this rule. The synagogues were primarily Sabbath
schools. But they also became places of worship, because the
congregation united in prayer before the lesson, and in thanks-
giving after it. An important part of the service was the oral

well agreed in putting the book in the Greek period. See Toy in the Inter-
national Critical Commentary ; Wildeboer in the Ktirzer Handkomnientar^
and Frankenberg in Novvack's Ilandkommentar.

THE GREEK PERIOD 435

exposition or exhortation delivered by one of the more compe-
tent members of the congregation. It does not seem strained to
suppose that tlie books of Jesus ben Sira and Proverbs are the
condensed results of a lifetime of such exhortation.

The importance of the synagogue was increased by the prom-
inence given to city life in this period. In the composite
city each nationality was allowed its own customs and a certain
measure of autonomy. Even in towns where the Jews did not
possess the full franchise they had recognised officers and courts
chosen by themselves, administering the ancestral Law. The
lines between civil and ecclesiastical life were not yet drawn ;
each community being both a religious and a political corpora-
tion. This put a tremendous po\ver of discipline into the hands
of the chief men. The Chronicler assumes that this power was
exercised in the time of Ezra/ for we read of a resolution that
if any one should not come to the public assembly (called to
consider the question of foreign marriages) " his property should
be devoted, and he himself should be separated from the congre-
gation of the captivity." In representing this as the method in
Ezra's time, the author no doubt lets his wish become the father
of his thought. Even for the Chronicler's own time it is doubt-
ful whether a popular assembly at Jerusalem could go so far as
to sequestrate a man's property without the consent of the civil
governor. But any community may withdraw its intercourse
from an obnoxious member, and the extent to which this was
actually done by the Jews is evidenced by the Samaritan schism.

The sum of the matter is this : During the period now under
review the synagogue received its growth and became the centre
of the social as well as of the religious life of the scattered Jew-
ish, communities. It possessed, at any rate, the power of excom-
munication, and in some instances it also inflicted civil pains and
penalties. The importance of such an institution for the later his-
tory of Judaism needs no demonstration. As to dates we can
only say that it seems to be fully developed before the Maccabean
uprising.^

^ Ezra, 10^, where the princes and elders are named as the administrative

body.

2 The whole subject is thoroughly discussed by Schiirer, Gc'sr/i. des Jiid.
Volkes, ^ IT., p. 427 ff. where a considerable literature is cited. The Eng-
lish translation of this work, made from the second German edition, gives

436 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

The guild of scribes was glorified by the Chronicler in the per-
son of Ezra. It is interesting to notice the satisfaction with
which ben Sira dwells upon this vocation when he compares it
with other vocations or trades. In contrast with the husband-
man or artificer, who is compelled to put all his thought upon sor-
did details, he who has leisure for study " will seek out the wis-
dom of the ancients." The object of his study is the Law of
the Most High. He who devotes himself to this object shall
not only serve before great men and appear before princes; he
shall be called for in the public council, and shall be foremost
in the congregation. The most natural interpretation of the
language refers it to the opportunity of the preacher in the syna-
gogue. What gave the order of scribes such prominence in the
community was the teaching function which they exercised reg-
ularly for the benefit of the people.^

The wisdom literature thus far considered, shows for the most
part a complacent tone. The authors have disciplined them-
selves by study, and do not expect too much of life. Their ethi-
cal maxims give them a sufficient rule of life, and their faith in
God and His Law serves as a working hypothesis of the universe.
The world was not all they could wish it, but they were able to
content themselves with tradition and the practical reason. There
is in their utterances no evidence of internal conflict. But not all
their contemporaries could rest within the limits which tradition
and the practical reason fixed. This is startlingly brought home
to us by the book which we call Ecclesiastes, and which calls
itself Koheleth^ — one of the most remarkable monuments of He-
brew literature. The author takes his stand on the tradition
which makes Solomon the most prosperous and the wisest of

substantially the same material, II, 2, p. 44 ff. Cf. also Bousset, Religion
des Judeyitums im Neiitestamentlichen Zeitalier (1903), p. 1491!. The in-
scription already alluded to shows that a Jewish "place of prayer" existed
in the vicinity of Alexandria as early as 222 B.C. Other inscriptions from
the Delta show that Jewish synagogues existed there as early as 150 B.C.
Cf. Wilamowitz in the Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1902, p.
1093, and Willrich, Juden tind Griechen, p. 151 flf.
^ The praise of the scribe is contained in Ecclus. 38 2^—39 ^^
^'The name has given the commentators much trouble. Its connexion
with Kahal {assembly or congregation) is obvious, but more cannot be said
with certainty. The reader may examine Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 298 f.,
which gives all that can be said on the subject.

THE GREEK PERIOD 437

kings. In the person of this king he will set forth the experi-
ence of humanity at its best. What is the result of this experi-
ence ? Only weariness. The text of the book, which is also the
result of all the author's thinking and all his observation is : All
is nothingness ! Absolute nothingness !

To prove this he recounts the experience of Solomon — under
which we see his own experience thinly veiled. The first and
most deadly thing in life is the eternal sameness of things. One
generation follows another, the sun makes its round, the winds
shift from one quarter to the other. But all this is only the
rotation of a wheel, a continual grind without any real progress.
A treadmill weariness lies over everything ; there is nothing of
which one can say that it is new. The former generations have
perished, and their history is forgotten ; so it shall be with those
now on the stage, and with those that follow after, for ever.

But if it be said this is the conclusion of an observer who
stands on the outside and does not get at the heart of things, we
will go into personal experience. Let a Solomon with unbounded
resources taste all the alleged sweets of life. He comes through
it all to the same conclusion — the nothingness of it all, and the
uselessness of. exertion. The pleasures of the table, art and
architecture, great public works, gardens, parks, a magnificent
establishment, a harem of choice beauties — he has tried them all,
and all are equally unable to give real satisfaction. Nor did in-
tellectual pursuits — the supposed delights of study — give any-
thing more : "I gave my mind to know wisdom and knowledge
and madness and folly ; ^ I discovered that this also is a striving
after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he that
increases knowledge increases pain." The reason of this is two-
fold. First, man cannot attain real knowledge. It is God's
plan that all man's striving shall in this regard be fruitless.^ In
the second place, the wise man has no advantage from his wis-
dom ; he lives no longer and he enjoys no more than the fool.
One event happens to all. The wise man cannot even claim the
poor advantage of a posthumous reputation, for all alike are in a
little while forgotten.

^ Things are known by their opposites. Hence he studied folly, so as to
distinguish true wisdom.

2 This is most distinctly expressed in Eccles. 8 '6'"., but compare also i^^
just quoted.

438 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

The common opinion consoled itself with the thought that a
man lives in his posterity. But this again is a delusion. How
often do we see a wise man die and leave behind him a foolish
son. Can there be consolation where there is such a possibility ?
Frequently enough we see a man toiling to gather wealth, deny-
ing himself the comforts of life, in order that his children may
be provided for. But it is in itself an evil that a man should
postpone his enjoyment of what he has earned until it is too late.
All that is certain is that the recurrence of times and seasons will
undo all that has been done.^ The only good, if good we may
call it, is that one should enjoy his little morsel while he may.

Epicureanism is doubtless the logical outcome of this reason-
ing, as is evident when we consider the next point. This is :
The moral order of the world is not discoverable. The preva-
lence of injustice is notorious. Were justice done, the righteous
and wicked would change places. We are reminded of Job's
contention that the wicked are the ones who prosper. The com-
mon opinion piously consoles itself with the thought that God
will surely judge. But this cannot be maintained (our author

holds) rather must we confess that God purposely lets injustice

get the upper hand. His purpose is to show men that they are
no better than the brutes. Who requires that the brutes shall be
ruled with justice, so that the wolf shall be punished for his cru-
elty and the lamb rewarded for his meekness? Just as absurd
would it be to insist that men should be treated on a different
system. They are in the same class with the animals : " All go
to one place ; all are of dust and all return to dust. Who knows
whether the spirit of man ascends, while the spirit of the brute
goes below?"'" The author here touches upon the theory of a
future life only to reject it. His conclusion is that of the pessi-
mist— death is better than life because it delivers one from the
weariness and pain of the struggle for existence.

This pessimism is akin to that with which we are familiar in
modern times. But the author is faithful to his Hebrew training
in that he holds fast to the belief in God. This is perhaps
easier to an oriental, to wliom an absolute monarch is part of the
constitution of things. God is the absolute ruler, and whatever

' This is the meaning of the passage about a time for everything, 3 ^"^.
2 Eccles. 3 "■'"■-'. Verse '^ is evidently anMnterpolation, as is shown by
Siegfried. As to the meaning of the passage there can be no doubt.

THE GREEK PERIOD

439

comes to pass is willed by Him. But what His motive is-, or on
what principles He rules His universe, is beyond man's compre-
hension. The acknowledgment of omnipotence as the leading
divine attribute does not carry with it any recognition of justice
or of love. The old covenant God of Israel has disappeared
from view. We may say that the wider outlook has resulted in
the practical shipwreck of the Jewish faith. The abstract belief
that there is a God remains, but this is nothing in which the
heart can rest.

A volume expressing these views could not find a place among
the sacred books of the Hebrews without modification. And so
we find that the book has been annotated by a disciple of the old
school.^ We may suppose the original author to have attained a
reputation for wisdom, and that one of his pupils was so im-
pressed by the value of his book that he thought to correct its
errors by skilful insertions of his own. These insertions tone
down the strong statements of the original writer or give them a
turn less startling to the pious mind. Had not these additions
been made, the reputation of Solomon would not have saved the
book. With them included it may pass (and doubtless did pass)
for the sage reflections of a penitent roue, such as Solomon was
in popular tradition. Such a man might debate with himself on
the problems of life, leaning now to one theory now to another,
and as the book concludes with a strong exhortation to fear God
and keep His commandments, its end was allowed to justify its
eccentric means.

In the variety of voices which it lets us hear, the book of Ec-
clesiastes is almost a type of the period we have been discussing.
The characteristic of the period is the confusion in the minds of
men caused by the introduction of a new civilisation. We have
seen that in some cases the result was a stouter affirmation of the
old system. The insidious approaches of Hellenism caused the
narrower Jews to shut themselves more closely within their ex-
clusive system. Others responded to Gentile aggression by re-
viving the Messianic hope. But to the more reflective minds
Greek thought started problems to which they were able to find

^ It is impossible to suppose that the contradictory assertions found in our
present book of Ecclesiastes are written by the same man. The true state
of the case is brought out by Siegfried's commentary, which distinguishes the
documents by the use of different type. The result is illuminating.

440 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

no adequate answer. Their speculative belief was indeed left
untouched. It was not with them a question of many gods in
place of the One. But what good did a philosophic theory of
the oneness of God accomplish if the old feeling of Yahweh's
covenant relation to Israel was gone? In multitudes of Jewish
minds the result of this conflict must have been this practical
scepticism. An observer of the course of history at this time
might have anticipated the fading out of vital Jewish religion.
Fortunately for the future of that religion, and for Christianity as
well, the process was disturbed by violent political events. By
these the contradictions which were beginning to sink out of
sight were again forced into prominence, and an entirely new
direction was given to the history of Judaism.

CHAPTER XIX

A NEW HEROIC AGE

Antiochus III, called the Great, obtained possession of Pales-
tine by the battle of Paneas/ B.C. 198. In the years that fol-
lowed he extended his empire over the other dependencies of
Egypt and over the greater part of Asia Minor. These successes
made him dream of reconquering the territory that had belonged
to Alexander. But when he went so far as to invade Europe, he
came into conflict with the Romans. This rising power inflicted
a crushing defeat upon him in the year 190 b.c.^ In conse-
quence he was obliged to pay an enormous indemnity and to
resign the greater part of his conquests. Syria was not directly
affected. But the kingdom of the Seleucids was so weakened
that its eastern provinces (always restive) found it easy to revolt.
The kings of this line were from this time on almost constantly
at war, while their need of money became chronic — both on
account of these wars and because of the sums paid to the
Romans. How their subjects were oppressed by the unceasing
levies of taxes may be imagined. And in addition to the taxes
the monarchs were compelled to resort to other devices. A
favorite expedient was the plunder of some prominent temple.
It was in an exploit of this kind that Antiochus the Great met
his death.^

1 The town which still bears the name Banias is at the extreme northern
end of Palestine, at the foot of Hermon. The large fountain which made
the place sacred is one of the sources of the Jordan. On the site, see G. A.
Smith, Historical Geography, ^ p. 473 flf., Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiid.
Volkes,^ II, p. 158 ff. The name in New Testament times was Cesarea
Philippi.

2 On the battle of Magnesia, cf. Mommsen, Romische Geschichte^, I, p. 748
(English translation, II, p. 271 f.).

' According to Mommsen. ibid, I, p. 750. There seems to be some con-
fusion between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV. Both are said to have met
their death in plundering a temple in Elymais. Cf. Polybius, XXXI, ii,
and Josephus Ant., XII, 9, i.

441

442 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Seleucus IV, who next came to the throne, does not especially
concern this history. He was succeeded by his brother Antio-
chus IV (Epiphanes) in the year 175 b.c/ This monarch is
described as one of those irresponsible and erratic characters
who are not infrequently developed by the possession of power,
and whose vagaries amuse, except when they distress, their sub-
jects.^ So far as our history is concerned, his personal character
is not much in evidence. Almost any king of his line might
have acted as he did in the same circumstances. A certain levity
in his treatment of a grave problem distinguished him from his
predecessors — this is all that we can say. Whether he acted
on the conviction attributed to the philosopher by a modern
historian, that all religions are equally false, we do not know.
He at any rate forgot that to the statesman all are equally
useful.

It was to be expected that the old quarrel between Egypt and
Syria would break out again. Antiochus III had given his
daughter Cleopatra in marriage to Ptolemy V (Epiphanes) and
the Egyptians claimed that she was to receive Palestine as her
dowry. The claim was resisted by Antiochus IV and war broke
out in 173 B.C. Antiochus gained the advantage, invaded Egypt,
and even besieged iVlexandria.^ The king was called away by
affairs of importance and did not obtain possession of the city.
He went, however, to Jerusalem, where disorders had broken out.
His real object was to raise money, and he had no scruples
which would prevent his plundering the Temple of Yahweh, as
he and his fathers had plundered other sanctuaries. We may
suppose he made the disorders in the city an excuse for what he
had already determined to do.

^ On the chronology of the Seleucid period, cf. E. Meyer, Forschungen
zur alien Geschichte, II, p. 460 f. ; the dates are carefully reckoned by
Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes^, T, pp. 165-179.

2 See the description of Antiochus quoted from Polybius by Schiirer,^ I,
p. 191 f. (English Transl., I, p. 199 f.).

^ As to the question between the parties, it is sometimes held that the
revenues of the district were alone in dispute. But possession and revenue
usually g(j together, and the endeavour to separate them here seems to arise
from a desire to harmonise Josephus's story of Joseph the taxgatherer {Ant.,
XII, 4) with the fact of Syrian supremacy in Palestine. But the story
reproduced by Josephus is a romance of Samaritan origin; cf. Willrich,
Jiiden und Griechen, p. 99.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 443

The disorders in Jerusalem are easily explained. The old
party divisions had become acute in the Syrian and Egyptian
rivalry. The stricter party, which was opposed to the encroach-
ments of Greek culture because it brought Greek religion — this
party was apparently favourable to the Egyptian as compared
with the Syrian rule. We may suppose that the Egyptians gave
them a larger measure of liberty. The laxer party, who were al-
ready impressed by Greek culture, knew of Antiochus's desire to
show himself the apostle of Hellenism and to bring his Jewish
subjects out of their exclusiveness. It was only human nature to
use this desire of his to further their own ambitions. The polit-
ical head of the community was the high-priest — at this time
Onias, a champion of the old order. Soon after his accession
one Jason is said to have promised the king that if he (Jason)
were made high-priest he would civilise the people and would also
pay a larger tribute. Both promises appealed to the king and
Jason was put in place of Onias. The new officer carried out
his promise, first by erecting a gymnasium in which the people
exercised after the Greek fashion. The new diversion became
popular. Many even of the priests took their place in the arena.
Some of the people even went so far as to obliterate their circum-
cision by a surgical operation, that they might in all things be-
come Greeks.^ What is meant by Jason's registering the inhabi-
tants of Jerusalem among the citizens of Antioch is not altogether
clear. ^

All this was, of course, an abomination to the stricter party,
and they were not likely to confine themselves to merely verbal
expression of their views. The Hellenising party were equally
unscrupulous in repelling force with force. Onias was obliged to
flee the city and his adherents sufl"ered with him. Egypt was
the natural refuge for those who were compelled to emigrate, and
the Jewish colony at Alexandria received large accessions in this
period.

^ The nakedness of the gymnasts was in itself an offence to strict Jewish
feeling ; and it exposed the tribal mark to ridicule. A sign of the increas-
ing Hellenisation of the Jews is the number of Greek names that now
appear in the history. The Jason mentioned above had changed his name
from Joshua (or Jesus in our Greek texts).

22 Mace." 4^; cf. Schurer, Geschichte des Jiid. Volkes, "^ II, p. 113, where
evidence is given that the inhabitants of Ptolemais called themselves Anti.
ochians.

444 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

To promise an increase of tribute is so easy a way of getting
an office that we are not surprised to find it tried again. One
Menelaus displaced Jason by the same method which Jason had
used against Onias. It seems certain that Menelaus was not of
the high-priestly family. Jason, on the other hand, is said to
have been a brother of the Onias whom he displaced. One was
not any more willing to give up the dearly bought office than
the other had been.^ After Menelaus had taken possession, and
while Antiochus was busy in Egypt, Jason with a band of a
thousand bravoes seized Jerusalem and shut Menelaus up in the
citadel.^

It was on account of these tumults that Antiochus came to Je-
rusalem. His real object was attained in that he had a pretext
for plundering the Temple of its treasures, including its costly
furniture.'^ The energetic protests of the people produced only a
carnival of bloodshed.

This was only the prelude. Two years later Antiochus again
invaded Egypt. But in the interval the Romans had taken cog-
nisance of the state of affairs. The Senate had passed a decree
for the defence of Egypt, and Gaius Popillius Laenas was ap-
pointed (with two others) to carry the decree to Egypt. The
name of the Romans was a power in the East, and a son of
Antiochus the Great had every reason to fear it. The uncivil
but unmistakable injunction of Popillius was obeyed, and An-
tiochus withdrew from Egypt — in no pleasant frame of mind we
may suppose. Whether he personally appeared at Jerusalem at
this time may be doubted. But his animus against the Jews soon
appeared. He resolved that the Temple should be made a place
of Greek worship. A small Greek altar was erected on the altar
of burnt-offering. The god to whom sacrifice was to be offered
is apparently Zeus, of whom Antiochus supposed himself to be
an incarnation. Divine honours had been claimed by the earlier

^ I follow the tradition as given by 2 Maccabees and Josephus. But the
reader must bear in mind that in this time of strife it is difficult to discover
the actual course of events. Willrich {Jnden iind Griechen, p. 119) thinks
that Jason was not high-priest at all but that Menelaus succeeded directly to
Onias.

'^ 2 Mace. 5^' .

^ I Mace. 1 21-2*, The author mentions the golden incense altar, the can-
delabrum, the shewbread table, the censers, bowls and saucers, the curtain,
the garlands and the decorations on the front of the Temple.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 445

members of the Seleucid line in imitation of Alexander. ^ What
was new in Antiochus's measures was the force brought to bear
upon the recalcitrant.

Upon the new altar swine were sacrificed and the priests were
obhged to eat of the sacrificial flesh. All inhabitants of Jerusa-
lem were to conform to the new rites on pain of death. To pre-
vent a revolt, the city walls were razed and a strong Syrian gar-
rison was placed in the citadel. ' To insure thorough work, a
travelling commission was sent to all the towns of Judea in order
to compel conformity to the new ordinances. Possession of
books of the Law and observance of the Sabbath were punished
with death. Mothers were executed for having circumcised their
children. Greek altars were erected everywhere, and the heads
of families were called upon to worship at them under penalty of
death.

The measures adopted show that the king and his counsellors
did not understand the Hebrew religion. No others of his sub-
jects refused to adopt (at least outwardly) the cultus commanded
by the king. The exclusiveness of the Hebrew faith was to the
Greek mind of the day incomprehensible. It was interpreted as
sheer obstinacy or as hatred of the human race. A Greek author
recounts that Antiochus penetrated to the Most Holy chamber of
the Temple ; that there he found a statue of a long-bearded man
riding upon an ass; that he supposed this statue to represent
Moses who founded Jerusalem and gathered the people into it,
and who gave them their misanthropic and vicious laws. The
same author goes on to tell how the king, to show his hatred of
such inhumanity, resolved to eradicate such customs ; he there-
fore sprinkled the statue and the great altar with the blood of
swine slain in sacrifice, sprinkled the sacred books with broth
of swine's flesh, compelled priests and other Jews to eat of
these sacrifices, and extinguished the ever-burning lamp of the

^ Cheyne {Encyclop. Biblica, I, col. 23) supposes that a statue of Zeus
was also erected in the Temple. But nothing is said of this in the Jewish
account either of the desecration or of the rededication. On Antiochus' de-
votion to Zeus Olympics, see Nestle, Alarginalien, p. 42, and in the Zeit-
schr. fiir die Alttest. Wissensch., IV, p. 248.

2 Winckler ingeniously supposes that the city was dedicated to Epiphanes
and that it received the name Epiphaneia. For this, however, we have no
historical evidence ; see Schrader, Keilinschriften und altes Testament, ^
p. 303-

446 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Temple. ^ This account is an endeavour to defend the measures
of Antiochus. It shows first the inability of the Greek mind to
comprehend the imageless worship of the Jews. They were sure
that the ancient fane must have some material object of worship,
and the more grotesque they could make this, the better it would
account for the Jews' denial of its existence. For the worship-
pers of such an idol to refuse to bow to the Olympian Zeus
would be obstinacy indeed. On this theory the measures of
Antiochus were justified — how else could the resistance of the
barbarians to a beneficent reform be broken down ?

From the point of view of the author of the persecution the
measures taken were well chosen. These measures thoroughly
polluted priests and people — that is, made them unfit for the
service of Yahweh. If the divine choice of place could be nul-
lified by human action, this was the way to nullify it. The
altar erected in the sacred court was indeed a desolating abomi-
nation. ^ It drove Yahweh away and desecrated (deconsecrated)
the place of His dwelling.

Experience shows that the sacredness of an ancient site cannot
thus be destroyed. People who have a living faith in their God
know that His will cannot permanently be thwarted by human
action. But great distress of mind must have been caused (in
the case before iis) to many faithful Avorshippers of Yahweh.
Some of these were ready to acknowledge that the desecration
was an accomplished fact. They argued that the desecration
itself showed that Yahweh had deserted His land and Temple, as
He had done once before. What could the faithful do except
flee from a land thus accursed? The high-priest Oniashad been
compelled to leave the country. He was the sole repository of
sanctity and became the rallying point for exiled believers. In
these circumstances it was easy for him to feel that he had the
responsibility of providing a new centre of worship for his
countrymen. We may therefore with some probalnlity attribute
to him the erection of a new Jewish Temple at Leontopolis in
Egypt. Later Judaism was inclined to discredit this sanctuary

^ Diodorus Siculus, Book xxxiv, quoted by Willrich, Juden und Griechen,
p. 62.

'^This curious phrase (Dan. 11^', 12", t Mace. 1 •^^) is a play upon the
name Lord 0/ Heaven; see the note of Nestle, Zeitschr. f. d. Alttest. Wis-
sensc/i., IV, p. 248.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 447

and so its origin and history are veiled in obscurity.^ But of
Onias's good faith in the matter we need have no doubt. The
temple and its services were probably modelled after the one at
Jerusalem ; it was surrounded with a heavy wall ; it had a con-
siderable staff of ministers. We know that it was frequented by
the Jews for over two hundred years and that it accumulated a
considerable treasure.^ After the recovery and rededication of
the Jerusalem sanctuary, an awkward situation arose for the de-
votees of the one in Egypt. But as they encouraged themselves
by a prophecy attributed to Isaiah, they may have cherished the
broader anticipations which are expressed in some other pro-
phetic passages.^ If Malachi could say that a pure offering is
brought to Yahweh even on heathen altars, it could hardly be
wrong to worship at a sanctuary built for His worship, though
outside of Jerusalem. But this faint attempt at a larger com-
l)rehension had no appreciable effect on later thought.

In Judea the situation was as desperate as can well be im-
agined. The walls were razed, the houses were burned, those in-
habitants who showed signs of adhering to the ancestral religion
were i)ut to death. The new citadel was occupied by a garrison
strong enough to quell any attempt at opposition. All that
seemed left to the little company of faithful Jews was the oppor-
tunity to die for their faith. This opportunity many of them em-
braced with fervour. But not all were content with passive resist-

' Josephus has several references to this temple and it is impossible to ac-
cept them all as historical. In Atit., XIII, 3, he takes occasion to discredit if
by saying that it was built in a place full of animals sacred to the Egyp-
tians (and therefore unclean to the Jews) ; and also that it was built upon
the foundation of an old Egyptian temple. In one place {Jezvish War, I, i)
this author ascribes the temple to Onias III (the one displaced by Jason),
in another to an alleged Onias IV, son of Onias III. I have assumed that
the former was correct, as the temple would most probably be projected
during the time when the Jerusalem Temple was desecrated. Cf. Bathgen
in Zeitschr. f. d. Alttest. IVissensch., VI, p. 277 fif.; Willrich, Juden und
Griechen, p. 126 ff.

2 On the site, cf. Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes,^ III, p. 97
If the builder of this temple were Onias III, the account of the high-priest's
murder in 2 Mace. 4 ^^-^^ is incorrect. In fact, the account is full of improba-
bilities, as is shown by Willrich and Bathgen in the discussions cited above.

^Isaiah 19 ^^f is undoubtedly a late insertion in the text; but I cannot
persuade myself that it was written on purpose to justify the Onias temple ;
cf. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, p. 99 fif.

448 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ance. One day the king's commissioners came to Modein, a
small place located in the edge of the hills just above Lydda.^
The chief man of the village was Mattathias, a priest, a man ad-
vanced in years, and the father of five sons, all of whom had grown
to manhood. Summoned by the royal officers to take the lead
in the sacrifice, he refused ; and when one of his neighbours con-
sented to set the example, his righteous indignation broke out
and he hewed the renegade upon the altar before which he stood.
The outburst was directed against the unfaithful Jew, but when
the overt act was committed it would be folly to pause or attempt
a compromise. Mattathias, therefore, with his sons and kinsmen
fell upon the Syrians and cut them to pieces. Thus was the
standard of revolt definitely raised.

As we have had occasion to note more than once in the course
of our history, Palestine is a country that offers facilities for
guerilla warfare. The little band of rebels under Mattathias had
no difficulty in finding temporary safety in the hills of Judea.
Here they were joined by fugitives from other towns. A band
of such fugitives was already wandering in the region. These,
however, were so faithful to the Law that when attacked by the
soldiers on the Sabbath they would not violate the sacred day by
making resistance. They were therefore cut down to the last
man, or rather to the last child, for women and children were
with them. The report of what had taken place made Matta-
thias and his band reflect upon the relation of the Law to their
necessity, and they resolved that they would not follow this unfor-
tunate example ; if attacked on the Sabbath they would defend
themselves, though they would not take the offensive on that day.
The band obtained some successes, which gave them a reputa-
n, and they were strengthened by the Chasidim — "every
one who gave himself freely to the Law." The party thus
named ^ is mentioned at a later period. It was composed of
men who made the strict observance of the Law their first con-
cern, and who, so long as this observance was not made impracti-

^ On the site, cf. Schiirer, Gesch. des Jiidischen Volkes,^ I, p. 201 f.; G.
A. Smith, Historical Geography,"^ p. 212. That Mattathias was a priest is
doubted by some.

' I Mace. 2 *2; our version gives the name in the form Assideans. But the
Hebrew form Chasidim meets us in the Psalms; cf. Cheyne, Origin and
Religions Contents of the Psalter, p. 56.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 449

cable, were opposed to political action of any kind. They were
driven to fight in the present exigency just because the observance
of the Law was made impracticable. As soon as any civil power
was found to allow them the exercise of their religion they ceased
fighting. For the time being they added strength to the little
band of rebels.

Strength comes by action and the outlaws soon became
aggressive. They visited the towns which had been forcibly
Hellenised, destroyed the heathen altars, punished the renegades,
compelled the circumcision of children whose parents had been
forced by the Syrians to leave them uncircumcised. In all
this their quarrel was primarily with the unfaithful Jews, and,
throughout, the enmity of the two Jewish parties for each other
furnished the motive for the struggle. Mattathias, already an
old man, did not long live to share the dangers of the contest.
As he felt his end approaching he exhorted his followers to con-
tinued zeal for the Law. He advised that his son Simon be the
leader because of his sound judgment, but that Judas ^ be the
military chieftain because of his approved valour. It was evident
that for the moment the heavier work fell upon Judas.

The Syrian government had no reason to suppose that the
troublesome band was more than an ordinary troop of robbers.
The officer in command in the district was one Apollonius.'''
Gathering what force was available, he marched out, intending to
put an end to the insurrection. But Judas fell upon him, killed
him and a large part of his soldiers and put the rest to flight.
The booty of weapons was very welcome to the ill-armed Jews.
Judas's share was the sword of Apollonius, which he carried from
this time till his death.

The engagement was in itself of no great importance. But it
encouraged the Jews, and they soon had opportunity to show
that they were made of no common stuff. Seron, general of the
army, called out all the forces of the province and marched into
Judea. A pitched battle was fought on the ground where Israel

^ Called the Maccabee, from whom the whole party receives the name
Maccabeans. The origin and meaning of the name are obscure— the HatJi-
mer and the Extinguisher both have their advocates.

2 Perhaps the tax-gatherer who had once deceived and plundered the
Jerusalemites, I Mace, i^^, 2 Mace. 5 2*. His headquarters were in Samaria,
I Mace. 3^".

450 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

had defeated its enemies in the old days,' and history repeated
itself. The Syrians are said to have had eight hundred men
slain. Things were evidently getting serious. Antiochus was
about marching to the East, where also there was a serious out-
break and so could not meet the crisis in person, but he left
orders with his prime minister, Lysias, to make thorough work
in Judea.

The force at Lysias' s disposal is said to have been forty thou-
sand men. They marched down the coast under the command
of three generals — Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias. When they
encamped at Emmaus in the edge of the hill country,^ they were
joined by a large number of slave dealers who expected to buy
the captives which should be taken by the soldiers. Judas and
his followers assembled at Mizpah, which had served for a refuge
in earlier times of distress.^ Here they fasted in sackcloth and
ashes, wept, and implored the help of Yahweh. Before heaven
they spread out the copies of the Law which the enemies had
defiled by painting idolatrous symbols upon them ; they pointed
to the priestly garments which could no longer be used, and the
Nazirites who could not complete their vows while the Temple
was desecrated. Then the troops were reviewed in regular mili-
tary order, and everything was got ready for the battle which
was expected the next day. Just then the spies brought news
that one of the generals, Gorgias, was marching with a flying
column to a night attack. Judas took a quick resolve, and
turned the tables on the enemy. With three thousand men he
marched to the plain and attacked the main army, unsuspicious
in its tents. The surprise was complete. The encampment was
thrown into confusion, and after a brief resistance fled. Judas
kept his men well in hand, so as to confront the detachment
which had marched into the hills. These troops having searched
the hills without result, came back weary and footsore only to
find their own camp in possession of the enemy. In their dis-
may they scarcely made a stand before the impetuous attack of
Judas, and their flight made his victory complete. An enor-
mous booty was taken by the Jews, and the Syrian slain are
by the Jewish writer reckoned at three thousand.

' At Beth-horon, i Mace. 3 ^^ ; cf. Josh. 10 ^^^

2 On the location, see Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiid. Volkes,^ II, p. 183.

^ In the (lays of Jeremiah, Jer. 40.

A NEW HEROIC AGE

451

Thoroughly alarmed, Lysias now ordered out all the troops at
his command and marched with them in person. The previous
attempts had shown that the approach from the maritime plain
to Judea gave the Jews an advantage, because the passes were
easily defended by an inferior force. This time, therefore, a
different route was chosen. The southern part of the hill coun-
try— the traditional territory of Judah — was now in the hands of
the Edomites. They could be depended upon to assist the king's
army against their hereditary enemies, the Jews. Lysias there-
fore marched down the plain till he reached this Edomite terri-
tory. Here he ascended the hills and turned northward toward
Jerusalem. Advancing beyond Hebron the army camped at
Beth-zur, an old stronghold of Judah. ^ Here Judas, whose forces
had grown to ten thousand men, attacked them and inflicted
such losses that Lysias thought it imprudent to continue the
campaign. He therefore retired to Antioch to enlist more mer-
cenaries, leaving Judas temporarily in possession of the district.
Li the three years which had elapsed since the profanation of the
Temple the Jews had been uniformly successful, and nothing was
now in the way of their asserting their title to Jerusalem. The
citadel was indeed too strong for them to storm ; but they were
able to hold it in check, and to take possession of city and
Temple.

We must now pause a moment in the narrative, to consider an
interesting literary monument of just this period. This is the
book of Daniel, which we see at once to be different in form
from the prophetical books with which (in our version though
not in the Hebrew) it is classed. It is, in fact, one of the books
which we call apocalypses, of which we have one in each part of
our Bible. We know also of others which have not been re-
ceived into the Canon of Scripture. In these books the author
writes under the name of some hero of antiquity. He transports
himself in imagination to the alleged writer's time, and makes
him see in vision that which is to come to pass. These visions
simply clothe history in the form of prediction till they reach
the time of the real author. They then change their tone and

^ 2 Chron. 11^, where, ho'A'ever, the Chronicler transfers the state of
things in his own day to the time of Rehoboam. The account in i Macca-
bees assumes that the territory south of Beth-zur was Edomite (Idumean),

452 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

set forth the expectation of divine interference in the history of
the world — for these compositions look for the consummation of
all things in the immediate future.

The best i)roof of this characterisation is the example given by
the book of Daniel itself. The key to the book is the detailed
description which fills its last three chapters. Here we have a
vision in which Daniel receives from an angel an account of what
is to come to pass. The starting-point is the third year of Cyrus,
which means his third year as King of Babylon.^ The author
announces that after Cyrus three kings of Persia shall arise, after
which shall come a mighty king — evidently Alexander the Great,
The kingdom, however, will not pass to his heirs but will be
divided into four. The fortunes of two of these divisions (Syria
and Egypt) are then taken up. The author knows of the al-
liance cemented by the marriage of Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy
Philadelphus, to Antiochus Theos. He also knows of the ill-suc-
cess wliich followed this marriage and of the invasion of Syria by
the next Ptolemy. Ten verses are given to the reign of Antiochus
the Great, whose career made a deei) impression in the East.^
His successor, SeleucusPhilopator, is dismissed with a single verse
and then Antiochus Epiphanes comes into view. This monarch's
seizure of the throne is alluded to and his two campaigns against
Egypt are described. He is said to be checked by ships of Chit-
tim, by which the Romans are intended. The author then goes
on :

" And he shall be angry against the holy covenant and
shall do his will and shall have regard to those who for-
sake the holy covenant. And forces sent by him shall pre-
vail and shall defile the sanctuary, and they shall abolish the
daily sacrifice and set up the Desolating Abomination. And
he will seduce by flattery those who bring guilt upon the cov-
enant people ; but a company that know^ their God shall be
strong and shall act ; and the instructors of the people shall
give understanding to many ; and they shall fall by sw^ord
and by fire, by captivity and by plunder for some days. And

^ Dan. lo '. The unfortunate division into chapters (and paragraphs in
the Hebrew) makes 1 1 ^ give another date. But the text is there corrupt ;
cf. Bevan's commentary (1892).

^ Dan. 1 1 '"-'•'. In v. '* we have an indication that in the time of Antiochus
the Great a party in Jerusalem attempted to set up the Messianic kingdom
by force of arms.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 453

when these are falling they shall be helped a little; and many
shall attach themselves to them treacherously. And some of
the instructors shall fall, in order to test them and to cleanse
them and to make them white until the time of the end." ^

This passage reveals to us the iuner thought of theChasidim in
the midst of the Maccabean movement. To them the desecration
of the Temple was the first act in the great drama of the end.
The birth-pangs of the Messianic age had already set in. But the
main scenes of the drama were not to be displays of human
power. The Maccabean uprising was regarded as only a trifling
help ; those who took part in it did not all belong to the strictest
party and were counted as hypocrites. The believer's consola-
tion was the thought tliat the death of the scribes was only a
part of the purifying work which must go on a little longer.

What the faithful were looking for was a signal and direct in-
tervention of God Himself. This seemed called for by the un-
paralleled wickedness of Antiochus. With a levity that the
Hebrew mind could not comprehend, this king had abandoned
the household god of the Seleucids and devoted himself to an-
other and foreign divinity — nay, he even claimed divine honours
for himself. "^ This would seem to fill the cup of his iniquities up
to the brim.

On this ground we have the prediction which foUow^s. In
the immediate future the new era will dawn. Antiochus is to
make one more invasion of Egypt and this country will come
completely into his power. He will then return to Palestine
and camp '' between the sea and the mountains of holy beauty "
— that is, in the Philistine plain, where his armies had so often
been seen. But here he will meet complete destruction.

The conflict of the nations will be accompanied by a conflict
between the heavenly powers. Michael, the patron angel of
Israel, will defend the cause of truth. Great trouble may be
expected to accompany these celestial conflicts, but at the end
the true Israel — every one found written in the book of the
divine approval — will be delivered. Then will come a resur-

iDan. II ^'o-^^

2 This seems to be the plain meaning of ii ^^ — " he shall magnify himself
above every god " Nestle points out that in the coins of Antiochus, Apollo
(up to that time the patron deity of the Seleucids) gives place to Zeus
Olympios.

454 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

rection of those who sleep ; the martyrs for the truth who were
not permitted to see the reward of their steadfastness will be
raised to an eternal life. Those sinners and oppressors who were
not punished for their misdeeds will be raised, in order to be con-
demned to a life of shame and misery. The teachers of the Law^
will then shine like the brightness of the firmament. All this
will take place three years and a half after the desecration of
the Temple by the foreign altar — therefore in the immediate
future of the writer.^

1 have given this vision at some length because it furnishes
the key to the rest of the book. For the other visions present
us with the same theory of history. The succession of worldly
monarchies, whether represented by the image seen by Nebuchad-
rezzar, or by the four beasts, or by only the ram and he-goat,
culminates in the Greek empire, of which Antiochus is the
last and most ungodly representative. He is the little horn
which becomes great, exalts itself against the host of heaven,
and even attacks the Most High.^ But in each case we are
shown that when at the height of his power he is to be over-
thrown— ''without hands shall he be broken" — that is, by
direct divine intervention. More dramatically his fate is shown
in another passage where the judgment-seat is occupied by the
Ancient of Days, the books are brought and the assizes are
held.' For his blasphemies the accused is found guilty, his
empire is destroyed, and the supremacy is given to the people of
the Most High.

It is interesting to note how the author came to fix upon three
years and a half as the duration of the persecution. His whole
calculation is set before us by himself. The books of the
prophets were to him the repositories of heavenly secrets. In
them he read that the captivity was to last seventy years. But
he was only too certain that this prediction had not been liter-
ally fulfilled. Israel was still scattered among the nations; the

^ The period of three years and a half seems clearly defined in 12 ^. The
later data (1290 and 1335 days, 12 ^^ ^■) are additions to the text. The 1 150
days (2300 evenings and mornings) of 8 ^^ indicate that the earlier expecta-
tion differed somewhat from the later.

2 Dan. 8 ^^ Blasphemies against the God of Heaven are intended ; cf.
Moore in the Journal of Biblical Literature, XV (i8g6), p. 193 fT.

Jbid., 7^-^*. That the one like a man in this passage does not mean an
individual Messiah seems certain.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 455

promised glory of Jerusalem had not appeared, but something
far different. By a course of reasoning which is not difficult
for us to follow, he multiplied the original seventy by seven —
perhaps on the basis of what he supposed to be indications of
Scripture/ The seventy weeks of years thus given are divided
into three periods. First comes a week of weeks, or jubilee
period of forty-nine years, lasting from the fall of Jerusalem to
the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, or, more probably, to the
installation of Joshua as high-priest. From this point the second
main period of sixty-two weeks extends to what we may call the
beginning of the end. The end itself covers the last seven years,
which begin with the deposition of Onias. This period is di-
vided into two halves — the first from the deposition of Onias,
down to the desecration of the Temple by the heathen altar.
The second half is the period of intensest persecution; when it
has expired the promises are to be fulfilled.^

The unavoidable conclusion is that the author wrote during
this period of intensest persecution and not long before the re-
dedication of the Temple. We are now able to understand the
stories of the first half of the book. That these stories have some
historical or traditional basis is probable. But as they now stand
they have been rewritten with the purpose of stimulating faith and
steadfastness among those who were enduring the Antiochean
persecution. Nebuchadrezzar or Belshazzar or Darius, each of
these kings as he appears in the book, is simply the projection
of Antiochus Epiphanes into an earlier time. Daniel in the
king's palace refusing to eat the king's dainties because they are
unclean is an example of what every Jew should do when tempted
by threat or invitation to eat meat sacrificed to idols. The Ne-
buchadrezzar of the story erected a golden idol' to which all people
must render worship. The three young Jews gave a fine example
of fidelity to conscience when they refused. So did Daniel when

^ Bevan points to Lev. 26^-'^^' where Israel is threatened with a seven-
fold punishment, and to v. ^^ *■•' where it is said the land shall keep her sab-
baths. Combining these, the author supposed seventy sabbatical years (or
periods) to be intended. See also 2 Chron. 36^^

^ It is not surprising that the author's chronology is far from exact ; see
Schurer, Gesch. des Jiid. Volkes, ^ III., p.i8g f.

^ So did Antiochus, as is pointed out by Nestle, Mcirginalien, p. 35 f. We
have no evidence that the real Nebuchadrezzar ever exercised compulsion in
the matter of religion.

456 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Darius forbade the exercise of his religion. The lesson of the stories
is steadfastness under jjersecution.

And another lesson of these stories is the mutability of hu-
man affairs. The mightiest monarchs and the greatest empires
are in the hands of God. He is able to overthrow them and to
punish their iniquities. In one chapter we have Nebuchadrez-
zar, the ruler of the world, smitten with a brutish madness, and
on his recovery acknowledging the unique power of the God of
Heaven. ^ In another, Belshazzar when desecrating the sacred
vessels by his orgies is suddenly hurled to destruction. The
great dream which Daniel alone is able to expound shows how
the kingdoms have succeeded one to the other, to give place at
last to the rule of the people of the Most High. And in all this
it is not human might or human wisdom that works. It is
God who by His direct interposition pulls down one and sets up
another, and compels the heathen rulers to acknowledge His
power. This is the author's expectation for the future — not the
courage of the Maccabees nor the revolt of the whole people will
effect any substantial improvement. Until God intervenes, en-
durance is the best thing for the believer.

This programme of the Chasidim shows more distinctly than
anything else the division in feeling among the people. The
Maccabean party were ready to fight; the Chasidim would fight
under strong provocation, but they had little confidence in the
arm of flesh. One question must have given them trouble : Why
had not God intervened before this? If God is really the unique
and all-powerful ruler of the universe it is strange that He should
allow such a state of things as we see in the universe about us —
idolatry, crime, oppression. The problem is the old one con-
sidered by the book of Job and also by Ecclesiastes. The author
of Job thought it insoluble. All that he affirms is that the Ruler
of the universe has many great and varied interests in His charge,
and that we can trust Him to manage them wisely, though He does
not do it in the interest of what we call justice. The author of
Ecclesiastes also finds the problem insoluble. In his view the

^ Daniel, 4. The vagaries of Epiphanes probably gave rise to a rumour of
his insanity. The description of the madness seems to go back to the
strange Babylonian figure of Ea-bani. See the myth translated by Jensen
in the Keilinschr. Bibliothek, VI, p. 12 (Pinches, in the Proceedings of the
Society of Bib. Arch., gives the name in the form Ea-du).

A NEW HEROIC AGE 457

divine government makes no difference between man and ani-
mals. The piety of the Chasidim forbade them to adopt such
an answer. Their sohition is made known by some indications
in the book of Daniel. Briefly, we may say that the blame for
the present condition of things is laid upon the angels.

We saw in the time of the rebuilding of the Temple how the
angels came into view as the organs of revelation and also as ad-
ministrators of the divine government. Zechariah and his con-
temporaries conceived the universe to be organised on the plan
of the Persian monarchy. The various provinces were under the
government of angelic satraps, who had a considerable measure
of autonomy. Angels were not unknown to the earlier Hebra-
ism. The angel of Yahweh was the bearer of messages to the
heroes of old.^ But he had only a temporary commission and
was reabsorbed in the divine essence or unmasked himself as
Yahweh in person. But when the greatness of the world became
better known, and when the thought of the people elevated Yah-
weh above all other beings, then His train of attendants became
more important. In the large and loosely conglomerated king-
dom of Syria it was easy for the governor of a province to disre-
gard or evade commands of the supreme monarch. It was easy
to lay upon these subordinates the blame for injustice and oppres-
sion. The viceroys were moved by their own desires or pas-
sions ; they might even go so far as to make war upon each other
in disregard of the king's peace.

It was not difficult to transfer this state of things to the world
at large. The angelic viceroys might have selfish ends and pur-
sue them for a time in disregard of the Sovereign's wishes. The
book of Daniel assumes that this is the case. Gabriel is com-
missioned to bring a revelation to Daniel. The angel who pre-
sides over the destinies of Persia does not wish to have Daniel
favoured in this way and forcibly restrains him. Michael, the
viceroy of the Jewish people, comes to Gabriel's help so that he
is able to deliver his message (though the delay amounts to
three weeks), and after executing the commission he expects to
encounter again the angel of Persia and the angel of Greece.

It is plain that if these angel viceroys are so bold as to oppose
Gabriel on an errand to which he is directly commanded by

1 The instances of Gideon and Manoah (Judg. 6 ^\ 13 2) will occur to
everyone.

458 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

God, they will not scruple to encourage their human clients to
all sorts of violence against Israel. On the theory that they do
so encourage them, the present condition of the world can be
explained — though at the expense of the divine efficiency. The
believer might be supposed to find small comfort in the thought
that the heavenly rule is at loose ends like the Seleucid adminis-
tration. But there is always in reserve the thought that this is
only a temporary arrangement. The patience of Yahweh bears
with misrule for the present age. Just ahead is another period
of the world's history — the heavenly kingdom is already prepared
in heaven.^ Yahweh will shortly set it up upon the earth, will
punish the unruly satraps, and will give His own people power
over their enemies. It is plain that we have here not only en-
couragement for the time of persecution but the germ of doctrines
which were more fully developed a little later. ^

Because of the encouragement which it gave in the time of
persecution, and perhaps because a partial fulfilment of its hopes
seemed to come soon after its publication, the book of Daniel at-
tained currency and credit at once. Because of the theory of his-
tory which it formulates, it has been one of the most influential
books ever written. In every time of persecution its assertion that
the world power now triumphant must soon give way to a better
state of things, has appealed to the sufferers. Its expectation that
the kingdom of God will shortly appear, has been renewed at
every such period. This we see from Enoch and the New Testa-
ment Apocalypse, as \vell as from numerous other writings w^hich
have survived in whole or in part to our owai time. The book of
Daniel, moreover, gave form to the dualistic theory w^hich has so
widely prevailed in the Synagogue, as in the Church. Alexan-

^ The stone cut out without hands (Dan. 2 ^*) prefigures the heavenly city
of later apocalypses.

- How far Persian religion has influenced Jewish writers in this period is
not yet clearly made out. It is plain that a principle of evil (like Ahriman)
is not yet fully recognised. But these rebellious angel-satraps fall little
short of the rebel angels of Enoch and of the New Testament. The reader
may consult Stave, Ueber den Einjiiiss des Parsis7)nis auf das Jjideiitiivi
(1898).

I have treated the book of Daniel as a unit. Even if composite, we can-
not date its elements very far apart in point of time. Some evidences of
compilation are pointed out by Barton, Journal 0/ Bib. Lit., XVII, pp.
62-86.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 459

der's career gave men the thought of a universal empire. But
such an empire under a heathen ruler Hke Antiochus Epiphanes
is the negation of all pious ideals. It is the kingdom of Satan.
Hence we find the sharp opposition between the world and the
Church, between the present age and the coming age, which
passed from Judaism into Christian theology, and which received
its classical expression in Augustine's treatise on the City of God.
Nebuchadrezzar, or Alexander, or Antiochus, or Nero became
in this theory the Antichrist, who in the last great struggle which
is to usher in the kingdom of God, will be vanquished.^ But
we must now return to the Maccabean era.

The pious were willing to meet death at the hands of their
persecutors in the hope that the kingdom of God was shortly to
appear. The Maccabeans chose to serve God by active resist-
ance to wrong — '* with the high praises of God in their mouth,
but a two-edged sword in their hand." And Yahweh certainly
seemed to smile upon them. Success beyond human expecta-
tion had crowned their arms. The holy city was again theirs
and tjiey could restore their sanctuary to its legitimate uses.
The restoration was taken in hand with scrupulous care. The
Temple area was cleansed by the removal of everything that
could suggest the intruded heathenism. A perplexity was en-
countered in dealing with the old altar of burnt-offering. Orig-
inally consecrated to Yahweh, it had been defiled by the erection
of the altar of Zeus upon it. Did the old consecration persist
even through the profanation ? To be on the safe side, the
workmen (priests alone were allowed to take part in the work)
tore the altar down, but instead of casting out the stones they
carefully laid them up on the Temple mount until a proi^het'"
should arise to tell what should be done with them.^ The sen-
tence is instructive. It shows the consciousness that prophetic
inspiration was no longer granted. It shows also that questions of
what was sacred and what profane had assumed a prominent place
in people's thoughts.

1 The influence of Alexander's career on subsequent ages is very marked,
but cannot be further traced here. A considerable literature is in existence
on the subject, the latest discussion being Kampers. Alexander der Grosse
und die Idee des Weltimperinms (1901).

2 Mace. 4*^. The author of Chronicles seems to have had no doubt that
the vessels sent back by Cyrus were fit for sacred use.

460 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

All things having been set in order, the daily burnt-offering
was resumed on the morning of the twenty-fifth day of the ninth
month, 165 B.C. It was just three years after the beginning of
the desecration. So important an event should be marked in
some special way, and the popular assembly agreed that it should
be commemorated yearly by a festival — the Feast of Dedication,^
which has been observed by the Jews to the present time.

Success did not blind Judas to the difficulties of the situation.
The citadel of Jerusalem was still in the hand of the enemy.
As it was provisioned for a long time, and as Judas had no means
of reducing fortifications, the most that could be done was to hold
the garrison in check and to fortify the Temple as a balancing
stronghold. Even then the hostile force constantly present was
a reminder of Antiochus's claims and of the limitations of the
Jews. Beth-zur, the frontier town toward Idumea, was strength-
ened, now that recent events had shown its importance. The
Jews were, in fact, but a handful of people in the midst of a large
hostile population. Hereditary enemies were the Idumeans on
the south and the Samaritans on the north. In the Hellenised
cities the Jews were looked upon with dislike. Frequent popu-
lar outbreaks against them attest this. And the conduct of t'he
Jews when in power was not calculated to disarm hatred. It is
not surprising, therefore, that from various quarters reports of
persecution began to come to Jerusalem.

Judas was not the man to leave his kinsmen to the tender
mercies of the wicked. War was carried first against the Idume-
ans, who were trespassers on the ancient territory of Judah.
Their army suffered a severe defeat, one of their strongholds was
taken, the tower was destroyed, and the garrison was exter-
minated.^ A campaign against the Ammonites was equally suc-
cessfiil. Then came a cry for help from Gilead, where the Jews
were set upon by the Gentiles and obliged to take refiige in
a fortress called Dathema. In Galilee, also, the Jews were hard
pressed by bands from Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon, cities of

' The book called 2 Maccabees is a pamphlet intended to commend the
observance of this feast and of Nicanor's Day to the Jews of Alexandria.

2 I Mace. 5 '-''. The defeat was inflicted at Akrabattene, doubtless the
Pass of Akrabbim of the Old Testament. The fortress whose inhabitants
were deiioted after the Old Testament method is called I'aian. The place
is not yet identified, and it is not yet certain even that it was in Idumea.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 461

strong Greek feeling. With the consent of the popular assem-
bly at Jerusalem, Judas marched with eight thousand men to
Gilead, while his brother Simon with three thousand went into
Galilee. Both expeditions were successful. But instead of at-
tempting to hold these regions, the two generals brought back
with them the Jews who had been under persecution and settled
them in Judea. For the present, the idea of setting up an ex-
tended kingdom must remain in abeyance.

That these successes were due in large measure to the courage
and capacity of the leaders was soon manifest. While Judas was
busy in Gilead and Simon in Galilee, the command in Judea de-
volved upon Joseph and Azarias, who had received strict orders
to remain on the defensive. But ambitious of glory, these men
disobeyed orders and marched against Jamnia in the Philistine
territory. Gorgias was here in command, the same who had
once been defeated by Judas. He now had his revenge, the
Jews being defeated and leaving two thousand dead upon the
field. The severe lesson was not lost upon the Jews, and they
trusted the Maccabean brothers to lead them from this time on.
Under their leadership further successes were obtained against
Idumea and Philistia. The fortifications of Hebron were razed;
Maresha ^ and Ashdod were captured. In the latter city, and
probably in the others, the altars were destroyed and the statues
of the gods were burned. Tolerance is not begotten of intoler-
ance.

These various successes were obtained when the resources of
the kingdom were employed elsewhere. Antiochus had gone to
the far East and there had met his death. ^ He left a young son
whom he commended to one of his generals named Philip. PUit
Lysias, who was administrator at Antioch, without waiting for
Philip's return, proclaimed the young Antiochus king and pre-
pared to maintain himself as regent. Scarcely was the corona-

^ I Mace. 5 65-68 _ Qj^ ^}^g reading Maresha, see Schiirer, Geschichte des
Ji'id. J^jlkes,^ I., p. 212, Schiirer's sketch of the Maccabean uprising is an
acknowledged masterpiece.

2 It was natural for the Jewish writer (i Mace. 6 ^-'^'^) to attribute his death
to the news he received of the recovery of the Temple by the Jews. 2
Mace, as is its wont, paints the end of the blasphemer in edifying colours ;
and Josephus is much outraged because Apion asserts that the king was
smitten, not for sacrilege against Jerusalem, but for plundering a heathen
temple.

462 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

tion over when an urgent message came from the Syrian garrison
at Jerusalem : Judas was actively ])esieging the citadel, and
there was fear that it could not long hold out.

The young king and his guardian responded quickly to the
insult put upon them by the Jewish rebels, and resolved to crush
the revolt by one decisive blow. An immense army was gath-
ered, strong in cavalry, in which the Jews were notably deficient,
and including thirty-two elephants. This arm of the service had
been employed since the time of Alexander, but had not yet been
used against the Jews. The invasion, like the preceding one,
took place from the south. Beth-zur was besieged and Judas
marched to its relief from Jerusalem. The armies met at Beth
Zacharias, not far north of Beth-zur. The most desperate valour
on the part of the Jews was unavailing. Eleazar, one of the
Maccabean brothers, met his death in stabbing the elephant
which he supposed to carry the young king. But the odds were
too great. The defeat was decisive; active opposition in the
field could no longer be thought of. The garrison of Beth-zur
was obliged to surrender ; the Syrian army marched to Jerusalem,
and relieved the citadel. Judas was obliged to retire to the
Temple, where he was in turn besieged. The garrison was in
extremity owing to the lack of provisions,^ when a new turn was
given to affairs by events at Antioch.

The above-named Philip, appointed by Antiochus guardian of
his son and administrator of the kingdom, was now approaching
Antioch with the army of the East, and was ]3repared to claim
his office. The anxiety of Lysias to retain his regency forced
him to march against Philip at once. He therefore hastily made
peace with the garrison of the Temple, promising the Jews free-
dom to observe their own religious customs. When he got pos-
session of the place he thought it too strong, and therefore broke
down the exterior walls. He did not otherwise interfere with
the sacred building.

The concession which allowed the Jews to observe their own
religious customs was one which if made earlier in the conflict
would have secured complete submission to the central authority.

' It was the Sabbatical year, conscientious observance of which often
brought the Jews into difficulty. The mention of this year as the Sabbatical
year enables us to date the siege in 163 12. c. ; see Schiirer, Geschichte des
JiiJ. I'olkes"^, I, p. 214.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 463

But after the Jews had tasted the sweets of liberty they were not
so easily satisfied. The straitest sect indeed (the Chasidim) now
detached themselves from the revolution. They were content to
live under any masters so long as they were allowed to observe
their Law. But the Maccabeans and those most strongly attached
to them distrusted the promises made by the young king. They
knew also that the Hellenising Jews had heavy scores to pay off.
Whether, in addition, Judas and his followers had large national
aspirations cannot be decided with confidence. It would not be
strange if they regarded their earlier successes as the pledge of
something better yet to come. In view of all the circumstances
Judas refused to be lulled into a false security and remained on
guard. Events soon justified his precautions.

The Syrian throne had been designed by Seleucus IV (Philo-
pator) for his son Demetrius. Antiochus Epiphanes had been
able to usurp it because Demetrius had been sent to Rome as a
hostage. Just at the time when Lysias succeeded in defeating
Philip, his rival, this Demetrius escaped from Rome and landed
in Syria. The troops received him with open arms and deliv-
ered Antiochus V and Lysias into his hands. Questions about
the succession were settled (as w^as supposed) by the execution of
the young Antiochus. Demetrius would not have been disposed
to interfere with the settlement made at Jerusalem, had he not
been appealed to by the Hellenising Jews. A certain Alkimus
(Jakim was his Hebrew name) had aspirations for the high-priest-
hood. It is possible that he was in the direct line of succession ;
we have seen that the first Hellenistic influences in Jerusalem
came from members of the family of Aaron. The Chasidim, as
we know, recognised his legitimacy. At the court of Demetrius
he complained of the persecution of the orthodox party and
asked that a royal officer be appointed to investigate affairs in
Palestine. In truth, the public peace was hardly likely to be kept
while the Jews themselves were so divided. The Maccabeans
regarded the Hellenisers as renegades, and were in turn looked
down upon as outlaws and brigands. When the government
had no adequate police force on the spot, we can imagine the
aspect of affairs in Jerusalem.

The suggestion of Alkimus was adopted and Bacchides was
sent to investigate. We can hardly blame him for not appreciat-
ing the piety of the Maccabeans, in whom he could see only dis-

464 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

turbers of the king's peace. But it was gratuitous cruelty — not
only a crime but a blunder — to abuse those who were willing to
submit to the royal will. The Chasidim were ready to receive
Alkimus, recognising the legitimacy of his high-priestly blood.
But he had no desire except to be representative of his party.
Pretending to be friendly to the Chasidim, he got them into his
power and put sixty of them to death in one day. Bacchides
laid waste the country about Jerusalem, looting and murdering.
After terrorising the people sufficiently, as he supposed, he re-
turned to Antioch, leaving a force of soldiers under Alkimus's
command.

Alkimus continued to take his revenge on the Chasidim, and
the folly of his measures was soon evident. He actually drove
everybody who would be faithful to his religion into the arms of
Judas. Judas therefore soon became strong enough to take the
offensive and to recompense the persecutors sevenfold into their
bosom. It needs no demonstration that the seasoned warrior
was more than a match for the tyrannical high-priest. Alkimus
was obliged to appeal again to the central authority, and Ni-
canor, one of the generals who had fought under Gorgias, was sent
to Jerusalem. An effort to get possession of Judas' s person by
treachery failed, and a skirmish resulted in a reverse for Nicanor.
When the Syrian came to Jerusalem the priests showed their
friendly disposition and pointed out the sacrifice they were offer-
ing for the king. But Nicanor's wrath against Judas included
all Jews, no matter whether they were loyal or not. He broke
out in scoffing and reviling and swore that if Judas was not de-
livered to him he would burn the Temple.

The threats were not carried out. Reinforcements having
arrived from the king, Nicanor camped at Beth-horon, the scene
of Israel's former victories. With a much inferior force,' Judas
attacked from the northeast. The faith and valour of the Jews
were again crowned with success, and Judas was able to rejoice
over as complete a victory as any that he had yet attained. The
arrogant Nicanor was among the slain, and his head and right
hand were sent to Jerusalem in evidence of the victory. Ni-
canor's day became an annual festival and was celebrated till dis-
placed or absorbed by Purim, which falls at the same season of
the year.

^ Three thousand men according to i Mace. 7**.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 465

The joy was of short duration. The resources of the kingdom,
when fully drawn upon, were more than equal to the most des-
perate valour of the Jews. Only two months elapsed before the
western division of the royal army appeared with Bacchides'and
Alkimus at its head. The impression made by this overwhelming
force was so great that Judas's men deserted wholesale, leaving
him only eight hundred out of three thousand. The few that re-
mained advised against a battle. But Judas had so often op-
posed a superior force that he was willing to make one more
attempt— or perhaps he was tired of the unending struggle and
willing to end it. The desperate charge of his little band broke
the right wing of the enemy. But the left wing closed in upon
them, and though, surrounded as they were, they prolonged the
obstinate contest till evening, the greater part were cut down.
Among these was Judas. His brothers Simon and Jonathan, with
a few followers, cut their way through the opposing ranks and
brought their leader's body from the field. This they buried in
the ancestral sepulchre at Modein amid the lamentations of the
whole people.^

Thus fell a man who deserves to be enrolled among the heroes
of the nations. Trained in the hard school of experience, he
became a soldier of the first rank. Again and again he gained
victories in the face of overwhelming odds. With his whole
heart he gave himself to the defence of his outraged and op-
pressed people. There is no evidence that ambition for himself
ever entered his thoughts. He refused, indeed, to recognise a
treaty into which the Chasidim entered. But this was because
he had a well-grounded distrust of Syrian promises. If he had
ambition, it was ambition for his ])eople's liberties. His death
was the fitting crown to nine years of incessant struggle for what
men hold most dear.-

The death of Judas left the Maccabean party in as forlorn a
situation as can well be imagined. They were completely in the
power of the renegades, and these did not hesitate to feed fat
their ancient grudges. As though heaven itself had turned

^ I Mace. 9 ^-22. The defeat of Nicanor and the death of Judas both fall
within the first half of the year 161 B.C. The localities where they took
place are not yet certainly identified.

■-^The account of Judas's alliance with the Romans (i Mace. 8) is regarded
with just suspicion. See Willrich, Judaica, p. 62 ff.

466 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

against them, a severe famine came upon the land. Bacchides
ruthlessly searched out and executed the adherents of Judas.
The author of i Maccabees, a sober and judicious historian, de-
clares that no such extremity of persecution had come upon the
faithful since the cessation of prophetic inspiration. A mere
handful of desperate men clung to Jonathan as their leader and
resolved to die with their weapons in their hands. It seemed as
if this were all that they would be permitted to do. The land
swarmed with enemies. From his headquarters at Tekoa in the
Wilderness of Judea, Jonathan sent some of his possessions for safe
keeping to the Nabateans, who alone were friendly. The train
was under the command of John, another of the Maccabean
brothers. On the way it was ambushed by the Bedawin ^ and
cut in pieces. The vengeance taken upon an unsuspecting com-
pany of these same Bedawin a little later could not make good
the loss of John. But the successful resistance made by the
Maccabeans against Bacchides at the ford of the Jordan might be
interpreted as a good omen."

The Syrian general, having strengthened the fortified towns
throughout the district, supposed that Judea was pacified and re-
turned to Antioch. About the same time Alkimus was smitten
with paralysis.^ His death made no difference in the policy of
the Hellenisers who aimed at the extermination of their enemies.
They invited Bacchides to fall unexpectedly upon the remnant of
Maccabean adherents and wipe it out. The plan was betrayed
to Jonathan, who, after inflicting some losses upon the invaders,
fortified himself in one of the wilderness strongholds. "^ Here
when besieged he was so bold in sorties tiiat the siege could not
be carried on, and Bacchides, disgusted with the fruitless strife,
turned against the Hellenisers, put some of them to death, and
made peace with Jonathan. In the treaty he agreed not to make
war upon Jonathan and agreed also to release the prisoners be-
longing to the orthodox party. He then returned to Antioch,

' The enemy came from Medeba, i Mace. 9^", and are called Ambri, a
name which occurs nowhere else.

^ I Mace. 9 •"-*^. Bacchides had crossed the Jordan in pursuit of Jona-
than.

•' The orthodox regarded this as a punisliment upon him for pulling down
some of the Temple walls, i Mace. 9^*^

* Beth-basi, otherwise unknown.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 467

leaving Jonathan practically master in Judea— for the Hellenising
party were always dependent upon the king's soldiers.

Jonathan fixed his headquarters at Michmash — known to be a
strong position as early as the time of Saul. Here he exercised
the rights of de facto ruler : ''He began to judge the people and
to cut off the ungodly from Israel." The great majority of the
people were on his side as against the Hellenisers. Jerusalem
was, liowever, in the hands of the Syrians and there the Hellen-
isers were protected. Probably Jonathan had agreed not to at-
tack the city when he entered into treaty with Bacchides. For
about five years the double rule went on. But during all this
time the power of Jonathan was increasing. Events in the other
parts of the empire soon gave him unexpected prominence.

In the year 153 b.c. a claimant for the Syrian throne ap-
peared in the person of Alexander Balas. This man was put for-
ward by the King of Pergamum and was supported by Ptolemy
VI. He claimed the throne on the ground that he was a son of
Antiochus Epiphanes — which was false. But owing to the sup-
port of his two sponsors and owing also to the popular dissatis-
faction with Demetrius he soon became a formidable rival to this
prince. It became important to Demetrius to secure the support
of his vassals. Among these Jonathan was distinguished for
abihty and courage. It was this state of affairs which gave Jona-
than advantages never possessed by Judas. Jonathan had the
tact to make the best use of these opportunities. The beginning
was made in the same year in which Alexander Balas appeared
(153 B. c), in which year Demetrius made Jonathan high-priest
and prince of the Jewish people.

We have seen that the high-priest was the civil as well as the
religious head of the community. The embarrassment created
by this combination of offices became evident at various points
in the history. The Syrian king might — in the case of Mene-
laus he did — put into possession of the office a man whom the
orthodox Jews could not recognise because he was not of the
line of Aaron. During this period this party therefore regarded
the high-priesthood as in abeyance. The result was to throw
more power into the hands of the popular assembly. It was by
the advice and consent of this assembly that Judas acted. He
was never inducted into any official position in the common^
wealth. The same was true of Jonathan up to the time when

468 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

he was appointed by Demetrius to the office left vacant since the
death of Alkimus.

It is not the province of an Old Testament history to give an
account of the wars, rebellions, and treacheries which came in
the next few years. Jonathan showed as much ability in nego-
tiation as he had shown in fighting. When he thought it to his
interest he went over to Alexander. Under Demetrius II, who
displaced Alexander, he increased his power and his terri-
tory. A new pretender made additional promises, until it was
seen that Jonathan was becoming a danger to the very king
whom he had helped to the throne. Trypho, prime minister of
Antiochus VI, led an army into Palestine, but was able to do
nothing against Jonathan. But his treacherous invitation to
Jonathan to be his guest at Ptolemais was more successful.
The Jewish leader came into the city with a bodyguard of a
thousand men. The guard was cut down and Jonathan was
seized. After some negotiation with Simon, the last of the
Maccabean brothers, Trypho put his prisoner to death.

Simon succeeded to the high -priestly office, being formally
elected by the popular assembly of the Jews apparently about the
beginning of the year 142 b.c. He recognised Demetrius II
as his monarch and obtained from him more extensive conces-
sions than had yet been made to any Jewish leader. The Jews
themselves regarded the accession of Simon as the beginning of
their independence, and established this as the beginning of an
era from which they henceforth dated their documents. The
concessions of Demetrius were, however, on paper only. The
actual power was in the hands of Trypho, who now murdered his
ward, the young Antiochus VI, and proclaimed himself king.
Simon proceeded to make his own the powers promised by Deme-
trius. The important fortified city of Gazera was besieged and
taken, purged of its heathen emblems and abominations, and settled
with Jewish colonists.' More important was the reduction of the
citadel of Jerusalem, which had been held* by a Syrian garrison
since the beginning of the Maccabean troubles. The fortifica-

^ The Philistine cities suffered severely in these wars. The Jewish hatred
of idolatry is exemplified in the destruction of the ancient temple of Dagon
at Ashdod. This building, with those who had sought refuge there, was
burned by Jonathan, i Mace. 10^*. The life of Simon is recounted in i
Mace. 13-16.

A NEW HEROIC AGE 469

tions were too strong to be taken by assault, but the garrison
was starved into surrender and allowed to march into Syria.
The capitulation was a cause of great rejoicing to the Jews, as
it made them complete masters of their own city. Simon
not only garrisoned the citadel; he also rebuilt the forti-
fications of the Temple. He fixed his own residence in the
immediate vicinity of the sacred building. This he could do
without offence, since he was high-priest. His son John Hyr-
canus was made commander of the important fortress of Gazera.
Simon distinguished himself by justice in the administration
of internal affairs as well as by energy against the foes of Israel.
The author of i Maccabees praises his rule as a time when peace
and plenty prevailed :

*' He brought peace to the land
And Israel rejoiced greatly;
Each man sat under his own vine and fig-tree,
And no one made them afraid.

There was no one on earth who made war upon them,
And the kings were humbled in those days.
He lifted up the poor of his people ;
He was full of zeal for the Law
And cut off every renegade and sinner.
He beautified the Sanctuary
And multiplied the vessels of the Temple."

CHAPTER XX

THE PRIEST-KINGS

The supremacy of the Maccabean dynasty is marked by the
decree which confirmed Simon in possession of the high-i)riest-
hood. This decree, which was engraved on a bronze tablet and
set up in the Temple, was issued in the name of " the general
assembly of the priests and people, the elders of the people and
the dignitaries of the land." ' ]t recited the benefits conferred
upon the land by the Maccabean brothers, especially by Simon.
It then declared that for these benefits Simon was to be their
leader and high-priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet shall
arise. To him was given command of the army, control over
public works, fortresses and munitions of war, and the oversight
of the Temple. He was to issue decrees in his own name and
had the right to wear purple and gold.

If we inquire wherein this decree added to the rights and dig-
nities possessed by Simon's predecessors, we must remind our-
selves that none of the Maccabean brothers had had more than
an ad interim authority. To the high-priesthood they had no
hereditary claim, and Jonathan's appointment to this office by
the Syrian king could not make his title legitimate even in the
eyes of his own adherents, much less in the eyes of the Chasidim.
The latter party, as we have seen, preferred an Alkimus, hostile
as he was to them, because he had hereditary rights. After the
death of Alkimus no one seems to have come forward to claim
the succession. The awkwardness of having no one to preside
over the sacred rites was terminated by the recognition of
Simon. It concerns the state that there be an end of litigation.
The decree making Simon high-priest for ever was intended to
settle the dignity in his family — so far as human recognition could
do this. At the same time it was made evident that the popular
assem])ly was not certain that it could do this ; the settlement
was made till a trustworthy proi)het shall arise. Evidently the
* I Mace. 14*'"*". The decree is dated in Simon's third year.
470

THE PRIEST-KINGS

471

doctrinaire scribes were not satisfied. The popular assembly
could not nullify the will of God as revealed in the Law.
Doubtless there was room here for grave differences, and a later
time brought forth severe strictures upon the family that without
claim of blood had usurped the high-priestly office.'

We can hardly be far wrong in ascribing to the reign of
Simon the final redaction and publication of the book of
Psalms. This is a collection of lyric poems of very different
dates. That some of them belong in the Maccabean period is
evident.^ The process of redaction has here been a complicated
one. There were a number of smaller collections made at dif-
ferent times for devotional use — books of private prayer we may
call them. Some of the collections bore the name of David,
perhaps under the influence which led the Chronicler to credit
this king with the organisation of the Temple service.'^ Zeal for
the Temple service in the time of Simon led to the combination
of all these manuals of devotion into one book. Some of the
Psalms were composed for the Temple service, some were adapted
to this service by being rewritten or expanded. The line
which divides songs of personal experience from songs suitable
for public worship is indeed not very sharply drawn. A psalm
of personal experience may express emotions common to many
believers. In a period of persecution the individual prayer is
the prayer of the whole community.^

A prominent characteristic of the time in which many of the
compositions were written is the sharp opposition of the parties
in Israel. The writers represent themselves as oppressed by their
arrogant neighbours. Sometimes these neighbours are heathen.
But in many cases they are clearly Jews by blood who ought to
follow the Law, but who have chosen the worldly j^art. It is
the boast of the pious singer that he has not sat in the company
of these scoffers, that he hates the assembly of the evildoers.

^The Asstimptio Mosis expresses the views of this faction (chapter 6^).

2 The denial cannot be accounted for except on the ground of an unhistor-
ical theory of the closing of the canon. The reader should examine Cheyne's
Bampton Lectures on the Origin and Growth of the Psalter (1891).

3 The impossibility of the Psalms in the Davidic collection (1-41) being by
David is pointed out by Driver, Literature of the Old Testament,^ p. 374 flf.

* The question whether the ego of the Psalms is individual or collective
has been much discussed ; see for example Smend in the Zeitschr. f. d. Alt-
test. Wissensch., VIII, pp. 49-147-

472 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Yet these evildoers are often in intimate intercourse with the
faithful, against whom they plot :

" Cruel witnesses rise up against me,
They ask me things of which I know nothing ;
They repay me evil for good.
But when they were ill 1 put on sackcloth,
I afflicted myself with fasting ;

Willi bowed head I prayed as if it were my brother,
As if mourning for my mother, 1 went in black.
Now they rejoice together over my calamity,
They utter slanders without end." ^

It needs no argument to show the appropriateness of this lan-
guage in the period we have been considering. And in this
period also we can understand those Psalms which take up again
the problem of the book of Job. The renegade Jews were often
jjrospered ; the faithful suffered persecution, privation, even
martyrdom; was this according to the divine justice? The
reflections and exhortations of the Psalmists show how this ques-
tion forced itself upon them. They have no answer for it except
the confidence that things cannot long be so, that Yahweh will
soon intervene for the deliverance of the righteous.^ Prayer for
this intervention is the object of many a Psalm. That the rescue
of the pious means also the destruction of their enemies is plainly
indicated, and the authors do not hesitate to imprecate those who
take sides against the true God.

Few of the Psalms show a hope for the future life, in the
Christian sense of the words. The hint in the book of Daniel
concerning a resurrection has not reached the authors. They
find in Sheol only the dark and shadowy abode of the dead ; the
manes are deprived of the j^resence of God : *' In death there is
no remembrance of Thee; in Sheol who can praise Thee?"
The lesson which the wise man has to teach is only the old one
that man being in honour abides not ; he is like the cattle that
perish. Hence the passionate cry for deliverance from death
which meets us so often. ^Y\\t sufferer dreads to go away from
the i)resence of Yahweh into the dark world of shades.

And this i)rescn(-e of Yahweh which the worshi})per enjoys is

1 Ps. 35 "-1-^; cf. I'ss. 41, 55. The difficulties in the text I have quoted
are considerable, but I have given the sense.
' <-"f- I'ss. 37, 49, 52, 73.

THE PRIEST-KINGS 473

His presence in the Temple. The persecutions and humihations
visited upon this place of the Presence have made it tenfold more
dear. None of the Psalms are more vivid in their expression' of
emotion than those which praise Jerusalem, the joy of the whole
earth. The lament of the exile draws its pathos from remem-
brance of those happier days, when he was permitted to w^alk in
solemn procession to the House of Yahweh amid Ae shouts and
thanksgivings of the pilgrim throng. Now far away from the
sacred spot he is condemned to hear the scoff: " Where is thy
God?" His comfort is the hope that he will yet be brought
back to praise God in the place He has chosen.^ In the pilgrim
Psalms the authors express the fervour of their joy at being al-
lowed to go up to Jerusalem — to Jerusalem the joy of the whole
earth.

In proportion to this affection is the agony of the pious soul
when the sacred city is desolated, as it was in the Antiochean
persecution. In sad expostulation the Psalmist reminds his God
that Israel had received the land by divine grace, and had relied
on a continuance of that grace. Yet what had they experienced ?

'^ Thou hast rejected and put us to shame,
And goest not forth with our armies ;
Thou turnest us back before the enemy,
And those that hate us take the spoil.

Thou givest us to be devoured like sheep,
And scatterest us among the heathen.
Thou sellest Thy people for naught,
And dost not even name a price for them.

This all came upon us who have never forgotten Thee,

Nor have we betrayed Thy covenant.

Our heart did not turn away,

Nor did our footsteps leave Thy path." ^

If in such circumstances the sorely tried believer cries out to
God to wake and see the straits of His people, so in the time of
relief he records the triumphs of Israel. Not always had Yah-
weh forgotten His people. In the convulsions of the Syrian
kingdom. His people had not trusted Him in vain. He had
been their refuge and stronghold. It was He who made wars to

1 Pss. 42 and 43— originally one poem.

2 Ps. 44 ; cf. 74 and 79, which speak of the desecration of the Temple.

474 <^i'T^ tp:stamknt history

cease, broke the bow, cut the spear in sunder, burned the war
chariots with fire. These successes strengthened faitli. The
plans of (iod arc indeed apprehended by faith alone. 'J'hc un-
beUever docs not know, nor the l)rutish man understand them —
the fool even says in his iicart tliat there is no (iod. ]iut tlie
believer finds in the present experience of (iod's mercies a prom-
ise of that future when all His enemies shall be cut off.' And
in view both of present successes and of future certainty, all
creatures are called to join in praise of Him whose mercy endures
for ever.

The i)iety which here exi)ressed itself was a l>il)le piety. It
nourished itself ui)on the Law and the Prophets, now the ap-
proved Word of (lod. As for the Law, the believer rejoiced to
fmd in its multifarious precepts the method of showing his love to
their Author. The first Tsalm, written as a i)reface to the Ix^ok,
})rai.ses the man who walks in the Tora of Yahweh. And this is
the keynote of the book. Occasional utterances which seem to
dei)reciate ritual, as compared with moral, obedience are only
echoes of words spoken by the i)rophets. They show a desire to
attain spiritual obedience, but the authors are far from doubting
the divine obligation of the Levitical system. The same man
who in i)r()|)hetic si)irit refuses to rebuke Israel in the matter of
sacrifices yet declares that thank-offerings do honour Yahweh.
The longest Psalm in the collection is devoted to the praise of
the Tora. A\'ith skilfiil, if .somewhat artificial, method the
author rings the changes on the words law, commandments, or-
dinances, precei)ts, instruction, warning, judgments, word — in
each case meaning the Pentateuchal code with its rules and its
exhortations.

And the other collection of sacred books — the Prophets — were
studied as a book of fate. The author of Daniel had tried to
read its secret. The fact that his date was wrong had not proved
his exi)ectation false. The postulates of Israel's faith compelled
the conclu.sion that Yahweh must give the kingdom to His own
l)eople. To Him belongs the predicate living, in contrast with
the gods of the heathen which are only dumb idols.^ He is God

' Pss. q2. 93, 96, aiui otliers. Ps. 68 deserves especial mention as a vivid
portrayal (jf the feelings of the pious in view of the Maccabean successes.

' Ps. 115. Parallel passages in Isaiah, 40, 44, and 46 will occur to every-
one.

THE PRIEST-KINGS 475

of the whole earth. The wonders of earth, sea, and sky are His crea-
tion. And He is the judge of the whole earth. Even the angels
who have abused the power He has committed to theiji will be
called to account.' When the great assembly of the nations is
held, Israel will be justified and the Gentiles will be condemned.
In fact, in the imagination of the writer, Israel has already
been seated on Zion as the son of Yahweh. Against him the na-
tions shall rage in vain. All God's people may claim a share
in this kingly pre-eminence. In tiiis faith one writer lays down
the principles of the theocratic government :

** My eye shall be upon the faithful ; he shall sit with me.
He who walks in the right way shall serve me.
He who exercises deceit shall not dwell in my house.
Whoever speaks lies shall not remain in my presence.
Daily will I root out the wicked in the land,
And cut off from the city of Yahweh all workers of iniquity." ^

We can imagine one of the Maccabean princes adopting these
resolutions as his programme, and in pursuance of them cutting
off the Hellenisers who had wrought iniquity in the land.

But these Messianic expectations naturally implied a revival
of the Davidic dynasty. The early Hasmoneans might be re-
garded as so many Davids, walking in his spirit and power. But
as the dynasty continued, it failed to fulfil — any dynasty must
fail to fulfil — the expectation of the idealist. And so we find
hopes of a personal Messiah coming to the front. One Psalm
describes the ideal king for us, another recounts the prophecies
concerning David, with an expostulation against their non-fulfil-
ment.^ These expectations were likely to issue in discontent
and revolt. No civil ruler has ever satisfied ecclesiastical ideals.

But there can be no doubt that the situation under Simon was
an advance on anything the faithful Jews had experienced since
the time of Nehemiah. There was practical independence of
foreign power ; the Temple was no longer in danger of desecra-
tion ; faithful observers of the Law were no more persecuted ;

1 Pss. 58 and 82.

2 Ps. lOi ^'''. The Messiah of Ps. 2 seems to be Israel, the nation.

^ Ps. 89 ^^-^2, cf. 72 and 132. The priestly kingship, justified by the ex-
ample of Melchizedek in Ps. 1 10, may be an attempt to sanction the position
of the Maccabean princes.

476 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

they were, in fact, in favour with the government. Many unfortu-
nates who had been sold into slavery were redeemed and brought
home. Jews outside Palestine could again look to Jerusalem as
their joy and pride. When they made their pilgrimage they found
Jerusalem beautiful for situation, and the Temple services were
administered in a manner worthy of the seat of the Great King.

The deep and earnest spiritual life which shows itself in the
Psalms was attached (as we have seen) to the sacred books of the
Law and the Prophets. I'he power of these books for good was
extended at about this period by their translation into the Greek
language. The Jewish colony at Alexandria had been increased
in numbers during the Maccabean troubles. In the great centre
of Greek culture the Jews were obliged to learn the Greek lan-
guage. The generation that grew up in Greek surroundings had
little use for Hebrew, which even in Palestine was becoming the
language of the learned alone. Nothing was more natural than
that the Law^ — the rule of life for every faithful Jew — should be
put into a Greek dress. So far as we know, this was the first
attempt to extend the influence of an important literary work by
translation from one language to another.

Jewish tradition, which delighted to embellish history with the
acts and monuments of Gentile kings, has invented a story de-
signed to dignify the translation of the Law. One Aristeas is
represented as writing an account of it to a friend. Both the
writer and the receiver of the letter are intended to be Gentiles.
Aristeas recounts that being an officer at the court of Ptolemy
Philadelphus he heard the king inquire of his librarian, Demetrius
Phalereus, concerning the progress of the great library under his
charge. Demetrius, after giving the number of books at two
hundred thousand, suggests to the king that the Jewish Law is
worthy of a place in the collection. In answer to further in-
quiries he explains that it will be necessary to have the Law in
translation. Moved by the suggestion the king sends Aristeas
with another high official to the high-priest at Jerusalem. The
letter with which they are intrusted asks that six competent
men from each tribe be sent to make a translation of the Law
from Hebrew into Greek. The writer takes occasion to describe
the gifts interchanged by the king and the high-priest, and to set
forth the glory of the Temple and its services. The mission is
successful and the seventy-two interpreters come to Alexandria,

THE PRIEST-KINGS 477

where they are lavishly entertained by the king and where they
successfully execute their work. The newly made version of the
Law is submitted to the Jewish community of Alexandria and is
approved by them.

There are few cases where the falsity of a document is so evi-
dent as here. The only historical basis for the letter is the inter-
est taken by Philadelphus in the Alexandrian library. All else
is fiction pure and simple, and instructive only as showing the
length to which a Jew would go to glorify his people and their
institutions.' l^he document would hardly be worth mention
except for the influence it has had on Christian views of the
inspiration of the so-called Septuagint.

What we know about the matter may be put into a single sen-
tence, l^he grandson of Jesus Sirach, who expressly tells us that
he came into Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of Euergetes-
which would be 132 B.C.— speaks of the Law, the Prophecies,
and the other books as having already been translated. That
his own translation was undertaken soon after coming into Egypt
we do not know ; nor need we date the translations of which he
speaks, much before the time of his own writing. If we suppose
the earliest efforts at translation to have been made about the
year 150 B.C., we shall probably not be far out of the way.^

The translation of the Law was naturally of great importance
for Tews But it is difficult to think of any literary interest in
such a work on the part of Greeks. It is impossible to think of
a Greek approving such a jargon as we find in this version-a
barbarous dialect which grew up among a people whose thought
was Semitic in form, though they had learned a Greek vocab-

""^ N^evertheless, the making of the version is one of the great
events of history. Among the Jews of the Dispersion this book
took a place of authority. The early Church adopted it as its
Bible Its prophecies confirmed men's faith in Jesus as the
Messiah ; its Psalms were the comfort of a new generation of

iThe statements of the letter were refuted with great prolixity and learn
ingly Hody.i^. Bitliorran TeMus i.,os). As to the h.tor.c .mposs b^K
id!s 'see Wendland's preface to his translation .n Kautzsch, I s.niep-

,rapken .ies Alten TesU;^^, J^^^ ''tht:rt^din'ed t an earlier

2 Willrich, Juden Mid Griechen,y. 156- ^churer
date— the third century before Christ.

478 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

oppressed believers ; its histories furnished examples of fidelity
and heroism when men were ready to faint under their burdens.
Without the Greek version of the Old Testament, it is difficult
to conceive the Church coming into existence at all.^

The period of Simon was then one of importance for the in-
ternal history of Judaism. Externally it was one of promise and
of prosperity. In 135 B.C., however, Antiochus VII (Sidetes) took
a hostile attitude toward the Jewish ruler, and made heavy
demands for arrears of tribute. The army of Antiochus, sent to
enforce these demands, was defeated at Jamnia by a Jewish
army under the command of Simon's sons, Judas and John.
The occurrence was nevertheless ominous, because of the attitude
of the Syrian king. Soon after the event Simon himself was
assassinated by his son-in-law, Ptolemy. With him two sons
were slain, and Ptolemy endeavoured to seize Jerusalem and the
supreme power for himself. So soon had the vulgar ambition
for power invaded a family which had stood for unselfish devo-
tion to righteousness.

The first result of the murder was civil war. Ptolemy's at-
tempt to seize the capital was frustrated by John Hyrcanus
(Simon's third son) who was in command of Gazera. John was
also able to possess himself of the greater part of the country,
though his siege of Ptolemy's stronghold led to no result. The
internal troubles of the country were soon overshadowed by an
invasion conducted by Antiochus, whose siege of Jerusalem last-
ing a year brought the garrison to the verge of despair. Accord-
ing to Diodorus Siculus,^ the king's boon companions advised
him to make an end of the misanthropic people. But he con-
tented himself with exacting the arrears of tribute and razing
the walls of Jerusalem. Hyrcanus must have found the terms
humiliating enough, but he did not have to wait long for his
opportunity.

^ The title Septuagint apph'ed to a Greek version of the Old Testament,
arose from the tradition of 70 or 72 translators. It has been suggested
recently that 70 was the number of members in the Sanhedrin at Alexandria,
under whose auspices the version of the Law was first published.

"^ Book XXXIV. I owe the citation to Willrich, Juden und Griechen, p.
61 f. The statement that Hyrcanus plundered the tomb of David of its treas-
ures in order to pay the exactions need not be taken seriously (Josephus,
Ant., VII, 15, 3). On the theory that the Romans intervened in favour of
the Jews, see Schurer, Gesch. d. Jiid. Voikes,^ I, p. 261 f.

THE PRIEST-KINGS 479

Antiochus was called to the East by the customary revolt of
his provinces and met his death in battle against the Parthians
(129 B.C.). Hyrcanus accompanied him on this campaign but
was not involved in the catastrophe. The weak Demetrius II
was not able toenforceany claims against the Jews, and Hyrcanus
saw his advantage. With an energy that reminds us of the best
of his predecessors, he moved to regain the territory that had
belonged to his father and in the process took revenge on the
hereditary enemies of Israel — the Samaritans. The schismatic
Temple on Gerizim was destroyed. Even more important for
future history was the conquest of the Idumeans, who were com-
pelled to submit to the rite of circumcision and thus to become
a part of the Jewish body politic. Hyrcanus made a new depart-
ure in the policy of his house, moreover, by enlisting mercenaries
in his army instead of carrying on his wars by citizens of the
commonwealth. Continued strife of pretenders to the Syrian
throne allowed him to carry out his plans without serious opposi-
tion. The weakness of the crown is attested by the fact that the
new Antiochus was appealed to by the Samaritans to help them
in the siege, but was able to accomplish nothing against the Jew-
ish army.

The reign of John Hyrcanus brought into prominence the two
tendencies which had existed among the Jews since the time of
Jonathan. The old Hellenists had disappeared. All the sub-
jects of Hyrcanus were, externally at least, devoted to the an-
cestral religion, worshipped none but Yahweh, and desired the
administration of none but the Mosaic rites. But, as we saw
during the Maccabean struggle, there were degrees of devotion.
The Chasidim had always emphasised the observance of the Law
from the religious point of view — the whole duty of man was to
obey the will of God as laid down in His Book. When they were
allowed to follow this principle, they withdrew from the struggle for
Jewish liberty. They thought it no part of their duty to establish
the kingdom — God would establish it by His direct intervention
when the time should come. Because of this withdrawal, or
because they held aloof from the common people, they received
the name Pharisees or Separatists.^ Since their whole strength
was given to the study and observance of the Law, they regarded

^ Pericshitn is the Hebrew form. On this whole subject, see Wellhausen,
Pharisder tind Saddticder (1874).

480 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

themselves as the rightful leaders and teachers of the people. And
the people for the most part conceded the claim. Obedience to
the six hundred and thirteen precepts requires serious study, and
the exposition of what is commanded or forbidden is the work
of professionals.

It was inevitable that this party should become the critics of
the Maccabean dynasty as soon as it was settled at the head of
affairs. Practical politics cannot take account of the subtleties
of theoretical jurisprudence, especially when this jurisprudence
is built up on an ecclesiastical theory. This became evident
in the reign of John Hyrcanus, if it was not evident before.
John was minded to govern according to the Tora and to give
heed to its Pharisaic expositors. According to Josephus, he
invited their leaders to a feast and avowed his adhesion to them
saying " that he was desirous to be a righteous man and to do
all things whereby he might please God" — which (Josephus
adds) was the very profession of the Pharisees.^ The majority
of those present testified to the prince's acceptability. But one
Eleazar demanded that he lay down the high -priesthood because
his mother had at one time been a slave.

The consistency of the interlocutor is evident. The high-
priest's purity of blood must be above suspicion. The servitude
of the mother, however unwilling, made her incapable of insur-
ing the ingenuousness of her son. Hence the demand that he
resign his office. Whether the allegation concerning the mother's
slavery was true does not especially concern us — Josephus says
that it was false. In any case here was a theorist who would
oust a whole family from office because of a suspicion. That
Hyrcanus was angry we may well believe. What embittered
him most was that the whole party seemed to defend their rash
colleague. On this account he broke with them and threw him-
self into the arms of the Sadducees.

By this name we designate the party of practical men who had
identified themselves with the fortunes of the Maccabean house.
These men were devoted to the Law, so far as this was compat-
ible with their plans to secure Israel's political independence.
They were the party of the priestly aristocracy and probably took
their name from that Zadok, whose exclusive right to the priestly
offices had been asserted by Ezekiel. The Sadducees were in

' Afi/., XIII, 10, 5 ; cf. Gratz, Geschichte der Jiiden, ^ III, p. 128.

THE PRIEST-KINGS 481

some respects more conservative than the Pharisees, not recognis-
ing those casuistical interpretations which the latter party re-
garded as equally binding with the Law itself. That they re-
jected the doctrine of the resurrection, as we learn from the New
Testament, is doubtless explained by the fact that they did not
find it taught in the Law.

In speaking of the prominence of the city in the Greek period
we conjectured that this prominence had something to do with
the rise of the Sanhedrin. The reader will have noticed that in
the Maccabean period we hear frequently of the Council or
Senate of the Jews. Under this body Judas Maccabeus acted,
and Simon received from it a confirmation of the power con-
ferred by the king of Syria. Some sort of council of notables had
existed in Israel from early times. One of the Pentateuchal
editors imagined such a body active in the Mosaic age.^ The
Chronicler tells us that Jehoshaphat organized a court at Jerusa-
lem, the members of which were priests, Levites, and the heads of
families. Nehemiah found such a body in existence in Jerusalem.^
These indications are sufficient to show that in the Chronicler's
time there existed a supreme court in Jerusalem. As the line
which divides judicial from administrative functions was not
sharply drawn in early times we can see how this court grew in
importance, especially in the Maccabean period. When the
office of high-priest was vacant, and when the country was in
revolt against the king of Syria, this court was the only organ of
government to which men could appeal. Judas Maccabeus never
claimed to rule, and he was glad to act as the appointee of what
I Mace, calls (not without reason) the " Senate " of the Jews.
During the time of stress, however, the membership of the body
must have changed. The Hellenising nobles could not remain
in the midst of a population hostile to all innovations. As they
were banished, were executed or emigrated, new members w^ould
come in, men more in accord with the popular will. It is fair
to say therefore that in this period the Sanhedrin (the word is
Greek) became democratic, whereas it had been aristocratic.
The details of the process escape us, but we know^ that in New
Testament times the most influential members of the body be-
longed to the guild of scribes, and that the scribes were from both

1 Num. II, ^^^ The verses are assigned to a late stratum of E.

2 Neh. 2 1**^ 2 Chron. 19^.

482 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

parties — Sadducees and Pharisees.^ The animation of their
debates, which not infrequently proceeded from words to blows,
may be imagined.

John Hyrcanus had a successful reign of thirty years, dying in
104 B.C. The extent to which vulgar ambition had made its
way into the Maccabean family came to light after his death.
The administration of affairs was left to his wife, while the high-
priesthood, which could not be held by a woman, was assigned
to Aristobulus, his oldest son. But Aristobulus had no notion
of a merely ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He seized the supreme
power, put his mother 'in prison, where she died of starvation,
and kept three of his brothers in bonds. His relations with the
other brother, Antigonus, were friendly ; but evil-minded per-
sons found opportunity to sow discord between them, and Antig-
onus was cut down by the bodyguard. The people's abhor-
rence of the fratricide is manifested by the legends w^hich arose
concerning the event and the prodigies which preceded it,^ as
also concerning the illness of Aristobulus which soon followed.
In the single year of his reign this prince took to himself the title
of king, something which the Maccabean rulers had not yet ven-
tured to do. That he favoured the Sadducean party seems evi-
dent, for he is said to have conducted himself as a Philhellene — a
charge easily brought by the Pharisees against their opponents.
During his reign the territory subject to Jerusalem was enlarged
by the addition of Galilee, whose inhabitants were compelled to
adopt Jewish customs, including circumcision.

Aristobulus was succeeded by Alexander Jannaeus, one of the
brothers whom he had kept in prison.^ He carried out the pol-
icy of his father and brother in favouring the Sadducean party.
For this reason he was hated by the Pharisees. His reign was
a miserable period of external and internal warfare. The rule of
the Maccabees had become a despotism of the common oriental

'The subject is treated by Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes, ^11,
pp. 188-214, where an extended bibliography is given. The testimony of
Josephus {^Ant. XII, 3, 3) concerning the times of Antiochus the Great
must be received with caution, but the references of i Mace, to the " Senate "
of the Jews are above suspicion.

''Josephus, Ant., XIII, 11, 2 f. ; Bellum Jud., I, 3.

' The power fell at first into the hands of Aristobulus's wife Alexandra,
who released Alexander and raised him to the throne, giving him also her
hand.

THE PRIEST-KINGS 483

sort. The king sustained himself by a force of mercenaries, and
those subjects who opposed him were treated with the utmost
cruelty. They on their part sought help from the moribund
Syrian kingdom, so that the reign of Jannoeus may be called an-
archy rather than the theocracy which it pretended to be.

The details of Alexander's reign (103-76 B.C.) may be read
in Josephus. From about this period, however, some literary
monuments have come down to us, to which we must give a mo-
ment's attention. One of these is the first book of Maccabees,
upon which we have drawn so largely for our history of the great
struggle for independence. The book ' is a dignified and elo-
quent defence of the Maccabean dynasty in the best form which
such a defence could take — a plain and for the most part accurate
account of its rise to power. It may be called the manifesto
of the Sadducean party.

Very different is the tone of the remarkable book which was
circulated among the Pharisaic section of the people at about this
time — the book of Enoch. ^ Various motives combined in the
literature which circulated under the name of this antediluvian
patriarch. One was undoubtedly the desire to trace science to
ancient revelation. So we have Enoch, who was admitted to the
secrets of heaven, expounding the method in which the heavenly
bodies perform their work.

But this is only a subordinate interest. The chief purpose of
the school who wrote this literature is to develop a religious the-
ory of the universe, and so to justify the ways of God to men.
It takes up the thoughts of the book of Daniel, and carries them
to their legitimate conclusion. The Ancient of Days again sits
on a throne, and by his side the Son of Man who will thrust down
the mighty from their seats of power. This Son of Man, how-
ever, is not the nation Israel, but a personal Messiah, the posses-
sor of righteousness and the revealer of the treasures of wisdom.

^This refers to the main stock of the book, chapters i '-14'^. The rest
seems somewhat later in date.

2 On the editions and versions, cf. Schiirer, Gesch. des Jiid. Volkes,^ III,
p. 207 f. (English translation, II, 3, p. 54 flf.) The latest English translation
is by Charles, The Book of Enoch (1893); one in German by Beer is pub-
lished in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen des alien Testafnents. The book of
Enoch, as we have it, contains additions made somewhat later than the
period we are now studying.

484 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

He is already in existence in heaven, having been created before
the stars, '* chosen and treasured before Him before the world
was made." In the day in which He shall be revealed, the earth
will give up those who are buried in it, Hades and the Abyss will
give up their dead. After this resurrection will come the Judg-
ment, and then the righteous will become like the angels.

The advance over the partial resurrection taught in Daniel
must be evident. And so is the advance in another particular.
In Daniel the angels who rule over the nations are hostile to
Israel. Enoch makes them worse, and in developing his theory
he goes back to the story of the sons of God in Genesis. Two
hundred of these (it is now said) conspired and took wives from
among men. They taught these wives the secrets of sorcery.
For this and for the violence of their sons, the giants, they were,
at God's command, confined in dungeons under the earth till the
great Judgment, after which they will be cast into Gehenna.
Enoch is introduced as the herald divinely commissioned to
announce their fate to these rebellious angels, and he is shown the
place of their punishment. He also sees the divisions in Sheol —
one the provisional Paradise of the faithful, another the temporary
place of confinement for those who are later to be condemned to
Gehenna, the third for those who do not attain to the resurrec-
tion of the righteous, but who are not wicked enough to deserve
the deeper damnation of Gehenna.

This literature made various attempts to determine the time of
the Messianic deliverance. We find one statement that the his-
tory of the world will run its course in ten periods, of which seven
have passed. The remaining three are to show successive stages
of the triumph of righteousness. The writer regards his own
time as one of degeneracy. More elaborate is the vision in which
the history of the world is set forth as a conflict of the animals. ^
The most interesting part relates that, from the Assyrian period
on, God gave His sheep (Israel) into the hands of seventy shep-
herds. At the same time, foreseeing that the shepherds would
exceed the instructions given them, He appointed a recorder to
watch their conduct. These shepherds represent the guardian
angels of the heathen nations — in this case also a hint of Daniel's

^ Enoch, 83-90. The great horn in chapter 90, which is identified by
some with Judas Maccabeus, and by others with John Hyrcanus, does not
fully correspond with either.

THE PRIEST-KINGS 485

has been expanded. These angels of the nations have prompted
the persecution of the Jews. In the great Day which is approach-
ing they, as well as those other angels which ke[)t not their first
estate, will be brought to account. The period when Israel was
thus in the power of the heathen has lasted in the author's view
down to his own time. It will be followed by the great Judg-
ment and that in turn by the Messianic time.

A distinct bias against the Maccabean dynasty cannot be dis-
covered in this book, but its emphasis is evidently laid much
more on the expectation of divine interference for Israel than
upon any hel]) of man. Along with this expectation went an in-
creased hatred of the Gentiles. An almost grotesque expression
of this hatred is found in the historical romance which we call
Esther, which is probably to be dated in this period. The plot
is well known : A Persian king, apparently the Xerxes whose
name was so well known to Asiatics and Europeans, takes offence
at the disobedience of his favourite wife. A young Jewess is
chosen as her successor, being the most beautiful of all the maid-
ens of the kingdom. The dislike of Haman, minister of the
king, for Mordecai, Esther's uncle, produces a decree that all
Jews shall be exterminated. The salvation of the people is
wrought by Esther, who risks her own life for them. As the
decree of the king cannot be reversed, a new decree is issued au-
thorising the Jews not only to defend themselves but to take
vengeance upon their enemies. The result is the massacre of
75,000 victims and the institution of a festival to keep the
memory of the event alive ; the name of the festival is Purim.

The unpleasant story is certainly unhistorical. It was written
to justify the adoption of a Gentile festival, which seems to have
been the New Year of the Babylonians or Persians. The mate-
rial of the book is taken from Babylonian mythology, though it
has been wholly Judaised. It does not seem extravagant to sup-
pose some such course of events as the following : The Jews of
Babylonia borrowed the New Year's festival of their Gentile
neighbours. Nicanor's day also came to them and was cele-
brated in conjunction with the other. As time went on, the true
history was distorted by legend— the popular mind only held
firmly to the memory of a remarkable deliverance wrought on
behalf of the Jews. The myth of Ishtar and Marduk lent itself
to dramatic treatment, and the heroine and hero donned Jewish

486 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

garb as Esther and Mordecai. Put into literary form by an
author who found the folk-story ready to his hand, the book
travelled back to Palestine. Here a party had arisen who were
willing to forget the merits of the Maccabean princes, and who
could justify the established festival on ground furnished by the
new story. The bloodthirsty tone of the narrative agrees very
well with the time when Pharisees and Sadducees were at swords'
points, and the figure of a Great King who heard the prayers of
his Jewish concubine would be congenial to those Scribes who
were ready to appeal to the Syrian monarch against their own
(Maccabean) princes. Whether Haman and Vashti are also
mythological figures, as is now supposed, is a point not essential
to our understanding of the story. ^

The book of Esther found a place in the Canon because it was
so closely connected with the observance of one of the festivals.
It belonged, however, to a considerable body of literature which
comes in the class of folk-stories, the material of which was bor-
rowed from the mythology or legends of the Gentiles. Such
stories pass from one nation to another, and are recast so as to
suit the taste of the readers in each new environment. The fa-
mous Thousand and One Nights are the mediaeval redaction of
these oriental tales, and it has even been suggested that Esther
and Shahrazade are duplicates of the same original. Without go-
ing so far as to affirm this, we recognise the fact that the her-
oism of a woman willing to undergo any danger for the sake
of her nation is a favourite theme for story-tellers in all times.
It appears again in the book of Judith, which cannot be far re-
moved indatefrom Esther. In this story Israel is delivered from
destruction by Judith, a fair woman who ingratiates herself with
the (rentile commander and slays him in the drunken sleep which

^ The somewhat complicated problems presented by the Purim festival
cannot be discussed here. All that can be said concerning the Persian ori-
gin of the festival was said by Lagarde in his essay, Purim (1887). The
hypothesis of a Babylonian origin was advanced by Zimmern in the Zeitschr.
f. d. Alttest. Wissensch., XI, p. 157 ff., and further developed by Meissner,
Zeitsch. d. Deutschen Morgenl. Gesellsch., L, p. 296 ff. The comparative
method was, however, most fully applied by Jensen ; see his letter to Wilde-
boer in the latter's commentary on the book of Esther, p. 173. Zimmern's
present theory may be read in Keilitischriften und A lies Testament,^ p.
514 ff. An elaborate discussion of all the questions involved (with others)
may be found in Frazer, The Golden Bough, III,* p. 172 ff.

THE PRIEST-KINGS 487

falls upon him after a carouse. The strongly legalistic point of
view is seen in the author's conviction that the people cannot be
destroyed so long as they refuse to eat of food ritually unclean.

In this period also we may place the little story of Bel and the
Dragon which was inserted in the Greek copies of the book of
Daniel. The dragon episode is plainly mythological in origin,
going back to the primeval monster of the Babylonian creation
story. The discovery of the fraud practised by the priests of
Bel, on the other hand, is a product of the Jewish imagination, to
which the impotence of the false gods had become a commonplace.
In this connexion we may consider also the story of Tobit, which
has come to us in the Greek Bible. It has none of the blood-
thirstiness of Esther and Judith and is on this account more
pleasing than either. Its evident purpose is to confirm the strict
Jews in the observance of the Law, showing us Tobit suffering for
his fidelity, but finally vindicated and restored. The demon-
ology of the book is more crass than anything we have yet con-
sidered— the heroine is persecuted by a demon who is in love
with her and who slays seven bridegrooms before the consumma-
tion of the marriage. The smoke from the heart and liver of a
fish is sufficient to banish this troublesome enemy, and we evi-
dently find here a bit of popular superstition.

In this case we have a Jew represented as a high official at the
court of a Gentile king. This figure is repeated in the later
Jewish literature — Daniel, Zerubbabel, Tobit, Ahikar,^ Mordecai,
are all examples. No doubt the historical Nehemiah gave the
precedent for all these figures. But Nehemiah was not the only
Jew who was able to attain high position at a Gentile court. In
the second century before Christ, we hear of one Aristobulus, a
Jewish philosopher, who was a courtier of Ptolemy VI (Philo-
metor).

Among the literary monuments of the period we may count
the second book of Maccabees. This is a work of edification ac-
cording to the taste of the times, and also a polemic against the
Maccabean princes. It emphasises the miraculous interferences
wrought for the benefit of Israel. At the very beginning it urges
the observance of the Feast of Dedication, not so much because
of the Maccabean recovery of the Temple, as because the sacred

^ Ahikar is mentioned in the story of Tobit. Zerubbabel meets us at the
court of Persia, in the Greek Esdras.

488 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

fire hidden by Jeremiah had been rediscovered at the return
from the captivity.^ In the rest of the history prodigies of all
sorts abound. The narrator is interested in these for their own
sake and also because he is able by them to enforce his own
(Pharisaic) point of view. For it is clearly his conviction that
the observance of the law will bring divine help without the di-
rect effort of man. The exploits of Judas he cannot ignore, and
he relates them with satisfaction. But he takes pains to leave out
of view the differences between Judas and the Assideans, shows
how scrupulously Judas himself observed the Sabbath, and refuses
to allow merit to any of Judas's brothers. The result is a cari-
cature instead of a history, and had we no other account of what
took place in the period our ideas would be wholly wrong.

Another monument of Pharisaic thought which has come down
to us from about this period is the so-called Book of Jubilees.^
This work represents Moses receiving from the Angel of the
Presence a copy of the heavenly tablet which contained the early
history of mankind. This is the original which our book pur-
ports to reproduce; in reality it follows, though with great free-
dom, the canonical book of Genesis. Its object is to show that
the Jewish Law had been followed by the Patriarchs. The Bib-
lical history which the author cherished seemed to him lacking
in this particular — it did not show Noah and Abraham to be
righteous according to the Pharisaic standard. In rewriting the
earlier history from his own i)oint of view, the author was follow-
ing the precedent set by the Priestly narrative of the Pentateuch,
and again by the Chronicler. Having in mind theories of verbal
inspiration and inerrancy, it is hard for us to appreciate this treat-
ment of a sacred narrative. There are, however, abundant par-
allels in later times, especially in the allegorical exposition of the
Old Testament by both Jewish and Christian scholars.

' This account is in one of the letters which the author prefixes to his
work, and which he takes from an older source. 2 Mace. I ^"-2 '*.

^ The reader will bear in mind that it is impossible to date some of these
documents accurately. Jubilees is still an object of controversy in this re-
spect, some scholars dating it soon after the Maccabean uprising, others
placing it as late as the second half of the first Christian century. The book
is preserved in an Ethiopic version and a considerable fragment also in Latin.
The latest discussion is contained in Charles, The Book of Jubilees (1902),
who gives also an English translation. A bibliography may be found in
Schurer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes,^ III, p. 279.

THE PRIEST-KINGS 489

The author's veneration for tradition leads him to emphasise
the number seven. The earhest evidence of the sacred n ess of
this number is the institution of the Sabbath. The Bibhcal nar-
rative dates this institution at the creation ; the Book of Jubilees
tell us specifically that it is continually observed by the angels in
heaven as it is by Israel on earth. The Law had also emphasised
the number seven by commanding the Sabbatical year and the
year of Jubilee. Our author makes this system the basis of his
whole chronology, telling us how many jubilee periods and how
many weeks of years had elapsed at each important point in the
narrative. He makes fifty jubilee periods to have elapsed (2450
years) between the creation and the exodus. Probably he ex-
pected the whole duration of the world to fill a hundred jubilees,
but this he leaves us to conjecture.

The emphasis laid upon the Law may be shown in the follow-
ing particulars : Pentecost was observed in heaven until Noah's
time, when it was first enjoined upon men ; observed by Noah
till his death, it was forgotten by his children and renewed by
Abraham. The covenant with Abraham is dated precisely at this
season of the year. In like manner the Feast of Tabernacles was
observed in heaven till the time of Abraham, who began its ob-
servance upon earth. The Passover also is dated from the time,
not of Moses, but of Abraham.

It does not surprise us to find that Abraham from his youth
abhorred the idolatry of his fathers and even burned their idol
temple with all its contents. Later Judaism is known to have
expanded these legends, which are also a staple of Mohammedan
tradition. The sacrifice of Isaac, on the other hand, is no longer
commanded by God, but suggested by Satan. That the institu-
tion of tithes is traced to this Patriarch is quite in accord with
our expectations, for there is some Biblical basis for such a state-
ment.

We have already met the theory that the angels who were ap-
pointed over the nations were perverse or disobedient. Our au-
thor makes them, rather, the tempters of men. In the days of
Noah they began to seduce and to befool and to destroy the
children of men. At the prayer of Noah, God commanded that
the evil angels should be shut up in prison. But Mastema (Satan),
their prince, pleaded his office as tempter and his need of assist-
ance in it, whereupon one-tenth of the number were left free.

490 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

They have now the power of afflicting men with disease. Noah,
however, was taught how to exorcise them, and we may suppose
that Jewish exorcists, whom we know to have swarmed in the
Roman empire, claimed possession of the secret taught to Noah
and committed by him to a book. These evil spirits are not
identical with the angels who sinned by marriage with the daugh-
ters of men. These, our book claims, have been committed
without exception to the abyss where they are reserved for the
judgment of the Great Day.'

Concerning the good angels, we learn that they were created on
the first day of God's work. In the antediluvian period they
were sent to teach men righteousness. Pre-eminent among them
is the angel of revelation by whose mediation the heavenly tablets
were delivered to Moses — an idea which was familiar to the New
Testament writers.^ The angels regulate the seasons and the
course of the heavenly bodies. That the author holds perti-
naciously to a year of 364 days we have already had occasion to
remark. His reason for insistence on this point is that if the
year observed in heaven is not observed on earth the whole
system of feasts will go wrong : the real Passover, Pentecost, and
Tabernacles are the ones observed in heaven, and if different ones
are observed on earth then the holy seasons will be profaned.^

Opposition to Gentile customs shows itself in the commentary
on God's giving clothing to Adam. The occasion for calling
attention to this was the Greek gymnastic practice, which, as we
have seen, gave offence in the time of Antiochus. So we find
Noah enjoining upon his sons *'to practise righteousness and
cover their secret parts, to bless their Creator, to honour father
and mother, to love one's neighbour, to keep from fornication,
and all uncleanness." ^ Under the head of uncleanness the eat-
ing of blood is, of course, included. The prohibition of blood
was regarded as a primitive and universal law, the violation of
which has brought all Gentiles under the curse of God. Inter-
marriage with those under such a curse is consequently an abom-
ination, and it is here objurgated with great energy — the man
or woman who is guilty of it is a defiler of the sanctuary.

^ Jubilees. 10 ^ '^, 4 22, 5 '-^ cf. Jude, v. ^.

2 /dicL, I 2T-29. 2 1 ; cf. Acts, 7 38. 53, Qa.\. 3 l^.

THE PRIEST-KINGS

491

This author expects a Messianic time. The course of history
up to his own day is sketched as one of increasing degeneracy,
marked by a progressive shortening of men's Hves. But " in
those days" men will begin to seek the Law and to turn to-
ward the ways of righteousness. Then their lives will begin to
grow longer until they reach the measure of a thousand years.
In their old age they will retain the strength of youth ; no
enemy will destroy them, but all their days will be days of bless-
ing. Such are the general terms in which the good time com-
ing is described. Little emphasis is laid upon the personal Mes-
siah. The tribe of Levi is to give princes and judges and chiefs
to the sons of Jacob. This points to the predominance of the
high-priests and i)robably to the continued rule of the Macca-
bean family. At the same time Judah is promised dominion,
and it is said that the Gentiles will fear before his face. The
words are put into the mouth of Abraham and might be sup-
posed to refer to David. But probably the writer expects the
glory of David's kingdom to be renewed by one of his sons. In
other late Jewish writings we find the combination of Levi and
Judah as the tribes from which the Messiah is to spring.^

Alexander at his death (b.c. 76) left the kingdom to his queen
Alexandra. Josephus tells us that by her husband's advice she
made peace with the Pharisees, and gave them the leading place
in her councils. Whether this was the reason, or whether she
was naturally inclined to follow these religious leaders, her con-
duct accorded with this programme. ''She restored those prac-
tices which the Pharisees had introduced according to the tradi-
tion of their forefathers, but which Hyrcanus had abolished." ^
What Pharisaic traditions were restored we are not told. But it
is evident that the method of enforcing them was the same pur-
sued by the other party, for the queen was obliged to restrain
the ferocity of her new counsellors. The members of the royal
family were no more in harmony with each other than is usually
the case in palaces. Aristobulus, the more energetic of Alex-
andra's two sons, was openly on the side of the Sadducees.

At the death of the queen (b.c. 67), her two sons were in arms
against each other. Hyrcanus, the elder, was already in posses-
sion of the high-priesthood, but Aristobulus was now strong

1 See the note of Charles, Book of Jubilees, p. 188.

2 Josephus, Ant., XIII, 16, i; Jewish War, I, 5.

492 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

enough to compel him to resign it and to resign also all claims
to the royal power. But one Antipater, an Idumean by race,
who had held high office under Alexandra, saw his opportunity to
attain power and espoused the cause of Hyrcanus. The fears of
the prince were wrought upon by representations that he was not
safe in Jerusalem, and he fled 40 Aretas, King of the Nabateans.
Antipater accompanied him and urged Aretas to restore Hyrcanus
to his rights. This the Arab promised to do on condition of certain
concessions of territory.^ He found a considerable party of Jew^s
on the side of Hyrcanus — Pharisees probably, since Aristobulus
was in the hands of the Sadducees.

The invaders on behalf of Hyrcanus succeeded in shutting up
Aristobulus in the Temple and his cause was looking desperate,
when a new power appeared upon the scene. The Romans were
now regulating affairs in the East, with Pompey the Great as their
general. One of his officers, Scaurus, appeared at Damascus and
both the Jewish claimants appeared before him. He took the
part of Aristobulus, and the patron of Hyrcanus was obliged to
retreat. Two years later (b.c. 63) Pompey himself appeared at
Damascus. Both princes appealed to him, as did also a deputa-
tion of the people who wished that the monarchy might be abol-
ished and the priestly constitution restored. No doubt the mass
of the people were tired of the court with its quarrels, its merce-
naries, and its foreign alliances. They thought they could con-
tent themselves under foreign governors if only they were allowed
the free exercise of their religion. This was according to Phari-
saic tradition, but the rule of the foreigner was yet to show them
how impossible it is to separate religion and secular affairs.

Pompey gave ear to the people so far as to command Aristo-
bulus to restore the priestly constitution, apparently intending
that he should resign the kingly title and give a share in the ad-
ministration to the Sanhedrin. In dissatisfaction w^ith the way
things w^ere going, Aristobulus suddenly left the camp of the
Romans. To the demand that he surrender the fortresses of the
country he delayed answer, hoping to prepare Jerusalem for re-
sistance, but at the appearance of the Roman army he gave up

^ The Idumeans had been circumcised by John Hyrcanus and thus made
full citizens of the Jewish commonwealth. But the conviction that the
Herods were only half Jews came into prominence again and again in this
last period of Jewish history.

THE PRTEST-KINGS 493

the city. Without his consent the more determined or the more
fanatical of the people seized the Temple and defied the foreigner.
The strength of the building was such that it had to be reduced
by regular siege. It took three months to breach the walls, and
the storming party then put the garrison to the sword. The
Roman general profaned the shrine by entering where, in theory,
no one but the high-priest was allowed to enter. But he spared
the treasures of the Temple and arranged to have the service con-
tinued without interruption.

Aristobulus having forfeited his office by his conduct, the high-
priestly organisation was restored, and Hyrcanus II was recog-
nised as its head. The districts conquered by his father and
grandfather were, however, taken away and united with the newly
organised Roman province of Syria. The principality of Judea
in its diminished extent was laid under tribute and Aristobulus,
with a large company of Jewish captives, was carried to Rome,
where (b.c. 61) he was shown in the triumph of the great general.
The independence of the nation was gone for ever.

The following years were years of disorder. The Romans were
not always in accord with each other ; the Arabs were trouble-
some neighbours ; the Parthians threatened Syria, and the Roman
armies were a burden to the province which they were expected
to defend. Some of the proconsuls were notorious for their ex-
tortions, and to their oppressions were speedily added the miseries
of civil war. Alexander, son of Aristobulus, escaped from cap-
tivity, succeeded in raising a band of soldiers, and made an
attempt to regain the ancestral throne. After the insurrection
was quelled, Gabinius, governor of the province, deprived the im-
potent Hyrcanus of the civil power and divided Judea into five
districts, each under a council of notables — organised we may
suppose after the model of the central Sanhedrin. To Hyrcanus
was left only the care of the Temple.

The unruly Aristobulus again raised the standard of revolt,
but was easily overcome and sent in chains to Rome (b.c. 55).
The next year his son Alexander renewed the attemi)t, but was
also defeated. These repeated struggles show the hold which
the Maccabean princes had on the people. Already we taste the
quality of the zeal which later brought Jerusalem to destruction.
One head, however, remained cool in the time of fanaticism —
the crafty Anti pater appreciated the power of the Romans and

494 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

knew how to make that power work to his advantage. Gabinius
found him useful in bringing the Jews to a better mind during
the revolt of Alexander, and further services of this kind did not
go unrewarded.

Of Crassus, who succeeded Gabinius, we may say that his little
finger was thicker than his predecessor's loins. He appropriated
to himself without ceremony the Temple treasure, now com-
puted at ten thousand talents. Soon after this, and perhaps on
this account, we find the Jews again in rebellion. Again they
were defeated. Thirty thousand unhappy beings are said to have
been sold into slavery at this time. Antipater was again useful
to the Romans in this affair.

In the civil war Caesar attempted to use Aristobulus against
the Pompeians, but the death of his client frustrated the plan.
The victory of Csesar over Pompey (b.c. 48) showed Antipater
on which side his interest lay. He rendered the victor substan-
tial aid in Egypt, and Caesar rewarded him by making Hyrcanus
ethnarch of the Jews, and by confirming Antipater in the office
of administrator. Permission was given to rebuild the walls of
Jerusalem, and the Jews outside of Palestine received some bene-
fits. Those in Alexandria were elevated to full citizenship and
their rights and im.munities were set forth on a pillar of bronze.
Other local decrees exempting the Jews from onerous restrictions
are dated in the same period.

The family of Antipater profited by the friendship of the Ro-
mans— Hyrcanus was too weak or too lazy to concern himself
with the work of government. With his consent Anti pater's two
sons were appointed to military command — Phasael the older in
Judea, Herod in Galilee. Both were able and energetic men,
but Herod, at this time only twenty-five years of age, especially
distinguished himself. His province was infested with banditti,
a natural consequence of the unsettled state of the country.
Herod made short work with these, putting their chief Hezekiah
with a numl)er of his followers to death. A collision with Jewish
l^rejudice was the result. I1ie theory of the Sanhedrin was that
they as the supreme council were also the supreme court, and that
the ))ower of life and death was in their hands. The Jewish
bandits had been executed without due process of law, and
Herod was summoned to give account. He appeared at Jerusa-
lem with an armed force and it required the severe conscience of

THE PRIEST-KIXGS 495

a revered teacher, Shemaiah by name, to hold the court faithful
to its duty. As it turned out, Herod escaped sentence only be-
cause the Roman Proconsul warned Hyrcanus against allowing
harm to come to him. The case was fitted to throw light upon
the conflict of jurisdiction, a conflict which was unavoidable in
the circumstances, but which none the less kept the nation in a
state of irritation from this time forward.

This is not the place to give a biography of Herod. His
energy, his unscrupulousness, and his shiftiness, all gave him value
in the eyes of his Roman masters. From his father he learned
or inherited the art of getting on the winning side. The Idu-
mean dynasty ''took part at first for Pompey, then for Csesar
the father, then for Cassius and Brutus, then for the Triumvirs,
then for Antony, then for Caesar the son ; fidelity varied as did
the watchword. Nevertheless, this conduct is not to be denied
the merit of consistency and firmness." ^ The policy was not
altogether new; something of the same kind was observed in
Jonathan's dealings with the Syrian crown. But the Idumeans
were much more proficient.

Herod did what he could to give his posterity a claim to the
throne by marrying Mariamne, the granddaughter both of
Hyrcanus and of Aristobulus. ^ Between the betrothal and the
marriage, the fortunes of the young governor fell to their lowest
ebb. In the year 40 b.c. the Parthians overran Syria. An-
tigonus, the heir of Aristobulus and representative of the Mac-
cabean claims, secured their aid by the promise of money and by
agreeing to hand over to them five hundred Jewish maidens. The
invaders got possession of Jerusalem, capturing Phasael and
Hyrcanus, both of whom they ])ut into chains. Herod with
difficulty got his family and a few faithful followers into security
at Masada, a stronghold in the Wilderness of Judah. ^ Leaving
them in safety he made his way to Rome, where he found a wel-
come from Antony and Octavian, and by decree of the Senate
was made king of Judea.

The decree of the Senate was- in effect a permission to con-

1 Mommsen, The Provinces of the Kotnan Empire (1886), II, p. 179.

2 She was daughter of Alexander, son of Aristobulus II ; her mother was
Alexandra, daughter of Hyrcanus II.

3 On the locality, now Sebbeh, see Baedeker, Palestine and Syria,"^ p.
141 ff.

496 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

quer a kingdom if he could, for the country was actually in pos-
session of his enemies. But the energy and ability which had
marked his career as governor of Galilee were not lacking in this
crisis. With an army recruited from Samaritans, Idumeans,
and mercenaries of all sorts, Herod soon reduced Galilee and
defeated the adherents of Antigonus. When it came to the
siege of Jerusalem he had Roman help, at first very grudgingly
given. ^ After the usual obstinate resistance the city was taken
by storm. Antigonus was taken to Antioch by the Romans and
there beheaded. Herod was in possession of his kingdom,
B.C. 37, nearly three years after his nomination to it by the
Senate.

The state of feeling among the people during these commotions
is revealed by a little collection of poems which has come down
to us under the name " P.salms of Solomon." Their author is a
member of the sect of Pharisees. The first thing that attracts our
notice is his opinion of the Maccabean rulers. In their over-
throw by the Romans he sees the just judgment of God. These
princes, sons of Israel, have profaned the sanctuary in which they
ministered. Their luxury and their sins are worse than those of
the heathen. The ordinance of God in favour of David and his
seed has been set aside by these usurpers ; therefore He has over-
thrown them and sent their seed out of the land. ^ The judg-
ment thus described is the one inflicted by Pompey. But though
Pompey was the instrument of the divine decree, his defile-
ment of the Temple must call down vengeance. His ignomin-
ious death in Egypt is represented as a punishment for his sac-
rilege.

If now the monarchy of the Hasmoneans was looked upon as
a usurpation, that of Herod must have been tenfold more offen-
sive. The Maccabeans were, at any rate, pure-blooded Israelites ;
Herod was only an Idumean with a thin varnish of Judaism.
The Me.ssianic exi)ectation had already taken such shape that it
would be content with nothing less than a miraculous restoration
of the throne of David to an uiuloubted descendant of that king.
The fervent, even feverish, desire for this consummation is one
of the characteristics of the period :

' Antony sent him troops, but the officers were bribed to inaction by Antig-
onus.

2ps. Sol. I, 2 3-6, 174.12

THE PRIEST-KINGS 497

" See, O Lord, and raise up for them a king,

The son of David at the time Thou hast appointed ;

That he may rule over Israel, Thy servant.

Gird him with strength to crush unjust rulers,

Purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who tread it down to ruin.

In wisdom and righteousness let him drive out sinners from our

heritage ;
Breaking in pieces the pride of the sinner, like a potter's vessel ;
With a rod of iron breaking all their strength." '

It was evident from the outset that a Herod could not meet
this expectation. All his endeavours to conciliate Jewish feel-
ing were met by sullen apathy, or by fierce resistance, and the
resistance was motived by the belief that the Messiah would
appear on behalf of the faithful.

With the establishment of Herod upon the throne of Jerusa-
lem, Old Testament history may properly end. Herod was sim-
ply the agent of the Roman power ; the independence of the
nation was gone. In fact, as we look at the Jewish people in the
time of Herod we see them no longer a nation, but an agglomer-
ation of sects united indeed by their common blood, but separated
by mutual distrust and hatred. A small fraction was bound to
the reigning family by motives of self-interest; the Sadducees
were partisans of the Maccabean dynasty and hoped for a hieroc-
racy in which theirs should be the dominant place; the Phari-
sees were students and expounders of the Law of Moses, hoping
for a Messianic time in which the Sanhedrin would bear rule in
the house of God, with themselves in the majority. Among
their followers two parties developed ; one was made up of the
more impatient spirits who were ready to draw the sword for the
cause of God and His Law ; the other was the party of the quiet
in the land, who were willing to suffer and wait for God's time.
The impatient souls soon began to band themselves together as
Zealots ; the extremists in the party of quieti.sm began to retire
from the world in monastic communities, and are known as
Essenes. Thus Judaism was hopelessly divided into factions
hating each other, some of them hating the Gentiles with equal

'Ps. Sol. 17 23-26^ Thg consent of scholars in favour of dating the Psalms
of Solomon in this period is broken by Frankenberg, who refers them to the
early Maccabean period (Die Datiruuir der Psalmen Salomons, 1896); see
Schurer, Gesch. des Jiid. VoIkes,'^\\\, p. 150 ff.

498 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

ardour. Their jealousies and bickerings and their spasmodic out-
breaks against the Roman power do not belong in an Old Testa-
ment history.

But during the period we have now reached, the Judaism out-
side of Palestine was growing in importance. We have already
seen that colonies of Jews were settled in Greek cities before the
Maccabean uprising, and that emigration was stimulated by the
internal troubles of Judea. In the Roman period the Jews were
favoured by Caesar; and Herod the Great did as much for the
people to which he claimed to belong, by defending their liber-
ties in Greek cities, as he did by his rule in Jerusalem. It is
strange that a world mission should have been assigned to these
Jews of the Dispersion, for they were not usually liked by their
Gentile neighbours. Their shrewdness in trade, their clannish-
ness, their ill-concealed abhorrence of the gods and temples,
their tenacity of Sabbath and circumcision — all these things
caused them to be regarded as outlandish and uncongenial. But
they had some things which made a deep impression on the more
thoughtful Gentiles. They had a serious faith in God and they
had the synagogue in which that faith was taught. They also
had a Bible, a Book of God, the source of instruction and of
comfort to despondent or perplexed souls. While Judaism in
Palestine was nearing its end, the Judaism of the Dispersion
was preparing to receive and propagate the new and expansive
religion of Jesus Christ.

APPENDIX

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

The following is a list of the principal dates assumed in this
work. The reader should bear in mind that in many cases they
can be no more than approximate-.^

B. c.

^^ Palestine under Babylonian rule.
icQo Introduction of the Babylonian script.
1400 Egypt in control of Palestine.

Hebrew clans sojourning in Kadesh.
1300 The Palestinian cities nominally under Egyptian rule, but harassed

by invasions of the Bedawin.
1270 A clan called Israel already settled in Canaan.
Period of Israel's Judges,
The Song of Deborah.
1030 Saul establishes the Benjamite Kingdom.
loio David's coronation at Hebron.

Writing down of poems hitherto circulated orally.
973 Solomon's coronation.
963 Dedication of the Temple.

Collection of folk stories ; traditions of the Patriarchs and of the

Judges.
Possible beginning of legal literature (collection of decisions as

precedents).
The Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49).
933 Jeroboam leads the revolt of the northern tribes.
Earliest biography of David.
Invasion by Shishak.
900 Book of the Covenant (Ex. 20 22-23).
880 Omri founds a new dynasty in Israel.
854 Ahab at the battle of Karkar.

Conflict of the Baal party and the Yahweh party in Israel ; Elijah
leader of the Yahweh party.
842 Jehu of Israel and Athaliah of Judah.

The Blessing of Moses (Deut. ss)-
800 Legends of Elijah and Elisha written down.
783 Jeroboam II.

The Yahwistic narrative (J).
750 The Elohistic narrative (E).
Amos.

1 A Students' C/iari of Biblical History, prepared by Professor Kent in
1895, will be found useful, as also the table in Kautzsch, Abriss der Ge-
schichte des alttestamentlichen Schriftums, 1894 (now published in English).

499

500 Ari'lsNDIX

n. r.
74; Prclitir (»f thr mullirrn l(ii))Ml<»ni.

I lltSCJl.

740 Hcj;;innin^ nl Isuiiih's « ;u cci .
7j{(i Aha/. I<in^; in |u<lMh.

7^^5 Invasion ol Jndjili by Israel and Syria; lril>ntc paid by Alia/, (o
rij;lalli pilcsor of Assyria.

Isaiah opposes (he poliey of Aha/..

Deportation (»f inhal)ilants from many dislriets of Israel.
721 I'ail of Samaria, deportation of a eonsiderable number of its inhabit-
ants, and impoit.'Uion of forei^^ners.
720 Ile/ekiah.

Cnbnination of Is.iiali's pio|)heti(' activity.

Mieah I-^
701 Invasion of Sennaeherib.

Religious rcfoiins vnider the inlbuMnc o( Isaiid).
()g2 Manasseh.

Kelij^ious reaction with persecniion ol (he projihclic parly.
"640 Josiah.
O2S The Scythian invasioti.

Hei^innin^j of Jeremiah's activity.
b2\ l'"in<lin^^ of the Hook of Inslrnction (Dent. 12 Ig, 2(). 2S) in ihe
IVrnpl.-.

Religions icforms on the basis of thib Ht)ok.
620 Nahum.

Zephaniah

I labakkuk I and 2.
608 Josiah slain at Migdol.
f)ob Kail of Nineveh.
605 Hattle of Carchemish.

l'"irst edition of Jeremiah's disccnirses.
5g7 I'irsl deportation of Jndaites to Uabyloni.i in conipanv with Ichoiachin.

/edekiah king; continued activity «)f Jeremiah.
593 K/ekiel begins to [ireach (o theexile.s.
586 I'^all of Jerusalem.

Jeremiah's latest discourses.

l-./ekiel's c<mstruetive activity.
5(11 Release of Jehoi.achin by Kvil-mcrod.ach.

Enlarged edition o{ Deuteronomy.

Deutrionomistic red.action of Judges and Kings.
550 I amenlalions.

The Holiness e\)de (Lev. 11, 17-2O).
539 ^'yrus takes possession of Habylon.
521 Darius I.

Haggai anti Zechariah (i-S).
SM) The second Temple dedicated.
4S«> Mal.ul\i.
40.1 Jolv

Isaiah 40 (»(>,
.?St; Mission of Nehemiah; rebuilding of the walls of lerusalem.

riie Priestly narrative of the Pentateuch (IM.
350 Combination of the Priestly narrative with the oUler book of the l,;.rv
anil addition of all extant priestly traditions.

Ruili.

Joel

Isaiah, 24 27.
.^.V^ Alexamler takes possession »>f Syria.

ai'I'i;m)Ix

5or

R. r.

320 l'|t)lciny I c.'iphircs jcnisalein.
250 ( lironiclfs.

/ecliariali, O-14.

The Sou^ of Sonj^s.

Jonah.

The miclcns of (Ik; r.oo|< of I'rovcrhs,
200 r.ook of Jesus ben Sira.

Tin; I>of>k of J'roverlis coinplctcd.
1X0 I'ictlesiastes.

175 Accession of Antiochus I""i)i|)liaries.
168 Desecration of the 'I'emple.
lUy Revolt of the Maccabees.
i(>^ 'Ihe I'.ook of Daniel.

Dc(b'calion of the 'I'emple.
i(>i Jonathan succeeds Judas.

Translation of the l'entat(;iu;h into (Ireek in Alexandria.
153 Jonathan appr.inted hi^^h-prie-sl by Demetrius.

142 Simon succeeds Jonathan and is aj)poirited hij^h pri»sl and prince by
the Jewish i)eople.

I'inal redaction ot the I'.ook of I'salnis.
134 J<'li'> Hyrcanus.

Active opposition of the Pharisaic party to the .Maccabean lujuse.

The First Mook oi Maccabees.
103 Alexander Janna;us.

The I»or>k of l';nc)ch.
100 The I'.ook of l';stlier.

The I'xjok of Judith.

'J"he Second I'.ook of Maccabees.

The Hook of Jubilees.
63 l'omp(;y in Syria.

The I'salms of .Sf^hnnon.
40 Flerod aj)i)ointed Kinj; of Judca by the R'jman Senate.
37 Herod in j)ossession of Jerusalem.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

PAGE

Aaron and his Sons 403

Abimelech 97

Abner and David 139

Abraham 50

Absalom's Revoh 148

Achish, King of Gath 131

Adonijah 152

Adullam 135

Ahab 187

Ahab and Jezebel 187

Ahab and Judah 188

Ahaz 234

Ahaz and Assyria 227

Ahaz besieged 235

Ahaz visits Tiglath-pileser 227

Alexander Balas 467

Alexander Jannaeus 482

Alexander, Legend of 413

Alexander the Great 413

Alexandra, Queen 491

Alexandria, Jews in 415

Alkimus, High-priest 463

Altar 167

Amalekites and David 132

Amaziah 207

Amaziah and Jehoash 207

Ammonite Invasion 114

Amon, King of Judah 259

Amorites, Conflict with 76

Amos 211

Angels 14. 19

Angels, Doctrine of 355

Angels, Fall of the 484

Angels in the Book of Daniel . . 457

Angels in the Book of Jubilees. 489

Animal Worship 269

Anointing of Saul 109

Anthropomorphism 18

Antiochus the Great 416

Antiochus III 44i

Antiochus IV, Accession of 442

Antiochus IV and Egypt... 442, 444

Antiochus IV at Jerusalem 444

Antiochus IV, Death of 461

Antiochus V 4^1

Antiochus VI 468

Antiochus VII 47^

PAGE
Antipater 492

Apocalypses 451

Apocalyptic Expectation 411

Apollonius, Defeat of 449

Aristeas, Letter of 476

Aristobulus I 482

Aristobulus II 492

Ark, The 71

Ark, Capture of the 112

Ark brought to Jerusalem. The. 144

Ark of Yahweh, The in

Artaxerxes 382

Artaxerxes, Decree of 390

Artaxerxes, Letter to 350

Artaxerxes Ochus 410

Asa's Alliance with Syria 186

Assassination 89

Ashurbanipal 258

Assideans, The 448

Assyria 194

Assyrian Policy, The 225

Athaliah's Usurpation 203

Atonement, Day of 405

Baal and Yahweh 171, 222

Baal in Israel 1 72

Baal Perazim 135

Baal, The Tyrian 189

Baasha 1 83

Babylon captured by Cyrus 342

Babylonian Conceptions 18

Babylonian Flood-story 28

Babylonian Influence 22

Bacchides 463

Barak 92

Baruch, Jeremiah's Scribe 289

Bel and the Dragon 487

Belshazzar 456

Benhadad and Ahab 1 88

Benjamin, War upon 107

Berossus 28

Bethel 45. 220

Bethel and Dan 180

Beth-horon, Battle of 82

Beth-shemesh 113

Beth-zacharias, Battle of 462

Blessing of Jacob 41, 175

503

504

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

PAGE

Blood, Efficacy of 325

Blood Revenge 8g, 1 74

Body-guard, The 203

Book of Instruction, The 260

Bulls, Golden 181

Caesar and the Jews 494

Cain 23

Cain's Genealogy 23

Caleb 84

Calves, The Golden 180

Canaan before the Conquest... 77

Canaan, Conquest of 73

Canaanite Peoples 74

Canaanite Religion 190

Canaanites and Israelites 172

Canaanites, Strength of the 86

Captivity of Israel 229

Carchemish, Battle of 282

Chasidim, The 448, 464

Chasidim, Programme of the.. 456

Chedorlaomer 37

Cherubim, The 167, 303

Chronicler, Method of the.... 345

Chronicles, Books of 4, 419

Chronology .21, 202

Chronology of the Flood 32

Chronology of Hezekiah's Reign 238

Circumcision 66

Circumcision in the Exile 328

City, Importance of the Greek. 417

Concubinage 1 74

Confusion of Tongues, The.... 13
Conquest, Earliest Account of

the 83

Corruption of Judah 253

Corvee, The 157

Covenant between Israel and

Yahweh 69, 70

Covenant, Book of the 1 74

Covenant in Deuteronomy 268

Covenant of Josiah 262

Covenant with Noah, The 33

Covenants between Israel and

Canaanites 79

Creation, Babylonian Account of 18

Creation, P's Account 16

Creation Story, The 13

Criticism, Higher 2

Cyrus, Career of 341

Cyrus, his Proclamation 344

Damascus and Assyria 207

1 )amascus, Fall of 228

Dan and Bethel 180

Daniel, The Book of 451

PAGE

Danites, The 85

Darius, Letter to 35 1

David and Abner 139

David at Hebron 133

David, Introduction of 122

David made King 142

David and Michal 123, 145

David and Nabal 130

David an Outlaw 129

David, Saul's Jealousy of 123

David's Character 154

David's Court 147

David's Foreign Wars 146

Day of Yahweh, The 216

Dead Sea 44

Deborah 92

Decalogue, The Earliest 68

Decalogue of J 210

Dedication, The Feast of 460

Dedication of the Temple 459

Deluge, The 26

Deluge Stories 30

Demetrius, King of Syria 463

Deportations, The Assyrian .... 226

Deportation, The First 285, 286

Desecration of the Temple 444

Deuteronomic Literature 332

Deuteronomist's Ideal, The... 271
Deuteronomy and the Prophets. 273
Deuteronomy, Influence of.... 264

Deuteronomy, Purpose of 266

Deuteronomy, Supplements to. 332

Dinah, The Story of 41

Dirge over Abner 141

Dispersion of Jews, The 498

Divorce of Gentile Wives 394

Dry Bones, Ezekiel's Vision of. 318

E, Work of 219

Ecclesiastes 436

Eden 24

Edom conquered by Amaziah.. 207

Edom and Israel 41

Edom, Revolt of 1 70

Egypt and Antiochus 442, 444

Egypt and Assyria 279

Egypt and Hezekiah 247

Egypt and Israel 227

Egypt and Judah 242

Egypt, Sojourn in 54

Ehud 90

Ekron's Revolt 242

El Amarna Tablets, The 36, 76

Elijah 190. 191

Elijah at Mount Carmel 192

Elijah and Jehu 193

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

505

PAGE

Elijah, Memoirs of . . .• 209

Elisha's Death 206

Eli's Sons Ill

Elohist, The 219

Ekekeh, Battle of 243

Enoch, The Book of 483

En Rogel 152

Ephod, Gideon's 96

Ephraim's Revolt 178

Epicureanism 438

Esau a Clan Name 39

Esarhaddon and Egypt 258

Esther, The Book of 485

Evil-merodach 327

Exclusiveness, Postexilic 399

Exiles' Condition in Babylonia. 301

Exiles, Expectations of the.... 294

Exodus, Narrative of 52

Ezekiel 302

Ezekiel's Call 302

Ezekiel, his Character 326

Ezekiel's Individualism 311

Ezekiel's Symbols 304

Ezekiel's Theory of the Divine

Justice 306

Ezra and Nehemiah 345

Ezra, Story of his Mission 390

Fall of Man, The 16

Famine in David's Time 1 50

Fasting 119

Feast of Dedication 460

Festivals 67

Flood, The 26

Gabriel, The Angel 457

Gath, David subject to 131

Gedaliah, Babylonian Governor 297

Genealogies 20

Gentile Customs opposed 490

Gibeah of Benjamin 107

Gibeon, Battle of 138

Gibeonites, The 1 50

Gideon 95

Gihon 153

Gilboa, Battle of 127

Gilead, The Jews in 460

Gymnasium in Jerusalem 443

God's Choice of Israel 373

Gog, Ezekiel's Vision of 316

Gog and Magog 316

Goliath 135

Gorgias, Defeat of 450

Goshen 61

Greek Culture 443

Greek Influence in Palestine... 417

PAGE

Greek Religion 418

Greek Version, The 476

Habakkuk, The Book of 285

Haggai, his Preaching 353

Haggai and Zechariah 34(^

Hair, Samson's 103

H ammurabi. Laws of 173

Heathenism in Judah 262

H ebron 1^3

Hellenising Influences 443

Herod 494

Herod made King 495

Hezekiah and Egypt 247

Hezekiah and vSennacherib .... 243

Hezekiah's Accession 238

Hezekiah's Reforms 239

Higher Criticism, The 2

High-places Destroyed 262

High-priesthood, The 467

Hiram and Solomon 1 59

Historical Books 3

History, The Hebrew Scheme of 1 1

Holiness Code, The ^^3

Holiness of Yahweh 322

Horeb, Elijah at ig2

Horeb and Sinai 64

Hosea and Amos 222

Hosea and the Monarchy 225

Hosea, The Book of 221

Hoshea, King of Israel 228

Human Sacrifice 100, 235

Hyrcanus II 491

Idolatry after the Exile 378

Idolatry under Manasseh 256

Idolatry in the Temple 305

Idolatry, Suppression of 266

Idols, Contempt of 371

Idols in the Temple 269

Isaiah and Sennacherib 246

Isaiah's Faith 251

Isaiah's Politics 236

Ishbaal 128, 136

Israel, Early Mention 75

Israel, Lack of Unity in 88

Israel and the Canaanites 99

Israel's Disunion 106

Israel's Foreign Policy 224

Israel's Prophetic Mission 371

Israel's Restoration 318

I, The Book of 14, 210

Jabesh Gilead 114, 128

Jachin and Boaz 165

Jacob 43

5o6

INDEX OF SUBJECT^

PAGE

Jacob, The Name of a People. . 38

Jacob's Sons 40

Jael and Sisera 93

Jason and Onias 443

Jealousy Ordeal, The 405

Jehoahaz of Israel 206

Jehoahaz of Judah 281

Jehoash of Israel 206

Jehoash and Amaziah 207

Jehoash's Coronation 204

Jehoiachin carried captive 284

Jehoiakim 28 1

Jehoshaphat 197

Jehu anointed 198

Jehu and Assyria 201

Jehu's suppression of Baal-
worship 200

Jephthah 99

Jephthah's Daughter 100

Jeremiah, Writing of his Book. 289

Jeremiah and the Scythians. . . . 275

Jeremiah and Zedekiah 296

Jeremiah arrested 283

Jeremiah imprisoned 295

. Jeremiah's Character 286

Jeremiah's Pessimism 278

Jeroboam ben Nebat 171, 177

Jeroboam's Reign 180

Jeroboam's Revolt 1 78

Jeroboam II 208

Jerusalem, .\ffection for 473

Jerusalem captured by David .. 136

Jerusalem, Disorders in 443

Jerusalem invested by Nebu-
chadrezzar 294

Jerusalem, Rebuilding of the

Wall 385

Jerusalem taken by Jehoash 207

Jerusalem's Sin 307

Jews, Independence of the .... 468

Jezebel 187

Jezebel's Death 200

Joab and Abner 140

Job, The Book of 363

Joel, Book of 408

John Ilyrcanus 478

Jonadab ben Rechab igi, 291

Jonah, The Book of 425

Jonathan 116

Jonathan's Transgression 120

Jonathan Maccabeus 466

Joram at Jezreel iq6

Joshua 80

Joshua the Chief Priest 356

Josiah's Accession 260

Josiah, Character of 280

PAGE

Josiah's Reforms 265

Josiah Slain 279

Jotham 233

Jubilees, Book of 6, 488

Judah 94

Judaism, Rise of 389

Judas Maccabeus 449

Judas Maccabeus, Death of . . . . 465

Judges, Book of 6, 87

Judges, Nature of their Office. . 88

Judgment of the Gentiles 409

Justice, Ezekiel's Theory of... 311

Justice, Theory of the Divine.. 363

Kadesh 62, 69

Karkar, Battle of 195

Keilah, David at 135

Kenites, The 93

Kingdom of God, The 379

Koheleth 436

Korah, The Story of 404

Lamech 24

Lamentations, The Book of . . . . 340

Lavers in the Temple 166

Law, Embodiment of Wisdom

in the 429

Law, Introduction of the 400

Law of the Hebrews 1 74

Legalism, First Stage of 274

Leontopolis, Temple at 446

Levi, Choice of 403

Levites, The 5

Levites, Ezekiel's Regulations. 324

Lions, Ravages of 231

Literature, Early 104

Lot, The Sacred 1 20

Lot, The Story of 47

Lysias, Defeat of 45 1

Maccabean Dynasty established 470

Maccabean Success 459

Maccabees, The 449

Maccabees, First Book of 483

Maccabees, Second Book of... 487

Ma99eba, The 45, 220, 267

Mahanaim 128

Malachi, Book of 360

Manasseh, King of Judah 254

Manetho 55

Mattathias, Revolt of 448

Media and Nineveh 276

Megiddo, Battle of 279

Menahem of Israel 226

Menelaus 444

Mephibosheth 150

Meribbaal 150

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

507

PAGE

Meribah 62

Merodach-baladan 241

Merom, Battle of 82

Mesha of Moab 197

Messiah in the Book of Enoch,

The 483

Messiah, Zerubbabel the 357

Messianic Expectation 475, 491

Messianic Faith, Israel's 252

Messianic Hope, The 338,424

Messianic Hope, Zechariah's. . 358

Messianic King, The 320

Micah, The Prophet 252

Micaiah 195

Michal and David 123, 145

Michal returned 139

Michmash, Battle of 117

Midianite Invasion 95

Midrash 6

Migrations 73

Mizpah 450

Moabite Revolt, The 196

Moloch 263

Monarchy, Rise of the 114

Moses 56

Moses, Blessing of 209

Moses, The Song of 291

Murder, Punishment of 174

Nabal and David 130

Nabonidus 342

Nabopolassar 277

Naboth 187

Nahash, the Ammonite 114

Nahum, Book of 277

Nazirite, The 103

Nehemiah 382

Nehemiah, Importance of 411

Nebiim 109

Nebuchadrezzar besieges Jeru-
salem 294

Nebuchadrezzar, Death of 327

Nebuchadrezzar in Palestine. . . 283

Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah 284

Nehushtan 239

Nicanor, Defeat of 464

Nineveh, Fall of 277

Noah 27

Nob, Destruction of 125

Nomad Life 43

Obed-edom 144

Omri 183

Omri, The House of 184

Onias, High-priest 443

Othniel 89

PAGE

P 12

P's Flood-Story 31

Palestine, Situation of 73

Paneas, Battle of 441

Parthian^ in Syria, The 495

Passover, The 67

Passover, Josiah's 267

Patriarchs, History of the 35

Patriarchal Period, The 48

Pekah invades Judah 233

Pharaoh Hophra 295

Pharaoh Necho 279

Pharisees, Rise of the 479

Philistines, The 102

Philistine Campaigns, David's. 136

Philistine Power, The 114

Philistine Supremacy 106

Plagues, The 57

Plague in David's Time, The.. 151

Pompey the Great 492

Popular Assembly, The Jewish. 468

Priest-code, The 4

Priestly Writer, The 11, 35, 400

Priests, Ezekiel's Regulations for 323

Priests, Income of 205

Prophet, The no

Prophetic Canon, The 408

Prophetic Guilds, The 193

Proverbs, The Book of 432

Psalms, The Book of 471

Psalms of Solomon 496

Ptolemy I at Jerusalem 415

Purim, Feast of 485

Qedeshim, The 262

Queen of Heaven, Worship of the 298

Rabshakeh before Jerusalem. . . 244

Ramoth Gilead 195

Reaction under Manasseh 255

Rechabites, The 29 1

Redeemer of Israel, The 373

Red Sea, Crossing of the 60

Rehoboam at Shechem 1 77

Rephaim, Valley of 135

Restoration, Ezekiel's Vision of

the 314

Resurrection, Doctrine of the. . 484
Return, Chronicler's Theory of

the 346

Revolt of the Ten Tribes 178

Rezin of Damascus 226

Rezon of Damascus 171

Ritual, Jeremiah's Attitude 288

Ritual, Popular Conception of . . 213

Rizpah 138

5o8

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

PAGE

Rizpah's Devotion 150

Romans, Antiochus IV and the. 444

Romans in Syria, The 493

Ruth, The Book of 398

Sabbath, The 20, 329

Sacred Lot, The 120

Sacred Trees 46

Sacrifice, Prophetic View of 214

Sadducees, The 480

Sagas, Nature of 42

Samaria, Fall of 229

Samaritan Text 22

Samaritan, Settlers, The 231

Samaritan Schism, The 399

Samson loi

Samuel 108

Samuel, Books of 7

Samuel as Judge 1 1 1

Sanballat 384

Sanctuaries, Israelite 46

Sanhedrin, The 481

Sanhedrin, Herod and the 494

Sargon 229

Sargon's Invasion of Philistia.. 242

Satan 356

Satan in the Book of Job 365

Saul's Character 127

Saul's Death 133

Saul and vSamuel 108

Saul and the Gibeonites 149

Saul and the Prophets no

Saul in David's Power 131

Saul's Jealousy of FJavid 123

Saul's Later Years 126

Saul's Mania 122

Saul's Vow 119

Scribes, Importance of the 436

Scribes, The 430, 497

Scythian Invasion, The 275

Sea, The Molten 166

Seleucus, Kingdom of 416

Sennacherib's Invasion 243

Sennacherib's Retreat 244

Serpent, The 13

Serpent, The Copper 239

Serpent Worship 240

Seth, (Genealogy of 20

Seventy Weeks of Daniel 455

Sexual Life, Religion and the.. 336

Shallum 219

Shalmaneser II 194

Shalmaneser IV 228

Sheba's Revolt 149

Shechem, Revolt of 98

Shiloh 112

Shimei 149

PAGE

Shishak's Invasion 184

Simon Maccabeus 468

Simon Maccabeus, Murder of. . 478

Sinai 62ff

Sin-offerings 325, 407

Sirach 427

Sisera 91

Slavery 1 74

So, King of Egypt 228

Sodom, Destruction of 45, 48

Solomon, Psalms of 496

Solomon's Buildings 162

Solomon's Coronation 153

Solomon's Harem 160

Solomon's Palace 162

Solomon's Policy 156

Solomon's Wealth 159

Solomon's Wisdom 160

Song of Moses, The 291

Song of Songs 426

Sons of God 14

Spirit of Yahweh 103

Suflferings, Meaning of Israel's. 373

Swine, Uncleanness of 334

Synagogue, The 434

Syncretism 190

Syncretism, Samaritan 231

Syncretism of Solomon . 1 69

Syria and Asa 186

Syrian Deluge Story 30

Tabernacle, The 71

Tabernacle, Account of the 402

Taboo 334

Talio 1 74

Tammuz in the Temple 306

Tatnai, Governor of Syria 352

Temple, The i6iflF

Temple, Changes in the 236

Temple, Chronicler's Estimate of

the 422

Temple Desecrated 444

Temple of Ezekiel, The 321

Temple, Haggai's Exhortation . 349

Temple, Importance of the 271

Temple Income, The 204

Temple, Rededication of the. . . 459

Temple Servants 1 70

Temple Service, Ben Sira's De-
scription 43 1

Ten Tribes, The 230

Teraphim, The 1 24

Theophanies 46

Tibni 184

Tiglath-pileser III 225

Tiglath-pileser at Damascus 236

Tribal Names 38

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

509

PAGE

Tribal Organization, The 173

Tribes of Israel, The 94

Trypho 468

Trypho proclaims himself King 468

Unity of God 270

Unity of the Sanctuary 270

Urim andThummim 121

Uzzah, Death of 144

Uzziah 232

Vicarious Suffering 374

Wilderness of Judah 1 29

Wilderness Sojourn, The 6r

Wilderness Wandering 65

Wisdom Literature, The 427

Wisdom, Praise of 428

W^oman, Sacredness of 337

PAGE

Yahweh, God of the Desert. 68, 190

Yahweh, God of Israel 104

Yahweh a jealous God 266

Yahweh a God of War 94

Yahweh, (iod of the Whole

Earth 213

Yahweh, Wrath of 212

Yahwist, Work of the 210

Zadok, Family of 324

Zechariah of Israel 226

Zechariah, his Visions 354

Zedekiah and Jeremiah 296

Zedekiah captured 296

Zedekiah, King of Judah 292

Zephaniah. The Book of 276

Zerubbabel 351

Ziklag 132

Zimri 183

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES

Genesis.

PAGE

2, 10-15 24

4. 17-24 20

4. 23f 24

5. 1-32 20

6. 1-4 14

6, 5 27

8, 6 27

10 38

".1-9 13

18,23-33 250

^'•-■- 37

25.1-6 39

25. 12-17 39

27, 39f 41

28 45

34 42

35. 20 220

36 39

49 40, 1 75

Exodus.

3.9-25 53

3'H--- 57

4.24-26 67

6,2-9 53

8,26 59

14,1-3 60

17. 1-8 62

20-23 174

23,12-19 69

23, 29 231

33> 7 402

33. 14 68

34 68, 210

35-40 403

Leviticus.

^0'i-5 403

II 333

'^■-; 403,405

ll'f 333

^^'6-30 335

23-22 337

26.33 338

Numbers.

PAGE

3,5-13 404

5. 11-31 406

7 408

10,35 112

11,24-30 70

19 404

20,1-13 404

21,1-3 84

21,4-9 239

21,14 76

21,27-30 76

Deuteronomy.

6,4 270

12,8 266

13 267

15. 12-18 294

16,1-8 267

^o'l~^ 323

18,6 266

18, 10 267

20, 16-18 269

26,17 268

28 265

32 291

33 209

33.2 62

Judges.

1 86

5 40

II, 12-28 loi

14,6 103

18 85

^9 45

I Samuel.

2, 12-17 Ill

5-7 113

7. 13 Ill

10. 9-13 109

" 116

I3andi4 120

14,36-45 121

14,47 126

510

I Samuel — Cont'd.

PAGE

15 125

19, 18-24 109

21.4-6 2.2.'^

22,6-19 125

^^ 133

24 131

26 131

27 132

2 Samuel.

2.8-3,39 141

2-4 134

3.6-39 139

7 145

7 340

9 150

II 148

15,1-6 148

^6 - 149

20,23-26 147

21,4-6 150

I Kings.

1.9 152

I and 2 15^

4 156

5.27-30 158

8,8 1^4

9. 15-19 158

9.28 159

10,28 160

II. 14-22 . 170

11. 23-25 171

^2 179

12, 25-33 181

14, 23f 182

14. 25-28 185

15. 11-13 185

15, 16-32 186

15, 27 183

16, 8-10 183

18 192

20. 35-43 193

21. 19 188

22. 43 197

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES 51I

2 Kings. Nehemiah — ConVd. Isaiah — Continued.

^^^^ PAGE PAGE

3'26 100 6, 1-14 388 39 242

^'^2 2°J 7 347 40-66 371

^ ^9» 7.57-60 170 41. 1-4 377

"• 4-20 204 13 399 41,6,7 372

12, 4-16 205 41, 21-23 372

12,18 206 Job. 42,1-4 377

^^' ^ ^°c 7,12-21 367 45,14 374

^4'i-H 208 /_ ^_^ ^^^ 46. 1-4 372

^^' ^J ^^l 19, 23-27 369 49, 1-6 375

^t ^I 38 370 49.14-50,3 373

15.16 219 ^ ^' 50,4-6 475

^5' 37 233 Psalms. 53 376

[6, 3 235

[6, 7 227 35. 11-15 472

55. 5 375

6, 9 228 42 473 56,' 9:::::.::::: 378

16, 18 236 44 473 l;^ ^^^

;^ 24:::::::::: 230 P-VERBS. 63.1-6 379

17. 24-34 231 8, 22-27 433 Teremiah.

18 244 10-22 432 -'

^^ 2, i-ii 287

;^'?3 - 3..-. 43s j!i:|;;;;;;;;;i

;|:ive:::;:::^^^ r^-:::::::.t lV:::r::-.X

20, 12-19 242 '' ' eg

^ ' r JZ 7. 22 288

21' 2-6 254 Isaiah. s « .y.

18, I 238

18,4 14 '^ECCLESIASTES

21, 16 257

8. 8 273

22,3-13 260 I' 5 250 II, 15 288

o^ ofso 2,6 233 13,18-20 291

23 262

23, 29 280

2, 2-5 358 17, 19-27 331

27 421

2 Chronicles.

Ezra.

23. zz 282 2, 12-17 234 i« 29c

2^ I 28^ 3.16-24 255 22,13-19 282

24, 7"':::::::: 283 6, 9 251 22, 24-30 284

^' ^ ^ 6,13 251 27 293

iChronicles. 7and8 235 29 294

9. 7-9 234 34, 8-22 295

10, 5-7 249 35 291

10, 28-32 248 35. I-" 191

11, 1-8 252 36 289

21, 12-20 421 13 and 14 343 44 298

33. 1 1-19 258 14,28-32 241 51,59 294

18 247 52, 28-30 297

20 242

I, 1-4 344 21, I-IO 343 EZEKIEL.

2 347 22 249 3.1-3 304

4,12 348 24-27 410 3. 15-21 313

5,3-6,14 351 25,6-8 411 4.1-7 304

7, 12-26 391 28, 1-4 234 5, 1-4 305

9 and 10 394 28, 17 248 8,9-12 305

28, 28f 246 12, 1-20 305

Nehemiah. 29 248 11, 1-13 307

1,9 383 30,1-5 247 14.14 364

4,6 386 30,15 248 14,20-23 310

5, 1-13 387 34and35 379 ^5. i-5 307

5, 14-19 387 36 244 16 308

512

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES

E z E K 1 E L — Con tin ued.

PAGE

1/ 308

18 310

19 308

19. 3-5 282

21, 18-23 309

23 308

23. 10-12 330

24, 15-27 309

3Z> 1-16 313

34 315

34, 23 320

34, 26-30 314

35 --- 315

36, 26 319

37» i-io 318

38,8 316

38, 16 317

39. 8-15 317

40-48 321

43, 7 322

44, 6-15 323

45, 13-17 320

45, 17-20 325

46, 13-16 320

47» 1-12 326

Daniel.

7, 7 414

7, 9-14 - 454

8, 5-8 414

8, 14 454

10 452

" 452

11, 31 446

12, 7 454

HOSEA.

PAGE

1, 2-9 221

2, 5 222

5» 15-6, 4 224

^Z> II 225

14, 2-7 223

Amos.

I, 3 202

I and 2 216

3, 2 .-213

5- 15 217

5, 18-20 216

5, 21 214

6, 1-6 215

6, 13 208

7, 9 211

8, I 212

% 11-15 217

MiCAH.
2» II 253

3, 2 253

3, 5 and 12 253

4, 1-4 358

6,6-8 257

Nahum.

I, 2 and 3 278

2 and 3 277

Zephaniah.
3, 1-7 276

Haggai.

i» i-4 349

2. 6 354

Zechariah.

1-8 349

1, 7-2, 5 356

3. 6 357

5 358

6, II 357

8, 20-23 358

9-14 423

Malachi,

1-2 361

2, 10-16 361

3, 2-5 361

3. 8-10 362

3, 13-15 362

Ecclesiasticus.

4, II-I5 429

24, 1-6 429

24. 8-23 429

38, 24-39, II 436

50, 18-21 431

I Maccabees.

1, 21-24 444

2, 42 448

5, 1-5 460

5, 55-68 461

6, 8-13 461

9, 5-19 465

14, 27-49 470

tX)t Jnfernaftonaf t^eofogicaf fetfirdtg.

AN INTRODUCTION TO

The Literature of the Old Testament

By Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt.

Canon of Christ Church, Oxford

New Edition Revised

Crown 8vo, 558 pages, $2.50 net

"It is the most scholarly and critical work in the English lan^
guage on the literature of the Old Testament, and fully up to the
present state of research in Germany."— Prof. Philip Schaff, D.D.

" Canon Driver has arranged his material excellently, is succinct
without being hurried or unclear, and treats the various critical prob-
lems involved with admirable fairness and good judgment."

—Prof. C. H. Toy.

"His judgment is singularly fair, calm, unbiassed, and inde-
pendent It is also thoroughly reverential. . . . The service,
which his book will render in the present confusion of mind on this
great subject, can scarcely be overestimated."— T)^-? London Times,

"As a whole, there is probably no book in the English language
equal to this ' Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament*
for the student who desires to understand what the modern criticism
thinks about the Bible." — Dr. Lyman Abbott, in the Outlook.

"The book is one worthy of its subject, thorough in its treat-
ment, reverent in its tone, sympathetic in its estimate, frank in its
recognition of difhculties, conservative (in the best sense of the
word) in its statement of results."

— Prof. Henry P. Smith, in the Magazine of Christian Literature.

' ' In working out his method our author takes up each book in
order and goes through it with marvelous and microscopic care.
Every verse, every clause, word by word, is sifted and weighed, and
its place in the literary organism decided upon."

— The Presbyterian Quarterly.

" It contains just that presentation of the results of Old Testa-
ment criticism for which English readers in this department have
been waiting. . . . The whole book is excellent; it will be found
helpful, characterized as it is all through by that scholarly poise of
mind, which, when it does not know, is not ashamed to present de-
grees of probability." — New World.

"... Canon Driver's book is characterized throughout by
thorough Christian scholarship, faithful research, caution in the
expression of mere opinions, candor in the statement of facts and of
the necessary inferences from them, and the devout recognition of
the divine inworking in the religious life of the Hebrews, and of the
tokens of divine inspiration in the literature which records and em-
bodies it." — Dr. A. P. Peabody, in the Cambridge Tribune.

A HISTORY OF

CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE

ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT, Ph.D., D.D.

V^ashbum Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New Yoyk,

Crown 8vo, 681 Pages, $2.50 Net.

•' The author's work is ably done. . . . This volume is worthy o£
its place in the series." — The Congregaiionalist.

" Invaluable as a resume of the latest critical work upon the great forma-
tive period of the Christian Church." — T/ie Christian World (London).

"There can be no doubt that this is a remarkable work, both on account
of the thoroughness of its cx'i'^cism and the boldness of its views."

— The Scots}7ian.

"The ability and learning of Proisssor McGififert's work on the Apos-
tolic Age, and, whatever dissent there may be from its critical opinion, its
manifest sincerity, candid scholars will not fail to appreciate."

— Dr. George P. Fisher, of Yale University.

" Pre-eminently a clergyman's book; but there are many reasons why it
should be in the library of every thoughtful Christian person. The style
is vivid and at times picturesque. The results rather than the processes of
learning are exhibited. It is full of local color, of striking narrative, and of
keen, often brilliant, character analysis. It is an admirable book for the
Sunday-school teacher." — Boston Advertiser.

" For a work of such wide learning and critical accuracy, and which deals
wiih so many difhcult and abstruse problems of Christian history, this is re-
markably readable."— T"/;*? Independent.

"It is certain that Professor McGififert's work has set the mark for
future efifort in the obscure fields of research into Christian origin."

— Nezu York Tribune.

" Dr. McGiflFert has produced an able, scholarly, suggestive, and con«
structive work. He is in thorough and easy possession of his sources and
materials, so that his positive construction is seldom interrupted by citations,
the demolition of opposing views, or the irrelevant discussion of subordinate
questions." — The Methodist Review.

"The clearness, self-consistency, and force of the whole impression of
Apostolic Christianity with which we leave this book, goes far to guarantee
its permanent value and success." — The Ext)ositor.

0>e 3ntem<iftoMf C^eofojtcaf £t6wrg.

CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS.

By ALEXANDER V. G. ALLEN, D.D.

Professor of Eccle iastical History in the Episcopal Theological School
in Cambridge.

Crown 8vo, 577 pages, $2.50 net.

*^ Professor Allen's Christian Institutions may be regarded as the most
important permanent contribution which the Protestant Episcopal Ch;irch
of the United States has yet made to general theological thought. In a few
particulars it will not command the universal, or even the general assent of
discriminating readers ; but it will receive, as it deserves, the respect and
appreciation of those who rightly estimate the varied, learned, and independ-
ent spirit of the author." — T/ie Americafi Journal of Theology.

" As to his method there can be no two opinions, nor as to the broad,
critical, and appreciative character of his study. It is an immensely sug-
gestive, stimulating, and encouraging piece of work. It shows that modern
scholarship is not all at sea as to results, and it presents a worthy view of a
great and noble subject, the greatest and noblest of all subjects." — The In-
dependent.

"This will at once take its place among the most valuable volumes in the
• International Theological Library,' constituting in itself a very complete
epitome both of general church history and of the history of doctrines.
. . . A single quotation well illustrates the brilliant style and the pro-
found thought of the book." — The Bibliotheca Saera.

" The wealth of learning, the historical spirit, the philosophic grasp, the
loyalty to the continuity of life, which everywhere characterize this thorough
study of the organization, creeds, and cultus constituting Christian Institu-
tion. . . . However the reader may differ with the conclusions of the
author, few will question his painstaking scholarship, judicial temperament,
and catholicity of Christian spirit." — The Advance.

"It is an honor to American scholarship, and will be read by all who
wish to be abreast of the age." — The Lutheran Church Review.

" With all its defects and limitations, this is a most illuminating and sug«
gestive book on a subject of abiding interest." — The Christian Intelli'
gencer.''"'

"It is a treasury of expert knowledge, arranged in an orderly and lucid
manner, and more than ordinarily readable. . . . It is controlled by the
candid and critical spirit of the careful historian who, of course, has his
convictions and preferences, but who makes no claims in their behalf which
the facts do not seem to warrant." — The Congregationalist.

" He writes in a charming style, and has collected a vast amount of im-
portant material pertaining to his subject which can be found in jto other
work in so compact a form." — The New York Observer

C^e 3rtferwitionaf C^eofogicaf fetBmm

History of Christian Doctrine.

GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D.,

Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Yale University.
Crown 8vo, 583 pages, $2.50 net.

** He gives ample proof of rare scholarship. Many of the old doc-
trines are restated with a freshness, lucidity and elegance of style
which make it a very readable book." — The New York Observer.

*' Intrinsically this volume is worthy of a foremost place m our
modern literature . . . We have no work on the subject in English
eoual to it, for variety and range, clearness of statement, judicious
guidance, and catholicity of tone." — Lotdon Nonco7ifori)iist and Inde-
penderit

" It is only just to say that Dr. Fisher has produced the best His-
tor} of Doctrine that we have in English." — The New York Evangelist.

" It is to me quite a marvel how a book of this kind (Fisher's
•History of Christian Doctrine') can be written so accurately to
scale. It could only be done by one who had a very complete com-
mand of all the periods." — Prof. William Sanday, Oxford.

"It presents so many new and fresh points and is so thoroughly
treated, and brings into view contemporaneous thought, especially
the American, that it is a pleasure to read it, and will be an equal
pleasure to go back to it again and again." — Bishop John F. Hurst.

** Throughout there is manifest wide reading, careful prepara-
tion, spirit and good judgment," — Philadelphia Presbyterian.

" The language and style are alike delightfully fresh and easy
. . . A book which will be found both stimulating and instructive
to the student of theology." — The Churchman.

" Professor Fisher has trained the public to expect the excellen
cies of scholarship, candor, judicial equipoise and admirable lucidity
and elegance of style in whatever comes from his pen. But in the
present work he has surpassed himself." — Prof. J. H. Thayer, o/
Harvard Divinity School.

" It meets the severest standard; there is fullness of knowledge,
thorough research, keenly analytic thought, and rarest enrichment
for a positive, profound and learned critic. There is interpretative
and revealing sympathy. It is of the class of works that mark epochs
in their several departments." — The Outlook.

" As a first study of the History of Doctrine, Professor Fisher's
volume has the merit of being full, accurate and interesting."

— Prof. Marcus Dods

♦* . . . He gathers up, reorganizes and presents the results of
Mivestigaticn in a style rarely full of literary charm."

- — The Interio'^.

Apologetics ;

Or, Christianity Defensively Stated.

By the late ALEXANDER BALMALN BRUCE, D.D.,

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

Glasgow ; Author of " The Training of the Twelve," "The Humilia=^

tion of Christ," " The Kingdom of God/' etc.

Crown 8vo, 528 pages, $2.50 net.

Professor Bruce's work is not an abstract treatise on apologetics,
but an apologetic presentation of the Christian faith, with reference
to whatever in our intellectual environment makes faith difficult at
the present time.

It addresses itself to men whose sympathies are with Christianity,
and discusses the topics of pressing concern — the burning questions
of the hour. It is offered as an aid to faith rather than a buttress of
received belief and an armory of weapons for the orthodox believer.

" The book throughout exhibits the methods and the results of
conscientious, independent, expert and devout Biblical scholarship,
and it is of permanent value." — TAe Congregationalist.

"The practical value of this book entitles it to a place in the
first rank." — The Independent.

" A patient and scholarly presentation of Christianity under
aspects best fitted to commend it to ' ingenuous and truth-loving
minds.' " — The Nation.

"The book is well-nigh indispensable to those who propose to
keep abreast of the times." — Western Christian Advocate.

''Professor Bruce does not consciously evade any difficulty,
and he constantly aims to be completely fair-minded. For this
reason he wins from the start the strong confidence of the reader." —
Advance.

" Its admirable spirit, no less than the strength of its arguments,
will go far to remove many of the prejudices or doubts of those who
are outside of Christianity, but who are, nevertheless, not infidels." —
New York Tribune.

" In a word, he tells precisely what all intelligent persons wish to
know, and tells it in a clear, fresh and convincing manner. Scarcely
anyone has so successfully rendered the service of showing what
the result of the higher criticism is for the proper understanding of
the history and religion of Israel."— ^«^<?Trr Review.

•' We have not for a long time taken a book in hand that is more
stimulating to faith. . . . Without commenting further, we repeat
that this volume is the ablest, most scholarly, most advanced, and
sharpest defence of Chiistianity that has ever been written. Kc
theological libra- y shr>uld be without it." — Zions Herald.

ZU Jtttetnctftonctf C^eofogtcaf g.t6rarg.

Christian Ethics,

By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D., New Haven.

Crown 8vo, 508 pages, $2.50 net.

" As this book is the latest, so it is the fullest and most atcractive
treatment of the subject that we are familiar with. Patient and ex-
haustive in its method of inquiry, and stimulating and suggestive in
the topic it handles, we are confident that it will be a help to the
task of the moral understanding and interpretation of human life."

— TAe Livijig Church.

' ' This book of Dr. Newman Smyth is of extraordinary interest and
value. It is an honor to American scholarship and American Chris-
tian thinking. It is a work which has been wrought out with re-
markable grasp of conception, and power of just analysis, fullness ot
information, richness of thought, and affluence of apt and luminous
illustration. Its style is singularly clear, simple, facile, and strong.
Too much gratification can hardly be expressed at the way the author
lifts the whole subject of ethics up out of the slough of mere natural-
ism into its own place, where it is seen to be illumined by the Chris-
tian revelation and vision." — The Advance.

" The subjects treated cover the whole field of moral and spiricual re-
lations, theoretical and practical, natural and revealed, individual and social,
civil and ecclesiastical. To enthrone the personal Christ as the true content
of the ethical ideal, to show how this ideal is realized in Christian conscious
ness and how applied in the varied departments of practical life — these are
the main objects of the book and no objects could be loftier."

— The Congregaiionalist.

" The author has written with competent knowledge, with great spiritual
insight, and in a tone of devoutness and reverence worthy of his theme."

— The Lojidoji Independent

"It is methodical, comprehensive, and readable; few subdivisions,
direct or indi'-ect, are omitted in the treatment of the broad theme, and
though it aims to be an exhaustive treatise, and not a popular handbook, it
may be perused at random with a good deal of suggestiveness and jprofi.t."

— The Sunday School Times

" It reflects great credit on the author, presenting an exemph.vy temper
and manner throughout, being a model of clearness in thought and term,
and containing passages of exquisite finish." — Hartford Seminary Record *

" We commend this book to all reading, intelligent men, an ' especi ll»
to ministers, who will find in it many fresh suggestions.*'

— Professor A. E BP-UC^

THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH

From the Accession of Trajan to the Fourth
General Council (A.D. 98=451)

By ROBERT RAINY, D.D.

Principal of the New College, Edinburgh.

Crown 8vo. 554 Pages. Net, $2.50.

"This is verily and indeed a book to thank God for; and if anybody has
been despairing of a restoration of true catholic unity in God's good time, it
is a '-^ook to fill him with hope and confidence." — The Church Standard.

•" Principal Rainy has written a fascinating book. He has the gifts of an
historian and an expositor. His fresh presentation of so intricate and time-
worn a subject as Gnosticism grips and holds the attention from first to last.
Familiarity with most of the subjects which fall to be treated whhin these
limits of Christian history had bred a fancy that v/e might safely and profit-
ably skip some of the chapters, but we found ourselves returning to close up
the gaps ; we should advise those who are led to read the book through this
notice not to repeat our experiment. It is a dish of well-cooked and well-
seasoned meat, savory and rich, with abundance of gravy; and, while no
one wishes to be a glutton, he will miss something nutritious if he does not
take time to consume it all." — Methodist Beview.

•'It covers the period from 98-451 A.D., with a well-marked order, and
is written in a downright style, simple and unpretentious. Simplicity, in-
deed, and perspicuity are the keynotes, and too great burden of detail is
avoided. A very fresh and able book." — The Nation.

" The International Theological Library is certainly a very valuable collec-
tion of books on the science of Theology. And among the ^♦it -' good books.
Dr. Rainy's volume on The Ancient Catholic Church -s entitled to a high
place. We know of no one volume which contains ..o much matter which
is necessary to a student of theology." — The Living Church.

" Of course, a history so condensed is not to be read satisfactorily in a day
cr even a week. The reader often will find ample food for thought for a
day or more in what he may have read in two hours. But the man _ who
will master the whole book will be amply rewarded, and will be convinced
that he has been conso-ting with a company of the world's greatest men,
and has attained an accurate knowledge of one of the world's greatest ana
most important periods." — Christian Intelligencer.

"As a compend of church historv for the first five centuries, this volume
will be found most useful, for ready reference, both to those wno possess
the more elaborate church histories, and for the general information desired
by a wider reading public ; while the temperate presentations of the author s
own theories upon disputed points are in themselves-- of great value. —
Bibliotheca Sacra.

"Principal Rainy of the New College. Edinburgh, is one of the foremost
scholars of Great Britain, and in Scotland, his home, he is regarded by his
countrymen as the chief figure in their ecclesiastical life.^ 1 here can be
little doubt that this recent volume will enhance his reputation and serve to
introduce him to a wider circle of ixlQuds'^-^-Congre^ationaltst, Boston.

t^ 3ntctnationaf C^ofogtcaf EtBtdtg.

THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE
WORKING CHURCH

by WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D.. LL.D.

Author of '•Applied Christianity," "Who Wrote the Bible?" •• Ruling
Ideas of the Present Age," etc.

Crown 8vo, 485 pages, $2.5o net.

** Dr. Gladden may be regarded as an expert and an authority on practi-
cal theology. . . . Upon the whole we judge that it will be of great
service to the ministry of all the Protestant churches." — T/ie Interior.

" Packed with wisdom and instruction and a profound piety. . . .
It is pithy, pertinent, and judicious from cover to cover. . . . An ex-
ceedingly comprehensive, sagacious, and suggestive study and application
of its theme." — The Congregationalisi.

" We have here, for the pastor, the most modern practical treatise yet
published — sagacious, balanced, devout, inspiring." — The Dial.

" His long experience, his eminent success, his rare literary ability, and
his diligence as a student combine to make of this a model book for its pur-
pose. . . . We know not where the subjects are more wisely discussed
than here." — The Bibliotheca Sacra.

" This book should be the vade mecum of every working pastor. It
abounds in wise counsels and suggestions, the result of large experience
and observation. No sphere of church life or church work is left untreated."
— The (Canadian) Methodist Magazine and Review.

*' A happier combination of author and subject, it will be acknowledged,
can hardly be found. ... It is comprehensive, practical, deeply
spiritual, and fertile in wise and suggestive thought upon ways and means
of bringing the Gospel to bear on the lives of men." — The Christian Ad-
vocate.

" Dr. Gladden writes with pith and point, but with wise moderation, a
genial tone and great good sense. . . , The book is written in an excel,
lent, business-like and vital English style, which carries the author's point
and purpose and has an attractive vitality of its own." — The Indepe7tdent.

" A comprehensive, inspiring, and helpful guide to a busy pastor. On3
f.nds in it a multitude of practical suggestions for the development of th?
spiritual and working life of the Church, and the answer to many problem^
that are a constant perplexity to the faithful minister."

The Christian TntelUs-encer

S6c 'Unictwxiiorvxt C^eofojtcaf feiBrdtg.

THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

By GEORGE B. STEVENS, D.D.

Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University,

Crown 8vo, 480 pages, $2.50 net

**In style it is rarely clear, simple, and strong, adapted alike to the gen*
eral reader and the theological student. The former class will find it read-
able and interesting to an unusual degree, while the student will value its
thorough scholarship and completeness of treatment. His work has a sim-
plicity, beauty, and freshness that add greatly to its scholarly excellence and
worth." — Christian Advocate.

" Professor Stevens is a profound student and interpreter of the Bible, as
far as possible divested of any prepossessions concerning its message. In
his study of it his object has been not to find texts that might seem to bol-
ster up some system of theological speculation, but to find out what the
writers of the various books meant to say and teach. " — N. V. Tribune.

** It is a fine example of painstaking, discriminating, impartial research
and statement." — The Congregationalist.

*' Professor Stevens has given us a very good book. A liberal conser-
vative, he takes cautious and moderate positions in the field of New Testa-
ment criticism, yet is admirably fair-minded. His method is patient and
thorough. He states the opinions of those who differ from him with care
and clearness. The proportion of quotation and reference is well adjusted
and the reader is kept well informed concerning the course of opinion with-
out being drawn away from the text of the author's own thought. His
judgments on difficult questions are always put with self-restraint and
sobriety." — The Churchman.

" It will certainly take its place, after careful reading, as a valuable
synopsis, neither bare nor over-elaborate, to which recourse will be had by
the student or teacher who requires within moderate compass the gist of
modern research." — The Literary World.

Cljt International Cnfiral Commnitarg

on tl]e iSoin Scriptures of tl]e (Pib ani
Jftm (Scstanunts.

EDITORS' PREFACE

There are now before the public many Commentaries,
written by British and American divines, of a popular or
homiletlcal character. T/ie Cambridge Bible for Schools,
the Handbooks for Bible Classes a?id Private Stiide?tts, The
Speaker s Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff),
The Expositor s Bible, and other similar series, have their
special place and importance. But they do not enter into
the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such
series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches
Handbuch zufn A. T; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes exegetisches
Handbuch zum N. T; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kotn-
mentarj Keil and Delitzsch's Biblischer Co?nmentar ilher das
A. T; Lange's Theologisch-ho7niletisches Bibelwerk; Nowack's
Handkommentar zum A. T. ; Holtzmann's ITandkommentar
zum N. T. Several of these have been translated, edited,
and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English-
speaking public ; others are in process of translation. But
no corresponding series by British or American divines
has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared
by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch,
Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others ; and the time has
come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise,
when it is practicable to combine British and American
scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive

EDITORS PREFACE

Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholar-
ship, and in a measure lead its van,

Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of New York, and Messrs.
T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a
series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments,
under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., in America,
and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and
the Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., for the New Testament,
in Great Britain.

The Commentaries will be international and inter-con-
fessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical
bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of
the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of
interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and
clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each
book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results
of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions
still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear
in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each
section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase,
or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and
philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from
matter of a more general character ; and in the Old Testa-
ment the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted
with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books
will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions,
with critical notices of the most important literature of
the subject. Historical and Archaeological questions, as
well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the
plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical
Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series.

THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY.

The following eminent Scholars are engaged upon the Volumes
named below : —

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

The Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D.D., Oriel Professor of the
Interpretation of Holy Scripture, University of Ox-
ford.

The Rev. A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of
Hebrew, University of Edinburgh.

J. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College,
Oxford.

G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Mansfield College, Oxford. [jVo7a Ready.

The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro-
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. \^Noxv Ready.

The Rev. George Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D., Pro-
fessor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow.

The Rev. George Moore, D.D., Professor of The-
ology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

\^N<m} Ready.

The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Professor of Biblical
History, Amherst College, Mass. {^No-do Ready.

The Rev. Francis Brown, U.D., D.Litt., LL.D., Pro-
fessor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union
Theological Seminary, New Vork City.

The Rev. Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of He-
brew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., sometime Professor
of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia,
now Rector of St. Mark's Church, New York City.

The Rev. L. B. Baton, Ph.D., Professor of He-
brew, Hartford Theological Seminary, Hartford,
Conn.

The Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Edward
Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, Union
Theological Seminary, New York.

The Rev. C. H. ToY,_D.D., LL.D., Professor of He-
brew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachu-
setts. \_Now Ready.

The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro-
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford,

The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D Litt., Regius Pro-
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford.

The late Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., some
time Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College,
Edinburgh.

The Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Regius Pro-
fessor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England.

The Rev. John P.- Peters, Ph.D., D.D , sometime
Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Phila
delphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New
York City.

^V. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the Un:-
versity of Chicago, Illinois \In the Press.

W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the Uni
versity of Chicago, Illinois.

Genesis.

Exodus.

Leviticus.

Numbers.

Deuteronomy.

Joshua,

Judges.

Samuel.
Kings.

Chronicles.

Ezra and

Nehemiah.

Esther.

Psalms.

Proverbs.

Job.

Isaiah, Ch. 1-39.

Isaiah, Ch.

40-66.

Jeremiah.

Daniel.

Amos and

Hosea.
Micah to

Malachi.

THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY.— Continued.

St. Matthew.
St. Mark.

St. Luke.

Harmony of
the Gospels.

Acts.

Romans.

Corinthians.

Galatians.

Ephesians
and Colossians.

Philippians
and Philemon.

Thessalonians.

The Pastoral

Epistles.

Hebrews.

St. James.

Peter and Jude.

The Epistles
of John.

Revelation,

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The Rev. WilloughbyX. Allen, M.A., Fellow of

Exeter College, Oxford.
The late Rev. E. P. Gould, D.D., sometime Professor

of New Testament Litorature, P. E. Divinity School,

Philadelphia. [A"o7v Jxeady.

The Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., sometime Master

of University College, Durham. {^jVcno Ready.

The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Mar.

garet Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev.

WiLLOUGHBY C. Allen, M.xA.., Fellow of Exetet

College, Oxford.
The Rev. Frederick H. Chase, D.D., Fellow oS

Christ's College and Vice Chancellor, Cambridge,

Eng.
The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D , Lady Mar.

garet Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ

Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. Headlam, M. A.,

Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford. \_A'o7v Ready,
The Right Rev. Arch. Robertson^ D.D,, LL.D.^

Lord Bishop of Exeter.
The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of

New Testament Literature, University of Chicago.
The Rev T. K. Abbott, B.D., D.Litt., sometime Pro

fessor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin,

now Librarian of the same. [Nozv Ready,

The Rev. Marvin R. Vincent, D.D., Professor ot

Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary,

New York City. [A^(?7»;' Ready.

The Rev. James Everett Frame, M.A., Asst. Pro-
fessor in the New Testament Department, Union

Theological Seminary, New York.
The Rev. Walter Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble

College, and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.
The Rev. A. Nairne, M.A., Professor of Hebrew m

King's College, London.
The Rev James H. Ropes, B.D., Bussey P'-ofessor

of New Testament Criticism in Harvard University.
The Rev. Charles Bigg, D.D., Regius Professor of

Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church,

Oxford. \_A\mi Ready.

The Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., Principal and

Professor of Systematic Theology, Free Church CoL

lege, Aberdeen.
The Rev. Robert H, Charles, D.D., Professor o<

Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin.

Other engagements xvill he announced shortly.

"A decided advance on all other commentaries^ — The Outlook.

DEUTERONOMY.

By the Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt.,

Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.

Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00.

" No one could be better qualified than Professor Driver to write a critical
and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy. His previous works are author-
ities in all the departments involved; the grammar and lexicon of the Hebrew
language, the lower and higher criticism, as well as exegesis and Biblical the-
ology; ... the interpretation in this commentary is careful and sober in the
main. A wealth of historical, geographical, and philological information illus-
trates and elucidates both the narrative and the discourses. Valuable, though
concise, excursuses are often given." — The Congregationalist.

" It is a pleasure to see at last a really critical Old Testament commentary
in English upon a portion of the Pentateuch, and especially one of such merit.
This I find superior to any other Commentary in any language upon Deuter-
onomy." — Professor E. L. Curtis, of Yale University.

" This volume of Professor Driver's is marked by his well-known care and
accuracy, and it will be a great boon to every one who wishes to acquire a
thorough knowle'dge, either of the Hebrew language, or of the contents of the
Book of Deuteronomy, and their significance for the development of Old Tes-
tament thought. The author finds scope for displaying his well-known wide
and accurate knowledge, and delicate appreciation of the genius of the
Hebrew language, and his readers are supplied with many carefully con-
structed lists of words and expressions. He is at. his best in the detailed
examination of the text." — London Athenctuiti.

" It must be said that this work is bound to take rank among the best com-
mentaries in any language on the important book with which it deals. On
every page there is abundant evidence of a scholarly knowledge of the litera-
ture, and of the most painstaking care to make the book useful to thorough
students." — The Lutheran Churchman.

•' The deep and difficult questions raised by Deuteronomy are, in every in-
stance, considered with care, insight, and critical acumen. The student who
wishes for solid information, or a knowledge of method and temper of the
new criticism, will find advantage in consulting: the pages of Dr. Driver." -—
Zion's Herald.

'^^We believe this series to be of epoch-making importance 1'

— The N. Y. Evangelist.

JUDGES.

By Dr. GEORGE FOOT MOORE, D.D.,

Professor of Theology, Harvard University.

Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00.

"The typographical execution of this handsome volume is worthy of the
scholarly character of the contents, and higher praise could not be given it."
— Professor C. H. Toy, of Harvard University.

*' This work represents the latest results of ' Scientific Biblical Scholarship,'
and as such has the greatest value for the purely critical student, especially on
the side of textual and literary criticism." — The Church Standard.

" Professor Moore has more than sustained his scholarly reputation in this
work, which gives us for the first time in English a commentary on Judges not
excelled, if indeed equalled, in any language of the world." — Professor
L. W. Batten, of P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.

" Although a critical commentary, this work has i.s practical uses, and by
its divisions, headlines, etc., it is admirably adapted to the wants of all
thoughtful students of the Scriptures. Indeed, with the other books of the
series, it is sure to find its way into the hands of pastors and scholarly lay-
men."— Portland Zion's Herald.

" Like its predecessors, this volume will be warmly welcomed — whilst to
those whose means of securing up-to-date information on the subject of which
it treats are Hmited, it is simply invaluable. " — Edinburgh Scotsman.

" The work is done in an atmosphere of scholarly interest and indifference
to dogmatism and controversy, which is at least refreshing. ... It is a noble
introduction to the moral forces, ideas, and influences that controlled the
period of the Judges, and a model of what a historical commentary, with a
practical end in view should be." — The Independent.

"The work is marked by a clear and forcible style, by scholarly research, by
critical acumen, by extensive reading, and by evident famiharity with the
Hebrew. Many of the comments and suggestions are valuable, while the
index at the close is serviceable and %2Xv=>iz.c'ioxy." — Philadelphia Presbyterian.

" This volume sustains the reputation of the series for accurate and wide
scholarship given in clear and strong English, ... the scholarly reader will
find delight in the perusal of this admirable commentary." — Zion's Herald.

tk 3^ternationaf Criticaf Commenfarg.

*' Richly he!jt>/ul to scholars and ministers"— 'Y we. Presbyterian Banner.

The Books of 5amuel

REV. HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D.,

Projessor of Biblical History and Interpretation in Amherst College.

Crown 8vo, Net $3.00.

'•Professor Smith's Commentary will for some time be the standard
work on Samuel, and we heartily congratulate him on scholarly work s^
faithfully accomplished," — The Athenceian.

"It is both critical and exegetical, and deals with original Hebrew and
Greek. It shows painstaking diligence and considerable research. "— 77^^
Presbyterian.

" The style is clear and forcible and sustains the well-won reputation of
the distinguished author for scholarship and candor. All thoughtful stu-
dents of the Scriptures will find the work helpful, not only on account of its
specific treatment of the Books of Samuel, on which it is based, but because
of the light it throws on and the aid it gives in the general interpretation of
the Scriptures as modified by present-day criticism." — The Philadelphia
Press.

" The literary quality of the book deserves mention. We do not usually
go to commentaries for models of English style. But this book has a dis-
tinct, though unobtrusive, literary flavor. It is delightful reading. The
translation is always felicitous, and often renders further comment need-
Ies,s. ' ' — The Evangelist.

" The treatment is critical, and at the same time expository. Conserva-
tive students may find much in this volume with which they cannot agree,
but no one wishing to know the most recent conclusions concerning this
part of sacred history can afford to be without it." — Philadelphia Presby-
terian Journal.

••The author exhibits precisely that scholarly attitude which will com-
mend his work to the widest audience." — The Churchman.

•'The commentary is the most complete and minute hitherto published
by an English-speaking scholar." — Literature.

"The volumes of Driver and Moore set a high standard for the Old
Testament writers ; but I think Professor Smith's work has reached the
same high level. It is scholarly and critical, and yet it is written in a spirit
of reverent devotion, a worthy treatment of the sacred text."— Prof. L. W.
Batten, of P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.

t^c 3ntetnationaf Cxiticai Commentarg.

** A decided advance on all other commentaries,'' — The OUTLOOK.

PROVERBS

By the Rev. CRAWFORD H. TOY, D.D., LL.D.

Professor of Hebrew in Harvard University.

Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00.

•' In careful scholarship this volume leaves nothing to be desired. Its in-
terpretation is free from theological prejudice. It will be indispensable to
the careful student, whether lay or clerical." — The Oictlook.

" Professor Toy's 'Commentary' will for many years to come remain a
handbook for both teachers and learners, and its details will be studied with
critical care and general appreciation." — T/w Athencvuf/i.

"The commentary itself is a most thorough treatment of each ve^se in
detail, in which the light of the fullest scholarship is thrown upon the luear.-
ing. The learning displayed throughout the work is enormous. Here is a
commentary at last that does not skip the hard places, but grapples witlr
every problem and point, and says the best that can be said." — Presbyterian
Banner,

" Professor Toy's commentary on Proverbs maintains the highest standard
of the International Critical Commentaries. We can give no higher praise.
Proverbs presents comparatively few problems in criticism, but offers large
opportunities to the expositor and exegete. Professor Toy's work is
thorough and complete." — The Congregationallst.

"This addition to 'The International Critical Commentary* has the same
characteristics of thoroughness and painstaking scholarship as the preceding
issues of the series. In the critical treatment of the text, in noting the
various readings and the force of the words in the original Hebrew, it leaves
nothing to be desired." — The Christian Intelligencer.

"A first -class, up-to-date, critical and exegetical commentary on the Book
of Proverbs in the English language was one of the crying needs of Biblical
scholarship. _ Accordingly, we may not be yielding to the latest addition to
the International Critical Series the tribute it deserves, when we say that it
at once takes the first place in its class. That place it undoubtedly deserves,
however, and would have secured even against much more formidable com-
petitors than it happens to have. It is altogether a well-arranged, lucid
exposition of this unique book in the Bible, based on a careful study of the
text and the linguistic and historical background of every part of it." — The
Jiiter'ior.

"While this commentary is called 'critical' and is such, it is not one in
which the apparatus is spread out in detail ; it is one which any intelli-
gent English reader can readily use and thoroughly understand " — The
Evauj^^elist,

^Tte Intcvuattonal Critical Cgommeutavg.

" We deem it as 7ieedfulfor the studious pastor to possess himself
^f these volumes as to obtain the best dictionary and encyclopedia.^^

— The Congregationalist.

ST. MARK.

J5y the Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D.,

Z.aU P*-qfessoy of yeiv Testament Exegesis, P. E. Divinity ScJiooI, Philadelphia,

Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50.

** in point of scholarship, of accuracy, of originality, this last addition to ti.c
series is worthy of its predecessors, while for terseness and keenness of exegesis,
ive should put it first of them all," — The Congregationalist.

" The whole make-up is that of a thoroughly helpful, instructive critical
etudy of the Word, surpassing anything of the kind ever attempted in the
English language, and to students and clergymen knowing the proper use of
a commentary it will prove an invaluable aid." — The Lutheran Quarterly.

" Professor Gould has done his work well and thoroughly. . . . The com-
mentary is an admirable example of the critical method at its best. . . . The
Word study . . . shows not only familiarity with all the literature of the sub-
ject, but patient, faithful, and independent investigation. ... It will rank
among the best, as it is the latest commentary on this basal Gospel." — The
Christian Intelligencer.

" It will give the student the vigorously expressed thought of a very thought-
ful scholar." — The Church Standard.

" Dr. Gould's commentary on Mark is a large success, . . . and a credit to
American scholarship. . . . He has undoubtedly given us a commentary on
Mark which surpasses all others, a thing we have reason to expect will be true
in the case of every volume of the series to which it belongs." — The Biblical

World.

" The volume is characterized by extensive learning, patient attention to
details and a fair degree of caution." — Bibliotheca Sacra.

" The exegetical portion of the book is simple in arrangement, admirable
in form and condensed in statement. . . . Dr. Gould does not slavishly follow
any authority, but expresses his own opinions in language both concise and
clear." — The Chicago Standard.

" In clear, forcible and elegant language the author furnishes the results of
the best investigations on the second Gospel, both early and late. He treats
these various subjects with the hand of a master." — Boston Zion's Herald.

"The author gives abundant evidence of thorough acquaintance with the
facts and history in the case. . . . His treatment of them is always fresh and
5cbc»^arly, and oftentimes helpful." '— The New York Observer.

^fee |nttvuatii3ual (jl^vltical e^ommtntnyvj.

*' // IS hardly necessa?y to say that this series will stand first
among all English serial com?nentaries on the Bible y

— The Biblical Wori.d.

ST. LUKE.

By the Rev. ALFRED PLUfiriER, D.D.,

Master of University College, Durham. Formerly Fellow and Senior Tutor of
Trinity College, Oxford.

Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00.

In the author's Critical Introduction to the Commentary is contained a full
-reatment of a large number of important topics connected with the study of
ihe Gospel, among which are the following : The Author of the Book — The
Sources of the Gospel — Object and Plan of the Gospel — Characteristics,
^tyle and Language — The Integrity of the Gospel — The Text — Literary
History.

FROM THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE.

If this Commentary has any special features, they will perhaps be found in
ihe illustrations from Jewish writings, in the abundance of references to the
Septuagint, and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in the
frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin versions, and in the attention
which has been paid, both in the Introduction and throughout the Notes, to
the marks of St. Luke's style.

" It is distinguished throughout by learning, sobriety of judgment, and
sound exegesis. It is a weighty contribution to the interpretation of the
Third Gospel, jand will take an honorable place in the series of which it forms
a part." — Prof. D. D. Salmond, in the Critical Reviezv.

" We are pleased with the thoroughness and scientific accuracy of the inter-
pretations. ... It seems to us that the prevailing characteristic of the book
is common sense, fortified by learning and piety." — T/ie Herald and Presbyter.

"An important work, which no student of the Word of God can safely
.leglect." — The Church Standard.

"The author has both the scholar's knowledge and the scholar's spirit
,iecessary for the preparation of such a commentary. . . . We know of
lothing on the Third Gospel which more thoroughly meets the wants of the
Biblical scholar." — The Outlook.

^ " The author is not only a profound scholar, but a chastened and reverent
Christian, who undertakes to interpret a Gospel of Christ, so as to show
cThrist in his grandeur and loveliness of character," — The Southern Church-
nan.

" It is a valuable and welcome addition to our somewhat scanty stock of
first-class commentaries on the Third Gospel. By its scholarly thoroughness
it well sustains the reputation which the International Series Has already
won." — Prof. J. H. Thayer, of Harvard University.

This volume having been so recently published, further notices are not yel
^vailahu.

^^ For the student this new co?nmentary promises to be indispen-
sable'' — 'I'he Methodist Recorder.

ROMANS.

By the Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY. D.D., LL.D.,

.J-d}' Margaret Piofessor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxtord,

AND THE

Rev. A. C. HEADLAH, M.A.,

Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford.

Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00.

" From my knowledge of Dr. Sanday, and from a brief examination of the
book, I am led to believe that it is our best critical handbook to the Epistle.
It combines great learmng with practical and suggestive interpretation." —
Professor George B. Stevens, of Yale University.

" Professor Sanday is excellent in scholarship, and of unsurpassed candor.
The introduction and detached notes are highly interesting and instructive.
This commentary cannot fail to render the most valuable assistance to all
earnest students. The volume augurs well for the series of which it is a mem-
ber."— Professor George P. Fisher, of Yale JJyiiversity.

"The scholarship and spirit of Dr. Sanday give assurance of an interpreta-
tion of the Epistle to the Romans which will be both scholarly and spiritual."
— Dr. Lyman Abbott.

*• The work of the authors has been carefully done, and will prove an
acceptable addition to the literature of the great Epistle. The exegesis is
acute and learned . . . The authors show much familiarity with the work
of their predecessors, and write with calmness and lucidity." — New York
Observer.

" We are confident that this commentary will find a place in every thought-
ful minister's library. One may not be able to agree with the authors at some
points, — and this is true of all commentaries, — but they have given us a work
which cannot but prove valuable to the critical study of Paul's masterly epis-
tle." — Zion's Advocate.

" We do not hesitate to commend this as the best commentary on Romans
yet written in English. It will do much to popularize this admirable and
much needed series, by showing that it is possible to be critical and scholarly
and at the same time devout and spiritual, and intelligible to plain Bible
readers." — The Church Standard.

"A commentary with a very distinct character and purpose of its own,
which brings to students and ministers an aid which they cannot obtain else-
where. . . . There is probably no other commentary in which criticism has
been employed so successfully and impartially to bring out the author's
thought." — N. Y. Independent.

"We have nothing but heartiest praise for the weightier matters of the
commentary. It is not only critical, but exegetical, expository, doctrinal,
practical, and eminently spiritual. The positive conclusions of the books are
very numerous and are stoutly, gloriously evangelical. . . . The commentary
does not fail to speak v/Uh the utiuost reverence of the whole word of God."
The Con^rr^ationalisi

^'This admirable series. "" — The London Academy.

EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS.

By the Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., D. Litt.

Forn^rly Professor of Biblical Greek, now of Hebrew, Trinity College,

Dublin.

Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50.

" The latest volume of this admirable series is informed with the very
best spirit in which such work can be carried out — a spirit of absolute
fidelity to the demonstrable truths of critical science. . . . This summary
of the results of modern criticism applied to these two Pauline letters is,
for the use of scholarly students, not likely to be superseded." — The Lon-
don Acadetny.

" An able and independent piece of exegesis, and one that none of us can
afford to be without. It is the work of a man who has made himself mas-
ter of his theme. His linguistic ability is manifest. His style is usually
clear. His exegetical perceptions are keen, and we are especially grateful
for his strong defence of the integrity and apostolicity of these two great
monuments of Pauline teaching." — T/ie ExposUor.

"It displays every mark of conscientious judgment, wide reading, and
grammatical insight. " — Literature.

" In discrimination, learning, and candor, it is the peer of the other vol-
umes of the series. The elaborate introductions are of special value." —
Professor George B. Stevens, of Yale University.

"It is rich in philological material, clearly arranged, and judiciously
handled. The studies of words are uncommonly good. ... In the
balancing of opinions, in the distinguishing between fine shades of mean-
ing, it is both acute and sound." — The Church.

' The exegesis based so solidly on the rock foundation of philology is
eigumentatively and convincingly strong. A spiritual and evangelical tenor
pervades the interpretation from first to last. . . . These elements, to-
gether with the author's full-orbed vision of the truth, with his discrimina-
tive judgment and his felicity of expression, make this the peer of any com-
mentary on these important letters." — The Stajidard.

" An exceedingly careful and painstaking piece of work. The introduc-
tory discussions of questions bearing on the authenticity and integrity (of
the epistles) are clear and candid, and the exposition of the text displays a
fine scholarship and insight." — A^orthwestern Christian Advocate.

"The book is from first to last exegetical and critical. Every phrase in
the two Epistles is searched as with lighted candles. The authorities for
variant readings are canvassed but weighed, rather than counted. The mul-
tiform ancient and modern interpretations are investigated with the ex-
hausiiveness of a German lecture-room, and the judicial spirit of an English
court-room. Special discussions are numerous and thorough" — The Con-
Ifre^ation.ih.st.

tk Jnternafionai Criftcaf Commenfarp.

"/ /lave already expressed my conviction that the Inter,
national C"itical Commentary is the best critical commentary
an the whole Bible, in existence."— T)R. Lyman Auuott

Philippians and Philemon

REV. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D.

Pirqfessor oj Biblical Literature in Union Theological Seminary, JS/ew York,

Crown 8vo, Net $2.00.

"It is, in short, in every way worthy of the series." — The Scotsman.

" Professor Vincent's Commentary on Philippians and Philemon appears
to me not less admirable for its literary merit than for its scholarship and its
clear and discriminating discussions of the contents of these Epistles." — r)R.
George P. Fisher.

"The book contains many examples of independent and judicial wei2:h-
ing of evidence. We have been delighted with the portion devoted to PhFle-
mon. Unlike most commentaries, this may wisely be read as a whole."—
The Congregatioiialist

"Of the merits of the work it is enough to say that it 's worthy of its
place in the noble undertaking to which it belongs. It is ful' of just such
information as the Bible student, lay or clerical, needs ; and while giving an
abundance of the truths of erudition to aid the critical student of the text, it
abounds also in that more popular information which enables the attentive
reader almost to put himself in St. Paul's place, to see with the eyes and feel
with the heart of the Apostle to the Gentiles." — Boston Advertiser.

"If it is possible in these days to produce a commentary which will be
free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias, the feat will be accomplished in
the International Critical Commentary. . . . It is evident that the writer
has given an immen3e amount of scholarly research and original thought to
the subject. . . . The author's introduction to the Elpistle to Philemon
is an admirable piece of literature, calculated to arouse in the student's mind
an intense interest in the circumstances which produced this short letter from
the inspired Apostle." — Commercial Advertiser.

" His discussion of Philemon is marked by sympathy and appreciation,
and his full discussion of the relations of Pauline Christianity to slavery are
interesting, both historically and sociologically." — llie Dial.

" Throughout the work scholarly research is evident. It commends itself
by its clear elucidation, its keen exegesis which marks the word study y^w
every page, its compactness of statement and its simplicity of artrvngem^iu."
— Lutheran World.

" The scholarship of the author seems to be fully equal to his i dertakmg,
and he has given to us a fine piece of work. One cannot but se th.-^.t \{ the
entire series shall be executed upon a par with this portion, thei 2an be lit-
tle left to be desired." — Philadelphia Presbyterian Journal,

ZU 2nUtmiion(X( Cxiiicat Commentdtg.

" T/ie best comvientary and the one most useful to the Bible
student is The Interjiational Critical."

— The Reformed Church Review.

ST. PETER AND ST. JUDE

By the Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D.

Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford

Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50,

•' His commentary is very satisfactory indeed. His notes are particularly
valuable. We know of no work on these Epistles which is so full and satis-
factory."—77/^ Living Church,

" It shows an immense amount of research and acquaintanceship with the
views of the critical school." — Herald and Presbyter.

"This volume well sustains the reputation achieved by its predecessors.
The notes to the text, as well as the introductions, are marked by erudition
at once affluent and discriminating." — The Outlook.

"Canon Bigg's work is pre-eminently characterized by judicial open-
mindedness and sympathetic insight into historical conditions. His realistic
interpretation of the relations of the apostles and the circumstances of the
early church renders the volume invaluable to students of these themes.
The exegetical work in the volume rests on the broad basis of careful lin-
guistic study, acquaintance with apocal);ptic literature and the writings of
the Fathers, a sane judgment, and good sense." — American Journal of
Theology.

"It must be emphasized that the commentary is a distinct contribution to
scholarship, that it deserves a place alongside of its New Testament prede-
cessors in the series, and that it is the best commentary on these epistles in
English."— 77z^^/^//V^/ World.

"The careful and thorough student will find here a vast amount of infor-
mation most helpful to him in his studies and researches. The International,
Critical Commentary, to which it belongs, will prove a great boon to stu- '
dents and ministers." — The Canadian Congregationalist.

" As a study of the Greek text, his commentary stands in the front rank '
of the series to which it belongs. But the most characteristic part of the^
book is the preface and the introductory matter, in which Dr. Bigg's genius
as a historian finds ample scope " — IJterature.

" We do not hesitate to say that it is, after all, in our judgment, the most
useful commentary on tht difificult portions of Scripture with which it deals,
of Vi'hich we have any knowledge." — Rejonned Church Revieio,

Date Due

A- \{^

v^'.

L*^^J

v^'^'- "*'>'.'* v«i * "".'5" \

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Old Testament history"

See other formats