NiV^SI'PY (JF^QALIFORI^IA. 
 
 Tim Sl^SH CfttLtClWOX OF THK SEMITIC LIBKAKV 
 nl THf I MVKRSITYHF CALIfOKMA. 
 
 i ours SLO:5b. 
 
 FfBRUARV. 1897. 
 
 s^ion iSlo.b tD6 / • ^V./.ss A. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 littp://www.archive.org/details/earlyreligionofiOOroberich 
 
THE 
 
 EARLY EELIGION OF ISRAEL 
 
 AS SET FORTH BY BIBLICAL WRITERS AND BY 
 MODERN CRITICAL HISTORIANS 
 
 Ci}e Bairtr iLecture for 1889 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES EOBERTSON, D.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ORIENTAL LAKOUAOE3 IN THE tTNIVEHSITY 
 OF GLASGOW 
 
 
 ECOND EDITION 
 
 '^^\\*^^S^ 
 
 
 NEW YORK 
 ANSON D. F. KANDOLPH AND CO. 
 
 EDINBUKaH AND LONDON 
 
 WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS 
 
 MDCCCXCII 
 
 All Rights reserved 
 
t<\\^^ 
 
 \ 
 
 tf^^ 
 
 ^t^^f 
 
PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The first impression of this book has been exhausted much 
 sooner than I had anticipated. It would be premature 
 to refer at length to the strictures of critics while the 
 work is still under review; and, since any value that it 
 may possess lies rather in the main argument presented 
 than in the exhibition of details, I have judged it ex- 
 pedient to allow it to reappear in its original form, 
 although I am well aware how much it admits of im- 
 provement. 
 
 I have no reason to complain of the criticisms the book 
 has hitherto received. Some of them have been far too 
 laudatory ; and for the more adverse I was already pre- 
 pared. 
 
 It may not be out of place to remind readers that I am 
 not to be held as committed to all the views which, for 
 the purpose of the discussion, are provisionally not dis- 
 puted, or as considering certain lines of argument to be 
 applicable only to the extent that they are here applied. 
 
vi Preface to the. Second Edition, 
 
 The aim of the book is not to vindicate any distinct place 
 for the writer, but to stimulate the intelligent reader to 
 think for himself; for I still believe that such a reader, 
 though neither a Hebraist nor a trained critic, is quite 
 competent to judge fairly on the main points of the 
 argument which is here presented. 
 
 September 1892. 
 
PEEFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION. 
 
 The substance of the following pages was delivered as the 
 Baird Lecture in the spring of 1889. A good deal of 
 matter is here presented which could not find expression 
 within the limits of six lectures ; and a division into 
 chapters was found more convenient for the treatment 
 of the different parts. The delay in publication has been 
 occasioned, partly by the occupations of a somewhat 
 laborious office, partly by broken health, which allowed 
 me to take up the work only at long intervals. But, in- 
 deed, for other reasons I have not been forward to lay my 
 views before the public. I am quite well aware how the 
 current of opinion on Old Testament subjects is running ; 
 and I am not insensible to the fact that, while some may 
 find fault with me for giving up received views, a greater 
 number, and some who are younger than I, will "have 
 me in derision " for not being abreast of the age. 
 
 Nevertheless, one must be fully persuaded in his own 
 mind. I have long been convinced that the substantial 
 
viii Preface to the First Edition. 
 
 value of the books of the Old Testament _dpes not depend 
 u£on_our knowing their authorship ; and I doubt whether 
 we can ever accurately determine the circumstances of 
 their composition. At the same time I am as firmly 
 convinced that, in critical discussions on the Old Testa- 
 ment as these have been conducted, there is much more 
 involved than the dates of books and the literary modes 
 of their composition. Whatever may be said of the " tra- 
 ditional view " on these subjects, it is to be remembered 
 that the '' traditional view " of the history of thereligion 
 is the view of the Biblical writers ; and if it is declared 
 tcT be incorrect, our estimate of the value of the books 
 must be considerably modified. It is this aspect of the 
 critical inquiry that has chiefly engaged my attention. I 
 have patiently and honestly tried to understand the posi- 
 tion of critical writers, to follow the processes and to 
 grasp the principles on which the historical inquiries 
 have been conducted. But I find myself like one stand- 
 ing by the side of a Highland stream, while another more 
 nimble goes over on improvised stepping-stones. He gets 
 over, apparently dry-shod ; but I cannot follow him, be- 
 cause the stepping-stones have been submerged by his 
 weight. I look in vain to the critics for a passable road, 
 with a firm bottom, which a man of plain understanding 
 may tread. Many, no doubt, will call me unreasonable 
 or stupid ; but it may happen that not a few others are 
 as dull as myself, if they would care to own it. 
 
 "Conservatism," it has been said,^ "is the habitual 
 attitude of Orientals." One poor orientalist here and 
 
 ^ Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, first series, p. 4. 
 
Preface to the First Edition. ix 
 
 there may be pardoned for having so much in common 
 with them, when so many scholars are of another mind. 
 I may plead, as a special excuse for my sympathy, the 
 fact that I spent some dozen years — the years of life also 
 during which one receives the most lasting impressions 
 — in familiar intercourse with Orientals on the very bor- 
 ders of Palestine, where it would have been easy, so to 
 speak, to get models for Old Testament portraits. When 
 I found simple, unlettered people, with crude enough 
 moralities and no lack of superstition, reasoning and 
 talking like Old Testament characters, drawing the 
 widest generalisations from the smallest incidents, and 
 withal carrying about a habit of religion that commanded 
 reverence, it never occurred to me to explain similar 
 combinations or inconsistencies in Old Testament char- 
 acters by contradictory traditions ; nor did it seem at all 
 incredible that a high tone of religious conception should 
 be found in what might appear a primitive and rude age. 
 In reading the Old Testament Scriptures, I seemed to be 
 holding converse w^ith living men ; and I came to the 
 conclusion that the best way to understand a book is to 
 be in sympathy with the man that wrote it. 
 
 My interest in the subject, therefore, is not primarily 
 of a dogmatic or theological character. I am less con- 
 cerned to defend a theory than to claim for the Biblical 
 writers — what I think they have not received — fair play. 
 On both sides of the controversy, the books have been 
 wrangled over, as if they had been some legal deed or 
 Act of Parliament, while the personality of the writers 
 has been left out of view. I am not opposed to criti- 
 
X Preface to the First Edition. 
 
 cism, although I am free to confess I do not acknowledge 
 Criticism in the sense in which it is sometimes spoken of, 
 as if it were some infallible science. But I plead for a 
 criticism of a saner sort, such as we should employ in 
 the ordinary intercourse of life or apply to a modern 
 author ; a criticism that shall start by admitting that the 
 writer possesses ordinary intelligence, and knows fairly 
 well what he is writing about ; that shall then interpret 
 his words in a fair and common-sense fashion, and be 
 bold enough, when necessary, to confess its own igno- 
 rance. If some things should be found in these pages 
 indicating that I am incapable of following a critical 
 argument as these arguments are conducted, they will at 
 least be of some service if they stir up the unwary reader 
 to examine the foundations of the arguments for himself. 
 What is scepticism in one age becomes credulity in the 
 next. The critical theory is fast becoming "traditional,"! 
 and is being accepted by multitudes on no better grounds! 
 than those on which the former view became traditional/ 
 It is now high time to apply scepticism to the prevailing] 
 theory, so that the strength or weakness of its foundations 
 may be made manifest. 
 
 After all the following chapters and most of the notes 
 were in type, Professor Driver's important 'Introduction to 
 the Literature of the Old Testament ' appeared. Though 
 he does not profess to deal with the history, and it was 
 no part of my design to treat of the structure of the 
 books, yet the two lines of inquiry touch one another at 
 certain points. I thought it better, however, to reserve 
 for this place a brief reference to his work, and not to 
 
Preface, to the First Edition. xi 
 
 modify what I had already written before I had an 
 opportunity of seeing his conclusions. These conclusions, 
 I may be allowed to say, are arrived at by a method that 
 is admirable for its fairness in the treatment of details, 
 and its cautious reserve in face of doubtful or conflicting 
 evidence. So far as they relate to the composition and 
 dates of the books, I am not particularly concerned with 
 them ; but I note with no little satisfaction statements 
 in various connections which I take as indications that, 
 both on this subject and in regard to the history of the 
 religion, he holds much more moderate views than those 
 of the prevailing school of critics. Thus, for example, he 
 says: "The date at which an event, or institution, is first 
 mentioned in writing must not be confused with that at 
 which it occurred, or originated " (p. 118); and again — 
 " The phraseology of P, it is natural to suppose, is one 
 which had gradually formed ; hence it contains elements 
 which are no doubt ancient side by side with those which 
 were introduced later," &c. (p. 148), So, while con- 
 cluding that " the completed Priests' Code is the work of 
 the age subsequent to Ezekiel," he is careful to add the 
 ^qualification that "the chief ceremonial institutions of 
 jlsrael are in their origin of great antiquity" (p. 135). 
 Whether he would include in this category as many 
 institutions as Konig accepts,^ I cannot gather. It would, 
 however, have been more satisfactory had both these 
 critics indicated precisely on what evidence they rest 
 their conclusions — evidence that would stand the test of 
 such a rigorous criticism as they allow on other matters. 
 1 See below, Note XXIX. p. 517 f. 
 
xii Preface to the First Edition. 
 
 Statements such as those I have quoted amount, in my 
 opinion, to a set of critical canons quite different from 
 those of Wellhausen ; and Dr Driver would have been no 
 more than just to himself if he had (as Konig has done) 
 accentuated the difference. 
 
 Some other points, referred to in Professor Driver's 
 Preface, will be found touched upon in the following 
 pages. Thus I have " admitted that traditions are col- 
 oured to some extent by the age in which they find 
 literary expression" (below, p. 128; of. p. 424); and on 
 the literary habit of placing speeches in the mouths of 
 historical characters, I have stated my views at some 
 length (chap, xvi.) I still adhere, however, after reading 
 his remark (Pref., p. xvii), to what I have said in regard 
 to the topographical acciyacy of the Old Testament 
 writers (p. 97 ff.), and think that the case might even 
 be put more strongly. 
 
 To one other point touched upon in Professor Driver's 
 Preface I feel constrained to refer— the relation of modern 
 criticism of the Old Testament to the authority of the 
 New Testament, and to the subject of inspiration. Were 
 there nothing in dispute but the dates of books, the matter 
 might be allowed to rest as he states it (p. xviii) ; but a 
 much more serious issue has to be faced than the question 
 what our Lord would have said had He been asked about 
 the authorship of certain books. Without putting a hypo- 
 thetical case as to what He would have said, I would ask 
 the direct question. Whether the relation of the New Testa- 
 ment to the Old would be the same — whether Christianity, 
 as a historically developed religion, would have ' equal 
 
Preface to the First Edition. xiii 
 
 value to us — if, eg,, Abraham be "a free creation of un- 
 conscious art," and a great part of the narratives of the 
 Hexateuch "the fruit solely of late Jewish fancy," and 
 if there be " not a particle of truth in the whole narrative " 
 of something else ? It is altogether inadequate to reply to 
 such a question, tliat " criticism in the hands of Christian 
 scholars does not banish or destroy the inspiration of the 
 Old Testament ; it presupposes it " (Pref., p. xix). Such 
 scholars would do an invaluable service to the Church at 
 the present time if they would explain what they mean by 
 inspiration in this connection, and define wherein their posi- 
 tion differs from that of critics who profess no such rever- 
 ence for the Old Testament, I can quite well understand 
 the position of one who should say it does not matter 
 whether the Old Testament story is true or not, provided 
 we can draw from it good religious instruction. So in a 
 certain sense one might call the religious novel inspired 
 Scripture. But the Christian scholar must be prepared to 
 meet the objector who insists on meting out the same 
 measure to the New Testament writers; for, in spite of 
 what Professor Driver says (p. xvii), we are dependent upon 
 the evangelists for the picture of the Christ, and, in the 
 field of Old Testament history, critics find room for great 
 *' modifications of tradition " within the space of half a 
 century, not to say more. So it is quite inadequate to the 
 case when Horton, speaking of the Law and Christ's refer- 
 ences to it, says,^ "Now, supposing the book had been 
 compiled actually by His contemporaries, this practical 
 value of it would remain just what it is." For the question 
 
 * Inspiration and the Bible, p. 179. 
 
xiv Preface to the First Edition. 
 
 recurs, Would the historical value of Christianity remain 
 just what it is ? 
 
 I have a strong conviction that it is their connection 
 with a divinely guided history, more even than their high 
 tone of teaching, that gives to the Old Testament books 
 their special authority ; and for this reason I regard it as 
 most important to determine what the movement and 
 character of the history were. Professor Briggs tells us ^ 
 that the higher criticism can never determine whether the 
 writings contain the Divine Word ; but I think that, in- 
 ferentially at least, it can. I believe a sober and un- 
 prejudiced criticism will show that Israel, at the dawn of 
 its national existence, had a very exalted conception of 
 God and a high rule of duty, and that these things were 
 neither borrowed from their neighbours jiorjxcogitated by / 
 themselves. If the inference is legitimate that they must 
 have come " from above," then the writings which exhibit 
 the process of this revelation contain no " cunningly de- 
 vised fable," but have from their connection a divine 
 character. Criticism, as an exercise of human reason, 
 having come so far, may reverently give place to another 
 faculty with a nobler name, by which divine things are 
 " spiritually discerned " (1 Cor. ii. 14). 
 
 1 Biblical Studj, p. 220, 
 
 ''AU 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 ClIKF. rxoR 
 
 INTRODUCTION, 1 
 
 I. THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL, 11 
 
 II. TWO CONTENDING THEORIES OF THE HISTORY, . . 27 
 
 III. WRITINGS OP THE NINTH AND EIGHTH CENTURIES B.C. 
 
 AS LITERARY AND AS RELIGIOUS PRODUCTS, . . 50 
 
 IV. THE " EARLIER PROPHETS," ...... 74 
 
 V. TESTIMONY OP THE NINTH AND EIGHTH CENTURIES TO 
 
 THE ANTECEDENT HISTORY, 106 
 
 VI. THE KEY OF THE CRITICAL POSITION, . . . .136 
 VII. PRE-PROPHETIC RELIGION — NAMING OP THE DEITY, . 167 
 VIII. PRE-PROPHETIC RELIGION CONTINUED — THE DWELLING- 
 PLACE OP THE DEITY, 192 
 
 IX. PRE-PROPHETIC RELIGION CONTINUED — VISIBLE REP- 
 RESENTATIONS OP THE DEITY, 215 
 
 X. PRE-PROPHETIC RELIGION CONTINUED : MOLOCH- WOR- 
 SHIP — HUMAN SACRIFICES — FIRE-WORSHIP, . .241 
 XI. THE JAHAVEH RELIGION, 266 
 
xvi Contents. 
 
 XII. ETHIC MONOTHEISM, 296 
 
 XIII. AUTHORITATIVE INSTITUTIONS — THEIR EARLY DATE, . 326 
 
 XIV. AUTHORITATIVE INSTITUTIONS — THEIR RELIGIOUS BASIS, 353 
 XV. THE THREE CODES, 381 
 
 XVL THE LAW-BOOKS, 414 
 
 XVIL LAW AND PROPHECY, 440 
 
 XVIII. CONCLUSION, . r 464 
 
 NOTES, 493 
 
 INDEX. 521 
 
EARLY EELIGION OF ISEAEL. 
 
 INTEODUCTION. 
 
 Attitude of the reader of the English Bible to recent critical studies of the 
 Old Testament — Preliminary difficulties of a technical kind — Attempt 
 to present the argument in a new form — The fundamental matters in 
 dispute are not questions of scholarship — The temptations of specialists 
 — The final appeal must he to intelligent common-sense. 
 
 Within recent years there lias been such an advance in 
 the critical study of the Old Testament that a perceptible 
 change has taken place in the attitude of ordinary read- 
 ers toward the whole subject. So long as the matters 
 in dispute were questions as to the age, authorship, and 
 mode of composition of certain books, particularly of the 
 Pentateuch, and these subjects were handled simply or 
 mainly as matters of technical criticism, the general reader, 
 if he did not altogether abjure " unsettling " discussions, 
 was perplexed by inquiries demanding special skill and 
 training for their prosecution, or took little interest in 
 problems which appeared to admit of the most diverse 
 solutions. But since a thorough-going theory was adopted 
 
 A 
 
2 Introduction. 
 
 by prominent critical writers, and especially since it was 
 applied in the formal exhibition of the history of Israel 
 from a new standpoint, the whole subject of Old Testa- 
 ment criticism has assumed a more pressing interest for 
 the ordinary reader. The question of the history of books 
 gives place to an inquiry into the history of a people; 
 and the uninitiated reader is called upon, if not to 
 determine the manner in which certain documents were 
 composed, to pronounce an opinion upon the value of 
 these documents as materials for understanding the course 
 of Israel's religious history. Those who have made a 
 special study of these matters have reached a stage at 
 which they can exhibit the results of their investigations 
 as a completed whole, and challenge the assent of others 
 who have not the ability or the leisure to follow tlie 
 processes for themselves. Dr Eobertson Smith, in his 
 preface to the English edition of Wellhausen's 'Prole- 
 gomena to the History of Israel ' (p. viii), says : " In this 
 as in other sciences, when the truth has been reached, 
 it can generally be presented in a comparatively simple 
 form, and the main positions can be justified even to the 
 general reader by methods much less complicated, and 
 much more lucid, than those originally followed by the 
 investigators themselves." The same writer, while insist- 
 ing on the fact that the matters with which Professor 
 Wellhausen deals " are such as no intelligent student of 
 the Old Testament can afford to neglect," claims (p. vi) 
 that the book referred to " gives the English reader, for 
 the first time, an opportunity to form his own judgment 
 on questions which are within the scope of any one who 
 reads the English Bible carefully, and is able to think 
 clearly and without prejudice about its contents." 
 
 To what extent English readers have without prejudice 
 
Preliminary DljJicuUies. 3 
 
 formed their own opinions on tlie matters in dispute it 
 would be hard to say. There can be no doubt that not 
 a few, while disclaiming all pretensions of being able 
 to appreciate the technical critical arguments on which 
 Wellhausen proceeds, profess themselves satisfied in their 
 own minds that the scheme of Israel's history which he 
 presents is in the main correct. Others, not prepared to 
 go so far, have a general feeling that some reconstruction 
 of the received views is needed ; while others again, who 
 have made some attempt to follow the arguments, are 
 unable to come to any decision. It would not be fair to 
 class all who accept the new theory among those " clever 
 superficial men and women who think that everything 
 has been found out, when next to nothing has been 
 found out at all, who disbelieve in Authority, and do 
 believe in ' authorities.' " ^ Yet perhaps the main reason 
 for the ready assent on the part of some, and the hesi- 
 tancy on that of others, is the fact that these investiga- 
 tions have been pursued by skilled Hebraists and critics, 
 who are naturally supposed to have special means of 
 determining the delicate questions involved. The results 
 are set forth with such an array of learning and with 
 so much confidence that the one class of readers give 
 deference to authorities wdiom they take to be compe- 
 tent, while the other class decline to assent to a process 
 of reasoning which they themselves are incapable of 
 following. 
 
 Tor, notwithstanding the appeal to the ordinary reader 
 of the English Bible, a great deal of preliminary investiga- 
 tion must have taken place before that point is reached at 
 which such a reader is able to follow the critic ; and much 
 has to be taken as proved, because the process of argumenta- 
 
 * Andrew Lang in 'New Review,' August 1889. 
 
4 Introduction, 
 
 tion is too intricate for those vvlio are not specialists in tliis 
 department of inquiry. T]ie English reader, on taking up, 
 for example, Wellhausen's book, comes upon a statement 
 like this : " The assumptions I make will find an ever- 
 recurring justification in the course of the investigation ; 
 the two principal are, that the work of the Jehovist, as far 
 as the nucleus of it is concerned, belongs to the course of 
 the Assyrian period, and that Deuteronomy belongs to its 
 close." ^ Moreover, he finds himself on almost every page 
 confronted with statements as to earlier and later elements 
 of the same document, and assertions as to interpolations 
 and later revisions; and he naturally concludes that it 
 is from linguistic peculiarities and by purely scholarly 
 processes that such distinctions are made. There is a 
 continual assumption of something which the reader has 
 been no party in establishing, a building upon foundations 
 which are underground. Whether the assumptions are 
 supported by arguments to which he would yield, whether 
 the foundations are securely laid, he does not know. He 
 must therefore either surrender himself to his critical 
 guides, or get perplexed over the mass of intricate 
 details. 
 
 It would manifestly be an advantage if the subject could 
 be treated in such a way that the ordinary reader would, 
 from the first, be able to appreciate the arguments em- 
 ployed. Since it is he who is called upon to give his 
 verdict, he ought to have some firm ground on which to 
 stand, some standard to which to appeal. If certain 
 critical processes are necessary, those critical canons at 
 least which control the processes should be distinctly laid 
 
 1 Prolegomena to the History of Israel, p. 13. For brevity, the Eng- 
 lish translation of this work is in the sequel referred to as Wellhausen's 
 ' History of Israel.' 
 
Mode of a2'>proaching the Subject. 5 
 
 down and accepted as valid. If certain books, or portions 
 of books, for example, are rejected as unliistorical and 
 untrustworthy, or if certain passages are declared to be 
 interpolations or additions, the ordinary reader ought to 
 be satisfied on what grounds this critical sifting is exer- 
 cised. If he is told that this is done on scholarly grounds, 
 of whose validity he is incapable of forming an opinion, 
 it comes to this, that the advocate of the theory consti- 
 tutes himself the judge also, and there is no case for the 
 jury. But it may turn out that the critical processes in 
 question are controlled by canons of whose validity the 
 ordinary reader is quite competent to judge. Either, 
 therefore, the processes themselves and the conclusions 
 drawn from them must be entirely left aside at the 
 outset, or else they must be able to justify themselves 
 to the plain reason of the ordinary reader. It is the 
 advocate's aim to maintain his thesis, but it is the duty 
 of the jury to see that it is sustained on proper evidence. 
 The appeal to the ordinary reader is nugatory unless he 
 is put in possession of a standard by which to judge. 
 
 In the following chapters an attempt is made to ap- 
 proach the subject in such a manner that an intelligent 
 reader of the English Bible may not be placed at a dis- 
 advantage, and to present the questions in dispute in 
 such a shape that he will be able from the first to follow 
 the argument. This of course implies starting from neu- 
 tral and undisputed ground. The reader must be pre- 
 pared to hold in abeyance any prepossessions to which 
 he may have been accustomed : if he is not to defer to 
 " authorities," neither must he rely on bare " Authority." 
 And there are certain circumstances favourable to such a 
 mode of procedure at the present time. For one thing, 
 the heat of controversy in regard to many points in dis- 
 
6 Introduction, 
 
 pute has so far subsided that it has become possible to 
 look calmly at certain conclusions, the bare enunciation of 
 which not long ago stirred up angry feelings. The claim 
 of criticism to deal with such questions has been acknow- 
 ledged, and ordinary people are able without passion to 
 consider the arguments vrhich are urged in support of 
 theories which may be very much at variance with 
 received views. And then there is this other great 
 advantage, that the modern theory of Israel's history 
 can now be exhibited as a completed whole, and, taken 
 merely as a hypothesis, can be brought to the test of 
 admitted phenomena and facts. "It is always some- 
 thing to be thankful for when, in any department of 
 human knowledge, a hypothesis is adequately stated, de- 
 fended, and worked out. If it turn out an error, it is 
 an error to which full justice has been done, and which 
 may be finally put aside." ^ The only way, however, in 
 which the truth or error of a hypothesis can be shown, 
 is to apply it to the explanation of actual phenomena — 
 that is, in a case like the present, to bring it to the test 
 of certain undisputed facts of literature and history, in 
 face of which it has to justify itself. Accordingly, the 
 method of our inquiry is to take our stand at certain 
 clearly marked points in history or undisputed phenomena 
 of literature, and to ask what account is given of them 
 respectively by the Biblical writers and by modern his- 
 torians of Israel. Such an inquiry is not beyond the 
 ability of the intelligent reader of the English Bible ; in 
 its prosecution he will be able, at all events, to distinguish 
 between what demands technical skill for its settlement, 
 and what appeals to ordinary sound reason. 
 
 The essential and fundamental matters in dispute in 
 1 A. B. Bruce in 'Present Day Tracts,' No. 38, p. 55. 
 
Temptations of Specialists. 7 
 
 this controversy are not questions of " scholarsliip " at 
 all, in the proper sense of that term. It so happens, as 
 a matter of course, that the men who have gone most 
 thoroughly into these questions have been trained He- 
 braists ; but the bare facts of a linguistic character with 
 which they have to deal, count for very little in the 
 essential questions at issue, as critical writers themselves 
 have confessed.^ These writers are specialists, it is true, but 
 specialists dealing with matters in which common-sense 
 may follow them, observe their processes, and pronounce 
 upon their validity. Specialists are very prone to become 
 theorists, and a specialist with a theory is a very unsafe 
 guide when questions of evidence have to be settled. 
 Modern critical writers are in the habit of pointing to the 
 shifts which in past times have been resorted to in order 
 to maintain some traditional theory that was untenable ; 
 and too much occasion has been given them to do so. 
 But a little sense of humour might enable them to per- 
 ceive the ridiculousness of many of the processes carried 
 on in all seriousness in the name of criticism. The Hebrew 
 scholar or trained critic may, by the very possession of 
 his special qualifications, see possible combinations, and 
 suggest possible constructions or emendations of a passage 
 that the ordinary reader would never dream of; and ho 
 may combine and transpose and eliminate and amend, 
 and by a triumph of ingenuity bring out a most unex- 
 pected result, while all the time perhaps a simple and 
 plain meaning of a phrase or passage stares him in 
 the face, from which, however, he gets away to one 
 quite recondite or fanciful. An old Eastern friend of 
 mine used to say there were people who, when asked 
 " Where is your ear ? " would put their right hand over 
 
 1 See Note I. 
 
§ Introduction. 
 
 the top of their head and triumphantly seize hold of their 
 left ear. There is an acrobatic criticism, which is more 
 sensational than sensible. The qualifications of the 
 specialist render him peculiarly prone to push a theory 
 at all hazards, when to common-sense it appears mani- 
 festly overweighted. Too much praise cannot be given 
 to Continental critics for their perseverance, but per- 
 severance may be carried too far. Some years ago I 
 was amused and instructed by the industry and ingenu- 
 ity of a waggoner at Leipzig, whose cart, heavily laden, 
 had stuck fast in deep sand. After every ordinary 
 expedient had been tried in vain, he went away, evi- 
 dently to some distance, and returned with a powerful 
 screw -lever, by the help of which the wheels were 
 sufficiently raised to admit of the insertion of planks for 
 rails; and so, after a long delay, he drove off without 
 lightening his waggon. Eecently I had an opportunity 
 of observing the method of a Glasgow carter in a similar 
 difficulty. He had inconsiderately placed his lorry on soft 
 yielding ground, and loaded it with timber from the 
 Exhibition buildings. As soon as he realised his position, 
 he unloaded his cart, drew it on to firm ground a few 
 yards off, replaced the same amount upon it, and drove 
 off in a few minutes. Both men succeeded at last, but 
 I confess I admired the method of lightening the cart 
 when the ground was insecure. When difficulties increase 
 at every step of a hypothesis, it is time to inquire whether 
 the hypothesis itself is not at fault. 
 
 One indispensable qualification for pursuing an inquiry 
 like the present, is that knowledge of human nature and 
 sympathy with it which we call common-sense. There 
 is, Matthew Arnold tells us,^ a mechanical criticism, 
 
 ^ God and the Bible, chap. iii. ad init. 
 
Mechanical Criticism. 9 
 
 which " takes for granted that things are naturally all of 
 a piece, and follow one uniform rule ; and that to know 
 that this is so, and to judge things by the light of this 
 knowledge, is the secret for sure criticism. People do not 
 vary ; people do not contradict themselves ; people do not 
 have undercurrents of meaning ; people do not divine. 
 If they are represented as having said one thing to-day 
 and its seeming opposite to-morrow, one of the two they 
 are credited with falsely. If they are represented as 
 liaving said what in its plain literal acceptation would not 
 hold good, they cannot have said it. If they are rep- 
 resented as speaking of an event before it happened, 
 they did not so speak of it, — the words are not theirs." 
 Such a criticism, as he says, is, for negative purposes, 
 particularly useful; and it may be prosecuted so as to 
 bring out very surprising results. But a very ordinary 
 knowledge of human nature and experience of human 
 life will be sufficient to show that conclusions drawn in 
 this way are quite precarious or even repugnant to 
 common-sense. Whatever view is ultimately to prevail 
 in regard to the subject of which we have now to treat, 
 must commend itself to the general intelligence of ordinary 
 thinking people. There are questions raised which are of 
 much deeper than merely antiquarian interest — questions 
 that have usually been associated very closely with the 
 sanctions of religion and with matters of practical life. 
 It is of vital importance that the views held on such 
 subjects should be gained by intelligent conviction. For 
 practical use they are of no more value if received on the 
 authority of scholars and experts than if accepted by 
 tradition or custom. Nor need there be any fear of the 
 result of an appeal on such subjects to the common-sense 
 of reflecting people, who are neither tied fast to a tradi- 
 
10 Tntrod action. 
 
 tional theory nor liable to be sophisticated ]:)y plausible 
 special pleading. The verdict may be that views long held 
 require to be considerably modified ; it may also be that 
 much that is now put forward as certain is at least very 
 doubtful. But the inquiry, if conducted honestly, can only 
 tend to the advancement of truth. 
 

 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Place of Israel among the nations of antiquity — Land, lilerature, institu- 
 tions — The distinctive feature of the history is the religion — Its world- 
 wide influence : modern Judaism, Christianity, Islam — '■^ National reli- 
 gions and universal religions" — As a matter of history the religion 
 of Israel is '^ something more" than other principal religions — The ques- 
 tion is, ]Miat is the difference ? and for an answer we must go back to the 
 earlier times. 
 
 The history of Israel has attractions such as no other 
 history presents. Ko na tion ever had so wonderful a 
 beginning; none exhibits a more tragic close. The figures 
 that mark the stadia of its checkered history are not the 
 dim shadowy forms tliat elsewhere meet us in antiquity, 
 but men of warm human sympathy, with strongly marked 
 individuality. The details of the lives of Old Testament 
 worthies have wrought themselves into all literatures, and 
 made themselves the world's possession. People in modern 
 Christian lands are more familiar with the history of Israel 
 tlian with the ancient history of their own countries, and 
 feel more interest in the characters of Old Testament story 
 than in the great men of their own nations. The graphic 
 delineations of patriarchs and heroes take powerful hold of 
 the imagination of the old and young in all lands. The 
 
1 2 Eeligious Character of the Ilibtory of Israel. 
 
 missionary to the heathen finds a ready access to the minds 
 of his hearers by means of the simple and impressive 
 recital of the deeds of Israel's great men. And in the 
 battles for religious freedom and national righteousness, 
 reformers have been nerved by the example of Old Testa- 
 ment patriots and prophets to fight manfully for the truth. 
 The very land v^hich was the home of Israel is unique 
 in its geographical and topographical features. A piece 
 of territory no larger than Wales embraces within itself 
 the climate, natural scenery, and products of lands the most 
 far apart. By its physical features and natural boundaries 
 it is as sharply marked off from adjacent lands, as it is 
 distinguished from any country of its size on the face of 
 the earth. Within this territory, debarred for the most 
 part from the seaboard, lived a people that was contem- 
 poraneous with the great world-empires of antiquity, but 
 in true greatness has infinitely surpassed them. Looked 
 at as one of the nationalities of Western Asia, its external 
 history seemed indeed to run a course parallel with theirs. 
 A number of kindred tribes are federated together, and after 
 a time the monarchy arises. Then a schism takes place, 
 and there is a double line of kings, waging their wars and 
 ruling their states very much after the fashion of the kings 
 around them. TJie institutions, the priesthood, the ritual, 
 the language of Israel, bear strong resemblances to those 
 of kindred Semitic peoples in their neighbourhood; and 
 finally, when the great world-powers absorb those other 
 nationalities or sweep them away, the Israelitish state is 
 also shattered, and its people disappears from the scene. 
 Yet, looked at more closely, Israel presents a broad con- 
 trast to those smaller kindred states, and is in essential 
 points clearly distinguished from the greater world-em- 
 pires. For Israel has not ceased to exist, and its influ- 
 
Israel and the World-Empires. 13 
 
 ence has gone forth into all the earth. The petty nation- 
 alities of kindred blood in the immediate neighbourhood 
 have disappeared, leaving scarcely a trace of their existence. 
 The great empires of Assyria and Egypt, whose armies 
 fought across the body of Israel for world-dominion, have 
 crumbled to ruins. The Eoman empire, with its iron heel, 
 trampled the Jewish nationality to the ground, but there 
 was a vitality which it could not crush. Greece, like 
 Palestine, was a small country, and its people, like Israel, 
 played a distinguished part in the world's history. Israel, 
 however, had put on record complete annals of its mar- 
 vellous career before the time that the " father of history " 
 appeared in Greece;^ and though possessing neither the 
 art, nor the philosophy, nor the science of ancient Egypt, 
 has effected in the world what neither Greece with all 
 these acquirements, nor Eome with its law, nor the East- 
 ern empires with their massive force, could accomplish. 
 
 Something very distinctive must have been early achieved 
 or acquired by Israel to enable it to remain apart from 
 these nationalities, great or small, and to outlast them so 
 conspicuously. It was something of a more fundamental 
 kind than the ordinary attainments of civilisation — some- 
 thing nearer to the heart of mankind, belonging in a 
 manner to all ages, and destined to last when the strait 
 bonds of Jewish nationality should have been snapped, 
 and when the greatest of world-empires should have done 
 their best and their worst for the human race. By some 
 inherent force this race, set in the midst of the great 
 nations of the earth, and surrounded by powerful em- 
 
 1 The date of Herodotus is 484-443 B.C. ; Ezra came to Jerusalem in the 
 year 458. The pre-Socratic period of Greek philosophy falls between 550 
 and 430 B.C. ; the books of Hosea and Amos date from before the fall of 
 Samaria in 721 B.C. 
 
1 4 Rcliijious Character of the History of Israel. 
 
 pires, not only held its independent national existence, 
 and maintained itself unaffected in the highest degree 
 by world influences, speaking its own language, practising 
 its own customs, observing its own laws, proudly regarding 
 itself as a race destined to highest distinction and even to 
 world-dominion, but even at the moment of its political 
 extinction held aloft the banner of national supremacy 
 and undying hope. Nor have its expectations been falsi- 
 fied. Scattered to the four winds of heaven, trodden down 
 as the mire of the streets, persecuted in strange lands, 
 wandering from end to end of a continent in search of a 
 resting-place, it has remained one in all that constituted 
 its unity before its independence was lost. Even in this 
 cosmopolitan age, when men of every nationality are be- 
 coming daily more and more citizens of the world, and 
 when the modern Jew of Britain, or America, or Germany, 
 or France, makes it his poor boast that he is an English- 
 man, an American, a German, or a Frenchman, his very 
 speech bewrayeth him, and he is classed as a member of 
 the one race which is the scorn of many, the dread of 
 some, the wonder of all. For, as a nation or race, the 
 Jewish people lives on, and has a definite influence on 
 the events of contemporary history ; and this though it 
 is a nation without a home and without independent 
 political existence. It is a great thing to have the con- 
 trol, to the extent that they enjoy, of the money which 
 is intimately bound up with the prosecution of any under- 
 taking, literary, commercial, or philanthropic, to be the ar- 
 biters of war or peace, the masters of the Exchange. The 
 modern movement against the Jews in some parts of Europe, 
 though it may have its root in the very thing we have in- 
 dicated, shows also that the influence of this wonderful race 
 is not merely monetary but intellectual. Even if it is 
 
The Uniting Bond of Israel. 15 
 
 their possession of wealth that gives them the advantage, 
 the genius that could create the wealth, and so manipulate 
 it as to maintain pre-eminence, is evidently a power of a 
 high degree. To instruct the world in the worship of 
 Mammon, after having taught it the knowledge of God, is 
 no common achievement. A power like this, without 
 political independence at its back, implies an inner uniting 
 bond of no common kind; and when we ask what that 
 bond is, we are driven back to the earlier history of the 
 people for an answer. The possession of wealth by the 
 race is of comparatively modern origin, brought about by 
 their exclusion from the ordinary trades and professions, 
 which were practised iu the times when they suffered per- 
 secution at the hands of Christians. But the bond that 
 unites them is of much older date: they had become a 
 historic people, and had indeed achieved the best part of 
 their history, before tlieir corporate life had assumed this 
 special phase. Persecution had its chief motive in their 
 distinctiveness, and largely tended to perpetuate it. 
 
 The bond which united this people and enabled them 
 to achieve their distinction in the world was a religious 
 one ; and the specific contribution of ancient Israel to the 
 j^orld's'^ood was the knowledge of their religion. " The 
 foundation upon which, at all periods, Israel's sense of its 
 national unity rested, was religious in its character."^ 
 " The history of Israel is essentially a history of religious 
 ideas." ^ The great Eastern empires, by a crushing despot- 
 ism, welded peoples into kingdoms of colossal size, and 
 prepared a field upon which more civilising influences 
 could have play when the fit time arrived. The people of 
 Israel attained no such empire, and left no such remains of 
 
 1 Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 433. 
 
 2 Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. p. 12. 
 
 1 
 
1 6 Religious Character of the History of Israel. 
 
 greatness as these empires exhibit. Their territory even at 
 the largest was but small ; they remained but a short time 
 in these limited dominions ; and their country, when they 
 left it, became a No-man's-land, whose inhabitants at the 
 present day own a foreign master, and have no attach- 
 ment to it beyond an instinctive clinging to the soil that 
 supports them. Eome gave the world a system of law which 
 remained an active influence throughout Europe after the 
 great Eoraan empire was shattered. Greece died in giving 
 birth to immortal art, poetry, and science. Ancient Israel, 
 on the contrary, never cultivated art nor distinguished it- 
 self in philosophy ; and, so far from seeking to influence 
 the great world, kept jealously aloof from its movements. 
 What Israel has given to the world is a literature of a 
 very peculiar kind, intensely national in the first place, 
 instinct with an eloquence and a poetry of its own kind ; 
 but above all, and herein specifically different from all 
 other national literatures, permeated from beginning to 
 end with religion. From a very ancient time writers in 
 this nation have set themselves to give the story, and a 
 connected story, of their own rise and growth, to codify 
 the laws, to put on record the words and deeds of teachers 
 and leaders ; and whether or not a part, great or small, 
 of such ancient literature has been lost, one feature char- 
 acterises what we possess, it is of a religious cast, and 
 national only because it is religious. A nation is historical 
 only when it makes history, and a nation records its 
 history only when it becomes conscious that it has a 
 history to record; and therefore the earliest of these 
 records which have this national and religious tone, prove 
 that at the time of their composition Israel had a con- 
 sciousness of its own significant position in the world, and 
 a belief that its history was worthy of being recorded. 
 
03&-' 
 
 IsraeVs Religion not extinct. if 
 
 "The self-consciousness of the religion of Israel," says 
 Dr A. B. Davidson,^ " is a phenomenon almost more sing- 
 ular than the religion itself." Of course it is to be ad- 
 mitted that the existence of such writings, when once 
 they did exist, had much to do with the making and 
 moulding of the succeeding history ; but the fact of their 
 existing is first of all a proof that the nation was con- 
 scious that it had some great part to play. 
 
 Yet the religion which was the bond uniting Israel and 
 giving that people their peculiar position in the world, is 
 not a dry system enshrined in ancient documents to furnish 
 study for the archaeologist. Other nations of the ancient 
 world had their religious systems, expounded by philoso- 
 phers, guarded by priests, supported by the state, adorned 
 with the ritual which the highest art could elaborate. 
 These religions, however, faded from the view of the 
 world with the decadence of the peoples who professed 
 them, and are now painfully restored from forgotten 
 writings and crumbling monuments ; and even when 
 recovered seem at best but like distant echoes of the 
 religion of Israel. This, like the people themselves, has 
 never ceased to be in evidence before the world, endued 
 with endless vitality, and is operating at the present day 
 in a wider field than its first professors ever dreamed of. 
 We know how the religious systems of Greece and Eome j 
 crumbled to powder before the preaching of Jewish mis- 
 sionaries, men of little learning and of no social position ; 
 and how all that was best in the art and political life 
 of the most civilised nations of antiquity has been made 
 subservient to the spread of a religion which came from 
 despised Judaea. 
 
 For not only does the world owe to Israel the religion 
 
 ^ Expositor, third series, vol. vi. p. 165. 
 B 
 
is Beligious Character of the History of Israel. 
 
 of the Old Testament, which for the time was clearly 
 distinguishable from the religions of contemporaneous 
 nations, but to the religion of Israel we must trace back 
 by direct descent the two greatest religions of succeeding 
 times, Christianity and Mohammedanism. These two, 
 with Buddhism, exhibit the highest attainments of the 
 human race in the matter of religion; to them, as dis- 
 tinguished from merely local and national religions, 
 has been given the name of Universal or World religions, 
 because there is something in their character, as proved 
 by their reception and spread, that fits them for peoples 
 of various climes and of various race. Buddhism, no 
 doubt, so far as numbers go, bulks more largely on the 
 map of the world than Islam, yet as a factor in the great 
 world's history it has not had so distinguished a career ; 
 it has been more a religion of thought than of action. And] 
 then, in its adaptation to the wants of man of every grade- 
 of civilisation, of every tribe and tongue, in the spiritu-i 
 ality of its teaching and in its living power, Christianity, | 
 as the history of the world shows, occupies a place 
 peculiarly its own. 
 
 It is a matter of history, which very few question, that 
 both these religions are traceable directly to the religion of 
 Israel.^ There may be differences in the modes in which 
 the influence is traced, and as to the precise amount of the 
 dependence ; but there can be no question that both Jesus 
 and His apostles represented the faith of Abraham as the 
 foundation of Christianity, ^ and that Mohammed appealed 
 to the same spiritual ancestor, declaring that Abraham was 
 neither a Jew nor a Christian, but a Muslim. ^ Thus two 
 
 1 Kuenen, National Religions and Universal Religions, p. 56. 
 
 2 Renan, Hist, du Peuple d'Israel, i., Pref. p. iii. 
 
 3 The Koran, Sura ii 60. 
 
Missionary Religions, 19 
 
 religions, which have been intimately bound up with the 
 political and social movements of the world, which have 
 subjugated to themselves nations in the foremost rank of 
 intelligence, which have proved themselves adapted to peo- 
 ples of the most diverse birth and training, and which are 
 at the present moment rivalling one another in the mission* 
 ary zeal with which they are propagated, are directly found- 
 ed upon the religion of old Israel, which never was anything 
 more than the religion of a small and isolated people. Mo- 
 hammed gave forth the Koran as " a warning to all crea- 
 tures,"^ and even in his lifetime sent a peremptory summons, 
 prophet of Arabia as he was, to both the King of Persia 
 and the Emperor of Constantinople, as well as to other 
 minor potentates, to accept the religion of Islam. And 
 the command of Jesus, in fulfilment of which His follow- 
 ers travelled in all directions and suffered every hardship, 
 was : " Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of 
 all nations." But though claiming direct descent from 
 Israel's religion, they have this very point in sharp con- 
 trast to it, that they both very soon became universal 
 religions, whereas it remained, and still remains, a religion 
 of one people. We have instances of the religion of Israel 
 coming under the view, of other nations, as in the story of 
 Jonah ; and there were, no doubt, all along, foreign con- 
 verts to the Hebrew faith. But never did the religion 
 of Israel set about a propaganda; it was only in late 
 times, when the faiths of the pagan world were dying 
 away, that in sickness of heart the religiously minded of 
 the Gentiles became proselytes to Judaism, and found 
 it a stepping-stone to Christianity. Yet though the faith 
 of Israel remained restricted to one race, not only did it 
 by direct genealogy bring forth the two great missionary 
 
 * The Koran, Sura xsxviii. 87, 
 
20 Eclirjious Character of the History of Israel. 
 
 religions, but it gave unmistakable intimations that the 
 truth which it contained would have world-wide exten- 
 sion. As if conscious, on the one hand, that they were 
 proclaiming imperishable and universal truth, its writers 
 gave the most glowing anticipations of a latter day of 
 glory, when out of Zion should go forth the law, and the 
 word of the Lord from Jerusalem — the word which would 
 lead all nations to walk in the light of the Lord. On 
 the other hand, as if conscious that this truth was for 
 the time held in too narrow bonds for acceptance by all 
 nations, they abstained from pressing it upon the Gentiles, 
 and were content to hold up the witness through the long 
 years of waiting till the fulness of the time should come. 
 
 A consideration of such facts as these will have a cer- 
 tain influence on the mode in which we have to approach 
 the religion of Israel, as v/ill be indicated presently. 
 They have been pointed out in the meantime as outstand- 
 ing features of the subject, which invest the religious 
 history of Israel with peculiar interest, and have always 
 attracted the attention of thinkers and scholars in an un- 
 common degree. Just as in the New Testament history, 
 where the life of Jesus has been felt to be the key-stone of 
 the whole structure, writers of every shade of opinion have 
 taken in hand to explain His influence on the succeedr 
 ing development of Christianity; so in the field of Old 
 Testament inquiry the greatest industry and the keenest 
 ingenuity have been exercised in the attempt to account 
 for the origin of that peculiarly religious cast of thought, 
 which is so observable in the Hebrew literature. The 
 very earliest attempts at Old Testament criticism had their 
 point of departure in dogmatic considerations ; and though 
 for a time the labours of scholars assumed a more tech- 
 nically critical and literary aspect, the historical view 
 
Histories of Israel. 21 
 
 was never entirely lost sight of, and lias of late again dom- 
 inated the whole process of criticism. Even the works 
 which profess to deal in the most technical manner with 
 the Old Testament books have at their basis a theory 
 of the Old Testament history; and of recent years we 
 have had an increasing number of attempts to set forth 
 the history in a more formal manner according to the 
 principles of historical criticism, till we have almost as 
 many Histories of Israel, and from as varied standpoints, 
 as we have Lives of Jesus. It is not without reason that 
 M. Eenan — who, according to his own estimate, would 
 have anticipated the discoveries of Darwin had he given 
 himself in early life to the study of physical science,^ and 
 who now almost reGjrets that he had not devoted his 
 lifetime to tlie history of Greek thought^ — after work- 
 ing out for forty years a design of his earlier years to 
 write ' The History of the Origins of Christianity,' closes 
 his lifelong labour with the 'History of the People of 
 Israel.' ^ 
 
 A religion which has had a history like this, and has 
 attracted such attention from investigators, proves itself 
 thereby to have more than common features, and cannot 
 be approached with indifference. It is true that the most 
 of the modern writers who have undertaken histories of 
 Israel make great professions of impartiality and freedom 
 from prejudice. Thus Kuenen in the opening of his 
 * Eeligion of Israel ' says * : " Our standpoint is sketched in 
 a single stroke, as it were, by the manner in which this 
 work sees the light. It does not stand entirely alone, 
 but is one of a number of monographs on ' the principal 
 
 ^ Souvenirs d'Enfance et de Jeunesse, p. 2C3. 
 
 2 Hist. d'Israel, l, Pref. p. vi ff. 
 
 * See Note II. 4 p^j^g transl,, vol. i. p. 5. 
 
22 Beligious Character of the History of Israel, 
 
 religions.' For us the Israelitish is one of these religions, 
 nothing less, but also nothing more." This sounds exceed- 
 ingly impartial, but he " doth protest too much, methinks." 
 It may be questioned whether this is not an assuming 
 of a standpoint from which it is impossible to give a 
 sufficient account of the matter in hand. If it be indeed 
 possible for one to regard all religions with perfect 
 impartiality as so many phases of man's activity, we 
 may expect from such a one an even-handed treatment 
 of all ; but such an impartiality is very apt to run into 
 an equalising and levelling of all. At all events, for 
 those who regard Christianity as occupying a peerless 
 position among the "principal religions," and who have 
 perceived the way in which it appeals to the religion of 
 the Old Testament, it would be vain to pretend to have 
 no prepossession in the matter. It is not necessary that 
 the historian of a country should be a foreigner; and 
 we prefer that a biographer should be one who was 
 intimately acquainted and in sympathy with the person 
 whose character is to be described. A handful of jewels 
 are, from one point of view, just so many minerals ; but 
 we should think none the less of a lapidary whose eyes 
 sparkled when he discovered among them "one pearl of 
 great price." A joiner or cabinetmaker may say that 
 from his standpoint three planks of wood are nothing 
 less and nothing more, though one may be cut from the 
 trunk and the others from large limbs of the same tree ; 
 and the anatomist may describe simply as so many 
 " subjects " the dead bodies of a mother and her two 
 daughters. From their standpoint they are right enough ; 
 the question is as to the standpoint. Religions are not 
 so many things that may be laid on the bench or dissect- 
 iiig-table, so that learned men may write a series of 
 
"Something more " than other Religions. 23 
 
 monographs upon tliem. They are not so many dry 
 systems that can be circumscribed by " documents " and 
 examined in books. No religion that has made its mark 
 in the world can be thus appreciated. Account must be 
 taken of the character of the founders and first teachers, 
 as well as of the doctrines or systems they have left; 
 and above all, the effects of the religion in the world 
 must in each case be estimated, if we would know what 
 the power of the religion is. Now the religion of Israel, 
 by its very position in the world, has been " something 
 more" in some sense than other religions. No other 
 religion has had so striking an origin, so persistent an 
 existence, and so wide an influence, if we take into 
 account the two religions which have sprung from it. 
 And the main question before a historian of Israel's 
 religion is to make plain what the " something more " is. 
 But to set out with a formula or equation that will rep- 
 resent the history of all religions,^ and then apply it to 
 the religion of Israel, is to prejudge the whole question 
 in a most unscientific way, and to run in the teeth of 
 historical fact. The science of comparative religion is 
 legitimate, and most useful ; but it becomes unscientific 
 when it is a levelling science. Stade very properly ^ 
 assigns to the religion of Israel not only a place among 
 the principal religions, but the very first place, — the 
 universal religion, in a much fuller sense than, e.g., the 
 philosophy of Greece or the law of Home can claim to 
 be universal. There is enough in the external history of 
 Israel to prepare us for finding in it something very dif- 
 ferent from what other ancient religions exhibit. Is it, 
 impossible that there should be unique things in the 
 world ? Is it scientific to assert that there are not ? We 
 ^ See Note III. ^ Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. pp. 3, 4. 
 
24 Eeligious Character of the History of Israel. 
 
 do not require at the outset to claim more for this re- 
 ligion than for other religions ; but neither are we allowed 
 to assume at the outset that it is no more nor better 
 than others. What we have seen is suflicient at least 
 to make us disposed to admit any features that can clearly 
 be proved to exist, even though they have no counter- 
 part in other ancient religions. Since it has, in later' 
 historic time, had a unique development, it need be no 
 wonder if in its earlier course it was equally distinguished, 
 
 The history of Israel, then, resolves itself into a history 
 of the religion; and the problem of the history is to 
 explain the possession by this people of a faith and 
 practice which distinguished them from their neighbours, 
 and made them the religious teachers of the world. 
 More particularly, it is to the earlier portion of the history 
 that attention has to be turned, with the view of discover- 
 ing, if possible, a starting-point which will form a suf- 
 ficient explanation of all that followed. 
 
 If we take the modern orthodox Jew with his Talmud 
 and traditions, we can give no account of him, nor under- 
 stand his persistent adherence to peculiar customs and 
 old-world beliefs, till we go back to the time of the 
 formation of the Talmud itself. And as soon as we 
 begin to investigate that process, we are compelled to 
 go back to Ezra and his contemporaries, who gave the 
 start to the complicated work of the scribes. And when 
 we take up the books that tell us of the activity of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah, and try to account for their influence, we 
 find we are not only at the beginning of one course of 
 development, but also at the end of a long anterior one. 
 A great part of the writings of the Old Testament was by 
 that time certainly in existence ; the political history of 
 the nation in its independence had run its course, and 
 
Atte7iipt to reach the Origin. 25 
 
 its religious character Lad become well marked. In order 
 to discover how all this was brought about, we are re- 
 ferred to an earlier period of their history. We turn to 
 the great propliets who lived and wrote before the exile, 
 and we find that, while their conceptions of the national 
 religion are clear and positive, they do not regard the 
 religion as a thing of their own day, nor claim to have 
 reached it by their own study. The very earliest of the 
 writing prophets to whose words we have access, appeal 
 to a series of prophetic men before them who had 
 taught the same truths, and presuppose for the nation of 
 Israel a certain religious standing wliich rests on an 
 antecedent history to which they pointedly and repeatedly 
 refer. Attempting to make our way still farther back, 
 we find tlie books which tell of the activity of Moses, the 
 exodus from Egypt, and the consolidation of the people 
 under an elaborate system of law ; and we seem to have 
 reached an absolute commencement. But even the Mosaic 
 period rests on an earlier. Moses speaks in the name of 
 tbe God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the same 
 books that tell of the work of the great lawgiver are full 
 of references to the covenant and the promise made to 
 Abraham. "With, Abraham the history of Israel as a 
 people is made by the Old Testament writers to begin. 
 From him the nation is made to descend by ordinary 
 generation ; the promise made to him is seen expanding 
 in the succeeding history ; and although the writers give 
 an account of ages preceding, and carry their history back 
 to the very origin of tilings, Abraham is made to stand at 
 the watershed where the national life of Israel has its 
 rise, the "nations" of the world being thereafter left out 
 of account, or only referred to in connection with the 
 fortunes of the chosen people. 
 
2G Iteligious Character of the History of Israel, 
 
 What we want to determine is . the origin of this 
 peculiarly religious cast of the history of Israel, and the 
 nature of the religious life which is represented as running 
 this long uninterrupted course. And in order to do this, 
 it is of the utmost consequence to secure a firm standing- 
 ground from which to estimate the precise course of 
 events. 
 
27 
 
 I 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 TWO CONTENDING THEORIES OF THE HISTOKY. 
 
 There are practically Uoo accounts given of the earlier religion of Israel, 
 that of the Biblical writers and that of modern critics, and in vital 
 join ts they are opposed — The Old Testament hooks agree, or have been 
 mnde to agree, in their statement of a scheme — Its outlines — 3Iodern 
 objection to this vieio that it is an afterthought — Contending theory 
 advanced by critics — Its outline — The contrast — IIow is the balance to 
 be held betiveen them, since both appeal to the same boohs? — Proposal 
 to leave aside at the outset the disputed books or portions — Reasons 
 given for this method — Proceeding from the known and admitted to the 
 unknown or disputed — The result will, among other things, determine 
 the value of the hooks which at the outset are left out of account. 
 
 We have seen that the history of Israel resolves itself 
 into a history of religious ideas. The outstanding events 
 of the nation's history are all invested by the Biblical 
 writers with religious significance ; and it is through its 
 religion that Israel is still a power in the world. A 
 history of this people which should be confined to polit-: 
 ical events would be as unsatisfactory and as uninterest- 
 ing as a history of Greece which should take no account 
 of art, philosophy, or science. The vital point is to 
 determine, if possible, what was tlie nature of the earlier 
 religion of this people. 
 
 There are, practically, two ac counts given of the history 
 
28 Two Contending Theories of the History. 
 
 of Israel's earlier religion, between which we have to 
 choose,^ and they are, in important respects, opposed to 
 each other. There is the account of the Biblical writers, 
 which may be gathered from the Old Testament books. 
 "Whatever, and however many, may be the original 
 sources of which the Pentateuch and historical books 
 are composed, and in whatever particulars the various 
 sources may be found to be divergent or discordant 
 among themselves, they all agree, or have been manipu- 
 lated so as to liave the appearance of agreeing, in the 
 main view which they exhibit of the course througli 
 which the history ran. These books, in addition to an 
 account of primeval history contained in the first eleven 
 chapters of Genesis, have, in the remainder of that book 
 and in the succeeding books to the end of 2 Kings, a 
 connected narrative of the fortunes of Israel from the 
 call of Abraham to the time of the Captivity; and the 
 books of Ezra and Nehemiah record the events connected 
 with the return. Besides these, there are other writings, 
 particularly those of the prophets, wliich have for the 
 most part their known historical dates, and are there- 
 fore valuable contributions to the Biblical account of the 
 history. Now the account which all these books together 
 give of the history is ostensibly consistent and of one 
 jtenor.^ It amounts to tliis : that the people of Israel, 
 from the time of Abraham, stood in a peculiar relation, 
 to God, and received from Him special intimations of 
 His will and character, and were by Him peculiarly 
 guided and directed in their growth into a nation, and 
 
 1 See Note IV. 
 
 2 The books of Chronicles are confessedly of late date, and stand in 
 some respects by themselves. Whatever may be said of their historic 
 value in detail, they rest on the earlier books and imply the same general 
 scheme of history. 
 
Bihlical T heory siatecl^. 29 
 
 in their existence as a state. By a signal display of 
 divine power they were delivered from the bondage of 
 Egypt and led into the desert of Sinai, where the cove- 
 nant made with Abraham was renewed with awful 
 sanctions. Upon the covenant was reared the law, 
 ordaining holiness on God's people, fencing round their 
 daily life with ceremonial prescriptions, and educating 
 their spiritual life, so that they might be in deed as 
 in ideal a kingdom of priests, an holy nation. Up to 
 this ideal, however, they never came. On the con- 
 trary, they sinned under the very shadow of Sinai ; and 
 throughout the course of their journey in the wilder- 
 ness, marked as it was by constant tokens of divine 
 guidance, they exhibited continual backsliding, and fell 
 into one corruption after another. Even when, by signal 
 displays of divine favour, they were brought into the 
 promised land and made victorious over its inhabitants, 
 they sinned against the God who had favoured them, 
 and conformed to the practices of their neighbours. 
 Nevertheless they were not rejected, nor was their edu- 
 cation interrupted. A series of prophets, from Samuel's 
 time onwards, arose to testify against them and to plead 
 for a higher life. These men, with one voice, whether in 
 the northern or the southern kingdom, tell the same tale 
 of God's great doings for His people in the past ; they re- 
 prove, rebuke, exhort ; they confront kings and people, and 
 denounce priests and false prophets alike, — the burden of 
 their message being the same from age to age. Nor do 
 they lose faith in God's promise. As troubles gather about 
 the nation, their reproof of sin becomes more stern, their 
 enforcement of God's righteousness more emphatic, but 
 their trust in His faithfulness remains unshaken. As 
 the fabric of the nation falls to pieces, their views be- 
 
80 Two Contending Tlieories of the History. 
 
 come only the more spiritual, and hope lives on even 
 in captivity. It was indeed the voice of prophecy and 
 the belief in its fulfilment that sustained the captives 
 in Babylon, and stimulated the pious under Ezra and 
 Nehemiah to return to their native land, and there, 
 cured finally of idolatry, to set up the worship of God 
 with punctilious regard to the precepts of the old law, 
 which, during their prosperity, had been slighted. 
 
 Such is the view presented in the Biblical books. It 
 involves a plan or scheme of history of a sort. It is 
 a record of a religious movement proceeding in close 
 connection with certain alleged historical occurrences, 
 which to the Biblical writers are of prime significance; 
 so that in their estimation the different stadia in the 
 religious advance are marked by definite events in 
 the national life. I have said that the narrative con- 
 tained in the Biblical books is ostensibly consistent and 
 of one tenor; and the proof of this is the fact that 
 till recentl y no one thought that any other account 
 could be derived from these books of what the various 
 writers unanimously meant to represent. Indeed those who 
 in modern times think they have proved that the course 
 of the history was different, do not deny that the Biblical 
 books, as they lie before us, give the account which has 
 just been sketched. What they maintain is, that the 
 scheme of the Biblical writers is an afterthought, which 
 by a process of manipulation of older documents, and by a 
 systematic representation of earlier events in the light of 
 much later times, has been made to appear as if it were 
 the original and genuine development; and they think 
 they are able, by separating the early from the late con- 
 stituents of the writings, and by a legitimate process of 
 criticism, to prove from the Biblical documents themselves, 
 
• Biblical Theory criticised. 31 
 
 that the liistory and the religious movement had quite a 
 different course. 
 
 On purely literary and scientific grounds we cannot at 
 the outset refuse to entertain such a supposition. The 
 books of the Old Testament lie before us as so many 
 literary compositions, and we cannot in advance claim 
 for them such authority as will bar any legitimate 
 inquiry into their origin, and any legitimate criticism of 
 them as literary productions. It is in itself a legitimate 
 supposition that the vv^riters of the Old Testament books, 
 living and moving in a narrow world of their own, took 
 a circumscribed view of their national history, and in a 
 simple unscientific age saw marvels where modern writers 
 would see only natural occurrences. It is also quite con- 
 ceivable that Hebrew writers of history, like other his- 
 torians, had their views of past occurrences coloured by 
 the medium of their own time through which they regarded 
 them, and at a comparatively late time framed a theory 
 of their past history, in accordance with what succeeding 
 events led them to believe it must have been. And finally, 
 it is conceivable that such late writers should for the first 
 time have set themselves to put down an account of early 
 events from their own standpoint, or have touched up 
 older documents in order to make them square with their 
 own conceptions. Whether all this was indeed the case 
 must of course be proved before we accept it; in the 
 meantime we cannot refuse to look at it as a hypotheti- 
 cal account of the matter. Nor need we wonder if, in 
 an age like the present, when the demand is made in 
 every department of investigation for scientific processes 
 and strict verification of facts, the theory of the Biblical 
 writers should be challenged to submit itself to the 
 scrutiny of nineteenth-century examination. Neither need 
 
32 Two Contending Theories of the History. 
 
 we wonder if men who are trained in the methods of 
 modern historical research, and wlio have made the re- 
 ligions of the world a subject of special study, have 
 sought to frame a theory of Israel's history in accordance 
 with what they regard as established scientific principles. 
 Of course it will be required of the modern theory that 
 it give a better account of all the facts of the case, and 
 present on the whole a more consistent and credible 
 explanation of the things which are not matters of dispute. 
 We shall have occasion in the sequel to consider the 
 main points of the theory that has been put forward in 
 opposition to the Biblical one. In detail there are vari- 
 ations in the views held by different writers; but in a 
 general way the modern theory may be stated as follows : 
 A number of wandering Hebrew tribes came from the 
 desert and found a settlement in Canaan. Like the races 
 around them they had their national God, Jaliaveh,^ who 
 was to them very much what Chemosh was to Moab or 
 
 ^ In using this name for the first time, I must make a brief explana- 
 tion. It is now universally admitted that the traditional pronuncia- 
 tion, Jehovah, which appears in our English Bible, is a mistake. By the 
 time the vowel-points were supplied to the Hebrew Bible the Jews had 
 acquired the habit of saying Adhonai, the Lord, wherever the sacred 
 tetragrammaton ( JHVH) occurred, and to guide to this reading they wrote 
 the vowels of the name Adlionai along with the consonants of the unpro- 
 nounced name. Taken as a Hebrew name, and vocalised after the analogy 
 of other words of similar formation, the name should in all probability 
 be pronounced Yahtlveh or Yahveh. The objection to the use of the form 
 Yahveh or Jahveh is, that the h in the middle is apt to become quiescent, 
 and the word to be pronounced Ya-veh, which is a mistake. I may add 
 that whatever objections there may be against deviating from a pronun- 
 ciation which is invested with sacred associations, there are certain 
 advantages, which will appear as we proceed, in keeping, in a discus- 
 sion like the present, as near as possible to the original. In quotations 
 from modern writers the spelling of the respective authors is retained. 
 The origin and the significance of the name are considered in the sequel 
 (chap, xi.) 
 
Modern T heory stated^ 33 
 
 Milcom to Ammon ; and they possessed certain traditions, 
 variously accounted for, of their origin and of the manner 
 in which He had become their national God: but their 
 religious faith and religious observances were very much 
 of the same kind as those of the nations around them. 
 Particularly from the Canaanites, among whom they 
 settled, and whom they gradually assimilated or absorbed, 
 they adopted many religious customs and beliefs, — ap- 
 propriating their sacred places, making pilgrimages to 
 their sacred tombs, and ascribing to their own ancestors 
 the honours which were paid by the Canaanites to local 
 heroes departed. Custom grew into law, legend was 
 made into history, and at the time when we have the 
 first authentic records of them, they are practising the 
 rites of a worship which had grown up in the way in- 
 dicated, with conceptions of their national God similar 
 to the beliefs of the neighbouring nations regarding their 
 gods. The Biblical books which relate the history up 
 to the eighth century B.C. did not exist in anything like 
 their present form till long after the events; and it is 
 only from early pieces contained in them, or by various 
 inferences, that we can get a true account of the history 
 of that time, — the books in their present form being man- 
 ipulated by later hands, and exhibiting a projection of 
 later ideas into past times. But by the eighth century we 
 have compositions belonging to that century itself, and 
 from that time onwards literary works come to our aid 
 for the understanding of the history. It was to the 
 prophets that the purification of the religious conceptions 
 of Israel was due. They first perceived and taught the 
 people a higher truth, and by them the ethic mono- 
 theism of the Old Testament was developed. Before 
 their time "the nation had been the ideal of religion 
 
 c 
 
 Of Ti£ai 
 
 
34 Tivo Contending Theories of the History. 
 
 in actual realisation ; the prophets confronted the nation 
 with an ideal to which it did not correspond. Then to 
 bridge over this interval the abstract ideal was framed 
 into a law, and to this law the nation was to be con- 
 formed."^ In this way the code of Deuteronomy was 
 prepared some short time before the eighteenth year of 
 the reign of Josiah, when it is said to have been dis- 
 covered in the Temple. This code of law does not 
 therefore belong to the age of Moses, though it is repre- 
 sented as coming from him, to give it higher sanction. 
 It was, in fact, the attempt to frame a norm for the guid- 
 ance of Israel in the trutli which the propliets had taught. 
 But it had an effect other than its framers had antici- 
 pated; it substituted for the free living voice of God 
 speaking through His prophets, the voice of a dead law ; 
 and so, without meaning it, the prophets became "the 
 spiritual destroyers of the old Israel." ^ Law, therefore, 
 was the outcome of prophecy, not its antecedent ; and 
 it found its ultimate development in the Levitical code of 
 Ezra, which was the starting-point of modern Judaism. 
 
 Without entering now into any discussion of the points 
 here raised, we may observe that this theory professes to 
 expound the history of Israel according to the principle 
 of a continuous natural development, showing the gradual 
 expansion of the religious idea from the narrowest con- 
 ceptions of nationalism, or even animism, to that of a 
 pure monotheism, and the rise of religious institutions 
 from mere natural custom, often the most superstitious, 
 to codified law with divine sanctions. Stade, a dis- 
 tinguished advocate of the modern view, says^ we 
 must at the outset regard the religion of old Israel as 
 
 1 Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 491. 2 ibid. 
 
 * Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vul. i. pp. 8, 9. 
 
The Theories contrasted. 35 
 
 in the process of hecoming, and not entering the world in 
 a completed form like Christianity or Mohammedanism. 
 Cliristianity, he says, appears as a completed religion, just 
 because it is the conclusion of the religion of Israel; 
 but we must not apply to the religion of Israel the maxim 
 of Schleiermacher, derived from a consideration of Chris- 
 tianity, that a reli.s^ion is seen in its greatest pu rity at its 
 source.^ On which it may be remarked, that whatever 
 mistakes may have been made on this subject in the 
 " traditional view," the Biblical records themselves indi- 
 cate very clearly a development of its kind. The great 
 ^ffexence in the two theories consists in the germ from 
 which the development took place, and the stage of evo- 
 lution that had been reached in the earlier times whose^ 
 history we seek to determine. 
 
 We have, therefore, two opposing views of the history 
 — the Biblical view, set forth by the Hebrew historians, 
 and the view formulated by the modern historians of 
 Israel. The latter does not hesitate to call the former 
 unhistorical, and might itself therefore be called the anti- 
 Biblical, though I shall simply call it the " modern theory." 
 I have called them two contending theories, for so they 
 are. The Old Testament historical books are not bare 
 chronicles of events. They are animated by a principle, 
 in accordance with which the writers profess to explain 
 the events. If we suppose the accounts of early times 
 to have been written early, or if we take the very earliest 
 of the written sources which the critics will admit, even 
 then they are more than bare recitals of facts. There is 
 ever a certain interpretation of the facts, a certain view 
 taken by the narrator which colours his facts or guides 
 the disposal of them in his recital — a certain insight, true 
 
 1 See Note V. 
 
36 Tico Contending Theories of the History. 
 
 or false, which he thinks he has into the secrets and 
 causes of things. If, again, we suppose that these accounts 
 of early times are written late, the accounts again imply 
 reflection, interpretation, theory. In any case, there is 
 more than the mere representation of facts. " History, ■ 
 as distinguished from chronicles or annals, must always 
 contain a theory, whether confessed by the writer or not 
 It may not be put prominently forward, but it lurks in 
 the pages and may be read between the lines. A sound 
 theory is simply a general conception, which co-ordinates 
 and gives unity and a causal relation to a multitude of ! 
 facts. Without this, facts cease to have interest except/ 
 to the antiquarian."^ ^ 
 
 The state of the case is this: The history of Israel 
 ran through a course of development of some kind. 
 The Hebrew writers had some knowledge of the events 
 and crises of the history, from personal experience, from 
 oral tradition, from conviction engrained in the national 
 consciousness, or from written sources ; and they set 
 themselves, at the time or at some time, to, give an 
 ordered account of the events. But in any case, it is 
 their view of the history that lies before us. Modern 
 writers also have knowledge of certain events. Erom 
 the writings in our hands, and from other sources, they 
 have information of the crises and outstanding facts. 
 They have also before them in these books the views 
 that the Biblical writers entertained, and on the strength 
 of all these they write their histories of Israel. But, 
 again, it is their interpretation of the events and phenom- 
 ena that lies before us. The date of the written history 
 in either case does not in itself affect the validity of the 
 theory. Writers of this nineteenth Christian century 
 
 1 Simon S. Laurie, Rise and Constitution of Universities, Pref. p. vi. 
 
Test of the two Theories. 37 
 
 claim that tliey have the true account to give of the 
 matter, although they have practically no additional 
 faxits to go upon. We cannot therefore allow them, on 
 the mere ground of lateness, to reject a theory which, let 
 us say, was framed a few centuries before Christ. It may 
 be that the early theory had the more accurate insight 
 and gave the more correct interpretation of the facts of 
 the history. The question simply is. Which of the two 
 ^theories gives on the whole the better explanation of all 
 the circumstances which are known and admitted ? There 
 is a sort of higher criticism in either case, but the theory 
 that is to hold the field must not only raise difficulties 
 but must lay them;;and must, on the view of all the facts 
 of the case, commend itself, on literary and critical and 
 common-sense grounds, as the better explanation. There 
 is something worth thinking of in the words of Thoreau : 
 " How comes it that history never has to wait . for facts, 
 but for a man to write it ? The ages may go on forgetting 
 the facts never so long : he can remember two for every 
 one forgotten. The musty records of history, like the 
 catacombs, contain the perishable remains, but only in 
 tlie breast of genius are embalmed the souls of heroes. 
 There is very little of what is called criticism here. It 
 is love and reverence, rather, which deal with qualities 
 not relatively but absolutely great ; for whatever is admi- 
 rable in a man is something infinite, to which he cannot 
 set bounds. These sentiments allow the mortal to die, 
 the immortal and divine to survive." ^ Now the Hebrew 
 writers were very far from being dry annalists, and it is 
 quite possible that they, like the evangelists after them, 
 possessed those sentiments of love and reverence wlucli_ 
 qualified them for being true historians, 
 
 ^ lleview of Thomas Carlyle. 
 
38 Two Contending Theories of the History. 
 
 Some of the outstanding facts wliicli have to be ac- 
 counted for have ah^eady been mentioned, such as the 
 persistence of the race and religion, the early consolida- 
 tion of the people around their religious faith, and the 
 power of this faith to produce two of tlie greatest re- 
 ligions of the world. Other features will meet us as we 
 proceed, such as the high spiritual tone of the religion, 
 as early as we can obtain contemporaneous accounts, and 
 the influence of the prophets, which, on either theory, is 
 inmiense. "Tor all these things there must be found, if 
 possible, an adequate cause and sufficient historical ex- 
 planation. And even if the accounts contained in the 
 Biblical books are pronounced unhistorical, we have before 
 us a very difficult problem — viz., to explain how, at what 
 time, and from what causes arose the conviction which 
 these writers so firmly hold, that this was the true course 
 of events. The Biblical historians say, '' We write thus, 
 because thus things occurred." If the anti-Biblical his- 
 torians say, " Things did not so occur," they are bound, 
 among other things, to give a reasonable explanation why 
 the Biblical historians so wrote. 
 
 In a general way we may contrast the two theories 
 thus : Tlie modern theory undertakes to trace the develop- 
 ment of the religion from the lowest stages of animistic 
 worship up to ethic monotheism, and from custom up to 
 authorised divine law, and this too within the period dis- 
 tinctively embraced in tlie history of Israel as a people. 
 The Biblical theory also posits a development; but the 
 essential things whicli were finally reached— a belief in 
 a moral deity, the one ruler of the world, and a law 
 divinely given — -are there in germ and substance to start 
 with at the threshold of the nation's life. There are low 
 stages of belief, there are customs rising into laws, on 
 
The Documents cqipccdcd to, 39 
 
 Jx)th theories. The difference lies in the place assigned 
 to them. 
 
 These are the two theories of the history, and we have 
 before us a mass of literature which gives the sole or 
 the main information which we possess regarding it, and 
 from which, therefore, is to be obtained in some manner 
 the only standard by which the two tlieories can be 
 tested. The one theory has, let us say, overlaid itself 
 upon the books, or worked itself into them ; the other has, 
 by critical processes, worked itself out of them. How 
 shall we hold the balance between them ? Clearly we 
 must approach the subject by its literary side : we must 
 neither, on the one hand, invest the books as a whole with 
 authority and claim for them inspiration, for that would 
 be to foreclose the whole inquiry, as it would be opposed 
 to the principle of Protestantism ; ^ nor must we, on the 
 other hand, summarily reject books or portions of them 
 on merely subjective grounds, saying that such and such 
 parts represent later and unhistorical views, or arbi- 
 ti-arily set aside as unhistorical everything in whicli 
 there is a miraculous element. The books are our only 
 witnesses — the only materials we have for forming our 
 conclusions. This has been well put by Kuenen himself: 
 " The Bible is in every one's hand. The critic has no 
 other Bible than the public. He does not profess to have 
 any additional documents, inaccessible to the laity, nor 
 does he profess to find anything in his Bible that the 
 ordinary reader cannot see. It is true that here and there 
 he improves the common translation ; but this is the ex- 
 ception, not the rule. And yet he dares to form a con- 
 ception of Israel's religious development totally different 
 from that which, as any one may see, is set forth in the 
 
 1 See Briggs, Biblical Study, p. 106 ff. ; Whither ? p. 73 ff 
 
4 Tiuo Contending Theories of the History. 
 
 Old Testament, and to sketch the primitive Christianity 
 in lines which even the acutest reader cannot recognise in 
 the New." ^ Since, however, the critics undertake so 
 much, we must stipulate that their criticism shall be fair. 
 They must not criticise the books away altogether. The 
 books are the materials out of which the structure of the 
 history is to be built, not a mere scaffolding, within which 
 out of other materials — say of a purely subjective char- 
 acter — the building is to rise. When all is done, the 
 books should appear more valuable as parts of a compact 
 whole; and even the late parts, when proved to be late, 
 ought to fall into their proper place, and add symmetry to 
 the structure. 
 
 Here then, manifestly, a difficulty in procedure presents 
 itself. The Biblical theory is formulated in the books as 
 they lie before us. The modern historians do not deny 
 this, but maintain that the parts of the books in which 
 the theory finds expression are not trustworthy docu- 
 ments, but are of late origin, and give expression to late 
 views. Both theories profess to be supported by the same 
 books, but they imply different views of the books. 
 
 In order to have a clear point of departure and a fair 
 start in the inquiry, it is essential that there should be 
 some position on which both parties in the controversy 
 are agreed, if only for a moment, before diverging so 
 widely as they ultimately do — some determinative fact or 
 facts which shall not be disputed, the evidence of which 
 shall neither be assumed in advance nor called in question 
 at a later stage. If certain witnesses are suspected, wo 
 must either sift their testimony, or fall back upon wit- 
 nesses whose word is beyond question. 
 
 Now the main point in dispute is as to the history of 
 
 ^ Modern Review, July 1880. Comp. National Religions, &c., p. 69 f. 
 
Method of Procedure. ~ 41 
 
 religious belief and practice in the earlier period, particu- 
 larly the period from Moses to the time when, as is ad- 
 mitted on both sides, we have the contemporary writings 
 of prophets. But this is the very period as to which tlie 
 modern theory says the books give no reliable history. 
 The narratives contained in the Pentateuch, which osten- 
 sibly exhibit the earlier phases of the religion, are, they 
 say, not history at all, but merely an account of what 
 later writers fancied the early history must have or should 
 have been, and represent only their views, and reflect 
 their times. It might seem, therefore, a natural course at 
 this point to set ourselves to a critical examination of 
 these productions in particular, so as to eliminate from 
 them the credible element, in the shape of a substratum 
 of fact, and thus obtain reliable materials for that period 
 of the history. This, in fact, has been the method usually 
 followed by those who have undertaken recent histories of 
 Israel — to criticise or verify the sources. It is a tedious, 
 and in some respects a dreary process, as may be seen 
 by turning over the pages of such a work as Kuenen's 
 * Hexateuch.' How far the critics have been success- 
 ful in their work I shall not now stop to inquire, 
 because, in order to reach the end before us, I believe 
 that there is another and surer way, which will enable 
 us to dispense with so laborious an investigation. There 
 are three practical reasons which I think sufficient to 
 justify the course which I propose to pursue. They are 
 these : — 
 
 1. The merely critical process of examination of the 
 documents in question is not decisive for the purpose of 
 giving us an undisputed starting-point. Even if it be 
 granted that critics have succeeded in separating the com- 
 ponent parts of the Hexateuch, there remains the deter- 
 
42 Tioo Contending Theories of the History. 
 
 mination of tlieir order and respective dates, and the 
 degree in which they are dependent one upon another. 
 When it comes to the settlement of these points, recourse 
 is had to a hypothesis of the manner in which the develop- 
 ment of the history took place ; and different critics, even 
 when they agree in the main as to the separation of the 
 sources, give very different accounts of the time and manner 
 in which they came together. Kuenen himself admits the 
 point for which I am contending.^" In giving a history of 
 "the criticism, he says that up to the time of Bleek, when 
 critics sought on purely literary grounds to determine the 
 order of composition of the sources, there was no certain 
 result attained; and that it was only when tlie aid of 
 " historical criticism " was called in tliat an arrangement of 
 these was possible.^ The most striking proof of the mat- 
 ter is, that one element of tlie Hexateuch, the so-called 
 fundamental writing or priestly document, which was on 
 all hands set down as the earliest of the sources, is now 
 by the Grafian hypothesis made the very latest ; and the 
 only reason for this change of view is the introduction of 
 the hypothesis as to the course of the history. There is 
 thus always a certain amount of reasoning in a circle, the 
 theory of the history being introduced to determine the 
 dates and orders of the documents, which otherwise could 
 not be determined ; while the books themselves, rearranged 
 according to this hypothesis, are appealed to as proofs of 
 the new theory of the history. Of course it is maintained 
 that tlie theory of the history can be and is proved on 
 other grounds ; that the succession of the elements in de- 
 tail is fixed by " reference to an independent standard — 
 namely, the inner development of the history of Israel, so 
 
 ^ Kuenen, The Five Books of Moses, a Lecture delivered at Haarlem, 
 1870, translated by John Muir, 1877, p. 7 f. 
 

 Traditional View of the Pcntateucli. 43 
 
 far as that is known to us by trustworthy testimonies from 
 independent sources."^ So be it; we shall see by-and-by 
 on what independent grounds it rests. My point at 
 present is, that we cannot at the outset debate it on the 
 ground of the Pentateuch, where confessedly it cannot be 
 settled. 
 
 2. The Biblical theory does not depend upon the author- 
 ship and mode of composition of the Hexateuch. It is 
 indeed often assumed on both sides that it does ; and the 
 critics usually combat "the traditional theory," ^ as it is 
 called, on this subject. It is important, therefore, that we 
 should see exactly how this matter stands, so that the 
 Biblical theory may have fair play, and may not be, 
 weighted with what is not a part of it. 
 
 It is certainly the case that the tradition of the Jewish 
 Synagogue, followed without scrutiny by the Christian 
 Church, was to the effect that the Pentateuch was sub- 
 stantially written by Moses. By the time that the books 
 of the Old Testament were collected into a Canon — how 
 much earlier we cannot tell — the five books forming tlie 
 Pentateuch had come to be spoken of as the Law of Moses, 
 or the Book of the Law of Moses. This was natural enough, 
 since they contained as a main element the Law wliicli 
 tlie nation accepted as of Mosaic origin. These books 
 have indeed as much right to be called the books of Moses, 
 as the books of Joshua, Judges, or Samuel to be named as 
 tliey are. Whatever may have been the view of those 
 who first collected the Canon as to the share Moses had 
 in the composition of these books, in point of fact we find 
 the Jewish tradition on this subject, as early as we can 
 trace it, assigning to him the authorship. The time of 
 modern literary criticism was not yet, and probably those 
 
 ■ 1 Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 12. ^ See Note IV. 
 
44 Two Contending Theories of the History, 
 
 who gave utterance to the dictum did not think what it 
 involved. In proof of the loose way in which the Mosaic 
 authorship of the Pentateuch was held, we may refer to 
 the tradition, equally persistent and not considered incon- 
 sistent with the other, that Ezra " restored the Law ; " ^ or 
 even to the belief current at an early time that he re- 
 wrote the whole Old Testament.^ The account which the 
 Talmudists give of the composition and authorship of all 
 the books, shows how little they actually knew about the 
 matter. The truth is, that the tradition was of a general 
 kind, and the matter is one in which we cannot rely on 
 tradition for the j)reservation of exact details. And so the 
 Christian Church, in accepting the canonical books of the 
 Old Testament, accepted also without question and with- 
 out reflection the current traditions as to their authorship. 
 In point of fact, however, the b ooks of the Pentateuch, 
 like the historical books wliich follow them, are anony- 
 mous. The book of Genesis gives no hint of its author- 
 ship, neither does the book of Leviticus; and the few 
 passages found in the other books which speak of Moses 
 writing such and such things "in a book," will be discov- 
 ered on examination to refer to certain specific things. 
 Indeed the very fact of such expressions occurring within 
 the books may even be taken as a presumption that it 
 was not he who wrote the whole. 
 
 The " traditional " adherence to the Mosaic authorship of 
 the Pentateuch has caused no little confusion. For when 
 it was seen that there were certain things that could not 
 possibly have been written by him, and when the composite 
 character of the books was pointed out, it was thought that 
 the credibility of the books was destroyed ; alarm was felt 
 
 1 See Note VI. 
 
 * See Robertson Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 155. 
 
Illsioric Value not dependent on Date. 45 
 
 on one side lest the authority of Scripture should be under- 
 mined, and on the other side it was triumphantly asserted 
 that the books were of no historical value because they 
 were not contemporary compositions. Both positions are 
 untenable. (1.) Xhe__ historical value of these books does 
 not depend on their being written by Moses, or indeed on 
 our knowing who the author was. Suppose the books 
 had borne on their face that Moses was their author, the 
 books themselves give us almost all the information we 
 possess as to Moses ; and from them, therefore, alone, we 
 can judge whether he was likely to give us a true history. 
 We should be again reasoning in a circle; proving the 
 truth of the books on the authority of Moses, and proving 
 the existence and activity of Moses on the authority of 
 the books. And if the credibility of the books is to be 
 made dependent on our knowing the author, on what 
 grounds are we to believe the succeeding books whose 
 authors are entirely unknown ? (2.) On tlie other hand, 
 the critics would not have been likely to accept the state- 
 ments of books such as these are, even had it been proved 
 that they were written by Moses or some contemporary of 
 his. They would have reserved to themselves the right 
 of rejecting or accepting on internal grounds the history 
 recorded. For example, Kuenen, speaking of Islam, 
 laments the deficiency of information just at the points 
 where it would be most valuable, and says " the tradition 
 is coloured throughout by the dogmatic convictions of the 
 first believers, and is often open to the gravest suspicion." ^ 
 Just so ; even if it were demonstrated to a certainty that 
 Moses wrote the Pentateuch, that would not make the 
 critical school a whit more ready to accept its statements. 
 The course of New Testament criticism furnishes an illus- 
 
 ^ National Religions, p. 10 f. 
 
46 Tico Contending Theories of the History. 
 
 tration of what is possible in a case like tliis. Though 
 the Gospels are proved to be of so early a date that the 
 writers could have had knowledge of the things they pro- 
 fess to relate, the modern advanced critics of the New 
 Testament do not feel themselves bound on that account 
 to receive the books as historical. They have to make 
 allowance for the bias of the writer even when the writer 
 is a contemporary ; and if he relates events which they 
 consider cannot have occurred, his account is rejected as 
 i^icredible. Critics of the Old Testament are in the habit 
 — as we shall see — of treating documents and writers in 
 the same way, altogether irrespective of whether these 
 are contemporaneous or not; and therefore little value 
 should be placed on a contention coming from their side, 
 that if the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch is disproved, 
 its historical value is affected. In other words, critics 
 would not accept the Pentateuch as historical, even if it 
 were proved that Moses was the author. 
 
 It seems to be too readily assumed and too readily 
 admitted, that contemporaneousness and credibility of 
 documents are necessarily inseparable, or to be inferred 
 as a matter of course one from the other. A moment's 
 reflection will show that an event may have historically 
 occurred, and that we may have good evidence of it, 
 eve]i although no account of it was written down at the 
 moment of its occurrence; as also that false statements 
 in regard to certain matters of fact may be made, and put 
 on record at the time of the actual occurrences. The 
 mere writing down of these at the time does not make 
 them credible, nor does the omission to write those make 
 them incredible. Assyrian and Egyptian kings may lie' 
 upon stone monuments — very probably they did — in 
 regard to events of their own day; and Hebrew his- 
 
Modern Theory ean he viciced as a whole, 47 
 
 torians may tell us a true story of their history though 
 tiiey wrote it long after the events.^ 
 
 The point to he establislied is, that for the Biblical 
 theory of the history it does not matter who wrote the 
 historical books. The theory does indeed imply that 
 those books contain true history; but its acceptance of 
 the facts does not depend on a knowledge of who wrote 
 them down; for on this point the books themselves are 
 for the most part silent. Moses may have written much, 
 or may have written little, of what is contained in the 
 Pentateuch ; it will remain unknown who were the 
 authors of the succeeding books : our knowledge of these 
 things would not necessarily guarantee the history. The 
 Biblical theory, as an account of the manner in which 
 things took place, does not stand or fall by the determina- 
 tion of the contemporaneousness of documents, and the 
 modern theory certainly has no higher claim to the pos- 
 session of contemporary sources for its support. 
 
 3. And thirdly, the modern theory, like the Biblical, is 
 now formulated in such a shape that it can be taken as 
 a whole, and tested on grounds that lie apart from ques- 
 tions of the authorship of the books of the Hexateuch. 
 There are certain admitted facts ; at a certain point we 
 come upon ground that is undisputed ; some outstanding 
 facts and phenomena of the history are before us; and 
 each theory in turn gives its account of the origin and 
 significance of these facts and phenomena. At a certain 
 time we emerge upon the ground of admitted history, 
 when contemporaneous writings come to our aid, for the 
 determination of conditions and circumstances which have 
 a clear significance for the history ; and it becomes pos- 
 sible by an examination of the two theories to determine 
 
 1 See Note VII. 
 
48 ' Tivo Contending Theories of the History. 
 
 which of them answers the more accurately to those con- 
 ditions and circumstances, and so fits in the more accu- 
 rately to the course of the history at a point which is 
 undisputed. 
 
 What is here proposed, therefore, is to leave entirely 
 out of account in the first place those books or parts of 
 books which are declared to be unhistorical, and to come 
 to a time at which both theories agree that we are on 
 clear historical ground. Tlie critical historians shall bo 
 allowed, provisionally, to indicate what that period is ; 
 they shall also be allowed to indicate the writings which 
 belong to that period ; and without passing judgment 
 upon the selection, but merely viewing the whole theory 
 as a hypothesis, we shall leave challenged witnesses en- 
 tirely in the background, and question those who are 
 brought forward as trustworthy. We shall try to discover 
 what testimony they afford in regard to certain distinctive 
 points of the two theories, and to find in which direction 
 the truth lies. There are certain great turning-points, and 
 outstanding phenomena which are explained differently 
 by the two theories. So far as these fall within a sphere 
 where we have trustworthy evidence, we shall examine 
 the witnesses as to their significance, and in every case 
 shall seek to proceed from the known and admitted to 
 the less known or unknown or disputed. We shall not 
 claim authority or inspiration for any of the writings, but 
 shall insist that they be taken in hand fide, and inter- 
 preted by a fair and common-sense criticism. If the 
 claim to authority is not pressed on the one side, the 
 claim of subjective or theoretical criticism is to be dis- 
 allowed on the other. We must have some dona fide 
 witnesses to start with, or no progress is possible. If the 
 only witnesses available turn out to be unworthy of ere- 
 
Historic Criticism. 49 
 
 dence, it is difficult to see how any conclusion at all can 
 be arrived at which may be regarded as safe. 
 
 By thus testing the two theories according to a standard 
 which is accepted, and on ground which is undisputed, we 
 shall obtain some means of estimating the value of those 
 other witnesses also, who at the outset are held in the 
 background. For if the Biblical theory can sustain itself 
 on independent ground, it is evident that those challenged \ 
 witnesses who are in its favour will have to be regarded \ 
 as credible testimony ; in other words, if apart from the j 
 historical books which are disputed the Biblical theory is I 
 established, then those books or portions of them which / 
 proceed on the Biblical theory fall into their proper place [^ 
 as history. If by purely historical inquiry we can deter- 
 mine the main line and trend of the history, then it will 
 be safe to criticise the documents by literary methods, so 
 as to determine earlier and later elements, separating 
 duplicates, and so forth, but always with regard to the 
 historical line that has been ascertained. This is more 
 scientific than positing a hypothetical line of development, 
 and then trying to make the materials square with it, or 
 arranging them to suit it. If it is only on the basis of 
 a historical criticism that the arrangement of the materials 
 can be made, the historical scheme should, if possible, be 
 determined on independent grounds, and not put forth at 
 the outset as hypothetical. 
 
5C 
 
 CHAPTEE III. 
 
 WRITINGS OF THE NINTH AND EIGHTH CENTURIES B.C. 
 AS LITERARY AND AS RELIGIOUS PRODUCTS. 
 
 The limitations imposed on our inquiry compel us to find a neutral and 
 itndisputed starting-point — We accept the century 850 to 750 B.C., 
 within which fall the earliest writing prophets^ as well as certain other 
 compositions which are assigned to this period — Value of contemporary 
 documents — Enumeration of the loritings admitted, and statement of the 
 problem — First of all, the existence of a varied literature in this one 
 century has to be explained — Writing implies reading and education 
 of some hind and duration — Secondly, as religious products the writings 
 call for explanation — The utterances of the earliest writing projjhets, 
 and their being addressed to the people, inconsistent with the idea that 
 it is a time of rudimentary religious ideas — Conclusion that this 'period 
 is neither the earliest literary age nor the time of commencement of the 
 prophetic religion. 
 
 It follows, from the limitation we have set to our inquiry 
 in the preceding chapter, that we cannot now proceed, as 
 would otherwise be convenient, to trace the history of the 
 religion of Israel downwards in a connected way from the 
 earliest times. We must take our stand, at the com- 
 mencement of our inquiry, upon common and undisputed 
 ground. In order to have such a starting-point, we fix 
 upon the period when the modern historians say we have 
 authentic written information — viz., the pei'iod within 
 
Start from undisputed Ground. 51 
 
 wliicli fall the earliest writing propliets, Amos and Hosea. 
 With them we have contemporary accounts, so far as they 
 go, of the religious beliefs of Israel ; and from their writ- 
 ings as well as other compositions, which we are allowed 
 to use as belonging to about the same age, we shall obtain, 
 in the first place, those views, at least, which writers of 
 that time held. And then, from the known and admitted,^ 
 we must seek to determine, as best we can, the unknown or; 
 disputed. The discussion will thus be very much simpli- 
 fied ; for it will not be legitimate for either party to take 
 shelter behind any preconceived theory, either of the in- 
 spiration, authority, and sequence of books, or of a certain 
 course of historical development. If there is a disadvan- 
 tage in being deprived of contemporary written authority 
 for an early period which we wish to determine, the 
 disadvantage will lie equally against both sides. We 
 shall be compelled to fix our attention on certain facts 
 which are admitted, and by a process of inference, which 
 must be closely watched, to make our way back to ante- 
 cedent facts and situations. 
 
 The value of contemporary writings in a discussion of 
 this kind is immense. From them we obtain a firm 
 ground from which to start, for we derive information as 
 to the conditions of thought and life at the time of the 
 writers in hand. We are enabled to perceive not only 
 the ideas of the writers themselves, but the conceptions 
 and practices that were current in their time, so far as the 
 writers have occasion to touch upon them. The writings 
 of the prophets aro in this respect particularly valuable ; 
 for these teachers were pre-eminently men of their time, 
 addressing themselves directly to the situations in which 
 they were placed, and appealing to the consciousness of 
 the people by whom they were surrounded. 
 
 Of Ti 
 
52 Writings of the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C. 
 
 It would be a mistake, however, to limit the value of 
 contemporary writings to the mere information they give 
 in regard to contemporary conditions. A writer is indeed 
 the child of his age, but his age is the product of ante- 
 cedent influences ; and unless we can from contemporary 
 writings find our way by safe inference to the causes that 
 exerted them, we shall never make any progress. His- 
 tories of Israel written in this nineteenth Christian century 
 reflect the spirit of the age ; but their authors would not 
 like to have them set aside as merely tlie afterthoughts 
 of modern speculation projected backward into a distant 
 time. And the writings of prophetical men, in the same 
 way, are more than the expression of their own reflections. 
 We must account for the turn which their reflections 
 took, for the standpoint which they had readied; the 
 men and their writings are historical facts which are to 
 be historically explained. And as they were not osten- 
 sibly historians, any information they give us as to the 
 history will be the more free from suspicion of tendency 
 or bias. 
 
 The great point in this discussion is to determine as 
 clearly as possible the religion of Israel in the period 
 preceding the earliest writing prophets. This period is 
 frequently spoken of in modern works as the " pre- 
 prophetic period"; but this mode of speaking requires 
 qualification. To say the " pre-prophetic " religion of Israel, 
 is liable to involve the assumption that the writing pro- 
 phets differed in their teaching from tliose that preceded 
 them, which is just the point in dispute. We are not 
 entitled at the outset to assume that the prophetic period, 
 as a stadium in the religious history of Israel, begins with 
 the prophets whose writings have come down to us ; and 
 therefore the expression, although convenient in some 
 
Tlie Writings specified. 53 
 
 respects, should not be employed without this necessary 
 qualification. 
 
 Let us now endeavour to gain some idea of the period 
 at which we have agreed to take our stand, and which may 
 be roughly stated as the century 850 to 750 B.C. Though 
 it is maintained that this is the earliest historical standing- 
 ground in Israel's history, it is, according to the Biblical 
 account, comparatively late; and in point of fact, it is 
 not disputed on the other side that a great many im- 
 portant historical events had already happened. By the 
 eighth century before Christ, the northern kingdom of 
 the ten tribes had reached the culmination of its great- 
 ness, from which it rapidly declined to its fall. Amos 
 prophesied in the time of Jeroboam II., in the first 
 half of the eighth century — i.e., before 750 B.C.; and 
 Hosea probably lived till near the ruin of the kingdom. 
 Though the books of the Kings were not written till long 
 after, and therefore cannot, with the limitations we have 
 imposed upon our inquiry, be relied upon for the inter- 
 pretation they x^ut upon the events, yet the succession of 
 rulers in the two kingdoms as the books give them, as 
 well as the separation of the two kingdoms in the reign 
 of Eehoboam, and in general the, simple facts of the his- 
 tory as there recorded, are accepted. Moreover, there are 
 certain compositions which are admitted as existing in or 
 belonging to the same age. The stories of the patriarchs 
 as given in the Jehovistic portions of the book of Gene- 
 sis;^ the accounts of the doings and sayings of Elijah 
 and Elisha which have become embodied in the books 
 of Kings, are admitted to have been committed to writ- 
 ing in this period ; and though they are not to be 
 accepted as history — the stories of the. patriarchs iu par- 
 1 See Note YIII. 
 
54 Writings of the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C. 
 
 ticular — yet they may be taken as embodying the ideas 
 of the men who committed them to writing, and they are 
 thus at least materials for judging of the views which at 
 this time were entertained. Furthermore, it is not denied 
 that in the book of Judges — later editorial interpreta- 
 tions excepted — we have a pretty accurate description of 
 the time to which it refers; and that the books of 
 Samuel — later glosses again excepted — relate certain 
 facts as to the activity of Samuel, and the setting up of 
 the kingdom. Lastly, although the book of Deuteronomy 
 was not yet in existence, nor the Code of Laws and 
 accompanying narrative of the books of Exodus, Leviticus, 
 and Numbers, yet there existed a brief written Code, 
 the so-called Book of the Covenant contained in Exodus 
 xx.-xxiii. It is, however, necessary to add, that though 
 these writings are admitted to belong to the periods 
 respectively stated, their historical value, it is main- 
 tained, can only be determined by the most careful 
 criticism; and historical critics are very much divided 
 among themselves as to the positive residuum of truth 
 underlying them. 
 
 These then, roughly speaking, are the authorities at our 
 disposal for the inquiry. Later writings, of course, which 
 are undisputed, such as the prophecies of Micah, Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah, and bare facts of history which are not denied, 
 may be referred to if there is occasion. But we are not 
 to appeal to those so-called later " summaries " or reviews ^ 
 of the history, and what are regarded as interpretations of 
 it in the light of later ideas, which the Biblical historians 
 have, in certain places, superimposed upon earlier authen- 
 tic documents. The ultimate point we wish to determine, 
 by the aid of these authorities, is this. What actually was 
 
 1 See below, p. 116. 
 
The Writings as Literary Products. 65 
 
 the religion of Israel, in its various aspects of belief and 
 practice, in the times 'preceding the authorities to which 
 we appeal, and how far back can be traced the beliefs 
 which we find prevailing in undisputed historic times ? 
 And the only way, it seems to me, by which we can reach 
 a settlement of this question is to determine, in the first 
 place, what the undisputed authorities say for themselves, 
 as to their own time, and then byinference to work our 
 way back to an earlier time and condition of things. 
 
 Having restricted ourselves to the very narrowest 
 grounds, we need not expect to find full information on 
 all the points which we desire to determine. We may 
 have to be content with brief hints, and may have to 
 draw our inferences from a few texts. In any case, we 
 shall have to be satisfied with general conclusions. But, 
 by shifting our point of view, and starting various lines 
 of inquiry, we should be able to discover whether there is 
 a concurrent testimony to the one theory or the other, 
 and to determine in which direction generally the truth 
 lies. And since every positive fact that is available has 
 its significance in such an investigation, I begin with the 
 most patent fact of all — the existence of these writings, 
 which are placed in our hands as materials for the solu- 
 tion of the problem. Without asking in the meantime 
 what the contents of the writings are, here is a hard fact 
 — that writings do exist at the period from which we 
 start. Let us see whether we can draw any conclusions 
 from this mere fact ; and for this purpose let us look at 
 them, first, as mere literary products, and secondly, as 
 religious compositions. 
 
 I. I propose, therefore, first of all, to look at the com- 
 positions now before us in their literary character. As so 
 many compositions belonging, according to the hypothesis, 
 
56 Writing's of the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C. 
 
 all to one age, tliey are well worthy of close scrutiny. 
 Their very existence ought to tell us something, and, if 
 possible, we ought to get some account of their produc- 
 tion. Amos informs us he was one of the herdmen of 
 Tekoa, This was a town or village some twelve miles 
 south of Jerusalem, and bordering on the desert pasture- 
 land, so that he is a native of the southern kingdom. He 
 was not a " prophet nor the son of a prophet " — i.e., he 
 did not belong to what we may call now the professional 
 class of prophets, but was in fact a common man, not 
 necessarily poor, but presumably not in high social posi- 
 tion. He suddenly appears at Bethel, one of the seats 
 of the state worship of the northern kingdom ; and 
 having delivered a denunciation against the sins of the 
 kingdom, he is taken to task by the priest of Bethel, 
 and in all probability left the country, retired to his 
 own land, and wrote down his prophecies. Hosea seems, 
 from every available indication bearing on the subject, to 
 have been a native of the northern kingdom, and he con- 
 cerns himself with its affairs almost exclusively. The 
 other literary works ascribed to this age probably belong 
 likewise to both kingdoms. And by the way, when we have 
 so many anonymous writers in the Old Testament, and 
 when these are described to us in modern works by such 
 symbols as J, E, Q, A, B, C, E, and so forth, which convey i 
 to us little idea of their personality, it is positively refresh-/ 
 ing to get face to face with two writers in flesh and blood,; 
 who evidently can contain more tha n one idea each. Hav- 
 ing got two such men, I shall keep as much as I can to 
 their testimony (though I think it is most likely that 
 other writers, whose names we know not, were as human, 
 and capable of taking as broad and comprehensive a view 
 of their times). Their styles and themes are so character- 
 
Amos and Hosea. 57 
 
 istic, that I have unconsciously formed a picture of the 
 two men in my own mind. Amos is a lithe, keen, snell 
 man, with flashing restless eyes and dark locks, quick in 
 his movements, master of his emotions, though his nostrils 
 throb and his temples swell when he gets excited. He 
 has the sharp high-set voice and wiry body of the modern 
 Bedawy, and when you look at him, you expect him to 
 say something lively and pointed — and he does it. He 
 brings the air of the country about him. In the wilds 
 of Tekoa he has seen encounters with the wild beasts, 
 and has gazed at the stars in the unclouded blue of the 
 midnight sky. So he is bold and cool and collected at the 
 luxurious court, and comes like a gust of sharp bracing 
 wind through its stifling, sensuous atmosphere. Hosea is 
 a bigger man, slower and more dignified in his move- 
 ments. He is an inhabitant of a town, and lived surely 
 near a public bakery, for he delights to draw illustrations 
 from the fiery oven. His voice is softer and deeper ; 
 when you look on him, a seriousness comes over you, 
 for sorrow is marked on his face. If the modern in- 
 terpretation of the opening chapters is right, he has 
 been sorely tried with a bad wife, whom he tenderly 
 loved; and through the laceration of the chords of his 
 own heart, he has come to understand the unfailing love 
 
 ^f God. 
 
 Clearly, then, we are in a time when literary composi- 
 tion was well developed all over the country. "We have 
 not only the graphic pictures of patriarchal life, so artless 
 in their simplicity, and yet so artistic, that they are the de- 
 light of persons of all ages in all countries. We have the 
 stories of the rough, rugged deeds of the Judges, marked 
 with fine delineations of character and touches of pathos 
 and humour ; we have the story of Elijah in a form that 
 
58 Writings of the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C. 
 
 nothing could improve ; the life of Samuel, the character 
 of Saul, Jonathan, and David, depicted in a manner that 
 a modern novelist could not surpass. Of an entirely 
 different literary cast is the Book of the Covenant, with 
 its brief, sententious expression of codified law. And in 
 still another style we have these two books from the 
 hands of Amos and Hosea, each preserving its own literary 
 features, and indicating a very different personality in the 
 writer, but both well finished as literary productions, — 
 the herdman of Tekoa delivering his rebukes like blows 
 of a flail, and swelling out like peals of thunder in his 
 rounded cycle of denunciation of the nations; the 
 prophet of Israel, tender in heart as a woman, less care- 
 ful of the form of his sentences, which are broken by 
 the sobs of a breaking heart, but using his language to 
 express some of the finest shades of thought and feeling. 
 Though the productions are not many, they are thus 
 sufficiently varied, and give plain proof that the power 
 of composition on varied themes was an achieved fact in 
 this age. First of all, the language by this time has 
 received a well-developed, finished form ; and secondly, it 
 is not only spoken, but has become a literary medium for 
 any class of composition. 
 
 Now language is a coin current of thought. It has a 
 certain value and significance, not only to the speaker 
 or writer, but to the hearer or reader.^ By the aid of 
 language, when once it has reached its growth, one may 
 convey new thoughts to others ; but in doing so he must 
 make himself intelligible to them, and start on a basis 
 which is common to him and them. Language spoken 
 or written implies a certain stage of intelligence in the 
 people generally ; and written language implies that there 
 
 ^ See Robertson Smith, O.T. in the Jewish Church, Lect. i. p. 22. 
 
The Mental Condition of the Age. 59 
 
 are people, more or less numerous, who can read. A 
 popular literature — i.e., literary products suited and inter- 
 esting to the common people — implies readers among the 
 common people. If these are fair inferences from the 
 mere existence of a finished language and an achieved 
 literature, their application to the matter in hand will 
 enlarge our ideas of the period of history at which we 
 take our start, and may enable us to go back to a period 
 antecedent to it. From the language of such men as 
 Amos and Hosea we may reach the mental condition of 
 the generation in which they lived. And seeing that the 
 literature before us is national and popular, if anything 
 at all, we shall be able in some measure to gauge the 
 standing of the nation as a whole, — to feel, so to speak, 
 its intellectual pulse. These stories of the patriarchs, 
 judges, and prophets were not written by some obscure 
 individual and hidden away in his chambers; they are 
 the very stuff that the people would delight in, and the 
 very writing of them implies that there were readers 
 ready for them. Nay, the prophetic writings themselves, 
 granted that they were not read first of all to the people, 
 but written after they were delivered, from the very fact 
 that they are accounts of speeches thrown into the form 
 of addresses, show that they are meant to be read by tlie 
 people of the times. We conclude, therefore, that there 
 was a circle, narrower or wider — probably pretty wide — 
 fit to understand these writings, and attaching to the 
 words and phrases the meaning which, by simple con- 
 struction, they convey. In a word, we get beyond mere 
 "writings" to a people capable of reading and under- 
 standing them. 
 
 Now, since modern historiographers insist upon our 
 starting at this period, we might reasonably expect 
 
60 Writings of the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C. 
 
 tbem to give us some account of this remarkable fact, 
 that we have suddenly such an amount of varied litera- 
 ture, with practically nothing of the kind — as it is main- 
 tained — in the age preceding it. There are certain songs 
 which in their origin are admitted to be earlier, but they 
 may, it is said, have been preserved orally ; and in general 
 the modern writers go upon the assumption that this 
 eighth century is the earliest period at which we have 
 written documents. Be it so ; it was surely worth their 
 while to give us some idea of how the event came about ; 
 why at this age there should be so much of sudden 
 growth, or what in the immediate past had prepared for 
 it. AVith their fondness for tracing development, here 
 was something very attractive and deeply interesting ; 
 and one might have thought that critical writers, who, 
 according to Eobertson Smith,^ are such masters in lit- 
 erary anatomy that their readers " can follow from chap- 
 ter to chapter the process by which the Pentateuch grew 
 to its present form," would have turned their attention to 
 the history of the rise of literary composition in Israel. 
 Yet on the subject they have very little to say. After 
 asserting ^ that " with reference to any period earlier than 
 the century 850-750 B.C., we can hardly be said to possess 
 any statistics," and that "a contemporary literature is 
 indispensable for the description of standing conditions," 
 Wellhausen goes on : — 
 
 " But it was within this period that Hebrew hterature first flour- 
 ished — after the Syrians had been finally repulsed, it would seem. 
 Writing of course had been practised from a muck earlier period, 
 but only in formal instruments, mainly upon stone. At an early 
 period also tlie historical sense of the people developed itself in con- 
 nection with their religion ; but it found its expression in songs, 
 
 ^ Pref. to Hist, of Israel, p. ix. Hist, of Israel, p. 464. 
 
A Non-literary and a Literary Age. 61 
 
 which in tlie first instance were handed down by word of montli 
 only. Literature began with the collection and writing out of those 
 songs ; the ' Book of the Wars of the Lord ' and the * Book of Jashar' 
 liXite.the oldest historical books. The transition was next made to 
 the writing of prose history with the aid of legal documents and 
 family reminiscences ; a large portion of this early historiography 
 has been preserved to us in the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings. 
 Contemporaneously also certain collections of laws and decisions of 
 the priests, of which we have an example in Exod. xxi., xxii., were 
 committed to writing. Somewhat later, perhaps, the legends about 
 the patriarchs and primitive times, the origin of which cannot be 
 assigned to a very early date,i received literary shape. Specially 
 remarkable is the rise of a written prophecy. The question why it 
 was that Elijali and Elisha committed nothing to writing, while 
 Amos a hundred years later is an author, hardly admits of any 
 other answer than that in the interval a non-literary had developed 
 into a literary age. How rapid the process was may be gathered 
 from a comparison between the singularly broken utterances of the 
 earlier oracle contained in Isa. xv., xvi., with the orations of Isaiah 
 himself." 
 
 On the showing of Wellhausen himself, then, the liter- 
 ature is sufficiently varied and sufficiently extensive to 
 demand attention merely as a collection of literary pro- 
 ducts. And whatever may be the advance from the 
 " earlier oracle " to the " orations of Isaiah," the style of 
 Amos and Hosea is already as good as the Hebrew ever 
 attained. Isaiah stands alone in this respect — and every 
 country has its outstanding writers — but the sentences of 
 the herdman of Tekoa, and the rhythm of his language, 
 and even the sustained rhetorical efforts of chapters in suc- 
 cession, are as finished as those of the best Hebrew writers. 
 " To the unprejudiced judgment," says Kobertson Smith,^ 
 " the prophecy of Amos appears one of the best examples 
 of pure Hebrew style. The language, the images, the 
 
 ^ A footnote here is referred to below in chapter v, p. 122. 
 ^ Prophets of Israel, p. 125 f. 
 
62 Writings of the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C. 
 
 grouping are alike admirable; and the simplicity of the 
 diction ... is a token not of rusticity, but of perfect 
 mastery over a language which, though unfit for the ex- 
 pression of abstract ideas, is unsurpassed as a vehicle for 
 impassioned speech." As to the ' Book of the Wars of the 
 Lord' and the 'Book of Jasliar,' which Wellhausen sets down 
 as the oldest historical books, we have so little from them 
 that it would not be safe to draw deductions from their 
 style. But if we examine songs such as that of Deborah, 
 whicli Stade admits to bear the marks of the historical 
 events which it celebrates — even if it were handed down 
 orally to this so-called literary age — we find it distin- 
 guished by no inconsiderable literary powers. And then 
 the "early historiography" preserved in the books of 
 Judges, Samuel, and Kings, has nothing to lead us to 
 suppose that it was the first effort at such composition ; 
 while the stories of the patriarchs are in the best style of 
 the characteristic Hebrew prose. The Laws, again, of the 
 Book of the Covenant, are expressed in as clear and fin- 
 ished language as those of the Codes which are placed 
 much farther down in history. It remains then, on the 
 hypothesis before us^ that literature sprang into existence 
 fully developed, lor the products before us give no signs 
 of being earliest efforts, and, what is most vital, they are 
 not of one class of composition, as might have been ex- 
 pected at the commencement of a literary age, but are 
 most varied.^ From all that appears on the face of them, 
 we might most naturally infer that literary composition, 
 in every variety of form, had been long prevalent among 
 the Hebrews by the time these works were written. And 
 
 ^ The "elegy " as a particular kind of composition was known to Amos ; 
 for the word rendered "lamentation" in chap. v. 1 has this technical 
 sense. 
 
Oratory and Literary Activity. 63 
 
 surely it is a very poor account to get from those who pro- 
 fess to be able to follow the history step by step, that in 
 a century "a non-literary had developed into a literary 
 age. 
 
 Robertson Smith has some excellent remarks,^ tending 
 to show, from the case of the Arabs of the desert, that it 
 was nothincr extraordinarv for men of humble station like 
 Amos, with little or no book-learning, to be masters of 
 the highest oratory: — 
 
 " Among the Hebrews as in the Arabian desert, knowledge and 
 oratory are not affairs of professional education, or dependent for 
 their cultivation on wealth and social status. ... In Hebrew as 
 in Arabic, the best writing is an unaffected transcript of the best 
 speaking ; the literary merit of the book of Genesis or the history 
 of Elijah, like that of the ' Kitab el Aghany ' or of the Norse Sagas, 
 is that they read as if they were told by word of mouth ; and in 
 like manner, the prophecies of Amos, though evidently rearranged 
 for publication, and probably shortened from their original spoken 
 form, are excellent writing, because the prophet writes as he spoke, 
 preserving all the effects of pointed and dramatic delivery, with 
 that breath of lyrical fervour which lends a special charm to the 
 highest Hebrew poetry." 
 
 All this is very good, but it does not bring us a step 
 nearer to the solution of the question, How did the literary 
 custom arise ? and it takes no note of the fact that by a 
 " literary age " must be in any case meant an age of readers 
 as well as writers. The only thing Wellhausen notes 
 in connection with the transition of a non-literary to a 
 literary age, is the final repulse of the Syrians, whatever 
 that may have had to do with it. What we want to know 
 is, What gave the impulse to this literary activity, and 
 what prepared the people — or a circle of them — for being 
 able to follow it ? Judged by mere literary standards, 
 
 ^Prophets, p. 126f. 
 
6 4 Writings of the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C. 
 
 these compositions would lead us to the conclusion that 
 the literary art had been long practised ; or, to put it 
 otherwise, there is nothing on the face of these materials 
 as literary products to hinder us from accepting writings 
 as belonging to an earlier period, if they can be otherwise 
 authenticated ; there is nothing, based on a consideration 
 of the culture of the age, to force us to the position that 
 this is the beginning of a literary age. 
 
 I take it, then, that no sufficient account has been given 
 of the remarkable phenomenon before us. Even if Well- 
 hausen's admission is taken into account, that writing 
 was practised from an early age, but only in formal in- 
 struments, and mostly on stone, there is an immense step 
 from that to this sudden production in one century of so 
 varied a literature ; and the other fact is to be explained 
 that there must have been reading circles of larger or 
 smaller size. Even rude writing on stone is an art that 
 implied teaching of it, and the thing written was meant 
 to be read.^ Writing implies reading ; both imply an 
 education, and a sustained education of some kind. A 
 literary age is, from the nature of the case, to a certain 
 extent an educated age ; and as a literature, even of the 
 extent allowed by the modern historians, exhibiting such 
 variety as these compositions present, demands some ante- 
 cedent preparation, much more must we postulate for the 
 age for which the compositions were written, a period 
 of antecedent education. In a word, we are clearly not at 
 the beginning of literary or educational activity in Israel. 
 
 ^ Andrew Lang, -while contending that Homer wrote his poems, adds, 
 "But he did not write to be read" ('Good Words,' Aug. 1891). Still, 
 Homer was not the only one in his day that could write ; and, as Prof. 
 Jebb remarks, long before the date of the earliest extant writing on 
 marbles, the Greeks may have attained to ease in writing on softei 
 materials. (In trod, to Homer, p. 110.) 
 
The Writings as Eeligious Products. 65 
 
 II. We now go a step farther, and by similar reasoning 
 we can show that as religions products the compositions 
 before us imply a considerable degree of religious intelli- 
 gence and education. A man does not speak or write 
 unless he knows that his hearer or reader can follow 
 him. And religious talk or composition presupposes re- 
 ligious intelligence corresponding to it. Granted that a 
 new writer makes an advance in thought and puts for- 
 ward new ideas, if he is to be understood at all he must 
 start from the level of his reader's intelligence ; and it 
 is useless for him to publish unless he counts upon a 
 circle of readers who can understand him. 
 
 Accustomed as we are to the spiritual language of Holy 
 Scripture, we can only with difficulty comprehend the 
 time and training implied in the development of a 
 religious vocabulary. Language at best lags far behind 
 thought ; and when we consider that thought itself, has to 
 be drawn out, purified, refined by reflection, exalted by the 
 elimination of lower material conceptions, we shall per- 
 ceive that the attainment of a vocabulary expressing ideas 
 such as the herdman of Tekoa and Hosea of Israel dwell 
 among, implies both in the speaker and in the hearer a 
 preparation of no little time and no little labour. An 
 illustration from the history of modern missions will help 
 to make this clearer. When Protestant missionaries first 
 went to Syria, about the year 1826, after surveying the 
 field before them, they wisely resolved to make use of 
 the printing-press as soon as they should find opportunity. 
 Though many of the people could not read, they were not 
 altogether unlettered ; the people with whom it was hoped 
 easiest contact would be made were members of the Greek 
 Orthodox Church, devout enough in their way, and under 
 the regular care of their own religious teachers; and it 
 
 £ 
 
^6^ Writings of the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C. 
 
 was hoped that by the establishment of schools the power 
 and the desire to read would be extended. And so, in 
 addition to the Scriptures, it was designed to prepare 
 certain works of a religious and educational character, to 
 be ready for the demand when it should arise. Two of 
 the earliest works prepared and printed were transla- 
 tions of * Robinson Crusoe ' and the * Pilgrim's Pro- 
 gress' — tlie former designed to be an interesting read- 
 ing-book, the latter to be useful as a religious educator. 
 The fates of the two works were remarkable. While 
 * Eobinson Crusoe ' had an immense popularity, the 
 ' Pilgrim's Progress ' lay in stock for many years. The 
 former was accepted and read as a religious book, not 
 more because it was printed and circulated by mission- 
 aries, than because of the quasi-^iow.^ reflections — ad- 
 mirably done by the translator into popular language 
 — in which the unfortunate Eobinson so freely indulges ; 
 but of the * Pilgrim's Progress ' the common people could 
 make nothing. The reason is obvious : they had not the 
 religious experience sufficient to enable them to under- 
 stand a book which even our children delight in ; and it 
 was almost half a century before a race grew up, educated 
 in missionary schools and taught in the Scripture, that 
 could appreciate the book ; and now it is as great a 
 favourite with old and young as with ourselves. This 
 was a case, be it observed, where the people had for cen- 
 turies possessed a definite religion and a printed litera- 
 ture. What must the case have been where, by the 
 hypothesis, the people had the merest rudiments of re- 
 ligious conception, and no literature ? 
 
 Let us look at the facts of the case before us. We 
 have Amos, not writing a book to be read by later times, 
 but speaking his word in the northern kingdom, and com- 
 
Religious Tone of Amos and Ilosca, ^^^^y. 67 
 
 mitting it to writing in tlie southern ; and we have Hosea 
 probably both speaking and writing. It may be that, as 
 Robertson Smith has told us, the language used by Amos 
 is not fitted for conveying abstract ideas. At all events, 
 it is an impassioned, fervent language, whose elements are 
 words purified from all low taint of superstition or anim- 
 ism, and, as we shall see, embodying thoughts of world- 
 wide applicability. " Though the earliest of the canonical 
 prophets, his view of the world is perhaps broader than 
 that of any of them, just as his definitions of religion 
 surpass in incisiveness and clearness those of .the major- 
 ity of his successors." ^ Hosea's style, though less finished 
 from a literary point of view, is deeper in pathos and 
 richer in spirituality. It is his preoccupation with the 
 thought that apparently mars the symmetry of his dic- 
 tion. Both prophets give evidence of deep reflection 
 on religious questions, resulting in views of life and 
 duty, and conceptions of what God is, which may be 
 placed in the first rank among the achievements of Old 
 Testament writers, and afford evidence that thinking 
 of this kind, and views of this character, were compre- 
 hensible by the people to whom they spoke. In other 
 w^ords, they imply an antecedent religious education. 
 Indeed, the very oldest written works to which Hebrew 
 writers refer, show by their titles that the earliest litera- 
 ture was based on religion. ' The Book of the Wars ot 
 Jehovah ' implies in its name that even the rough 
 struggles of Israel were regarded as God-guided ; and 
 * The Book of Jashar,' or the Upright, testifies to the faith 
 in Jehovah's righteousness in Israel (Judges v. 11).^ 
 
 We shall find the advocates of the modern theory tell- 
 
 1 A. B. Davidson in Expositor, third series, vol. v. p. 16G. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 46. 
 
68 Wiitings of the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C. 
 
 ing us that Amos was the first to teach this, and Hosea 
 the first to say the other thing. Whatever they said, 
 and whatever they were the first to say, the people of 
 their day knew the meaning of the words and expres- 
 sions addressed to them. If these prophets were the 
 first to speak in this manner, then, of course, their 
 hearers were the first to hear these things ; and yet the 
 people seem to understand quite well all that is said to 
 them. There is a religious phraseology in existence, a 
 religious consciousness equal to comprehend it. These 
 books are religious from beginning to end. The persons 
 who heard or read them must have had such an ante- 
 cedent training or knowledge as would enable them to 
 follow them, and we cannot by any possibility admit 
 that the whole religious consciousness of the nation took 
 a sudden start to such a level. Let any one try for a 
 moment to imagine Amos addressing the people of Israel 
 in tlie name of Jaliaveh : " Seek ye me, and ye shall 
 live " (Amos v. 4, 6) : " Seek good, and not evil, that ye 
 may live ; and Jahaveh, the God of hosts, shall be with 
 you, in such a manner as ye say. Hate the evil, and 
 love the good, and establish judgment in the gate" (v. 
 14, 15) : " Let judgment run down as waters, and righteous- 
 ness as a mighty stream " (v. 24) : " I will send a famine 
 in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, 
 but of hearing the words of Jahaveh" (viii. 11) ; — and ask 
 whether the people who heard the words had not already 
 been accustomed to form some ideas of judgment and 
 righteousness, and evil and good, some conceptions of 
 the holiness of their national God far above the level 
 of persons at the animistic or even the narrow national 
 stage of religion. Of the teaching of Amos as to the 
 nature and character of the God in whose name he 
 
Religious Phraseology. 69 
 
 spoke, we shall have to treat at length in the sequel. 
 I wish at present to emphasise this one point, that even 
 this cycle of moral conceptions implies an antecedent edu- 
 cation of a special kind and of long continuance. When 
 we turn to Hosea, we find even a richer vocabulary and 
 still deeper conceptions. "Sow to yourselves/' he says, 
 "in righteousness, and reap according to mercy; break 
 up your fallow ground : for it is time to seek Jahaveh, 
 till He come and rain righteousness upon you. Ye have 
 plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have 
 eaten the fruit of lies" (Hos. x. 12, 13): "Therefore 
 turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment, and 
 wait on thy God continually" (xii. 6). We shall after- 
 wards see what Hosea's ideas of God were ; meantime, I 
 call attention to such expressions as these, — to his con- 
 stant dwelling on "mercy," "truth," "judgment," "fear of 
 Jahaveh," ^ and such declarations as these : " In Thee 
 the fatherless findeth mercy " (xiv. 3) ; " The ways of 
 Jahaveh are right, and the just shall walk in them : but 
 transgressors shall fall therein" (xiv. 9); "I drew them 
 with cords of a man, with bands of love" (xi. 4), — all 
 which imply something very different from the first be- 
 ginnings of reflection on religious things. This point 
 requires to be insisted upon, because, in discussions on 
 the development of religious thought, the "original" or 
 "primary" significations of expressions are often relied 
 upon as evidence. What is clearly established by the 
 most cursory glance at the books of Amos and Hosea, 
 or indeed any of the books belonging to what is called 
 the first writing age, is, that we are already far beyond 
 a tentative or infantile use of language to express religious 
 conceptions. 
 
 1 See, for example, i. 6 ; ii. 19, 20, 23 ; iii. 5 ; iv. 1 ; vi. 6. 
 
70 Writings of the NintJi and Mghth Centuries B.C. 
 
 Thus, then, from these two sides, the merely literary 
 and the religious aspects of the books before us, we con- 
 clude that the eighth century rests upon an anterior 
 stage of preparation, which must have been consider- 
 able in both respects. Tliere was need to dwell on this 
 aspect of the subject, lest, by taking as our starting- 
 point this comparatively late period, it might have been 
 assumed that we were starting from a low stage of cul- 
 ture in order to trace growth upwards.^ The whole point 
 of the present argument is, that we are already at a 
 high stage both of literary culture and of religious con- 
 sciousness. 
 
 Our argument hitherto has been of an inferential and 
 indirect kind, to the effect that the condition we have 
 found prevailing at the time of the first admitted literary 
 compositions implies an antecedent period of literary ac- 
 tivity and religious education. There is implied in this 
 inference that the teaching of the earliest writing prophets 
 in substance also rests upon antecedent teaching ; and as 
 this position is strenuously controverted by those who 
 make these prophets innovators, not reformers or con- 
 tinuators, it is important to look at evidence, of a 
 I direct or positive kind, on the question. There is 
 nothing in the writings of the earliest writing prophets 
 to indicate that they came forward as exponents of 
 a new religious idea, or that they regarded themselves 
 
 ^ In view of these utterances of the earliest writing prophets, and what 
 they imply, it is simply incomprehensible to me how any one can write 
 of the Decalogue as a recent writer in this country does : " The Decalogue, 
 as we have it, does not reflect the standard of conduct which prevailed in 
 his [Moses'] day, or for a long time after him ; it reflects, indeed, a stan- 
 dard of conduct which only became fully present to the Jewish mind 
 many centuries later, under the influence of the prophets." — National 
 Religion, by Allan Menzies, p. 22. 
 
A ntecedent Prophets. 71 
 
 as originators in any proper sense of the word. On the 
 contrary, they represent to the people, and lead us to be- 
 lieve, that they are proclaiming the true and authoritative 
 religion in opposition to the errors and abuses of their 
 tunes. Nay; they do not leave the matter in this in- 
 definite form: they refer to men before them, prophets 
 like themselves, who had done exactly the same thing. 
 Let us listen to Amos : " I raised up of your sons [he is 
 addressing Israel, the northern kingdom] for prophets, and 
 of your young men for Nazirites. Is it not even thus, 
 O ye children of Israel ? saith Jahaveh. But ye gave the 
 Nazirites wine to drink ; and commanded the prophets, 
 saying. Prophesy not" (Amos ii. 11, 12). "Surely Ja- 
 liaveh God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret 
 unto His servants the prophets. . . . Jahaveh hath 
 spoken, who can but prophesy ? " (iii. 7, 8). And to the 
 same purpose Hosea: "Therefore have I hewed them 
 by the prophets ; I have slain them by the words of my 
 mouth: and thy judgments^ are as the light which goeth 
 forth" (Hos. vi. 5): "I have also spoken unto the pro- 
 phets, and I have multiplied visions, and by the hand of 
 the prophets have I used similitudes " (xii. 10) : "And 
 by a prophet Jahaveh brought Israel up out of Egypt, 
 and by a prophet was he preserved" (xii. 13). 
 
 All these references are plain and pertinent enough on 
 the Biblical account of the preceding history, which gives 
 us from Samuel onwards,^ a succession of prophetic men 
 who are represented as standing forth reproving, rebuking, 
 and asserting the true religion of Jahaveh. But they are 
 meaningless on the modern theory, which represents 
 Elijah as a half- legendary character, and his successor 
 
 1 Or " my judgments," according to some ancient versions. 
 
 2 "All the prophets from Samuel," says St Peter in Acts iii. 24. 
 
72 Writings of the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C. 
 
 Elisha as one who compassed political ends by means of 
 very questionable morality ; ^ and as for Samuel, when 
 the earlier and true account of him is eliminated from 
 the later and false, lie comes out of the critical crucible 
 an old man endowed with second-sight, who for a silver 
 sixpence could tell people what had become of strayed 
 asses and suchlike matters.^ Clearly these two prophets 
 are confident that they are continuators of the teaching 
 of men like themselves; and all the proof that Amos 
 gives of the fact is the appeal to the knowledge of his 
 hearers. " Is it not so, house of Israel ? " We have 
 the testimony, in a word, of the generation in which they 
 lived ; and when modern critics come forward and tell us 
 that Amos and Hosea were the first to teach as they did 
 — simply because they will not allow us to appeal to any 
 documents as of earlier date — I am quite prepared to put 
 the issue in this form, that Amos and Hosea knew better 
 where they had got their religious education than half- 
 a-dozen modern professors can tell us. Either there was 
 a succession of prophetic men before Amos and Hosea 
 whose teaching was of the same spirit with theirs — in 
 which case the view of the antecedent history given by 
 the Biblical historians is strongly confirmed, and the 
 "prophetic period" has its boundaries much farther 
 back than the modern theory allows ; or else there was 
 no such succession — in which case our witnesses are set 
 down as not knowing the source of their own religious 
 instruction in the first place, and in the second place 
 the work of these earliest writing prophets is left as a 
 thing hanging in the air, to use Wellhausen's own simile,^ 
 like a man trying to hold himself up by his waist-band. 
 
 1 Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 293. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 253. 3 i|,i(j., p. 39. 
 
The Prophets imply a Bachground. 73 
 
 I quote once more the cautious and well-weiglied words 
 of Dr Davidson : — 
 
 " Several well-known modern writers on prophecy . . . have con- 
 cluded that such a prophet as Amos stood virtually alone in the 
 nation ; that there was a great gulf fixed, on one side of which 
 stood the prophet, and on the other the people in a mass ; and that 
 what the prophet did was nothing less than to enunciate and intro- 
 duce a new religion, which had almost nothing in common with 
 that hitherto professed by the people beyond the name Jehovah em- 
 ployed by both. This theory is not only opposed to all the represen- 
 tations of the prophets themselves and the universal tradition among 
 the writers of Israel, but it entirely f ails to account for the prophet^ 
 The old view, according to which each prophet was a simple, iso- 
 lated miracle, out of all connection with the life and thought of his 
 time, really offered an explanation, if the view could be accepted ; 
 and if the choice lay between the two theories, we should be driven 
 to accept the old theory as necessary to the satisfaction of our under- 
 standing. The fact, however, that the prophet Amos himself arose 
 out of the lowest ranks of the people, is sufficient evidence that there 
 existed no such gulf between the prophets and the universal mass of 
 the nation as the modern writers referred to represent." ^ 
 
 ^ Expositor, third series, vol. v. p. 165 f. 
 
 0? TK\ 
 
74 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Since the admitted writings of the ninth and eighth centuries imply an 
 antecedent literary and religious activity, and since the earliest writing 
 prophets appeal to others before them, an attempt is mude to find, if 
 possible, traces of such activity and such men — Indications of writing 
 in early times — The tablets of TeU-el-Amarna — Inference as to the 
 possibility of written composition long before the ninth century — Oral 
 transmission does not exclude writing — Power to write implies instruc- 
 tion and exercise — As to religious education, the so-called "schools of 
 the prophets" are considered — Attempt of critical writers to dissociate 
 Samuel and Amos from these societies — Wellhausen^s admission of 
 early religious colouring of the history — Argument therefrom — The 
 accuracy of the oldest writings in matters of topography, and what it 
 implies — Conclusion that the earliest history writers are not at the stage 
 of floating traditionary myth — Literary activity of priestly class. 
 
 "We have thus' seen that as literary products and as 
 religious products the writings of the ninth and eighth 
 centuries imply a long course of education, reflection, and 
 culture. We have also heard the earliest of the writing 
 prophets appealing to an antecedent series of public 
 men, who are said to have anticipated them in the work 
 of instruction and admonition. Of all this antecedent 
 activity the modern historians give practically no account. 
 Let us inquire whether from the Biblical writers we can 
 
rrovision for Education. 75 
 
 gain any information. As the time of wliicli we are 
 speaking is confessedly an age of readers as well as 
 writers, it is interesting to inquire whether we have any 
 proofs of the existence of literary activity at an earlier 
 period. We cannot, of course, from the restriction we 
 have imposed on ourselves, build upon such statements 
 as occur in the Pentateuch to the effect that Moses wrote 
 this and that. But we may ask whether we have any 
 reliable information at all as to the provisions that 
 existed in Israel for perpetuating these arts of reading 
 and writinoj. 
 
 And here we come upon a most remarkable and sig- 
 nificant fact, — that the Old Testament books from begin- 
 ning to end give us no intimations of the nature of suchl 
 provisions. They imply that writing and reading were 
 generally known, but they tell us nothing about the 
 communication of instruction in these things. We find, 
 indeed, in the Pentateuch,^ the injunction in general terms 
 to teach the precepts of the Law to the children (Exod. 
 xii. 26, 27; Deut. iv. 9, vi. 6-20), and the people are 
 enjoined in cases of difficulty to inquire at the priest or 
 judge. Bat, on the one hand, if the books in which 
 these injunctions occur are of late date, we cannot from 
 them infer anything to our purpose ; on the other hand, 
 even if the injunctions rest upon a sound early tradition, 
 they are so general that we are still left in ignorance. 
 The matter of education is not apparently committed to 
 
 ^ Delitzsch has pointed out that there is no mention of writing in the 
 striking account of Abraham's dealing with the Hittites in Gen. xxiii.; 
 nor does the usual word for writing (Jcatah) occur in any part of that book ; 
 whereas from Exodus onwards an acquaintance with and varied use of 
 writing are implied. It would thus appear as if the Pentateuch placed 
 the introduction of writing after the patriarchal age and before the time 
 of the Exodus. — Introd. to Comm. on Genesis, Eng. transl., p. 3 fF. 
 
76 The "Earlier PropMsr 
 
 any but the parents, and the question would only be 
 thrown back a stage as to their fitness to teach; and 
 from none of the books of the Old Testament can we 
 gather what appliances, if any, existed for the instruction 
 of youth. Even in regard to the priests, who, on any 
 theory as to the development of the history, must have 
 had to undergo special instruction in the matters of 
 ceremonial intrusted to them, we are not told anything 
 as to the means provided for imparting it. Were the 
 age before us really the first literary age, we should ex- 
 pect some of the writers of the period to give us some 
 hint of the new activity and the impulse that led to 
 it. But we have no such indication. In short, were 
 we to reason from the silence of the books, we might 
 conclude that there was no provision for education at 
 all in even the narrower circles of a learned class, if 
 such existed. But we could not possibly find a better 
 example of the inadequacy of the argument from silence ; 
 for, to say nothing else, it would leave the so-called 
 first literary age destitute of any foundation, a sudden 
 phenomenon without any preparation; and if anything 
 in the world implies preparation and development it is 
 literary activity. 
 
 But for the consideration just mentioned, we might 
 have concluded that these references to reading and 
 writing are, in critical phraseology, a projection of later 
 ideas into earlier times. There is, however, another con- 
 clusion which may be drawn from this silence as to 
 educational activity. The Old Testament writers, when 
 they speak of reading and writing, speak of them as 
 matters of course, as if they were commonly practised, 
 well-understood things. It is, indeed, the custom in 
 some quarters to doubt the possibility of literary activity 
 
Early Writing in Egypt and the East. 77 
 
 on the part of Moses ; ^ and, as we have seen, Wellhausen 
 only grudgingly admits that writing was practised before 
 the eighth century. It may turn out, however, that the 
 silence of the Old Testament writers may have the very 
 explanation I have just suggested — viz., that from a very 
 early time reading and writing were quite common. For, 
 to speak first of all of Egypt, not only are there proofs 
 of the practice of writing long before the time of Moses, 
 but the period immediately preceding the exodus was 
 one of remarkable activity and high attainment. The 
 poem of Pentaur,2 which has been compared with a lay 
 of the Iliad, celebrates a victory gained over the Hittites 
 by Eameses II., the father of the Pharaoh of the exodus. 
 And beyond Egypt, it now appears, literary activity pre- 
 vailed to an extraordinary degree; "and the bricks are 
 alive at this day to testify it." Quite recently, indeed, 
 a new light has been thrown on this whole subject by 
 the discovery at Tell-el-Amarna, in Upper Egypt, of 
 certain tablets, written in the cuneiform character, and 
 going back to the century before the date assigned by most 
 Egyptologists to the exodus. These prove, according to 
 Sayce,^ that " good schools existed (at that time) through- 
 out Western Asia ; that the people of Canaan could read 
 and write before the Israelitish conquest ; that there was 
 
 1 Thus Allan Menzies : "Even if he were to some extent a man of 
 letters (and it is doubtful if he could be so), any written words of his 
 which survive must be extremely short." — National Religion, p, 15 f. 
 
 2 See Note IX. 
 
 3 'Contemp. Review' for August 1888. In the 'Presbyterian Review* 
 for the same month there is another early notice of the tablets. Fuller 
 accounts have been subsequently published. See, e.g., the ' Proceedings of 
 the Society of Biblical Archaeology ' from 1888, and the new series of 
 'Records of the Past.' The papers of M. Halevy in the 'Revue des 
 Etudes Juives' for 1890 are particularly valuable. See also Conder in the 
 'Scottish Review ' for April 1891. 
 
78 The ''Earlier Prophets." 
 
 an active literary intercourse from one end of tlie civil- 
 ised East to the other." It is true, the medium of commu- 
 nication was the Babylonian language and script ; but 
 we cannot suppose that a people acquainted with that 
 mode of writing would relapse into illiterates when the 
 Plioenician alphabet took its place ;^ much more reason- 
 able is it to suppose that this discovery would be an 
 immense stimulus to them. We need no longer, three- 
 fore, wonder that among the towns taken by Joshua was 
 one called Kirjath-sepher, Booh-town (Josh. xv. 15 ; Judges 
 i. 11), or Kirjath-^annah (Josh. xv. 49) ; or that a lad 
 caught at the roadside was able to write down the names 
 of the chief men of Succoth in the time of the Judges 
 (Judges viii. 14, Eevised Version). ISTay, we need not 
 wonder, as otherwise we naturally do, that the Old Testa- 
 ment gives no account of provision for teaching, or any 
 hint of schools for instruction of youth. In all proba- 
 bility — in view of tliis discovery — education was a much 
 more general thing than we are usually led to suppose. 
 
 If the people of Canaan thus at an early period had 
 attained a literary activity of this degree, scholars of 
 Wellhausen's school, who derive so much of Israel's cul- 
 ture from the Canaanites, can liardly refuse to allow a 
 considerable attainment in literary power to the Israelites 
 at a much earlier period than the eighth century. At 
 least they cannot say that, owing to want of culture, Israel 
 could not have developed some literature long before that 
 time. Given the ability to write, the art must have 
 been kept alive by exercise, and handed on by education 
 
 1 The Egyptian writing already had alphabetical signs ; and it is gener- 
 ally supposed that a Semitic people living in Egypt (it may have been 
 tlie Hyksos) carried out the hint thus given and developed a proper 
 alphabet. See Isaac Taylor's 'The Alphabet,' vol. i. chap, ii, ; Stade's 
 Hebrew Grammar, § 18. 
 
Transmission of Songs. -79 
 
 .'of some kiiiJ. The existence of finished composition at 
 the time at which we start, and the general ability to read 
 which is thereby implied, can only be explained by a con- 
 siderable period of preparation and exercise. The question 
 would then remain whether tliere is any time, or whether 
 there are any periods, otherwise suitable for stimulating 
 and maintaining such an activity, and whether we can 
 detect traces of its actual existence before the century to 
 wdiich we are confining ourselves. 
 
 To begin with old songs, there is now no longer tlie 
 necessity to suppose that they were handed down orally 
 for want of the power to write. The song of Deborah, 
 for instance, which admittedly bears the stamp of the 
 age to which it relates, may have come down in writing 
 _^yen from that per iod. The Montenegrins are in the 
 habit of writing contemporary history in tlie form of 
 ballads ; ^ and the women of the modern Bedawin stir up 
 the valour of their husbands by improvised songs.^ The 
 custom is therefore ancient ; and if the power to write is 
 also ancient, it is not necessary to suppose that such songs 
 were entirely left to oral transmission. Again, the " legal 
 documents and family reminiscences " out of which Well- 
 hausen allows that early history was written, could have 
 been of very ancient date, and of much more voluminous 
 compass than he supposes ; for the writing on stone which 
 he thinks was the practice at the earliest times, turns out 
 to have been a writing on clay tablets ; and judging from 
 the contents of the tablets of Tell-el-Amarna, they may 
 have been the depositories of very minute and multifa- 
 rious details. Sayce, indeed, has long supposed that ex- 
 
 1 Hanke, Hist, of Servia, Bolm's transl., p. 411 ff. Cf. p. 49 ff. 
 '^ See Mrs Finn's interesting paper in Quarterly Statement of the 
 Palestine Exploration Fund, 1879, p. 42. 
 
80 Tlie ''Earlier Pro^phets." 
 
 cavations at Kirjath-seplier or Tyre may reveal buried 
 libraries of this material such as have been unearthed 
 at Nineveh. 
 
 Even if we find compositions dating ostensibly from a 
 time at which writing is not known to have been practised, 
 it is not absolutely necessary to regard them as composi- 
 tions of a later age ; for oral tradition, for certain kinds of 
 literature, is stronger than we might at first sight suppose. 
 Max MuUer, writing on this subject,^ after stating that 
 written literature is a very late invention in most countries, 
 and that in India we have no trace of books before the fifth 
 century B.C., says : " It is true that oral tradition, before 
 the invention of writing and printing, had proved itself a 
 very safe guardian of poetry, and few would doubt that 
 the earliest poetry which we know in India and Greece 
 goes back at least to 1000 B.c. But it may go back, for 
 all we know, to 2000 or 3000 B.C." Other things than 
 poetry, however, can be so preserved. Jerome ^ mentions 
 that Jewish children were taught to say by heart the 
 Genealogies; and I myself came across a shopkeeper in 
 the East who could repeat, without the book, the first 
 chapter of St Matthew, but could with difficulty read a 
 few verses from the first chapter of St John. It is to be 
 observed that, as in this case, the cultivation of memory 
 does not cease with, nor is superseded by, the introduction 
 of writing and printing. Children in modern Eastern 
 schools perform feats of memory that are almost incred- 
 ible ; but the passages repeated are committed to memory 
 from the printed page. In view of such facts, it should 
 not excite so much surprise or suspicion that we have 
 
 1 ' Good Words ' for August 1887. 
 
 2 On Titus iii. 9— Calmet's Diet, article "Genealogies." Of. Prol. to 
 Ecclus., and Ecclus. xxxviii. 24, 26 ; xxxix, 1-11, 
 
Occasions for Literary Activity. 
 
 compositions in the Old Testament professing to come 
 from a very early time. 
 
 Turning now from tliese indications of the ability to 
 write, if we search for historical occasions which may 
 have stimulated it into exercise, we naturally look fori 
 the rise of a national literature at a time of some active f 
 stirring of the national life. Times when nations have 
 achieved something are times when they wish to record 
 what they have done ; times when they brace themselves 
 up for a great effort are those times in which feeling and 
 purpose seek to stamp themselves in permanent form in 
 writing. Such times there were long before the period of 
 the Syrian wars. The period of Moses is such a time, at 
 which, if there is any truth at all in the traditions regard- 
 ing it, the art of writing, if known, as it is admitted to 
 have been, would have found exercise in formal composi- 
 tion.^ The statements here and there in the Pentateuch, 
 that Moses wrote this and that, are not mere guesses or 
 embellishments by a later writer, for such a one would 
 have more probably ascribed to him the whole Pentateuch. 
 Moreover, tlie references to the ' Book of the Wars of the 
 Lord ' and the ' Book of Jashar ' scarcely look like indica- 
 tions that the works in question were almost contempo- 
 raneous: they rather suggest the inference that literary 
 treasures were already existent and recognised ; and the 
 slight notices of writing at succeeding times give the 
 impression that writing was not an innovation, but a 
 matter of course. Nor are there wanting other suitable 
 times anterior to the eighth century. Such are the times 
 of Samuel and David, when the national spirit was deeply 
 stirred and national expectations at the strongest tension. 
 Such also is the time of Solomon, when the building 
 
 ^ Rawlinson — Moses, His Life and Times, pp. 30, 31. 
 
82 The ''Earlier Prophets." 
 
 of the Temple and palace at Jerusalem quickened a 
 new industrial life, and when luxury demanded an in- 
 crease of agriculture, and was fed by the commerce in 
 which the royal fleet was engaged — not to speak of the 
 activity and enterprise of the dynasty of Omri in the 
 northern kingdom. Any or all of these periods, anterior 
 to the eighth century, were just such as would have 
 quickened into exercise a power j vhich was certainly 
 possessed by Israel, and would have been favourable to 
 the production of a literature of a national kind. The 
 point is, that the Hebrews did know the art of writing, 
 and therefore needed only some such stimulus to develop 
 it into that of literary composition. What is insisted on 
 is that writing, including reading, implies some sort of 
 education. Whether the people as a whole had this 
 benefit or not, there must have been provision for impart- 
 ing instruction in the circles where reading and writing 
 were possessed ; and as we have seen, Sayce argues, from 
 the existence of the clay tablets referred to, that_schools 
 must h ave existed all over the country before the exodus. 
 A similar conclusion must be drawn in regard to re- 
 ligious instruction. When we find an age like that of 
 Amos and Hosea in which religious discourse was com- 
 mon and well understood, and a religious vocabulary well 
 developed, we must conclude that by some means, formal 
 or informal, this power to converse on religious subjects 
 had been produced and fostered. Keligion and religious 
 conversation were clearly not things confined to learned 
 or professional circles, but were matters of popular inter- 
 est. Can we find traces of anything that could have fos- 
 tered this as a popular activity ? The so-called " schools 
 of the prophets " have been the subject of much fanciful 
 speculation, and modern critical writers make very merry 
 
Pro;plietic Societies in SamueVs Time, 83 
 
 over those who see in them anything like an educational 
 institution. But in spite of the exaggerated importance 
 that has been assigned to them, and in spite of the ridicule 
 of the critics, the subject is worth consideration, when we 
 are in search of some link that will connect a non-literary 
 with a literary age. 
 
 Let us go back to the books of Samuel, which, whatever 
 may be the date of their composition, are admitted to 
 contain authentic information of the times to which they 
 relate ^ The rude and unsettled age of the Judges is 
 
 passing away. The lead in national affairs which had 
 been taken by local heroes from time to time as occasion 
 called them forth, is now in the hands of Samuel, whose 
 position resembles that of Moses and Joshua. In his 
 time we see springing up two national institutions, the 
 monarchy and prophecy, through whose influences the 
 civil and religious institutions of Israel are to acquire 
 a more organised form. As to Samuel's own activity, " all 
 Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, knew that he was estab- 
 lished to be a prophet of the Lord " (1 Sam. iii. 20) : " He 
 judged Israel all the days of his life ; and went from year 
 to year in circuit to Beth-el, to Gilgal and Mizpeh, and 
 judged Israel in all those places. And his return was to 
 Ramah; for there was his house" (1 Sam. vii. 15-17). 
 What, however, is of special interest for us at present is 
 the mention for the first time of certain societies or bands 
 of prophets in Samuel's days; and in spite of Stade's 
 sneer that the so-called " schools of the prophets " have 
 been in ancient and even in modern times a favourite 
 hobby with those who delight in fanciful and dilettante 
 study of the Old Testament,^ I must dwell for a little on 
 this remarkable feature of the religious history of Israel. 
 
 ^ Goschichte, i. p. 478, note. 
 
Si The "Earlier Prophets." 
 
 I do not, in the meantime, call them schools, nor do I 
 think they were such in the ordinary sense of the word ; 
 but I think it will appear exceedingly probable that they 
 exercised a powerful educational influence even from a 
 literary point of view. 
 
 The first mention of these prophetic bands is on the 
 occasion of Samuel taking leave of Saul after announcing 
 to him that he was to be king. The Benjaniite is told 
 that when he conies to the hill [Gibeah] of God, he will 
 meet a company of prophets " coming down from the high 
 place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a 
 harp," &c. (1 Sam. x. 5, 6). Later on, when David fled 
 from Saul to Samuel, he came and dwelt in Naioth ; . . . 
 and when Saul sent messengers to take him, they encoun- 
 tered the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel 
 standing as their head, &c. (1 Sam. xix. 18-24). We shall 
 have to speak of this movement in its religious aspect by- 
 and-by. In the meantime we take it as certain that there 
 was, in Samuel's days, some society of prophets, bound 
 together by some religious tie, and occupied with some 
 kind of religious functions. These notices bring us down 
 to the eve of David's reign ; and we hear no more of such 
 associations in the times of Solomon, or of the kings who 
 reigned immediately after the disruption; but an inci- 
 dental notice (1 Kings xx. 35) relating to the time of) 
 Ahab, of " a certain man of the sons of the prophets," as 
 if the order was well known, makes it probable that the 
 associations, in some form or other, were never broken upj 
 When we come to the time of Elisha we have quite a 
 number of detailed notices, which show us that by that 
 time these societies were numerous and influential. When 
 Elijah is taking leave of Elisha, the two pass from Gilgal 
 to Beth-el, and from thence to Jericho ; and at both places 
 
Times of ElisJia. 85 
 
 the sons of the prophets come out to meet them. Prob- 
 ably these places only are mentioned because they lay in 
 the way, and there may have been similar societies else- 
 where. At Gilgal itself Elisha is seen with the sons of 
 the prophets sitting before him (2 Kings iv. 38) ; and a 
 little farther on they complain to him that the place of 
 their settlement is too strait for them, and propose to 
 bring timber from the Jordan to make a more commodious 
 dwelling (2 Kings vi. 1 ff). Elisha, however, does not 
 confine himself to Gilgal, but is found dwelling also at 
 Carmel (2 Kings ii. 25) and at Samaria (2 Kings vi. 32). 
 The prophets seem to have been a numerous body in the 
 country. In the time of Ahab it is said that when Jezebel 
 cut off the prophets of Jahaveh, Obadiah took a hundred 
 of them, and hid them by fifty in a cave (1 Kings xviii. 4). 
 At the parting of Elijah from Elisha, fifty of the sons of the 
 prophets of Jericho stood to view afar off as the two took 
 their way to the Jordan (2 Kings ii. 1-7) ; and in Elisha's 
 community at Gilgal one hundred are mentioned as pres- 
 ent on one occasion (2 Kings iv, 38-44). Finally, we have 
 incidental notices as to their organisation and mode of 
 life. The head of the society is treated with the greatest 
 respect, as we see in the cases of Samuel and Elislia, being 
 csllQdi father or master (1 Sam. x. 12 ; 2 Kings ii. 3). He 
 is attended by a famulus, or intimate servant. Elisha is 
 described as the man who " poured water on the hands of 
 Elijah" (2 Kings iii. 11) ; and Elisha is served in the same 
 manner by Gehazi (2 Kings iv., v., viii.) Elisha's ap- 
 pointment as his master's successor is ordered to be sol- 
 emnised by anointing (1 Kings xix. 16) — though there is 
 no mention of its being done; and lastly, though they 
 lived together in communities, wearing, as some suppose, 
 coarse garments, and nourishing themselves on plain fare 
 
86 The ''Earlier Prophets" 
 
 (2 Kings iv. 38 £f. ; 1 Kings xix. 6), they were not neces- 
 sarily celibates ; for we hear of a " certain woman of the 
 wives of the sons of the prophets/' who had fallen into 
 poverty after her husband's death, and in whose behalf 
 Elisha wrought a miracle to save her from seeing her two 
 sons taken to be bondmen by her creditor (2 Kings iv. 1). 
 
 These notices, drawn mainly from those stories of the 
 prophets incorporated in the books of Kings, which ad- 
 mittedly belong to this first period of literary composi- 
 tion, may be accepted as the statement of what every 
 one believed at the time they were written ; they are too 
 numerous, too varied, and too detailed, to be treate d as 
 ^ftertlioughts, or idealising of facts; and, in short, may 
 be taken as historical, since there was no object to be 
 served by inventing them. They amount to this: that 
 these societies or associations, whatever was their precise 
 constitution, were a recognised thing, well rooted in Israel 
 a century or so before Amos wrote. Now when we turn 
 to Amos himself, we find proof that they were equally 
 well known and recognised in his days. " I am no pro- 
 phet, nor son of a prophet " (Amos vii. 14, 15), he says, 
 disclaiming connection with them for himself (in what 
 sense we shall see by-and-by), but attesting their exist- 
 ence. It is not necessary at present to follow their 
 history farther down. What has been said has been 
 advanced to show that the appearance of the men usually 
 called writing prophets was not a sudden thing without 
 any preparation, and more particularly because possibly 
 we may have here the link connecting the so-called non- 
 literary with the alleged first literary age. 
 
 Those who would minimise the culture and attainments 
 of the pre-prophetic age, as they call it, of course make 
 very little of these associations of the prophets as elevat- 
 
Wellhausen and the Nebiim. 87 
 
 ing influences in the nation ; in fact tliey ridicule them as 
 disorderly and disreputable societies. This is how Well- 
 hausen speaks of the prophetic bands in Samuel's time : ^ 
 " Troops of ecstatic enthusiasts showed themselves here and 
 there, and went about with musical accompaniments in 
 processions which often took the form of wild dances; 
 even men of the most sedate temperament were sometimes 
 smitten with the contagion, and drawn into the charmed 
 circle. In such a phenomenon, occurring in the East, there 
 was nothing intrinsically strange ; among the Canaanites, 
 such * Nebiim ' — for so they were styled — had long been 
 familiar, and they continued to exist in the country after 
 the old fashion, long after their original character, so far 
 as Israel was concerned, had been wholly lost. The new 
 thing at this juncture was that this spirit passed over 
 upon Israel, and that the best members of the community 
 were seized by it. It afforded an outlet for the sup- 
 pressed excitement of the nation." 
 
 The incongruity of setting Samuel at the head of such 
 a noisy crew (though the best members of the commun- 
 ity are admitted to have been infected) Wellhausen gets 
 over by the assumption of two contradictory traditions. 
 The story of Saul's appearance at Naioth in Eamah 
 where David was, and of his being overpowered by the 
 prophetic influence, is, wo are told,^ "a pious carica- 
 ture ; the point can be nothing but Samuel's and David's 
 enjoyment of the disgrace of the naked king;" and 
 Wellhausen, who is our caricaturist for the moment, 
 goes on to say: "For the general history of the tradi- 
 tion the most interesting circumstance is that Samuel 
 has here become the head of a school of prophets, 
 and the leader of their exercises. In the original view 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 449. 2 Ibid., p. 268. 
 
88 The ''Earlier Prophets." 
 
 of the matter (cliaps. ix., x.) he appears alone and iiule- 
 pendent, and has nothing to do with the companies of 
 the ecstatics, the Nebiim. He is a Bdeh or seer, not a 
 Nabi or prophet. True, it is asserted in the gloss (ix. 9) 
 that the two words mean the same thing — that what is 
 now called Nabi was formerly called Eoeh. But that is 
 scarcely quite correct. The author of ix., x. knows the 
 name Nabi very well too, but he never applies it to 
 Samuel ; he only uses it in the plui'al, of the troops of 
 Jehovah — intoxicated dervishes." 
 
 As to the later associations of prophets, he says:^ 
 "In the time of Ahab and Jehu, the Nebiim were a 
 widespread body, and organised in orders of their 
 own, but they were not highly respected; the average 
 of them were miserable fellows, who ate out of the 
 king's hand, and were treated with disdain by mem- 
 bers of the leading classes. Amos of Ttkoa, who, it is 
 true, belonged to a younger generation, felt it an insult 
 to be counted one of them. Elijah and Elisha rose cer- 
 tainly above the level of their order ; but the first, whose 
 hands remained pure, while he no doubt produced a great 
 impression at the time by his fearless words, effected 
 nothing against the king, and quite failed to draw the 
 people over to his side; while Elisha, who did effect 
 something, made use of means which could not bear the 
 light, and which attest rather the weakness than the 
 strength of prophecy in Israel.'* 
 
 Stade writes in the same vein, and is even more lively. 
 The ancient seer, according to him, was one who had 
 second-sight ; but the prophets were distinguished from 
 them in that " they appear in bands and swarms, some- 
 times crowding into fixed places, at other times wandering 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 293. 
 
Stade and the Dervishes. 89 
 
 through the country, always infecting new individuals 
 and drawing them into their ranks. Clairvoyance with 
 them gives place to the noisy utterances of possession. 
 God's hand moves them so mightily that they rave and 
 roar, dance and spring, and pour out in torrents whatever 
 He suggests to them. The accession of this passionate 
 excitement is skilfully aided by noisy music. ... In 
 short, from the descriptions that we have of prophetic 
 activity in ancient times, there can be no doubt that here 
 is a manifestation of the same ' sacred disease ' which 
 inspired the servants of Dionysos even to frenzy, wdiich 
 led the priests of the Syrian goddess to wound and maim 
 themselves, which can be observed even at the present 
 day in the dervishes of the Mohammedan East, and 
 among them also produces such wonderful feats and such 
 repulsive acts, and which lends to such fanatics as these 
 the character of holiness, even when the possession impels 
 them to immoral deeds." ^ 
 
 All this is neither more nor less than a miserable 
 travesty of the accounts which lie before us : it seems 
 to me, further, to be a mistake from the point of view 
 of those writers themselves. For the position taken 
 up leaves little room for the development which they 
 are so fond of tracing, and practically forces them to 
 regard the writing prophets as sudden apparitions, with- 
 out anything in the antecedent history out of which 
 they could have been developed. Apart from this, how- 
 ever, I must particularly refer to the attitude of Samuel 
 and Amos, at the two ends of tlie series, to these pro- 
 phetic companies. The endeavour is made, as it has been 
 
 ^ Stade, Geschichte, vol. i. p. 476 ff. The reader should, however, here 
 turn to 1 Kings xviii. 26 ff., and contrast the bearing of Elijah with that 
 of the prophets of Baal. 
 
90 The ''Earlier Prophets." 
 
 seen, to dissociate both men from the prophetic companies, 
 but I think without the slightest ground. Wellhausen's 
 statements amount to this : Samuel stood alone and 
 independent, apart from the Nebiim, although " the best 
 members of the community were seized by" the spirit 
 that prevailed ; and further, a later tradition put him at 
 the head of the school, although the men composing these 
 schools were for the most part a miserable lot of fellows, 
 and Amos disdained to be counted as belonging to them. 
 Surely the later tradition did not mean to degrade 
 Samuel by putting him at the head of the prophets ; and 
 yet, if they were generally viewed as is represented, it was 
 no honour. The truth is, there is no reason, except the 
 requirements of Wellhausen's theory, for doubting what 
 is said of Samuel's connection with the prophets. And 
 then as to Amos, I am sure that no one but a modern 
 critic could interpret his words as they do. The priest 
 of Beth-el, Amaziah, had said to him, "0 thou seer,^ 
 go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there 
 eat bread, and prophesy there," &c. ; to which Amos 
 replied, " I am no prophet, neither the son of a prophet ; 
 but I am an herdman, and a dresser of sycamore trees : 
 and Jahaveh took me as I followed the flock, and Jaha- 
 veh said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel" 
 (Amos vii. 12-15). How these words can be twisted 
 into an expression of contempt for the prophets I cannot 
 conceive. The contrast which Amos draws is between a 
 
 1 Wellhausen strives hard to make out that the names Roeh (seer) and 
 Nabi (prophet) had different significations in the time of Samuel, and that 
 the distinction only gradually faded away. This he does in order to place 
 the Roeh above the flagellant Nabi, as he terms him. It is worth noticing, 
 however, that, in the passage of Amos referred to, the two terms seem to 
 be convertible ; and also that in Gen. xx. 7 (which belongs to E. — see Note 
 VIII.) Abraham is called a Nabi. 
 
Amos and the PropJiets. 91 
 
 professional prophet and a humble herdman following the 
 flock : and the only fair inference to be drawn is, that he 
 did not pretend to any trained skill in prophesying ; that 
 he did not derive his commission from any order of men ; 
 that the truth he delivered was not learned in any 
 I school. Jahaveh took him. He may mean this simply 
 and nothing more ; if he means to give any opinion of the 
 prophets and the sons of the prophets, it is more likely 
 to be favourable than the reverse, as if he had said, " I 
 do not pretend to the skill or authority of a prophet ; I 
 am but a common peasant." But we need be in no 
 doubt on the subject ; for Amos elsewhere, in recounting 
 God's great deeds for His people, mentions the giving of 
 prophets (ii. 11). Who, we ask, were the prophets to 
 whom he could here allude as a class of God-appointed 
 men ? We know of none that were not connected with 
 the prophetic class with which our critics would have 
 Amos disdain to be identified. The whole interpretation 
 is forced ; and though, if the theory were proved, the words 
 of Amos in this passage might be construed to agree with 
 it — making him, however, inconsistent with himself in 
 another place — the words cannot by any means be taken 
 as even a plausible support of it. 
 
 I take it, then, that there were societies or guilds of 
 prophets from Samuel's time, and that the best men of 
 the time were either connected with them, or regarded 
 them as composed of men devoted to Jahaveh's service ; 
 and I think we may find in them something that will 
 help to explain the literary and religious features of the 
 century we are considering. We do not know much of 
 the occupations of these sons of the prophets; and of 
 their earlier societies, particularly, in the time of Samuel, 
 we only obtain glimpses. But this we know : they had 
 
9 2 The ''Earlier PropTietsr 
 
 a religious basis; for though Wellliausen says they 
 arose out of the oppression of the Philistines, he admits 
 that " religion and patriotism were then identical." We 
 find also that music was practised among them (and 
 even as late as the time of Elisha, that prophet is de- 
 scribed as calling for a minstrel to play before he de- 
 livered his prophecy — 2 Kings iii. 15). ITow as to the 
 former, we know that religion combined with patriotism 
 characterised all the prophets; and their patriotism ex- 
 jDressed itself in what we may call a theory or philosophy^ 
 of the national history, the chief elements of whiclTwere 
 a conviction that Jahaveh had specially guided the nation 
 in the past, and a belief that He had in store for it a noble 
 future. The germs of such a theory of the history were 
 present in the "religion tinged with patriotism" of the 
 very earliest prophetic movement. Now it will be evi- 
 dent there is room here for study, and in this germ we 
 have the beginnings of the Biblical conception of history. 
 The events of the past, the movements of the present, the 
 prospects of tlie future, are of deep interest to men pos- 
 sessed with this central idea of their national life. If I 
 mistake not, Wellhausen himself bears unwilling testi- 
 mony to this fact.i Summing up his critical estimate of 
 the historical books, he says that the specific character of 
 Israelite history, which has chiefly led to its being called 
 sacred history, rests for the most part on the repainting of 
 the original picture. But he adds, " The discolouring in- 
 fluences begin early ; " and by this he means " that uni- 
 form stamp impressed on the tradition by men who 
 regarded history exclusively from the point of view of 
 their own principles." In fact, there is " a religious influ- 
 ence, wliich in the books of Samuel and Kings turns out 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 293 f. 
 
Froj)7ietic Discolouring of History. 93 
 
 to be tlie prophetical one." He will not allow, however, 
 tliat it is to the prophets that the Hebrew people' owe 
 their history as a wliole ; and " least of all can the col- 
 leges of the B'ne Nebiim ["sons of the prophets"] at 
 Gilgal and other places, be regarded as nurseries of liis- 
 toric tradition." But when he speaks of tlie "old books 
 of the people," which the prophets remodelled for the 
 edification of the new generation, we must not forget 
 that, according to his own estimate of the literary his- 
 tory, tliese must have been produced just about the time 
 that these colleges of the prophets flourished ; and he 
 neither tells us who could have been the writers of 
 them, nor who w^ere the " earlier prophets " to whom the 
 writing prophets refer as their forerunners. In point of 
 fact, the very earliest prophets are historians, politicians, 
 and prophets in the narrower sense of the word; and 
 there is no reason to doubt that the societies, even of 
 Samuel's days, called into existence in the way Wellhausen 
 describes, had made a start on all the three lines. We 
 know that some of the writing prophets were also his- 
 torians ; and even modern writers admit that history 
 begins about the time of Samuel. It is remarkable that 
 the book of Chronicles, which, of course, the critics will 
 not admit to be historical, mentions, besides Samuel, 
 among the early writers of history, Nathan and Gad, 
 showing a belief on the part of the writer, at all events, 
 and presumably a national tradition, that these earlier 
 prophets were also writers of history. And then as to 
 the musical occupations of these prophetic companies, 
 it is a remarkable thing that the persistent tradition of 
 the nation ascribes to David the chief place among poets 
 and musicians, and that these associations existed in his 
 youth, and he himself is seen frequenting them. 
 
94 The "Earlier Prophets" 
 
 If we admit the existence of these so-called schools at 
 all, we must give the inmates something to do connected 
 with the religion and fortunes of the nation. Now, as we 
 find history and poetry coming into prominence just after 
 their institution, and a language fully developed ready 
 to the hand of those who wrote in the eighth century, 
 and as we have no knowledge of any other circles in 
 which such literary exercises could be carried on, it is 
 not a stretch of imagination, but a safe deduction, that 
 we have in these societies of the prophets something that 
 would explain what would otherwise be difficult of ex- 
 planation — the sudden appearance of finished literary 
 composition — if that is a fact ; or if it is not, something 
 that represents an earlier stage of literary activity. The 
 time and circumstances of the first appearance of these 
 societies are such as would give an impulse to religious 
 life. The quickening of the national pulse in the struggle 
 with the Philistines, the revival of zeal under the influ- 
 ence of Samuel, the retirement of some kind of cenobite 
 life, and the contact of men of kindred spirit in these 
 societies — all these tended to create or develop culture, 
 and would likewise be powerful factors in the production 
 of the religious consciousness of the time. Given the 
 power to write, and such incentives as these, there is no 
 reason why many of the compositions crowded together 
 into the so-called first literary age may not in whole or 
 in part belong to an earlier period. 
 
 In view of an activity like this, we are not so much at 
 a loss to understand how it came about that readers were 
 common at the time of the first writing prophets, and how 
 the religious vocabulary was well developed. We do not 
 require to suppose that these societies retained within 
 tiiemselves all the culture of the times— far from it j but 
 
The goodly Fellowship of the Prophets. 95 
 
 they would be rallying-points and powerful aids to its 
 general support and propagation. We have also — what 
 is quite in keeping with the references of Amos and 
 Hosea to former prophets — a succession of men such as 
 Nathan, Gad, Iddo, and others, who must be taken to be 
 actual historical characters, and who are described as 
 "prophets" or "seers." We have no reason to suppose 
 that they were of a class opposed to or out of harmony 
 with the prophetic companies. If it is not to such men 
 that Amos and Hosea refer, we know of no others ; if 
 they are the men, then we get men of flesh and blood such 
 as were the prophets whose writings are before us — men 
 who were quite capable of handing on the lamp of learn- 
 ing such as existed in that age, and, what was of more 
 importance, of keeping the torch of religious truth burn- 
 ing. It is not a great stretch of imagination to think 
 of these men, in their intercourse with one another, and 
 in the assemblies of the people that gathered about them, 
 encouraging one another and animating one another by 
 reciting the deeds of valour and the victories of faith of 
 their forefathers, the patriarchs and the judges, tuning 
 their harps to patriotic religious songs composed to cel- 
 ebrate memorable deeds, and forecasting the future of 
 their nation which such deeds led them to expect. If we 
 regard men like these as the natural guardians of the 
 popular traditions, we shall be at no loss to understand 
 how these traditions are tinged with religion, nay, steeped 
 in religion, to such an extent as to mark them out from 
 the popular mythological tales of other early nations. 
 They have all the appearance, not of tales of folk-lore 
 gathered up from the mouths of the people and touched 
 up for a national and religious end,^ but of traditions 
 
 1 Wellhausen, p. 294. 
 
9 G Tlie ''Earlier Prophets" 
 
 piously treasured up, brooded over and protected by men 
 who of old were imbued with religious feeling and im- 
 pressed with the conviction of a Divine Hand guiding 
 their nation's history. Cut and carve them as we may, 
 by eliminating " later additions," and so forth, they cannot 
 be resolved ultimately into mere fanciful stories, told for 
 amusement, freaks of a playful imagination, indulged in 
 for their own sake. In the simplest narratives there are 
 touches of insight ; reduced to their barest originals they 
 are pervaded with a purpose. By the time of Hosea we 
 can see (Hosea xii. 3, 4, 12) that the stories of the 
 patriarchs were not only well known, but used, we may 
 say, as texts for discourses, and handled in a homiletic 
 and didactic manner — a proof that they had been long 
 known and treasured in prophetic circles, and were re- 
 garded not as odds and ends of stories, but as parts of a 
 connected history. 
 
 Our purpose is not primarily to inquire into the origin 
 and mode of composition of the earlier historical books, 
 but to test their historical value ; and our present argu- 
 ment is to show the sort of men who were the guardians 
 ctnd vouchers of the tradition. The point to which we 
 have come, however, has an essential bearing on the 
 question of the composition of the books. In the 
 Hebrew canon the books from Joshua on to the Second 
 Book of Kings are designated " the earlier prophets," 
 the idea underlying this title being that the books 
 proceeded from prophetic men ; and a fair considera- 
 tion of the facts that have been stated will lead 
 to the conclusion that the supposition is not a mere 
 unfounded conjecture. It is remarked by Wellhausen, 
 as we have just seen, that the books in question have all 
 a strong prophetic tinge, which, of course, he places late. 
 
Topographical Accuracy. 97 
 
 But it is also admitted that parts at least of the Looks 
 of Judges and Samuel, and an element in the book of 
 Genesis, belong to the first literary age. Now, if it should 
 turn out that tliis first literary age was one in which 
 prophetic tendencies were well developed, or at least 
 prophetic principles were firmly fixed in their main con- 
 ceptions, there will be no necessity of separating by wide 
 intervals of time parts of the same narrative which other- 
 wise hang well enough together. This view of the sub- 
 ject, however, will be more fully considered in the next 
 chapter. In the meantime attention is to be drawn 
 here to another feature of these historical books, which 
 is closely related to the mode of their composition and 
 their historical value — namely, the minute accuracy they 
 exhibit in matters of topography. 
 
 Perhaps no country has been more attentively exam- 
 ined in connection with its history and literature than 
 Palestine; and those who have made the most careful 
 examination have testified to the extraordinary corre- 
 spondence, to the minutest detail, between the Biblical 
 accounts and the localities in which they are placed. 
 This does not, of course, warrant us in saying straightway 
 that the narratives are strictly historical, but it has an 
 important bearing on the mode of composition of the 
 books. It will, on reflection, be admitted that a writer 
 or speaker nowhere runs greater risk of tripping and 
 falling into error than when dealing with details of 
 topography. It is a case in which mere popular and 
 oral recital is almost sure after a time to be at fault, and 
 in which memory cannot long be safely trusted. It is 
 also to be noted that the remarkable physical configu- 
 ration of Palestine, and the graphic pictorial style of 
 Hebrew diction, made tlie danger of falling into mistakes 
 
 
'98 The "Earlier Prophdsr 
 
 of this kind immensely greater. Tlie Hebrew writers 
 are continually painting the scene of their narratives, 
 not only reproducing the words and gestures of the 
 speakers, but telling us how they " lifted up their eyes " 
 and saw this and that ; and the conformation of the 
 country is so remarkable, its variations of scene, climate, 
 and physical condition such, that the accuracy of de- 
 lineation, which bears the closest investigation, is nothing 
 short of marvellous. It is indeed only in compara- 
 tively recent times that this has been fully brought 
 to light ; for not only the Crusaders, but even the early 
 Christian monks who resided in the country, made 
 mistakes in identifications of Biblical sites, which it has 
 been left to travellers and explorers of our own century 
 to rectify.^ It would not be difficult to find in modern 
 authors writing from memory or with imperfect informa- 
 tion, instances to prove how easily mistakes may be fallen 
 into. Walter Scott, e.g. (and no doubt it is not a solitary 
 instance), makes one of his characters ^ speak of Eoseneath 
 as an island, a kind of mistake never committed by a 
 Biblical writer. An instructive example may be taken 
 from a passage in Wellhausen's own book, in which, in 
 connection with the story of the destruction of the cities 
 of the plain, mention is made of " the smoke of the furnace 
 which Abraham saw from the Jewish shore the morning 
 after the catastrophe."^ It is true the English transla- 
 
 1 The Quarterly Statements of the Palestine Exploration Fund are 
 full of corrections of such early mistakes. See, e.g., the Statements for 
 1875, p. 89 fr.; and for 1876, pp. 11 ff., 37 f., 168 ; for 1877, p. 33 ff. To 
 name no other ]»laces, Robinson mentions that even such a famous place 
 as Beth-el was not known accurately to the monks for centuries, the name 
 of the true site being preserved solely among the common people. — Bib- 
 lical Researches, second edition, vol. i. p. 449. 
 
 '^ Heart of Mid-Lothian, chap. xl. ^ Hist, of Israel, p. 325. 
 
Modern Topographical Mistakes. 99 
 
 tion makes the mistake more glaring; but even in the 
 original ^ the words do not accurately represent the state- 
 ment of tlie Biblical writer, according to which ^ Abra- 
 ham was not near the Dead Sea at the time of the 
 occurrence, but at Mamre, and could not even have seen 
 the shore. What the narrator says is that Abraham 
 " got up early in the morning to the place where he had 
 stood before Jahaveh," and that "he looked toward 
 Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the 
 plain, and lo 1 the smoke of the country went up as the 
 smoke of a furnace." It is a great distance from Hebron 
 to the Dead Sea, and mountains intervene for the most 
 part. Eobinson tells us that he ascended the hills to the 
 east of the town in hopes of obtaining a view of the 
 country, but the prospect was limited towards the east 
 and north by higlier hills near at hand. Next day, how- 
 ever, on ascending the hill to the west, he found the 
 prospect towards the east and south and west very ex- 
 tensive, Kerak (on the eastern side of the Dead Sea) 
 being very clearly distinguishable.* A more glaring mis- 
 take is made in Lenormant's 'Ancient History of the 
 East,' where we have such a collocation as this : " Be- 
 tween Bethel and Hai in tlie rich pastures of the lower 
 Jordan,"* though these places are far from the river. 
 In striking contrast we find the Biblical writer par- 
 ticularly stating that the place of Abraham's encamp- 
 ment was a nwuntain east of Bethel,^ — a situation from 
 which, as travellers have pointed out,^ Lot could have 
 
 * The original is " vom judiiischen Ufer aus aufsteigen sah. " — Geschichte, 
 1878, p. 329. 
 
 2 Gen. xix. 27. 
 
 ' Biblical Researches, second edition, vol. ii, pp. 82, 85. 
 
 ■* English translation, vol. i. p. 81. ^ Gen. xii. 8. 
 
 * Stanley, Siuai and Palestine, third edition, p. 217 f. 
 
100 Tlie "Earlier Prophets." 
 
 obtained that view of the fertile Jordan valley which 
 determined his choice.^ And once more, as an instance 
 how in statements of topography one will readily make 
 a slip in matters with which he is well acquainted, a 
 recent critical writer tells us that Elijah, on the memor- 
 able occasion of his sacrifice on Mount Carmel, *' hurried 
 the priests of Baal down to the brook Jabbok, and slew 
 them there," ^ — a much more " considerable mistake " than 
 that which Wellhausen thinks he finds in the Biblical 
 writer's account of Elijah's movements.^ 
 
 As an example, on the other hand, of the very minute 
 accuracy of the Biblical narratives in this respect, we may 
 take the account of Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel.* 
 The scene of the narrative, which had been little visited 
 by travellers, was found on the eastern extremity of Car- 
 mel, overlooking the great plain of Esdraelon, and was 
 known to the natives by the name El-Muhrakaliy The 
 Burnt (or the place of burning) ; and all who have visited 
 it, and compared it with the account given of the events 
 of that memorable day, testify to the correspondence in 
 minutest details between the narrative and the locality.^ 
 Now all this goes to show that there is more in these 
 stories than what Wellhausen calls " a local colour which 
 bespeaks a local origin." ^ Much less can we admit what 
 he asserts in regard to the patriarchal stories, that their 
 significance is "entirely bound up with the locality,"^ 
 and that " for the most part we have the product of a 
 countless number of narrators, unconsciously modifying 
 
 ^ Gen. xiii. 10. - Allan Menzies, Natural Religion, p. 135. 
 
 ' Hist, of Israel, p. 292, note. ■* 1 Kings xviii. 
 
 ^ A graphic account is given by Van de Velde, vol. i. p. 320 ff. , with 
 which may be compared Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, third edition, p. 
 353. 
 
 « Hist, of Israel, p. 327, ^ Ibid., p. 325. 
 
Argument f7vm To;pography. 101 
 
 each other's work."^ The ordinary reader will find it 
 very hard to believe that in " the manifold variants and 
 repetitions of the same stories " this feature of minutely 
 accurate local picturing could have been preserved. And 
 when we take into account that not only in the stories of 
 the patriarchs, but everywhere in the historical books, this 
 accuracy is maintained, and bear in mind the liability to 
 error which is inherent in oral transmission, we have a 
 problem to solve which cannot bo brushed aside by these 
 ohiter dicta of Wellhausen. If these stories could not 
 have maintained their topographical accuracy in oral 
 tradition, then they were written by men who knew the 
 localities and had them before their eye ; and if the stories 
 have not foundation in fact, then the writer — and be it 
 remembered this is one of the admitted earliest class of 
 writings — was not merely a spinner or retailer of myths, 
 but he was a most accomplished writer of romance. A 
 recent French writer, who has made in all seriousness a 
 reductio ad absurduiii of criticism by denying almost en- 
 tirely the pre-exilian existence of literature in Israel,^ has 
 the courage of his theory here, and it is interesting to 
 observe how he accounts for this striking accuracy of 
 topographical details. He fancies a company of theolo- 
 gians at the time of the restoration sitting down to see 
 
 1 Hisfc. of Israel, p. 327. 
 
 2 Maurice Vernes, Les Resultats de I'Exegese Biblique, p. 50. If refuta- 
 tion is necessary of such a view, it is found in the fact that the names of 
 Bible places have been in most cases recovered from the mouths of the 
 peasantry— a proof that the story has clung to the site from most ancient 
 time. Were Vernes's view correct, we should have had a number of sites 
 such as the Crusaders and monks determined hy the hook, whereas we 
 have these ancient names, often unintelligible to the natives, and un- 
 associated, to their knowledge, with any ancient event. And this aspect 
 of British reseai-ch should be fairly faced in critical reconstructions of 
 history and books. 
 
102 The ''Earlier Proplietsr 
 
 who would give the most highly coloured account of early 
 times ; and the one, for example, who by report at least 
 knew most of Egypt, would take in hand the story of the 
 exodus, and so on. He does not tell us how many men, 
 each with special knowledge of a locality, were engaged in 
 this work ; but such a fancy, by its exaggeration, gives us 
 some idea of the care that must have been bestowed on 
 small details in the writing of these Old Testament stories 
 — a care far above what we would expect in the case of 
 plastic material modified by hundreds of reciters, and 
 touched and retouched till the time of the captivity and 
 after it.^ Whatever we may say about them, this char- 
 acteristic of these narratives must raise our estimate of 
 the literary care and ability of these writers ; and if we 
 find them so careful in this class of details, we may be 
 prepared to give more heed to them when they give us 
 particulars of another kind. 
 
 No doubt this minute topographical accuracy does not 
 in itself vouch for the historical truth of the narratives, 
 and to some extent there is reason for the reproach of a 
 Continental writer ^ that "English Palestine research, by 
 its apologetic tendency, runs the risk of failing to secure 
 recognition as a complete international science." German 
 scholars, he says, while quite as well aware as the English 
 investigators of the close connection of this specialty with 
 the scientific interpretation of the Bible, " have at the 
 same time the historical, critical, and philological prepara- 
 tion which is necessary to successful labour." In their 
 view, it is " an essential point that Palestine research re- 
 main in the closest contact with these other branches of 
 study," and that " a scholar who writes on the geography 
 
 ^ Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 294. 
 
 2 Socin, in the Expositor, third series, vol. ii. p. 241 ff. 
 
Socin and Palestine Exploration. 103 
 
 of Palestine, shall first have made himself thoroughly 
 familiar with the problems and results of Old Testament 
 criticism," for " only there can he form a judgment con- 
 cerning the real history of Israel." All very good ; but it 
 may be contended as strenuously, on the other hand, that 
 the said German scholars should, in estimating the literary 
 products of Israel, take into account this feature of them 
 to which we call attention, and not merely dismiss them 
 with the remark that they have a strong local colouring. 
 Perhaps if German scholars had gone more out into the 
 broad light of day, and looked at these narratives in 
 connection with the places to which they relate, instead 
 of keeping their science, to use Socin's own words, " under 
 ground, in the esoteric circle of special students," they 
 would have attained results more acceptable to average 
 common-sense. No doubt, strictly speaking, the identifi- 
 cation of the place does not prove the historic truth of 
 the event associated with it. It is, it may be admitted, 
 "unjustifiable to assume without further investigation 
 that the list of stations in the wandering in the wilder- 
 ness is the work of Moses ; " ^ nay, we are not, strictly 
 speaking, entitled to assume that the Israelites ever 
 travelled that way at all. The list may be a mere feat 
 of archaeological research, drawn up by those who knew 
 the ordinary route through these parts. Neither does 
 the topography of Mount Carmel, which suits the story 
 of Elijah as exactly as if it was written on the spot, 
 prove even that Elijah ever existed; and Dean Stanley 
 was not strictly correct when he asserted ^ that "the 
 wells of Beersheba in the wide frontier-valley of Pales- 
 tine are indisputable witnesses of the life of Abraham." 
 
 ^ Socin, I. c. Compare Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 350. 
 * Sinai and Palestine, p. 148. 
 
104 The ''Earlier Prophets:' 
 
 But neither was Carlyle justified in assuming from the 
 ruins of St Edmundsbury that St Edmund ever existed ; 
 nor do the stones stuck here and there in the plain of 
 Leipzig, telling where so many thousands of men had 
 their position under certain commanders, prove that a 
 great battle was ever fought there. Let us criticise our 
 authorities by all means. But let us not turn away from 
 such firm palpable aids to criticism as we possess, to 
 " underground " canons which only esoteric students 
 can comprehend. It will occur to many, that if it is 
 unjustifiable to construct a map of Palestine showing the 
 tribal divisions, a good many other maps will have to 
 be accepted with reserve. The ordinary reader who 
 believes, with Thomas Carlyle, that " man has ever been, 
 in spite of wide -spread calumnies to the contrary, a 
 veracious creature," will be anxious to know why it is 
 that so much criticism is necessary in regard to matters 
 of Biblical history such as are accepted without ques- 
 tion in other fields. Wellhausen's off-hand remark about 
 " plastic and living materials " and stories whose signifi- 
 cance was " entirely bound up with the locality," is quite 
 insufficient to explain the fact that this minute accuracy 
 is not confined to one set of stories nor to one locality. 
 The point of the story so often turns upon the local 
 situation, and stories so constructed in one locality fit 
 in so exactly to others constructed for other localities, 
 as in Abraham's sojourns at different spots, making a 
 connected history, that this explanation is altogether too 
 superficial. Instead of the materials being so plastic as 
 he supposes in the ninth and eighth centuries, it is evi- 
 dent that the writers of these narratives were handlin<:r 
 no shadowy myth, but writing of men who were as real 
 to them as men of their own age. We are, in short, in these 
 
Priestly Literary Activity. 105 
 
 narratives, not at the stage of floating vague tradition, 
 but at a time at which men wrote with care about persons 
 and events that they considered historical. What more 
 is implied in this fact we shall consider more fully in 
 the next chapter. 
 
 In our endeavour to estimate the amount of literary 
 and educational activity in ancient Israel, we must not 
 overlook the work of the priests, who were at least as 
 early and as well marked a class as the prophets. Al- 
 though a great part of the admitted literature is of a 
 popular or prophetic character, yet Wellhausen has told 
 us (above, p. 61) that at an early period " certain collec- 
 tions of laws and decisions of the priests" were also 
 committed to writing. The " legal documents " also, and 
 " family reminiscences," which furnished materials for the 
 first historiography, were most probably, as in other 
 countries, under priestly custody ; and Stade says ^ that it 
 was under priestly influence that the patriarchal legends 
 assumed their peculiar form. All this implies a consid- 
 erable degree of literary activity ; and the preservation of 
 legal and family documents presupposes such activity in 
 a still earlier time. Though their literary labours may 
 have been chiefly technical, and restricted to a somewhat 
 professional circle, yet in their work as popular educators 
 the priests must take rank with the prophets. The bear- 
 ing of this on the more outward features of the religion 
 will be seen in the sequel.^ 
 
 ^ Geschichte, vol. i. p. 145. ^ See particularly cliap. xv. p. 391. 
 
106 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE NINTH AND EIGHTH CENTURIES 
 TO THE ANTECEDENT HISTORY. 
 
 Following up the conclusions of preceding chapters, the inquiry is raised 
 whether it is possible, from the admitted writings, to determine the 
 outstanding facts of the previous history — Not a question of the order 
 of composition of books, or of origin of observances, but an appeal to 
 the consciousness of the nation — Amos and Hosea are found to hold 
 essentially, for the period succeeding Moses, the same scheme of history 
 which is by modern critics pronounced to be late and unhistorical — Their 
 testimony confirmed by the song of Deborah — In regard to patriarchal 
 history, the intimations of the prophets, so far as they go, are in accord 
 with the Pentateuch — Wellhausen's dictum in regard to the patriarchal 
 stories examined ; an illustration of his method of interpretation — His 
 explanation of the genealogical system: its failure to account for 
 Abraham — His canon at fault in regard to "outward features" — 
 Peculiarities distinguishing patriarchal stories from Gentile legends — 
 Nebular hypothesis of early histoid — Conclusion : that the eighth centwy 
 is a time of broad historic day, when Israel had a definite account to 
 give of itself and of its early history. 
 
 In the preceding chapters it has been argued that the 
 admitted writings of the so-called earliest literary age 
 imply a time of antecedent preparation and training of 
 both a literary and a religious kind. We have also seen 
 that the earliest writing prophets appeal to prophetic 
 men of kindred spirit before them, and we have endeav- 
 oured to show that there is evidence of such a prophetic 
 
Attempt to reach actual Events^ 107 
 
 line from Samuel downwards, capable of giving to the 
 history the peculiar cast in which it appears in the his- 
 torical books. One feature of these books, the minute 
 accuracy in topographical detail, has led to the conclusion 
 that the writers of history in the so-called earliest literary 
 period, unless they are to be regarded as clever romancers, 
 wrote down what to them was not vague, plastic myth, 
 but actual history. And it is claimed that this minute 
 correspondence of locality with narrative is inconsistent 
 with the account given by critical writers of the origin 
 of these narratives and the trustworthiness of the writers. 
 
 Let us now go a step further and open up a new line 
 of inquiry : Is it possible from the writings to which we 
 have restricted ourselves to draw any conclusions with 
 regard to the outstanding events of the antecedent history? 
 We have precluded ourselves from accepting the books 
 composing the Pentateuch as evidence regarding the 
 period to which they relate. But it may be possible, from 
 the books which we are allowed to use, to derive such 
 indications as will either confirm the books which are 
 reserved or show in what manner their unhistorical state- 
 ments (as they are called) arose. That we need not 
 expect to find in the prophetic writnigs anything like a 
 full account of the history is evident from the very nature 
 of the compositions, to say nothing of their very limited 
 bulk. But by a comparison of these with one another and 
 with other books, we may be able to draw a parallel or a 
 contrast between the modes in which the history of the 
 time to which we refer was regarded by the respective 
 writers, and reach whatever conclusions we can as to the 
 actual facts. 
 
 As to the method of this inquiry, it is to be remarked 
 that what we seek primarily to determine is neither the 
 
108 Testimony of Ninth and Eighth Cefbturies, 
 
 order of composition of books nor the history of religions 
 observances. The method usually followed by apologists 
 is to show by " references " or " quotations " that the books 
 of the Pentateuch, for example, are older than the pro- 
 phetic writings. It is obvious, however, that the argu- 
 ment from references and quotations may be turned the 
 other way ; and this mode of reasoning becomes very pre- 
 carious and unsatisfactory, since questions of integrity and 
 genuineness in the books supposed to be referred to are 
 sure to arise. On the other hand, the method pursued 
 generally by critical writers of tracing the history of the 
 religion by the aid of outward rites and observances is 
 liable to similar and other equally strong objections, which 
 will be stated farther on.^ Our point is, that in tlie 
 writings of contemporaneous prophets, and admitted pro- 
 ductions of the same age, we get upon firm ground. The 
 slightest glance at the prophetical literature will show 
 that the history turned upon something very different 
 from written books or outward observances. By the 
 time, of the earliest writing prophets it is evident that 
 certain fundamental religious conceptions are firmly 
 grasped — a certain view is entertained of the antecedent 
 course of religious history ; for proof of which appeal is 
 made not to written books or outward observances, but 
 to the general consciousness of the nation. If we can 
 penetrate to the origin of these, we shall come at a know- 
 ledge of the nation's religious life and history in a much 
 more effectual way than by settling the order in which 
 books were written and le2:al codes came into existence; 
 and it will perhaps be found that, standing on such firm 
 ground, we shall be in a better position to pronounce 
 judgment on those other questions of books and institu- 
 
 ^ See chap. xiii. p. 328. 
 
Testimony of Amos and Hosca. 109 
 
 tions. What we propose, therefore, to do in the present 
 chapter, is to inquire what views prevailed, in the period 
 to which we have restricted ourselves, in regard to the 
 antecedent religious history, and what inferences may 
 safely be drawn as to the actual facts. 
 
 Confining ourselves at the outset to Amos and Hosea, 
 we take it to be quite clear that by their time a certain 
 outline (and from the limited materials and nature of the 
 books we cannot expect more) of the past history of the 
 nation, was firmly fixed and held undisputed in the national 
 mind. Particular stress must be laid on the fact that it 
 is not the individual testimony of two men that we have 
 on this point, but the testimony of the generation they ad- 
 dressed. All the proof Amos advances, when he refers to 
 past history, is the appeal to the knowledge of his hearers, 
 "Is it not so, house of Israel?" (Amos ii. 11.) And 
 the testimony is all the stronger here because the people 
 are unwilling witnesses, the prophet's references to the 
 past being made not for the purpose of flattering national 
 vanity, but of rebuking national backsliding. The argu- 
 ment used here is one which critical writers can employ 
 with effect when occasion requires. Daumer,^ for ex- 
 ample, argues from the statement of Amos regarding 
 worship in the wilderness (Amos v. 26 ff.), not merely 
 that it was a fact that Israel for forty years worshipped 
 not Jahaveli but Moloch, but also that this was a well- 
 known and undisputed fact in the prophet's days. 
 
 Attention may be drawn, at the outset, to the manner in 
 which these two men address tlieir generation and speak 
 of their nation. " Israel " stands not only for the northern 
 kingdom, but for the combined people. And when one 
 message is given to the whole under one name, and when 
 
 ^ Feuer und Moloch -dienst der Alten Hebriier, p. 49. So others. 
 
110 Testimony of Ninth and Eighth Centuries. 
 
 Hosea has reached the stage of personifying Israel as a 
 dearly loved but faithless wife, or as a first-boin son, it is 
 evident that we are far beyond the stage — if ever there 
 was such a stage — when the nation grew into one from 
 merely contiguous or even related tribes. If Hosea is to 
 be believed, Israel was one people from the time of the 
 exodus. But to pass from this, let us note certain definite 
 points in the scheme of history held by these men. 
 
 The first point to be noticed is, that Amos and Hosea 
 agree in going back to the deliverance from Egypt and 
 the guidance through the desert as not only well-attested 
 and undisputed facts, but as also events of the deepest 
 religious import. Thus Amos utters the word of Jaha- 
 veh " against the whole family which I brought up from 
 the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all 
 the families of the earth " (Amos iii. 1, 2) ; and speaking 
 of the great things God had done for them in the past, he 
 says : " Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose 
 height was as the height of the cedars, and he was strong 
 as the oaks ; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his 
 roots from beneath. Also I brought you up out of tlie 
 land of Egypt, and led you forty years in the wilderness, 
 to possess the land of the Amorite" (Amos ii. 9-11). 
 Similarly Hosea refers to the days of the youth of the 
 nation — " the day when she came up out of the land of 
 Egypt " (Hos. ii. 15). " When Israel was a child, then I 
 loved him, and called my son out of Egypt " (xi. 1). Twice 
 he uses the words, " I am Jahaveh thy God from the land 
 of Egypt " (xii. 9, xiii. 4), basing upon this fact the claim 
 of their God to undivided allegiance : " Thou shalt know 
 no god but me, and beside me there is no faviour " 
 (xiii. 4). And to denote the tender care with which they 
 were watched in the desert, he says : " I found Israel like 
 
The Exodus — The House of David, 111 
 
 grapes in the wilderness ; I saw your fathers as the first- 
 ripe in the fig-tree at her first season " (ix. 10). " I did 
 know thee in the wilderness, in the land of great drought " 
 (xiii. 5). Here there is one clear line, boldly drawn — one 
 great epocli in the history vouched for by the strongest 
 testimony we can in the circumstances expect. These 
 two prophets — men of very different temperaments, who 
 have very different attitudes to the people of their time — 
 take it as a thing not gainsaid, that from the exodus 
 Israel had been distinguished by special religious privilege 
 manifested in a remarkable history. The way in which 
 they refer to th.ese events — in general terms, no doubt, 
 but with a hortatory and didactic purpose — leaves no 
 room for doubt that the belief was already ingrained in 
 the nation that, to use the current phrase, they were a 
 chosen race. The divine choice had been signally ex- 
 hibited in the events of the exodus and the conquest of 
 Canaan ; and that these events were not regarded as 
 isolated or accidental occurrences, is proved by the in- 
 sistance on the continual guidance and instruction which 
 had been communicated through "prophets," and the 
 bestowal of other privileges which are always being 
 brought to remembrance. 
 
 A second significant point, very observable in the writ- 
 ings of these two prophets, is the pre-eminence assigned 
 by both of them to the southern kingdom, and the special 
 importance of the house of David. Amos comes all the 
 way from the south of Judah to testify against the 
 northern kingdom, and his very first words are : " Jaha- 
 veh shall roar from Zion, and utter His voice from Jer- 
 usalem " (Amos i. 2). Even the sins for which Judah is 
 reproved give a hint of special religious privilege " Be- 
 cause they have rejected the law of Jahaveh, and have 
 
1 1'2 TesUmony of Ninth and Eighth Centuries, 
 
 not kept His statutes " (ii. 4). And then his anticipation of 
 coming blessing is expressed in the words : " I will raise 
 up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the 
 breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will 
 build it as in the days of old" (ix. 11). All this, it will 
 be remembered, though spoken by a native of the south, 
 comes from a prophet whose mission was to the northern 
 kingdom. And even more striking are the references of 
 Hosea, a native of the northern kingdom itself. Having 
 at the outset of his prophecy said, " I will no more have 
 mercy upon the house of Israel that I should in any wise 
 pardon them," he immediately adds, " But I will have 
 mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by 
 Jahaveh their God " (Hos. i. 6, 7).^ So again, " Though 
 thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend" 
 (iv. 15) ; and finally, though Judah is classed with 
 Ephraim in many places, yet the prophet's anticipation is 
 again like tliat of Amos. He speaks of the reunion of 
 the two kingdoms (i. 11), and describes it in these terms: 
 " Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek 
 Jahaveh their God, and David their king; and shall fear 
 Jahaveh and His goodness in the latter days" (iii. 5). 
 This, then, is an additional point gained, that even in the 
 northern kingdom, if the testimony of Hosea and his con- 
 temporaries is of any value, the pre-eminence in religious 
 standing of the southern kingdom was acknowledged, and 
 the divine promise of a "sure house" to David ^ was 
 accepted by the nation generally as a substantial fact. 
 
 ^ Hos. xi. 12 is doubtful : " Epliraim compasseth me about with lies, 
 and the bouse of Israel with deceit; but Judah yet ruleth with God, and 
 is faithful with the saints." Others render, " And Judah is yet defiant 
 towards Cod, and towards the All-Holy One, who is faithful." 
 ■. ' See 2 Sam. vii. 16, xxiii. 5. 
 
IsraeTs Apostasy. 113 
 
 Thirdly, While, however, the prophets thus represented 
 their God as having chosen and guided Israel from the 
 days of Egypt, and bestowed on the nation special privi- 
 leges, there is to t]\em another aspect of the history. For 
 they as persistently maintain that Israel, from the earhest 
 times, had proved unfaithful to their God, and fallen into 
 the deepest sins. Amos, in the survey which he makes, 
 in chapters i. and ii. of his book, of the nations for whose 
 redoubled iniquities the sentence of divine punishment 
 would not be turned away, does not except the two king- 
 doms of the cliildren of Israel, and singles out the par- 
 ticular sins for which they would respectively be chas- 
 tised. Indeed the whole burden of his prophecy is just 
 this, that though God had raised up of their sous for 
 prophets, and of their young men for Nazirites (ii. 11),^ 
 though He had from time to time made known what He 
 was to do through His prophets (iii. 7), though He had 
 known Israel alone of all the families of the earth (iii. 2), 
 yet doom was impending over both kingdoms for their 
 unfaithfulness; and, just because of their special privi- 
 leges, they would be the more severely dealt with. Still 
 more impressively is the same truth taught by Hosea. 
 Under the figures of the dearest earthly relationships, he 
 represents Israel now as the wife of Jahaveh who has 
 been unfaithful to her husband (i. 2, &c.), and again as 
 a tenderly reared son who was bent to backsliding (xi. 
 7), though the divine love still yearned over them (iii. 1, 
 xi. 8 ff., &c.) " By a prophet Jahaveh brought Israel out 
 
 ^ "The Nazirites were a class dating very far back ; we find illustrious 
 examples of them in Samson and Samuel in the time of the Judges, and 
 no doubt there were prophets contemporary with them, though, with the 
 exception of the prophetess Deborah, they are only incidentally men- 
 tioned (Judges vi. 8) till the time of Samuel."— A. B. Davidson in Ex- 
 positor, third series, vol. v. p. 39. 
 
 II 
 
114 Testimony of Ninth and Eighth Centuries. 
 
 of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved" (xii. 13; 
 cf. Micah vi. 4). God had "spoken unto the prophets, 
 and multiplied visions, and by the ministry of the prophets 
 had used similitudes " (xii. 10) ; yea, they had been " hewn 
 by the prophets" (vi. 6) for their stubbornness and in- 
 iquity; yet they had "transgressed the covenant" (vi. 
 7), had "wandered from" their God (vii. 13), "trans- 
 gressed His covenant, and trespassed against His law " 
 (viii. 1). For their iniquities, which are specified over 
 and over again, and set in new lights to make them 
 more odious, they are told tliat "the days of visitation 
 jare come, the days of recompense are come " (ix. *7) ; that 
 "the iniquity of Ephraim is bound up, his sin laid up in 
 store" (xiii. 12); and not even the grave will be able to 
 cover him from the divine judgment (xiii. 14). Com- 
 pare Amos ix. 2-4. 
 
 '^Mt, fourthly, the prophetic voice has still another tone, 
 which is continually heard in the midst of these denun- 
 ciations and threatenings. Both these prophets, address- 
 ing the people of the northern kingdom, declare, as we 
 have seen, that the southern kingdom of Judah, though 
 also apostate and doomed to punishment (Amos ii. 4), has 
 not so far fallen from original fidelity ; so it will be more 
 mercifully dealt with (Hosea i. 7), and will form tlie 
 rally ing-point for a reunited nationality based on better 
 principles (Amos ix. 11; Hosea i. 11). Througli the 
 severest denunciations shines ever a gleam of ho]ie, based 
 on the faithfulness and love of Jahaveh Himself : " How 
 shall I give thee up, Ephraim ? how shall I deliver thee, 
 Israel ? how shall I make thee as Adniah ? how shall I 
 set thee as Zeboim ? Mine heart is turned witliin me, 
 my compassions are kindled together. I will not execute 
 the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy 
 
Prophetic Philosophy of History. 115 
 
 Epiiraim : for I am God, and not man ; the Holy One in 
 the midst of thee" (Hosea xi. 8, 9). 
 
 Now all this agrees most strikingly with what we have 
 called the Biblical theory of the history.^ There is the 
 insisting npon a special manifestation of favour to Israel 
 at the first, in the deliverance from Egypt and guidance 
 through the desert; there is the emphasis laid on the 
 succession of teachers divinely appointed, and of laws 
 and statutes for the people's instruction and guidance. 
 There is the promise of the perpetuity of the house of 
 David as the basis of the restoration of national unity. 
 There is, on the other hand, with equal emphasis, the 
 assertion of the fact that Israel had been unfaithful to the 
 nation's God, and unworthy of the privileges bestowed. 
 And further, there is the threatening of punishment 
 for this unfaithfulness, reiterated in various forms and 
 couched in the sternest tones. And finally, there is the 
 assurance that there will not be an end of the people, 
 but that out of the overthrow and ruin there will arise a 
 revived and purified nation, united under one king, obedi- 
 ent to their one God. We have in fact here, as early as 
 we are allowed by the limitations wx have imposed upon 
 ourselves, the prophetic philosophy of history which is the 
 guiding principle of the prophets to the end. Favour 
 shown, sin abounding, punishment descending, a rem- 
 nant saved, — this will be found to be the scheme taught 
 by all the prophets ; the scheme on which they explain 
 their whole history. The teaching as to the remnant, 
 so characteristic of the great prophets, comes out quite 
 incidentally in Amos, and is all the more striking on 
 that account. Thus : " The city that used to go out (to 
 >var) a thousand (strong) shall have a remnant of a hun- 
 
 ^ Sec chapter ii. p. 28 flf. 
 
11(5 Testimony of Ninth and EiglUh Centuries, 
 
 drcd" (Amos v. 3; see R. Y.) So also, "It may be that 
 the Lord of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of 
 Joseph" (v. 15). The early existence of a succession of 
 prophets is an illustration of the same principle. That 
 they existed is a proof of the fact: the appeal to the 
 fact shows that the theory of the history was formed. 
 It is this aspect of the history which furnislies the key 
 to that persistent expectation of good in the latter day 
 wliich, in conjunction with the unshaken belief in the 
 perpetuity of David's house, produced the Messianic idea, 
 increasing ever in brightness as the night of the nation's 
 history closed around them.^ 
 
 But the Biblical theory of the history is declared by 
 our modern historians to be a late conception, overlaid 
 by late writers upon original documents which knew noth- 
 ing of it. " How is it/' asks Kuenen,^ " that the picture 
 of ancient Israel which we have thus recovered \i.e., the 
 picture which he thinks criticism warrants] differs so very 
 widely from the current conception of its religious con- 
 dition ? The reason is not far to seek. The current con- 
 ception is not derived from the special traits of which I 
 have reminded you, but from the general reviews of the 
 popular religion which the Israelitish historians lay be- 
 fore us — the introduction to the book of Judges (Judges 
 ii. 6, iii. 6), and the retrospect of the fates of the king- 
 dom of the ten tribes (2 Kings xvii. 7-23, 34-41)." Now 
 if we turn to these reviews, which are thus set down as 
 late, they are precisely in the tone of the prophets Amos 
 and Hosea, the very earliest witnesses to whom we are 
 allowed to appeal. What is the review of the period of 
 the Judges ? The children of Israel did evil against Ja- 
 haveh, though He had manifested special favour to them ; 
 
 * See Note X. 2 National Religions, p. 69 f. Comp. above, p. 54. 
 
" Reviews " or " Summaries " of the History. 117 
 
 He sold them into the hand of this enemy or that ; they 
 cried to Him in their trouble, He raised up a deliverer who 
 saved them; the land had rest; again they sinned ; and 
 again the same cycle was repeated. Tliis summary of the 
 period might have been written by Hosea himself, or by 
 Amos ; and if there is any truth in what they say about 
 prophets before tliem, any one from the days of Samuel 
 might have written it. Precisely to the same effect is 
 the summary of the history of the Kings in all essential 
 points, only there is the deeper colouring of more heinous 
 transgression, because mercy had been longer prolonged, 
 and the threatening of lieavier punishment, because all 
 means of reformation had failed. 
 
 Now be it remembered the modern historians say that 
 the same century that produced the writings of Amos and 
 Hosea produced also — in an earlier part of it perhaps — 
 the stories contained in the book of Judges, but that these 
 summaries or reviews belong to a late time. I have 
 proved that they need not be later than Amos or Hosea; 
 in fact, that they exhibit the belief current in this century, 
 the very time in which the narratives themselves are said 
 to have been written. In other words, the narratives and 
 the summaries may be of the same date and may have 
 been written by the same persons. 
 
 I take it, then, that the views of Israel's past history 
 given by the prophets of the eighth century were the 
 views entertained by the nation generally in their time. 
 These views, so far as they amount to a comprehensive 
 conception of the history as a whole, agree exactly with 
 the views of the Hebrew historians ; and so far as refer- 
 ence is made to actual occurrences in the history, the 
 prophets are at one with the historians. The great land- . 
 marks are clearly traceable : the deliverance from Egypt, 
 
ll^ Testimony of Ninth and Eighth CentuHes. 
 
 the guidance in the wilderness, the conquest of Canaan, 
 the continuance of God -guided men in the nation, the 
 pre-eminence of the house of David. As to the history 
 subsequent to Moses, we are already at a time when it is 
 regarded by the nation in that peculiar light which modern 
 historians call late and unhistorical ; and from the tone 
 of the prophets Amos and Hosea, we may conclude that 
 this view of the matter was common and of old standing. 
 
 We are not, however, left entirely to inferences from 
 the words of these prophets. Though at present restricted 
 in the use of other documents, we have one precious 
 relic in the song of Deborah, which even modern critics 
 generally allow must have come down from the age of 
 the Judges. So far as its references bear upon the 
 subject before us, they agree substantially with the view 
 of the age we are considering. At the time the song was 
 composed — the earlier time when the tribe of Dan was 
 still on the seaboard (Judges v. 17) — the unity of all the 
 tribes is a matter firmly fixed in the national conscious- 
 ness. Israel is throughout one (see verses 2, 7-9, 11), 
 though the powerful tribe of Judah is not mentioned; 
 and God's gracious dealings with Israel in the past, espe- 
 cially the guidance in the wilderness, are forcibly referred 
 to (verses 4, 6). One cannot read this remarkable song 
 without coming to the conclusion that the rugged and 
 unformed age of the Judges, as we are accustomed to 
 regard it, was animated by a spirit that was far from 
 being merely warlike ; and that, under the rough exterior 
 presented to us in the stories of the heroes, there were 
 lofty conceptions of God's character and a feeling of con- 
 secration on the part of those who led the nation. Dr 
 Davidson has said ^ that " if we possessed a few more 
 
 * Expositor, third series, vol, v. p, 54. 
 
The Song of Deborah. 119 
 
 utterances of the prophetic mind in this age, in place of 
 the external histories of rude soldiers, we should probably 
 be led to form a higher conception even of the religious 
 condition of the people under the Judges." But is it 
 quantity of written material that is decisive here ? Is not 
 this one example enough to show the religious conscious- 
 ness of the nation in full energy — enough to connect 
 the age of the Judges with the age of the prophets, and 
 to explain the appeal of the latter to an antecedent chain 
 of prophetic testimony ? For, as Dr Davidson again 
 says,^ the prophets " were the efHorescence, season after 
 season, of a tree whose roots always stood in the soil;" 
 and " we cannot account for the appearance of a succes- 
 sion of such men otherwise than on the supposition that 
 they arose out of a society in the main like-minded with 
 themselves and fitted to give them birth." Bruce's 
 warriors at Bannock burn may seem a miscellaneous con- 
 course of half-civilised men fighting in a rough age 
 because they loved fighting ; but the one incident of these 
 men kneeling to God before the battle gives evidence of a 
 deeper spirit. So this song, the utterance of the animat- 
 ing spirit of those times of struggle, serves to explain even 
 the rougher deeds of men, in whom the same spirit was 
 also at work and found expression in its own way. The 
 song of Deborah rises, at first sight, like a broken arch 
 amid ruins, pointing we perceive not whither ; but across a 
 gulf of wreck and confusion another broken arch rises in 
 the prophetic period, in line with the former and pointing 
 backwards. Is it unreasonable to conclude that they 
 form the remains of what was once a continuous struc- 
 ture ? Have we not, at least, seen enough to convince us 
 that it is arbitrary and unfair to limit the prophetic age, 
 
 ^ Expositor, third series, vol. v. p. 161 f. 
 
120 Testimony of Ninth and Eighth CentuHcs. 
 
 as is done, to a period comparatively recent ; and that the 
 " earlier prophets" are substantially in accord with the 
 later in the account they give of their nation's histol-y and 
 relif^ion ? 
 
 Hitherto we have mostly confined ourselves to the 
 earliest writing prophets, and endeavoured to determine 
 the view they held of the history from the period of the 
 exodus. When we inquire as to the times anterior to 
 Moses, we find few references in these prophets to guide 
 us. Such as they are, however, they agree with the books 
 of the Pentateuch which refer to that period. When, 
 for example, Amos in his threatening against Edom says 
 (Amos i. 11), "Because he did pursue his brother with 
 the sword, and did cast off all pity," he proves that the 
 story of Jacob and Esau was already current. The 
 descent of the great northern tribes from Joseph is im- 
 plied in the expression " the affliction of Joseph " (vi. 6) ; 
 and the mention of the " high places of Isaac " (vii. 9) is 
 another hint of the general acquaintance of the prophet's 
 hearers with the patriarclial story. So when Hosea in a 
 passing illustration says (Hosea xi. 8), " How shall I give 
 thee up, Ephraim ? how shall I deliver thee, Israel ? how 
 shall I make thee as Admah ? how shall I set thee as 
 Zeboim ? " he not merely confirms, so far as his word 
 may be taken, the account given in Genesis of the destruc- 
 tion of the cities of the plain, but shows that this tradition 
 was already a national possession. And when the same 
 prophet says (xii. 12), "Jacob fled into the country of 
 Syria; and Israel served for a wife, and fur a wife he 
 kept sheep," he does more than vouch for the belief in 
 the single incidents mentioned ; for these are inseparable 
 items in a connected story, which is thus guaranteed 
 as well known. Nav, the homiletic manner in which 
 
The StoiHes of the Patriarchs. 121 
 
 the incidents are handled shows that by this time the 
 patriarchal history was not merely a string of popular 
 folk-lore, but was a subject of reflection and edification. 
 For the point of the reference probably is not merely 
 that God w^as the guardian of Israel in all dangers, but 
 that Jacob, in whom the northern kingdom boasted, was 
 but a poor fugitive shepherd serving for a wife, whereas 
 the leader who brought the people from Egypt (mentioned 
 in the next verse) was a prophet and shepherd of the 
 people.^ This, indeed, is the special value of the refer- 
 ences of the prophets to the earlier history, that the story 
 is shown to be not a mere legend afterwards worked over 
 in a prophetic spirit, but that it was, as early as we can 
 reach it, the groundwork of prophetic teaching. 
 
 Passing now from the prophets to the patriarchal stories 
 in the book of Genesis, what are we to say of the history 
 which they profess to give ? These narratives, forming 
 what is called the Jehovistic portion of the book of 
 Genesis, are, as has been already mentioned,^ admitted to 
 belong to the first literary age, and indeed to the earlier 
 part of it. Wellhausen in speaking^ of them says: "The 
 materials here are not mythical but national, and therefore 
 more transparent, and in a certain sense more historical " 
 (viz., than the primeval history contained in the earliest 
 chapters of Genesis). Then he goes on to say : " It is true 
 we attain to no historical knowledge of the patriarchs, but 
 only of tlie time when the stories about them arose in the 
 Israelite people : this later age is here unconsciously pro- 
 jected, in its inner and its outward features, into hoar 
 antiquity, and is refiected there like a glorified mirage." 
 What he means is, that certain historical events of " this 
 
 1 So Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, p. 26. 
 
 « Chap. iii. p. 5a. ^ Hist, of Israel, pp. 318, 319. 
 
122 Testimony of Ninth and Eighth Centuries. 
 
 later age " are dressed up in this legendary form, or ac- 
 counted for, or lie hid in these stories of times long 
 bygone ; and that it is the work of criticism to find out 
 what are .the national and " more historical " facts which 
 underlie the legendary accounts. A good example is 
 furnished by him^ in a passage referring to tlie origin 
 of these stories. It runs as follows: — 
 
 "Even the Jeliovistic narratives about the patriarchs belong to the 
 lime when Israel had already become a powerful kingdom, Moab, 
 Amnion, and Edom had been subjugated (Gen. xxvii. 29), and 
 vigorous frontier wars were being carried on with the Syrians 
 about Gilead (Gen. xxxi. 52). In Gen. xxvii. 40, allusion is made 
 to the constantly repeated subjugations of Edoni by Judah, alternat- 
 ing with successful revolts on the part of the former." 
 
 Unless the ordinary reader is prepared submissively to 
 accept all that " scholars tell us," he will do well to turn 
 up the passages here referred to, and form his own judg- 
 ment as to whether Wellhausen can see farther into a 
 millstone than himself. As to the acuteness of the 
 critical faculty, wliich is able under such general state- 
 ments to detect the definite historical events to which 
 they are supposed to relate, it may be mentioned that 
 another critical writer,^ who is not behind Wellhausen 
 in confidence in his own power to read true history out 
 of such indications, places the formation of the legend of 
 the Syrian origin of the patriarchs not earlier than the 
 captivity, when the Hebrews had friendly relations with 
 Mesopotamia. In regard to Wellhausen's view, however, 
 it is surely an extraordinary freak of the legend-spinner 
 to hide his reference to the carrying on of " vigorous 
 frontier wars," under the story of the setting up of a cairn 
 
 ^ Hist, of Israel, p. 464, footnote. 
 
 2 Maurice Verues, Rdsultats de I'Ex^gese, p. 46 f. 
 
History in the Guise of Legend. 123 
 
 to perpetuate peace. This whole line of argument forces 
 us to suppose that these stories originated after the events 
 supposed to be referred to. The question is, Was all 
 the residuum of fact in these stories such events as tlie 
 subjugation of Moab, Ammon, and Edom, and the border 
 wars in Gilead ? Did the nation know nothing of Jacob 
 and his connection with Mesopotamia till the wars arose 
 in Gilead, and had they no traditional belief that they 
 were to be a paramount power till after Moab, Ammon, 
 and Edom were subjugated ? And then, as one event 
 after another in their history took place, in the matter- 
 of-fact days and the open light of the monarchy, did they 
 turn every event into another trait in the picture of the 
 patriarchs, till they elaborated out of connnon history that 
 most extraordinary set of legends which the patriarchal 
 story exhibits ? And to crown all, when these events 
 were still fresh in the memory of men, did Hosea and 
 Amos and such men presently make use of these legends 
 to point the moral of their prophecies ? It is a most 
 insufficient explanation of these stories to say that tliey 
 give us "no historical knowledge of the patriarchs, but 
 only of the time when the stories about them arose." We 
 want at least to know why the facts of history, patent 
 and well known, were dressed up in this fashion ; and if 
 there is anything more in the stories than this reference 
 to facts of history, we ought to be told what it is. How 
 is it, in particular, that the patriarchal story, referring, 
 according to this theory, to events quite isolated and even 
 far apart in time and place, should hold so well together 
 in a connected family history ? 
 
 The modern critical historians are here ready with 
 their theory that these genealogies of tlie patriarchs are 
 the legendary accounts of the origin and relations of the 
 
124 Testimony of Ninth and Eighth Centuries. 
 
 tribes, and that such stories " grew up " at various local- 
 ities with which the name of one or another of the leg- 
 endary forefathers was associated, each locality giving the 
 version that most magnified the tribe in which it lay. 
 " It would be quite possible," says Wellhausen,^ " to pre- 
 sent the composition and relative position of any given 
 people at a given time in a similar way in the form of 
 a genealogical early history;" and he adds^ that "the 
 genealogical form lends itself to the reception of every 
 sort of materials." But tlie attempt to translate these 
 family genealogies and movements into tribal formations 
 and migrations,^ even when made with all the freedom 
 critics assume to themselves, is not by any means so suc- 
 cessful as they would have us believe ; and Wellhausen's 
 remark might be met with the rejoinder that it would be 
 quite possible to represent the genealogical history of any 
 number of individuals in tlie form of accounts of the 
 composition and relative position of peoples at any given 
 time. The question is not what it would be easy to do, 
 but why the thing was done just in this way. Wellhausen 
 confesses tlie difficulty, though not its magnitude, in regard 
 to what one would consider the most striking of all the 
 patriarchs, Abraham himself. After telling us that "in 
 the patriarchal legend the etlinographic element is always 
 predominant," he says : * " Abraham alone is certainly not 
 the name of a people like Isaac and Lot; he is somewhat 
 difficult to interpret. That is not to say, that in such a 
 connection as this we may regard him as a historical 
 person ; he might with more likelihood be regarded as a 
 free creation of unconscious art. He is perhaps the 
 youngest figure in the company, and it was probably at a 
 
 ' Hist, of Israel, p. 319. 2 i^id.^ p. 320. 
 
 » See Note XI. ■» Hist, of Israel, p. 320. 
 
Abraham a "Free Creation." 125 
 
 comparatively late period that he was put before his son 
 Isaac." We are not informed how late this period was ; 
 but we are told positively that at the time of Amos " he 
 scarcely stood at the same stage as Isaac and Jacob." ^ 
 AH this, however, looks very like a breakdown of the 
 theory by which these genealogies were to be explained. 
 One would like to know how much of the story of Isaac, 
 as a popular legend, would be comprehensible without a 
 reference to that of Abraham ; or whether it was adjusted 
 at a " comparatively late period " after the " free creation " 
 of Abraham, by unconscious art. And how can the one 
 "locality" be accepted as explaining these stories about 
 such different characters as Abraham and Isaac which yet 
 are " so similar that they cannot possibly be held to be 
 independent of each other " ? Students of folk-lore are 
 familiar with variants of a story cropping up at different 
 places. Here we have not only variants at one place, 
 Beersheba, in regard to Abraham and Isaac, but also the 
 rise at different places of different stories, which are only 
 comprehensible when all are brought together into a con- 
 nected whole. 
 
 But let us consider what is implied in the assertion 
 that these stories of the patriarchal times give us know- 
 ledge only " of the time when the stories arose." The 
 whole question is. When did the stories arise ? Suppose 
 we grant for a moment that as written productions they 
 first meet us in the ninth century, that does not imply 
 necessarily that the happy ihought occurred at that time 
 
 1 The only reason conceivable for this assertion is, that Amos mentions 
 the high places of Isaac (vii. 9), but nowhere refers to Abraham. One 
 might as well infer that Amos was not certain of his own parentage be- 
 cause he does not mention the name of his father. Both J. and E. (see 
 Note VIII.) have the story of Abraham, and either or both of them must 
 be earlier than Amos. 
 
126 Testimony of Kinth and Eighth Centuries. 
 
 to the unknown J. or E. to set clown in this romantic 
 dress the history of his time, and of events that were fresh 
 in memory or occurring before the eyes of his readers. 
 If we are to get the time when the stories arose, then we 
 nmst be told when tliey were first mooted, in what narrow 
 circle they started, how long they were transmitted orally, 
 and how they spread till they became household words 
 in the eighth century, when Amos and Hosea refer to 
 them as undoubted facts. Let us take Wellhausen's own 
 canon in order to find out when the stories arose. This is 
 what he says : ^ " This later age is here unconsciously 
 projected, in its inner and its outward features, into hoar 
 antiquity, and is reflected there like a glorified mirage." 
 If it is indeed the case that outward as well as inner 
 features are projected backward, then we must find a 
 time when nomad life was the rule, and the land was 
 thinly inhabited, so that the originator of these patri- 
 archal stories may fulfil the conditions. For be it ob- 
 served, these writers of a " later age " do not describe the 
 patriarchs as bakers or dressers of sycamore -trees like 
 themselves, as the Dutch artists used to paint the patrir 
 archs dressed in knickerbockers. From the time of 
 Solomon men had sat under their vine and their fig^ 
 tree ; " To the tent !" was only the cry for battle ; agricul- 
 ture was common ; the land well peopled long before the 
 ninth century. Who was this J. or E. who could so 
 accurately describe nomad life that had long passed away, 
 and picture the land in a condition in wliich it could not 
 have been in his own time ? He is something more than 
 a spinner of legend; he is a writer of romance. The 
 accuracy of the picture which he draws is attested by 
 modern life in the East, and it is well known how much 
 
 ^ Hist., p. 319. 
 
Outward Features projected into Antiq^idty, 127 
 
 more lifelike these stories have become since ralesliiie 
 travel and research have thrown light upon them. And 
 here, again, it might be well if German writers, instead of 
 confining themselves to "underground" criticism, would 
 go forth into the daylight of Eastern life and learn what 
 it teaches. If a writer reflects his age, if a story bears 
 the impress of the time when it arose, then we seek in 
 vain for a time in which to place the origin of these stories, 
 betw^een the early time when nomad life was practicable 
 in Palestine and these modern days of half-settled life. 
 Wellhausen, in fact, is conscious of an incongruity in his 
 position, thougli he does not confess that it renders the 
 theory untenable. " It is remarkable," he says,^ " that 
 the heroes of Israelite legend show so little taste for war, 
 and in this point of view they seem to be scarcely a true 
 reflection of the character of the Israelites as known from 
 their history." 2 And then, turning his back upon his 
 own theory for the moment, he goes on to say that a 
 people ** incessantly driven into war not only dreamed of 
 an eternal peace in the future, but also embodied the 
 wishes of its heart in these peaceful forms of the golden 
 age in the past." This is a nice illustration of lucics a noii 
 lucendo to begin with ; and it is quite opposed to his 
 own theory in the second place. Maurice Yernes is more 
 consistent,^ for he regards the accuracy of description of 
 pastoral life in these narratives as another proof of the 
 high culture of the post-exilian period, which could invest 
 the life of the shepherd with such charm ; and he hints, 
 besides, that late writers at Jerusalem could have obtained 
 models for their stories from the shepherds on the cast of 
 Jordan. 
 
 As to the contention that these stories grew up at 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 321. 2 g^e Note XII. ' ii(<sullats, &c., p. 197. 
 
128 Testimony of Ninth and Eighth Centuries. 
 
 various localities, it may be freely conceded that stories 
 generally do come from the places at which the events 
 which they relate occurred. It may also be admitted 
 that traditions are coloured to some extent by the age in 
 which they find literary expression. But this applies to 
 any written history — even to those that are written in 
 this nineteenth century. All this, however, is a very 
 different thing from saying that the old traditions of 
 Israel relating to the patriarchal age rest on no foundation 
 of fact in that age, and that they have no positive value 
 beyond the evidence they give of the tendencies of the 
 age in which they first find literary expression. Even if 
 these traditions were first committed to writing in the 
 ninth century — even if they rested on no pre-existing 
 writings, — they were not inventions of the time, but the 
 accepted beliefs of the nation before they could be put 
 forth as matters of common acceptance ; and the essential 
 problem before us is to explain how the national beliefs 
 took just this form. 
 
 I believe that practically the only answer which modern 
 writers give to this question is, that all nations have 
 delighted in tracing back their history and national in- 
 stitutions to great ancestors, who are but mythical per- 
 sonages, and that Israel has only done the same. It may 
 be freely admitted that we find historical peoples carrying 
 back their history and their genealogy to ancestors lying 
 beyond the range of historic certainty. But sober his- 
 torians do not on that account reject these legends as 
 of no historic value, or dismiss them as merely the reflec- 
 tions of the times in which they are first committed to 
 writing ; it is their part to seek to interpret them, and to 
 discover the earlier historic facts which lie at their foun- 
 dation. And we cannot object to the application of a 
 
Hebrew Legends and Pagan Myths. i®3& 
 
 similar criticism to the earlier traditions of Israel, nor 
 think it strange if the facts underlying them turn out in 
 certain respects to be something different from the literal 
 sense of the forms in which they are embodied. It is one 
 thing, for example, to say that a pious veneration or a 
 simple-minded tradition invested with a nimbus of great- 
 ness the formative characters of its early history, and quite 
 another thing to say that these characters were formed 
 out of late events by a process of legend-spinning. It is 
 one thing to seek to find out the bare historical events of 
 the lives of Wallace and Bruce ; it would be quite another 
 thing to make these heroes the legendary outgrowth of the 
 events that brought about the union of the kingdoms of 
 Scotland and England. In regard, however, to these 
 traditions, tw^o points have to be borne in mind, which 
 mark a contrast between Israelite and Gentile legends. 
 
 (1.) The so-called legendary characters are very unlike 
 the legendary characters of pagan myth. There is 
 nothing hazy or indistinct or semi-divine about them. In 
 their doings we see alike the workings of human frailty, 
 the nicest idiosyncrasies, the most strongly marked indi- 
 viduality ; there is no effort made to conceal their faults 
 or to set one on a higher pedestal tlian his neighbour. 
 The characters of Abraham and Isaac, for example, the 
 legends regarding whom are referred to the same local- 
 ities, and are said to rest on identical facts, are as dis- 
 similar as any two characters in Scripture. And all move- 
 ments and activities of these early personalities are set 
 in such a framework of time and place, that if the char- 
 acters are not drawn from the life, they are the work of 
 a romancer, not of a weaver of fairy tales and legends. 
 Stade himself has said ^ that to ordinary Christians of the 
 
 ^ Geschichte, vol. i. p. 4. 
 I 
 
 
^30 Testimony of Ninth and Eijlith Centuries. 
 
 present day, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Saul, David, and 
 Solomon, Samuel and Elijah, are better known than the 
 heroes of their own history, and that for the mass of our 
 people the Biblical history is history in general. The reason 
 why these characters make this strong impression on the 
 popular mind is not so much that they are heroes of sacred 
 history, as because their individuality is so strongly 
 marked. The most ordinary reader of the Bible never 
 confounds one of the patriarchs with another, nor thinks 
 of mixing up the deeds of one with the doings of another. 
 It is very different with the heroes of pagan mythology, 
 where, in the dim shadow of a time attempted to be re- 
 called, the figures resemble one another, perform the same 
 feats, and, as we attempt to grasp their characters, 
 fade away into unsubstantial phantoms. If these early 
 figures of Israelite history are the creations of art, it is 
 art of the highest kind ; and in any case, it is clear that 
 the legends — if legends they are — are cast in a better 
 mould, and have been preserved in the caskets of a purer 
 national memory. 
 
 (2.) Another striking difference is this : Pagan nations 
 trace back their origin and the origin of their institutions 
 to some great ancestor who embodies in himself all the 
 potentialities of his race. The farther back they can 
 place him, the greater dignity is conferred upon the race ; 
 the higher the antiquity, the more illustrious the history. 
 Now in the case of Israel we find a series of sucli 
 ancestors and a succession of men to whom the moulding 
 of the nation's life is attributed. To be parallel with 
 pagan legend, the Israelite tradition ought to ascribe all 
 to Abraham, or even to Heber, the father of the race of 
 the Hebrews. But though to Abraham is traced in a 
 special manner the beginnings of the religion and the 
 
Well-marked Periods in Early History. 131 
 
 ancestry of the race, the story of Jacob-Israel, which is 
 quite different in its cast, is as important a link in the 
 chain of the tradition.^ And so, though Moses appears as 
 the founder of nationality in a special sense, his greatness 
 is not enhanced either by making the antecedent history a 
 blank, void of all knowledge of religion, or by leaving noth- 
 ing to be done by his successors. The period of Samuel 
 comes again as a well-marked crisis in the history ; and the 
 reigns of David and Solomon have their distinct features 
 as steps in the national development. All this is quite 
 different from the legendary stuff out of which the earlier 
 histories of pagan nations have to be expiscated, and it 
 is simply impossible to make them the inventions of a 
 myth-spinning imagination. The only conclusion we can 
 come to in view of such facts, if we are to attempt to 
 construct Israel's history from the materials before us 
 and not from our own notions, is that these names or 
 characters do represent distinct phases in the growth of 
 the nation, and that it was because they possessed strongly 
 marked characteristics that they have been depicted with 
 such striking individuality. It is impossible to explain 
 the national belief in these epochs which we find at the 
 clear historical period of the eighth century, without 
 assuming that something characteristic and positive, as 
 matter of fact, attached to each of them, and made its 
 impress on the nation's heart and was preserved in the 
 national memory. 
 
 There is a temptation, which is very seductive, to adopt 
 what may be called a nebular hypothesis of early history. 
 Having fixed upon what we consider the earliest histori- 
 cal period, we are apt to suppose that the succession of 
 the race before that period was maintained by existences 
 
 1 Konig, Ilauptprobleme der altisraelitischen Religionsgeschichte, p. 19. 
 
133 Testimony of Ninth and Eighth Centuries. 
 
 of a nebular, unformed, half-human character, forgetting 
 that it is only the distance of our standpoint that makes 
 the characters indistinct. Could we get near enough 
 to the age in which Abraham is placed by the Biblical 
 writers, we should discover that it was an age of human 
 beings of parts and passions like ourselves, for that matter ; 
 and at all events, of individuals no doubt very much such 
 as these writers depict. Thoreau says in one place : ^ " On 
 beholding a picture of a New England village as it then 
 appeared [viz., in the time of the Indian wars], with a 
 fair open prospect, and a light on trees and river as if it 
 were broad noon, we find we had not thought the sun 
 shone in those days, or that men lived in broad daylight 
 then." Similarly Carlyle, in regard to the ' Chronicle of 
 Jocelin,'^ exclaims: "Behold, therefore, this England of 
 tlie year 1200 was no chimerical vacuity or dreamland, 
 peopled with mere vaporous Eantasms, . . . but a green 
 solid place, that grew corn and several other things. The 
 sun shone on it; the vicissitude of seasons and human- 
 fortunes. ... In wondrous Dualism, then as now, lived 
 nations of breathing men; alternating, in all ways, be- 
 tween Light and Dark ; between joy and sorrow, between 
 rest and toil — between hope, hope reaching high as 
 Heaven, and fear deep as very Hell." In this matter 
 all depends upon the nearness of the point of view, and 
 modern writers vary in the length of their vision, for 
 some would make not only the patriarchs, but Moses and 
 Joshua, or even David and his contemporaries, little more 
 than " vaporous Eantasms." The question is, whether at 
 this late time we are in possession of materials that enable 
 us to bridge the gulf of so many centuries, and take our 
 
 1 Walk to Wachusett, quoted in ' Life ' by H. A. Page, p. 38. 
 - Past and Preisent, Book II. chap. i. 
 
}Vliat constitutes a Historical Period 1 133 
 
 stand in broad daylight, or, at all events, in a light suffici- 
 ently bright to enable us to distinguish individuals in the 
 great mass of antiquity. It is not in our present plan to 
 refer to the archaeological discoveries of the present cen- 
 tury. It may merely be mentioned in passing that those 
 tablets of Tell-el-Amarna, for example, cause to start into 
 life a period that has hitherto been regarded by many as 
 very nebulous, and set us down on the solid soil of Pales- 
 tine a century before the exodus, among men with very 
 ordinary occupations and very human feelings ; and tlie 
 monuments of Egypt and Assyria carry us back in a very 
 striking way to those ages, and bring them within the 
 sphere of historical knowledge.^ Apart from these, how- 
 ever, does not this age of the first writing prophets at 
 once enable us to take up firm standing-ground at that 
 period at least, and put us face to face with men who 
 have surely some right to be heard in regard to their 
 nation's history ? Although modern historians will assert 
 that this is the earliest writing age (without, however, 
 having proved it), it is evident that it was not an age at 
 which Israel, as a nation, was waking up out of the uncon- 
 sciousness of antecedent dreamland, and rubbing its eyes 
 and asking whence it came. It has something very definite 
 and positive to say for itself. Wellhausen says that the 
 stories of the patriarchs differ from the traditions in re- 
 gard to earlier times ; and so they do. The question is, 
 whether they are the creations of the national imagina- 
 tion, as he says, or the treasured traditions of the national 
 memory. And when from the writing prophets we can, 
 by the aid of the song of Deborah, not to mention other 
 compositions, pass to firm historical ground in the time 
 of the Judges, it does not seem, after all, to be such an 
 
 1 See Note XIII. 
 
134 Testimony of Ninth and Eighth Centuries. 
 
 extravagant thing to believe that individuals named 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were positive historical char- 
 acters, whose existence was stamped indelibly on the pop- 
 ular memory. Some events need no books to preserve 
 them; they are written on the tablets of thousands of 
 hearts, and transmitted with their life-blood to children's 
 children. Suppose, for illustration, that we find public 
 speakers in Scotland in this century appealing to the 
 deeds of Wallace and Bruce, and referring to the battle 
 of Bannockburn, in order to arouse national shame or 
 national enthusiasm, and that the references are not chal- 
 lenged, but set forth in the confident and assured tone of 
 Hosea and Amos, this would surely be convincing proof 
 that these matters were part of the nation's historical 
 possession. Yet if you ask nine out of every ten Scots- 
 men for a proof of the existence of AVallace and Bruce, 
 or of the occurrence of the battle of Bannockburn, they 
 will probably be at a loss to give it. You could easily 
 show that " Bruce's Address " was written by Burns cen- 
 turies after the time at which the battle is placed, and 
 lie had no ancient documents to go upon ; and from the 
 time in which Burns lived — the time of our great wars — 
 you might easily prove that the song was written for a 
 purpose, to stimulate patriotism and magnify our arms; 
 and you could easily find underlying tlie cliaracter of 
 Bruce a contemporary of the poet distinguished in battle. 
 And then as for old Barbour's Chronicle, we find it so full 
 of discrepancies, and so coloured by superstitious beliefs, 
 that it may be rejected as an untrustworthy document, or 
 set down to a late time — the work of an imitator of the 
 old language of the chroniclers, who projected himself 
 into the distant past. Modern critical rewriting of his- 
 tory, which is often a mere parody of history, is a trick 
 
The Testimony- of a Nation. 135 
 
 as easily learned as literary parody, and it is often as 
 tiresome. Yet the battle of Bannockburn took place ; 
 and the best proof of the fact is, that the whole nation 
 believes it, and has been and is at this moment sensibly 
 affected in its very vitals by the recollection. So the 
 great events of Israel's history, the turning-points, the 
 points determinative of the whole life and history, are 
 attested by the nation at the earliest time at which we 
 are enabled to look for materials on which an opinion can 
 be based. No reason can be given for the invention of 
 them just at this time, or for the significance which the 
 prophets assign to them. It may be that a fond memory 
 invested with a halo of glory the great fathers of the race; 
 it may also be that a simple piety saw wonders where a 
 modern age would see none. Yet the individuality of the 
 characters is not destroyed, nor are the sequence of events 
 and the delineations of character shown to be the work of 
 a fitful and unbridled imagination. 
 
136 
 
 CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 THE KEY OF THE CRITICAL POSITION. 
 
 The precedinf/ inquiry has given us so far a general confirmation of the 
 Biblical view, and the conclusion has been reached by tahing undisputed 
 documents in their natural sense — But since the modern view claims 
 to rest on a critical examination of the documents, we have to consider 
 what the critical sifting amounts to — Stade's statement of the process 
 that has taJcen place in the canonisation of books — The historical books ; 
 how modified in accordance with later views — Critical appeal to con- 
 temporary prophetic writings as a check on the historical — Prophetical 
 books, however, have also to be critically sifted : Stade's account of 
 the case — Examples of the critical adjustment of Amos and Hosea — 
 Striking out, alloioing for unhistorical ideas — Want of fixed objective 
 standard of appeal — The first principle of criticism, how stated and hoio 
 misapplied — The whole controversy, however, turns round the question 
 as to whether the prophets were reformers or originators — Two points 
 eliminated as not in dispute — Still there are three points to be proved 
 before the critical position can be adopted. 
 
 "I GREET you at the beginning of a great career, which 
 yet must have had a long foreground somewhere for sucli 
 a start/' With these words Emerson extended to Walt 
 Whitman a welcome into the literary world; and in a 
 similar way we must greet the so-called first literary 
 age of Israel. By three distinct lines of inquiry we 
 have examined this age, and from a literary, a religious, 
 and a historical point of view, we conclude that it must 
 
"A long Foreground for the Start.'* 137 
 
 have had "a long foreground somewhere for such a 
 start." We have confined ourselves to such books or 
 portions of books as are placed in this period, and wo 
 have found that by a safe inference they lead us back 
 to an anterior time and an antecedent condition of things 
 whicli, substantially, are those represented in the books 
 \vhicli profess to give us a record of those times. The 
 testimony of the writing prophets, Hosoa and Amos, to 
 the history, is particularly weighty. When they refer 
 to the past history of the nation, they do so as to a 
 matter well known ; and when they give a particular 
 representation of the history, they leave no room for 
 doubt that the consciousness of their contemporaries was 
 with them. Now what does this imply ? It implies 
 that the facts and ideas were so wrought into the national 
 mind that there was no need to prove or substantiate 
 them, no thought of gainsaying them. And applying 
 the argument we have employed in regard to the literary 
 and religious features of the books, we conclude that a 
 scheme of history like this was not a sudden product, 
 foisted upon their generation by two individuals. Ee- 
 Ibre it could become, as it clearly had become, the 
 settled belief of the whole nation in any one century, 
 there must have been not merely a set of facts on whicli 
 it was based, but a process of reflection tipon them, a 
 holding of them up by some person or persons before the 
 nation's eyes, or a provision of some kind for keeping 
 them alive in the nation's remembrance. Again, there- 
 fore, we are driven back to an antecedent time, during 
 which these traditions took concrete shape, and be- 
 came, not only recollections of events, but interpreta- 
 tions of them in a religious historical sense. From every 
 point of view, therefore, it appears that the century we 
 
138 The Key of the Critical Position. 
 
 are considering is not merely, or not mainly, the starting- 
 point of a new development, but that, preceding it, there 
 is implied a very considerable stage of culture and a 
 long process of religious reflection and education. All 
 this, of course, is not sufficient to establish the existence 
 or composition of the disputed books at the early period 
 to which they relate. It is enougli, however, to show 
 that writings of a historical and religious kind, such as 
 they are, might quite well have been composed before 
 what has been provisionally called the first literary age. 
 Moreover, the testimony afforded by Hosea and Amos, 
 and by writings of their century, amounting, as we con- 
 tend, to the testimony of the nation itself, will be re- 
 garded, by some minds at least, as stronger testimony 
 than that of written compositions, and a sufficient guar- 
 antee that the disputed books, which profess to relate 
 the earlier national history, at whatever time they may 
 have been written, rest upon and are in accordance with 
 the same tradition, which we find to be a national posses- 
 sion at the period of the undisputed compositions. 
 
 So far as we have gone, then, we seem to get a general 
 confirmation of the Biblical theory. And the conclusion 
 at which we have arrived, whatever may be its value, has 
 not been based upon any of the writings that are said to 
 be late and unhistorical, nor has any attempt been made 
 to strain words beyond their natural sense, or to assume 
 anything that ordinary experience and common-sense do 
 not warrant. According to the modern critical historians, 
 however, the matter is not by any means so simple as 
 this ; for the conclusion to which they come, based, as it 
 is claimed, on the same documents critically examined, is 
 very different, as has already been indicated. We must 
 now, therefore, consider somewhat more closely what this 
 
Stade on Canonical Writings. 139 
 
 critical sifting of the documents amounts to, and on what 
 principles it is carried out, so as to discover, if possible, 
 what residuum of testimony remains to us as authorita- 
 tive and trustworthy. 
 
 A great part of Wellhausen's History of Israel is de- 
 voted to what he terms "History of Tradition," in which 
 he goes over the historical books in detail, pointing out 
 how later views have been superimposed on earlier ac- 
 counts, or made to explain or even originate earlier alleged 
 events. Stade, near the beginning of liis history, lays 
 down in a preliminary way, and more explicitly, the 
 grounds for this critical sifting. Canonical writings, he 
 says,'' are usually affected in only too sensible a manner 
 by the process of canonisation. With every act of canon- 
 isation there is inseparably connected a thorough revisal 
 and working over — a final redaction, in fact, of the work 
 canonised. The reason for this is, that a definite final 
 development of thought is only reached after varied 
 mental movement; and those standing at the end of a 
 chain of development and looking back at the process by 
 which it has been reached, assuming that the final form 
 is alone right, will find blanks and contradictions in the 
 writings tliat have been composed in the course of this 
 development. The final redaction will seek to fill up the 
 blanks and to smooth down the contradictions ; and this 
 gives rise to insertions, omissions, and patching up of the 
 original. Even after canonisation has taken place, writ- 
 ings are exposed to defacement in tlie interest of some 
 party or tendency which has gained the upper hand and 
 possesses the guardianship of the books. 
 
 This working over of the materials of tradition, Stade 
 
 ^ Geschichte, p. 14 f. I give the substance of the passage instead of 
 a literal translation. 
 
1 40 The Key of the Critical Position. 
 
 proceeds, raises special difficulties, inasmuch as the whole 
 material is subjected to a repeated systematic revision to 
 adapt it to the ideas of each successive period at w^hich 
 revision takes place ; and though among other peoples 
 the historical traditions have also been remoulded to suit 
 later ideas, nowhere is the process more energetically 
 carried out than where religious interests come into play ; 
 for then it is not merely a case of touching up individual 
 details, but a radical refashioning of the whole material 
 of tradition in harmony with the theological system pre- 
 vailing at the time. 
 
 He then goes on to specify the occasions on which the 
 traditions of Israel were thus revised, and the interests in 
 w4iich they were refashioned. The historical matter, he 
 says, underwent three different revisions. (1.) In the year 621 
 B.C. was discovered a law-book (the Code of Deuteronomy), 
 which became authoritative, and was made the basis of a 
 reform of worship. This code, which professes to come from 
 Moses, has for its chief requirement that " the place which 
 God should choose " on the west side of the Jordan — viz., 
 Jerusalem — was to be the only authorised seat of sacrificial 
 worship. When once this code had gained recognition and 
 ascendancy, there ensued a process — beginning in the end 
 of the reign of Josiah and lasting on till the first part of 
 the exile — of retouching and working over the whole tra- 
 ditional material, in accordance with what had now become 
 standard and accepted views. For, seeing that all tlie 
 leaders of the nation up to the year 621 had systemati- 
 cally (and naturally) worshipped contrary to the require- 
 ments of the Deuteronomic Code, these men, from the time 
 of David and Solomon onwards, must have seemed, in the 
 eyes of a person brought up under the new ideas, nothing 
 better than half heathen. But this was repugnant to hi* 
 
licdactional Revision of Tradition, 141 
 
 religious experience, and so the traditional matter was 
 revised under the ruling ideas : that Israel from the time of 
 Moses had been a sacred community, that Moses was suc- 
 ceeded by Joshua, Joshua by the Judges, and that Saul's 
 reign was a declension from the divinely appointed organ- 
 isation of the people. (2.) At a later time the law-book 
 found in 621 was joined with other writings, and the whole, 
 through Ezra's labours, made the law-book of the commun- 
 ity. The most recent of the works embraced in this collec- 
 tion was the so-called Priestly Code, which gives another 
 and more developed view of the history of Israel ; and in 
 accordance with this, again, the earlier history was revised, 
 so as to agree with tlie conditions of this Code. For as a 
 fully developed ritual, claiming to be of Mosaic origin, was 
 now in force, it was necessary to represent ancient Israel 
 as living also under a similar organisation, divided into 
 twelve tribes, with not only a sacred tribe of Levi, but a 
 family of Aaron with special privileges. And whereas 
 tlie Deuteronomic law had been content to date the 
 unity of worship from the time of Solomon's Temple, the 
 Priestly Code dated it back to the wilderness, and pro- 
 vided the people with a tabernacle. (3.) Finally, the 
 books of Ezra, ISTehemiah, and Chronicles were composed 
 about the year 300 B.C., with the view of exhibiting the 
 whole ancient history in the light of the post -exilian 
 Judaism, and in accordance with the circumstances which 
 arose on the basis of the Priestly Code. 
 
 These later revisions of tlie traditional material, it is to 
 be observed, did not, on the theory, obliterate the older 
 traditions, which are still capable of being discovered by 
 patient criticism. In regard to the last revision, Well- 
 hausen says it is a fortunate matter that " Chronicles did 
 not succeed in superseding the historical books upon which 
 
142 The Key of the Critical Position. 
 
 it was founded ; the older and the newer version have 
 been preserved together." ^ But it is different with the 
 books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings. Here " the whole 
 area of tradition has finally been uniformly covered with 
 "an alluvial deposit, by which the configuration of the 
 surface has been determined." ^ It is the work of criti- 
 cism to remove this deposit, to get below it to the earlier 
 form of the tradition, and to assign the various deposits 
 to the dates at which they were deposited. In this pro- 
 cess, we are told, "it may stand as a general principle 
 that the nearer history is to its origin, the more profane 
 it is."^ " What is usually given out as the peculiar theo- 
 cratic element in the history of Israel, is the element 
 which has been introduced by the redaction. . . . This 
 pedantic supranaturalism — ' sacred history,' according to 
 the approved recipe — is not to be found in the original 
 accounts. In these Israel is a people just like other 
 people; nor is even his relationship to Jehovah other- 
 wise conceived of than is, for example, that of Moab to 
 Chemosh." * 
 
 It will now appear why at the outset, to avoid contro- 
 versy, we left out of account certain portions of the books 
 of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, since these, it is claimed, 
 have undergone a Deuteronomistic revision,^ and also those 
 parts of the Pentateuch other than the patriarchal stories 
 of the Jehovist, because the Pentateucli is strongly over- 
 laid with additions in the spirit of the Priestly Code. 
 Put the question here arises, Is it possible, and if so, 
 by what means, to separate earlier from late, and to de- 
 
 1 Hist., p. 228. Mbid. ^ n^i^., p. 245. Mbid., p. 235. 
 
 5 The revision in the spirit of Deuteronomy is usually designated the 
 Deuteronomist, in distinction from the Deuteronomer, or author of the 
 writing found in the Temple. 
 
Critical Sifting of the Tradition. 143 
 
 termine the time at wliicli the later supervened upon the 
 earlier parts in those writings that profess to be history ? 
 To this Stade, and those of his way of thinking, answer 
 in effect that the revisers or redactors were not so skilful 
 as to entirely conceal what they worked upon ; that some- 
 times political events enable us to determine at least 
 whether a piece belongs to the northern or southern 
 kingdom, to pre -exilian or post - exilian ^ times, and so 
 forth. But Stade says very truly ^ that if we are to fix 
 the rise of any disputed writing, we must have a firm 
 point by which to fix it; and the prophetic movement, 
 he adds, furnishes a number of such fixed points. It will 
 be found, in fact, that the whole theory of the rise of the 
 Deuteronomic and Priestly Codes at the periods to which 
 they are respectively assigned, appeals for support in 
 the last resource to the prophetic writings ; and so indeed 
 does the whole theory of the development of the history. 
 For in the prophetical writings we have contemporary 
 documents, which give us a direct knowledge of the times 
 to which they belong. They enable us, therefore, to con- 
 trol the so-called historical compositions, and to say what 
 is pre-prophetic and what prophetic, since the whole re- 
 ligious history was powerfully modified by prophetic 
 influence. 
 
 Leaving out of view for the present the aids furnished 
 by political events and considerations of general develop- 
 ment, we seem, on the admission of the critical writers, to 
 have obtained, in the writings of contemporary prophets, 
 a sure standard by which to estimate the statements of 
 the historical books, and to determine generally the course 
 of the historical development; and so, in the preceding 
 chapters, we have appealed with confidence to the books 
 
 ^ Wellhauscn, Hist, of Israel, p. 13. 2 Qeschichte, i, p. 19. 
 
Hi The Key of the Critical Position, 
 
 of Hosea and Amos. Another complication of the matter, 
 liowever, occurs here ; for this fixed standard, it appears, 
 is only to be accepted with reservation. The propheti- 
 cal writings also, in becoming " canonical," have passed 
 through vicissitudes similar to those of the historical 
 books. This is what Stade has to say on the subject : ^ — 
 
 "We must, indeed, in using the prophetical literature, ahvays 
 keep before us the fact that the judgments found therein regard- 
 ing historical persons and circumstances are passed from a party 
 point of view. Since, however, we are able to survey the prophetic 
 activity as a movement running in a straight line, and fully com- 
 pleted, the points of view are sufficiently known to us from which 
 the treatment of the history was regarded by the prophets, and we 
 are thus in a position to control and correct their judgments. More- 
 over, it is to be noted that a writer who does not set himself, ex 
 professo, to write history according to definite guiding principles, 
 but only touches on historical matters by the way in the unfolding 
 of his thoughts, will never allow his ideas to have such a moulding 
 influence on the historical material as a historian who proceeds 
 upon such principles. He will probably view persons and circum- 
 stances at an oblique visual angle, and, just for that reason, will 
 not judge correctly. He will, however, hardly go so far as to draw 
 generally the conclusions from his own ideas, and consequently will 
 communicate sufficiently accurate details, by which we can correct 
 those that are inaccurate. 
 
 " In the employment of the prophetical literature there is still a 
 second point to be well noted, which is generally overlooked. The 
 development of prophecy, whose literary products lie before us in 
 the Old Testament, is only development in one straight line. But 
 the development of human thought [as explained in connection with 
 the historical writings] is not in the habit of moving in this one- 
 sided way. Then we have besides, in the prophetical writings of 
 the Old Testament, sufficient indications pointing to the conclusion 
 that the development of the Old Testament prophecy was once a 
 much richer and more manifold thing. The false prophets who 
 were combated by the authors of the prophetical writings that have 
 
 1 Geschichte, i. p. 80 ff. 
 
Critical Sifting of Prophetical Writinrjs. 145 
 
 come down to us, are representatives of divergent prophetical ten- 
 dencies. They also wrote prophetical works. It is self-evident, 
 liowever, that only the works of such prophets have been handed 
 down as lie in the direction of the prophetic ideas which gained the 
 victory and came to be universally received. One of the things that 
 mainly determined this result was the circumstance whether or not 
 the prophecies of a prophet had been fulfilled. From those prophets, 
 who, in opposition to Jeremiah, prophesied the victory of the Judiean 
 state over Babylon, not a single work, as a matter of course, has 
 come doMTi to us. When, however, it was a question of receiving 
 or not receiving a prophetic ])iece into the capon, it was not always 
 so simple a matter for a work to prove that it belonged to a certain 
 mode of thought; and accordingly, just when the collection of the 
 writings of the prophets was made, there must have taken place 
 a very special and thorough overworking of the material handed 
 down, with regard to the points of view explained already [in con- 
 nection with the canonisation of historical writings], and by means 
 of the expedients already described." 
 
 We cannot enter into all the questions here raised as 
 to what happened to books in the process of canonisation. 
 It is quite apparent that what is assumed to have 
 taken place is something very different from the events 
 incident in the ordinary transmission of ancient books. 
 These sweeping assertions, however, are of no value un- 
 less supported by positive proof ; and it could be shown 
 that the graver portion of them is entirely destitute of 
 historical foundation.^ The struggle between opposing 
 tendencies, so far as it did take place, lies before us quite 
 patent in the Biblical writings ; nor is there the shadow 
 of proof that any attempt was made in these writings to 
 suppress one side of it ; and the genuineness of the wait- 
 ings before us is not to be settled by such a priori canons. 
 But the thoughtful reader will ask at this point, Where 
 now is the fixed standard of appeal? If prophetical 
 writers wrote under a bias, which must be allowed for and 
 
 ^ See Konig's Hauptprobleme, pp. 12 ff., and his Falsche Extreme, p. 3. 
 
 ^r;> Of TK?. ""^-^^ 
 
 ITIHIVBP-ITY 
 
146 The Key of the Critical Position, 
 
 corrected ; if their writings liave not come down to us in 
 their original form, and require to be critically adjusted ; 
 or if the prophets even held erroneous views in regard lo 
 the national history, which have to be rectified, — who 
 holds the infallible standard for determining all the grave 
 and difficult questions which then arise ? The answer 
 will perhaps appear as we now proceed to observe tlie 
 application of the critical canons to the two books of 
 Hosea and Amos on which we have hitherto relied. We 
 have already seen ^ that, by both these prophets, a certain 
 pre-eminence is given to the liouse of David and the 
 southern kingdom of Judah. The modern theory, how- 
 ever, maintains that it was at a much later time that 
 this pre-eminence was assigned to Judah, and that in 
 the early prophetic period the balance of power lay 
 in the northern kingdom. Accordingly, Stade pro- 
 ceeds to strike out of Amos as " insertions " certain ex- 
 pressions (among others^) that are at variance with his 
 theory. The most important in this connection are the 
 two verses 4 and 5 of chapter ii., containing the prophet's 
 denunciation of the sin of Judah, "because they have 
 despised the law of the Lord, and not kept His command- 
 ments." It may suit Stade and others to regard this as 
 an " insertion," but it is important to observe that if the 
 verses are omitted, there would be a singular incomplete- 
 ness of the whole passage, chapters i., ii., in which Amos 
 makes a survey of the neighbouring nations on every 
 side, ending with Israel, to which he directly addressed 
 his words. The omission altogether of Judah from the 
 
 1 Chap. V. p. 111. 
 
 2 Stade, Gescliichte, i. p. 571, footnote. Besides the passage, ii. 4, 5, 
 considered in the text, the other portions rejected by Stade are, iv. 1 3 
 (partly), v, 8 f., ix. 6. Reference will be made to these in another place. 
 
Inter]polations in Amos and Hosea. 147 
 
 survey, tlierefore, would be unaccountable on the mere 
 ground of literary form, to say nothing further in tlie 
 meantime of the substance. The book of Hosea fares no 
 better at the hands of the critics. It is part of their theory 
 that those passages in the historical books which express 
 disapproval of the monarchy, as inconsistent with the di- 
 vinely organised theocracy, are due to the Deuteronomistic 
 revision. Since, therefore, Hosea (more than a century 
 before the discovery of the Deuteronomic Code) is found 
 to speak in that sense, the passages must be removed. 
 Stade says : ^ " Since tliis prophet's expectations of the 
 future, owing to his peculiar representation of the mon- 
 archy, differed in cardinal points from the type of view 
 of the future that came to prevail with Isaiali, an attempt 
 has been made at a later time to get over the difficulty 
 by the insertion of the missing details." Consequently 
 we are told to strike out i. 7, ii. 1-3, which break the 
 connection and disturb the order of thought; and also 
 in iii. 5 we are to omit at least the words " and David 
 their king," as well as iv. 15, viii. 14, which refer to 
 Judah.2 Wellhausen also perceives the difficulties that 
 emerge here, and has a similar method of laying them. 
 
 1 Geschichte, i. p. 577, footnote. 
 
 2 The passages in question are these :— 
 
 Hosea i. 7 : " But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and will 
 save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by 
 sword, nor by battle, nor by horses, nor by horsemen." 
 
 ii. 1-3 (viz., in A. V. i. 10 f.) : "Yet the number of the children of 
 Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor num- 
 bered : and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto 
 them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them. Ye are the 
 sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the chil- 
 dren of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and 
 they shall come up out of the land : for great shall be the day of Jezreel. 
 Say unto your brethren, Ammi ; and to your sisters, Kuhamah." 
 
 iii. 5 : " Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the 
 
148 The Key of the Critical Position, 
 
 He confesses that Hosea " appears to have regarded the 
 kingdom as such as an evil ; in more than one expression 
 he makes it the antithesis of the rule of Jehovah." ^ And 
 having given what he considers the explanation of this, 
 he says in a footnote : " He even speaks with favour of 
 David and the kingdom of Judah, but I consider all such 
 references in Hosea (as well as in Amos) to be interpo- 
 lations. In i. 7 there is a reference to the deliverance of 
 Jerusalem under Hezekiah." 
 
 The process of " striking out," however, does not meet 
 the whole difficulty. The teaching of Hosea and Amos 
 on important points is so ingrained in the whole books 
 that it cannot be evaded. Accordingly, another line of 
 explanation has to be followed. Stade says : ^ " Hosea 
 is the first who conceives the whole of the past from the 
 point of view of a declension (Ah/all), and his opinion in 
 regard to the monarchy is but a part of this general 
 view. And just as his ideas of the intercourse of Israel 
 with foreign nations had, along with other things, a 
 material influence on the later Jewish ideas regarding 
 the heathen, so also his use of the argument from his- 
 tory, in order to prove to the people their deviation from 
 the requirements of Jehovah and their declension, pre- 
 pared the way for the unhistorical view that came to 
 be taken of the past, and the treatment of it in the 
 light of later religious conceptions. That view, which 
 took Israel's history as a sacred liistory under a process 
 
 Lord their God, and David their king ; and shall fear the Lord and His 
 goodness in the latter day." 
 
 iv. 15: "Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah 
 oflfend." 
 
 viii. 14 : "For Israel hath forgotten his Maker, and buildeth temples; 
 and Judah hath multiplied fenced cities." 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 417. ^ Geschichte, i. p. 582. 
 
The Final Court of A2'>i:eal. 149 
 
 of throwing a light of its own on the actual circum- 
 stances, did not indeed take its beginning from him, but 
 received from him its strongest impulse." ^ 
 
 The position in which we are now placed is this. The 
 modern historians have refused to call the books of the 
 Pentateuch as evidence ; they have eliminated those 
 " summaries " of the history which are overlaid on the 
 historical books ; they triumphantly appeal to contem- 
 porary witnesses ; and we have accepted them. And 
 then, when their own witnesses step into the box, and 
 are expected to bless the modern theory, they curse it 
 altogether. And this by no forced cross-examination on 
 the part of those who were to be confuted by them, but 
 by spontaneous straightforward statements ; and forthwith 
 those who called them proceed to tell us that the evidence 
 is to be taken with reservation. For later additions 
 have been made to the testimony, and these must be 
 removed before we can get the true statement of the case. 
 Nay, these prophets themselves, even when we get at 
 their own words, are not to be relied on for matters of 
 fact when they tell us that other teachers taught the same 
 truth before them, nor for their statements of history 
 when they declare that their nation had been taught a 
 better religion and had declined from it. The question 
 again recurs, Where now is the fixed point and firm 
 standard by which we are to reach the truth ? The 
 historical books are to be corrected by tlie aid of the 
 prophetical ; but where is the standard for correcting the 
 
 ^ Stade is not by any means alone in discrediting the views of the 
 prophets. Smend, in an article in ' Studien und Kritikeu' for 1876 on 
 the stage of development in the Israelite religion presupposed by the 
 prophets of the eighth century, speaks in a similar strain. He is criti- 
 cised by Konig, Offenbarungsbegriff, vol. i. p. 23 f. 
 
150 The Key of the Critical Position. 
 
 prophetical books ? On what authority are these " inser- 
 tions" to be removed; by what guide are we to adjust 
 the prophetic misapprehensions ? The only " fixed " thing 
 perceivable is the theory itself ; the only standard is 
 *' strike out " or " I consider." For the rest, what may be 
 called by admirers a delicate process of criticism may 
 appear to others uncommonly like a piece of literary 
 thimblerigging. You come upon the critic suddenly when 
 he professes to be engaged in one of those delicate pro- 
 cesses of criticism, and you find him slipping his subjective 
 scale up his sleeve. The passages which disturb a pet 
 theory are declared to disturb the connection. We have, 
 in fact, no contemporary reliable documents till the critic 
 lias adjusted them ; and the theory ultimately is appealed 
 to in confirmation of itself. 
 
 Looking to the assumptions made by Stade as to what 
 has happened to historical and prophetical books before 
 and during canonisation, the difficulty of getting beneath 
 the documents to the precise facts of the history will 
 appear to most minds stupendous; and looking to the 
 absence of fixity in the standard of judgment, one cannot 
 help wondering at, if not admiring, the confidence with 
 which critics set to work on the task. One,^ for ex- 
 ample, tells us that "it is not needful in starting to lay 
 down any fixed rules of procedure. The ordinary laws of 
 evidence and good sense must be our guides. And these 
 we must apply to the Bible just as we should do to any 
 other ancient book. That is the only principle we have 
 to lay down. And it is plainly a just principle." So 
 undoubtedly it is, if only all were agreed as to what 
 "the ordinary laws of evidence and good sense " amount 
 
 1 Robertson Smith, the Old Testament in the Jewish Church, Lect. i. 
 p. 25. 
 
The Basis of Historical Inquiry, 151 
 
 to. Another^ of a more daring temperament, after giving 
 his own sketch of a part of the history, which differs toto 
 eodo from that of the Biblical books, says, "The sketch 
 which we have given can be extracted from our sources 
 without too much trouble. In order to disengage the 
 encumbrances {surcliargcs) which the theological point of 
 view of the redactor has introduced into them, all that is 
 wanted {il sujfflt) is a little practice and some decision." 
 Some ! Critics, indeed, profess to proceed upon a prin- 
 ciple which, properly taken, is the basis of historical 
 inquiry — viz., "that every book bears the stamp of the 
 time and circumstances in which it was produced." ^ 
 But in the exercise of this principle many of them set 
 to work after the manner of a schoolboy, who, finding 
 that his new knife can cut a stick, employs it in bark- 
 ing fruit-trees and hacking furniture. In order to de- 
 termine an author's time, expressions will be seized 
 upon which might refer to any time ; or, his time 
 being determined, his position in it and even his rela- 
 tion to it will be circumscribed by our meagre know- 
 ledge of what the time and circumstances were. The 
 most lofty poetry may be degraded into the dullest prose ; 
 critics, " unable to follow prophecy in its flight, clip its 
 wings ; " ^ and because, forsooth, a prophet is to be 
 regarded as speaking to his own ago, he must not be 
 allowed to see anything beyond it. Properly speaking, 
 the first principle of criticism is that every book bears 
 the stamp of the man that produced it ; and it is 
 from the book that we are to know the man. It is not 
 
 ^ Maurice Vernes, Rdsultats, p. 26. 
 2 Old Testament in Jewish Church, Lect. i. p. 23. 
 
 ^ So Delitzsch speaks of men of the type of Grotius, a type not by any 
 means extinct. — Comm. on Isaiah, last Eng. ed., vol. i. p. 41. 
 
152 The Key of the Critical Position, 
 
 legitimate to determine beforehand both his time and 
 his circumstances, and then to interpret the whole book 
 in the light of the position we have assigned to the writer. 
 It is no doubt true that every man belongs to his age, 
 and is to a certain extent a product of it. But are there 
 not men who mould their age ? Are there not men in 
 advance of their age ? Are not the circumstances under 
 which an author writes partly the influences of a past 
 time, and partly also the adumbrations of a coming time ? 
 In a word, to tie a writer down to the circumstances 
 and surroundings of his day is utterly unscientific and 
 opposed to experience. To treat Hebrew prophets, of all 
 men, in this way, is simply to lay down an insurmount- 
 able barrier to our understandino' them. 
 • Of the critical pretension to be able to determine dates 
 tDf passages by occult references, we have just seen an 
 example in Wellhausen's confident assertion that Hosea 
 i. 7 must be as late as the time of Hezekiah. It is an 
 example as good as many of those with which his pages 
 are thickly strewn. Different readers will estimate differ- 
 ently the ability which they display. I confess that many 
 of them do not, to my mind, exhibit even " such a display 
 of ingenuity as makes people clap their hands and cry 
 iccll clone! but does not seriously persuade them."^ If 
 they were merely the occasional coruscations of the criti- 
 cal wit, serving to enliven the dull pages, they might 
 be borne with. But they are, in fact, advanced with 
 a gravity which at times makes the reader doubt his own 
 sanity, and given forth as the results of critical science, 
 out of which a new history is to be constructed. 
 
 We come back, however, to the essential point. The 
 
 ^ Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible, chap. v. § 1. The whole section 
 is well worth reading in our connection. 
 
The Parting-Point of the Two Theories. 153 
 
 key of the position is the view that is taken of the 
 teaching of the prophets ; and at this point the two 
 theories are quite opposed. The Biblical theory repre- 
 sents the prophets as continuators, reformers, recalling 
 their people to a standard of religion from which they 
 had fallen. The modern critical historians place a wide 
 gulf between the pre-prophetic and the prophetic re- 
 ligion, tlie general position being that tlie pre-prophetic 
 religion of Israel differed little, if in anything, from 
 the religion of the nations who lived round about 
 Israel. " The religion of David and Solomon," says 
 Eenan,^ "did not differ appreciably from that of the 
 neighbouring peoples of Palestine." Jahaveh, as others 
 put it, was to the Israelites very much what Chemosh and 
 Moloch were to the Moabites and Ammonites.^ So far 
 from appearing among the Canaanites with distinctive 
 religious beliefs and customs, they resembled them in all 
 essential points, settled quietly among them in many or 
 in most cases, and finding their ideas conform to their 
 own, adopted their sacred places, attaching to them 
 stories of their own tribal heroes, but observing the re- 
 ligious customs and worship of their neighbours. 
 This is what Stade says:^ — 
 
 " That the religion of Israel, from being a nature religion, became 
 a religion of the spirit ; that such a religion arose in the ancient 
 world is, in the first place, the merit of the prophetic movement, 
 and in the second place, the result of the political fortunes of the 
 people. The prophetic movement had to wage violent conflicts 
 with the popular religion." 
 
 And Wellhausen,^ after remarking that the prophets, 
 
 * Pref. to second vol. of Histoire d'Israel, p. ii. 
 
 2 Stade, Geschichte, i. p. 429. 
 
 » Ibid., p. 9. * Hist, of Israel, p. 4C1. 
 
154 The Key of the Critical Position. 
 
 who first appeared as a novel phenomenon some time 
 before the beginning of the Philistine war, had in the 
 interval (ending with Ahab) become so naturalised that 
 they had a recognised and essential place in connection 
 with the religion of Jehovah, goes on to say : — 
 
 "First-rate importance on the whole cannot be claimed for the 
 Nebiim, but occasionally there arose amongst them a man in whom 
 the spirit which was cultivated within their circles may be said to 
 have risen to the explosive pitch ; " and " the prototype of this class 
 of exceptional prophetis, whom we not unjustly have been accus- 
 tomed to regard as the true, is Elijah of Thisbe, the contemporary 
 of Ahab. To him first," Wellhausen proceeds,^ "was it revealed 
 that we have not, in the various departments of nature, a variety of 
 forces worthy of our worship, but that there exists over all but one 
 Holy One and one Mighty One, who reveals Himself not in nature, 
 but in law and righteousness in the world of man." 
 
 Passing on to Amos, we are told ^ — 
 
 " Amos was the founder and the purest type of a new phase of 
 prophecy. The impending conflict of Asshur with Jehovah and 
 Israel, the ultimate downfall of Israel, is its theme." 
 
 Aizain:^ — ■ 
 
 "The canonical prophets, the series of whom begins with Amos, 
 were separated by an essential distinction from the class which had 
 preceded them, and which still continued to be the type of the 
 common prophet. They did not seek to kindle either the enthusi- 
 asm or the fanaticism of the multitude ; they swam not with but 
 against the stream. They were not patriotic, at least in the ordinary 
 sense of that word ; they prophesied not good but evil for their 
 people (Jer. xxviii. 8). Until their time the nation had sprung up 
 out of the conception of Jehovah; now the conception of Jehovah 
 was casting the nation into the shade. The natural bond between 
 the two was severed, and the relation was henceforward viewed as 
 conditional. As God of the righteousness which is the law of the 
 whole universe, Jehovah could be Israel's God only in so far as in 
 
 1 Hist., of Israel, p. 462. = Ibid., p. 472. ^ j^i^j,^ p_ 473^ 
 
The Founders of " Etliical Monotheism." 155 
 
 Israel the right was recognised and followed. The ethical element 
 destroyed the national character of the old religion. It still ad- 
 dressed itself, to be sure, more to the nation and to society at large 
 than to the individual ; it insisted less upon a pure heart than upon 
 righteous institutions ; but nevertheless the first step towards uni- 
 versalism had been accomplished, towards at once the general 
 diffusion and the individualisation of religion. Thus, although the 
 prophets were far from originating a new conception of God, they 
 none the less were the founders of what has been called 'ethical 
 monotheism.' But with them this ethical monotheism was no 
 product of the 'self-evolution of dogma,' but a progressive step 
 which had been called forth simply by the course of events." 
 
 We shall have occasion to consider at length in the 
 sequel the various positions here assumed. In the mean- 
 time particular attention must be called to this iteration 
 of " Amos was the first to " say this or that, " Hosea first 
 perceived " this and the other thing, or " to Elijah was 
 first revealed" something else. So Wellhausen says in 
 another connection : ^ "It was Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah 
 who introduced the movement against the old popular 
 worship of the high places; in doing so they are not 
 in the least actuated by a deep-rooted preference for the 
 temple of Jerusalem, but by ethical motives, which 
 manifest themselves in them for the first time in his- 
 tory, and which we can see springing up in them before 
 our very eyes." If these statements are allowed to go 
 unchallenged, they amount to practically the begging of 
 the whole question — for the very thing we want to prove 
 is whether or not there was antecedent teaching such as 
 that of these men. But the statements are utterly un- 
 warranted by any facts at our disposal. 
 
 It would be a hazardous thing to say of any writer in 
 whose works we first come upon the enunciation of a 
 truth, that he was the very first to grasp it. And in 
 
 * Hist, of Israel, p. 4 7. 
 
156 The Key of the Critical Position. 
 
 regard to Amos and Hosea all that we can admit in tlie 
 meantime is, that these are the two who furnish us the 
 earliest undisputed contemporary writings. But even if 
 they are the first to hold the views ascribed to them, 
 is it necessary to conclude that they were mistaken 
 when they refer to the liistorical development of the 
 religion ? This is the view we have seen Stade takes 
 of Hosea — viz., that he was wrong in declaring that 
 Israel had declined from the true religion ; and that 
 lie thus prepared the way for the unhistorical theocratic 
 view which came to prevail. And yet is not this just 
 one of the points on which we ought to take the true 
 prophet to be a safe guide and a skilful interpreter? 
 The polemic of the prophets, says Wellhausen,^ "is a 
 purely prophetic one — i.e., individual, ' theopneust,' in the 
 sense that it is independent of all traditional and pre- 
 conceived human opinions;" and Eobertson Smith ^ says, 
 " The possession of a single thought about Jehovah, not 
 derived from current religious teaching, but springing up 
 in a soul as a word from Jehovah Himself, is enough to 
 constitute a prophet, and lay on him the duty of speaking 
 to Israel what he has learned of Israel's God." Now it 
 is undoubted that to the prophets Israel's God was closely 
 connected with Israel's national life ; it was " God in 
 history," not God in His essence, that was tlie subject of 
 their study, the theme of their teacliing. And if, on their 
 own proper theme, in their own prophetic spliere, they are 
 wrong, in what respect, we may ask, are they true prophets 
 at all? 
 
 Supposing still, however, that these prophets " were 
 the first " to teach as they did, let us consider the situa- 
 tion that arises. What we would have to believe is that, 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 48. 2 Trophets, p. 182. 
 
Introduction of a New Idea of History. 157 
 
 whereas, as Wellliausen ^ expresses the matter, tlie nation 
 had up to the time of Hosea been tlie ideal of the re- 
 ligion in actual realisation, and the people at large had no 
 feeling that they were doing anything inconsistent with 
 the principles of the national religion, this prophet now 
 confronted them with a new ideal, and taught them that 
 their present religious position was a declension from an 
 earlier one. Now it is conceivable that a view taken up 
 by Hosea or Amos might afterwards become the basis of 
 an unhistorical conception ; it is conceivable that Hosea 
 or Amos may have given hints of past events or person- 
 ages that were afterwards expanded into so-called history. 
 But I doubt very much whether the ideas of a whole 
 generation as to its own past history are thus produced 
 by the neio teaching of one or two men. For if the view 
 originated with Hosea, and gained acceptance straightway 
 on his word, we have to suppose that this one man not 
 only introduced a new conception of the whole of the 
 past history, but obliterated from the consciousness another 
 conception of it which had previously existed. If lan- 
 guage has any meaning at all, the hearers of Hosea were 
 at one with him as regards the facts of the history and 
 their significance, however degenerate they were in prac- 
 tice. In the line of prophets that follow Hosea, we see no 
 indication of the gradual acceptance of his view, which 
 must have taken place if it was new. His view is that 
 of all the prophets. The position, in fact, is entirely 
 forced and unnatural, and shows simply the shifts to 
 which one is reduced in pushing his theory through at 
 all hazards. Moreover, we are not so anxious in the 
 meantime to know the influence of Hosea's views on 
 succeeding times, as to know the origin of Hosea's own 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 491. 
 
158 The Key of the Critical Position. 
 
 views ; and as to this, the vital point, we get no in- 
 formation. Modern writers demand development; but 
 we have now found and shall always find that when 
 it comes to a vital point like this, their development 
 breaks down : whereas the Biblical writers set before 
 us a development which, at all events, in this case 
 is comprehensible, and, taken in connection with the 
 explicit declarations of the prophets before us, answers 
 the conditions of the present problem. For it is to be 
 observed that Hosea does not deal in generalities in 
 stating his view. It might have been supposed that, like 
 other moralists, he was a laudator temporis acti, and being 
 of a melancholy spirit, dwelt on the " good old times " that 
 were gone. But this is not the case. He does indeed 
 speak of the early love of Jahaveh's bride for her Hus- 
 band, and he does blame tlie people of his age for falling 
 very low ; but he lays his finger on certain positive sins 
 in their past history, and indicates definite places in which 
 their sin had been most flagrant^ — a proof that he was 
 not talking at large or inventing past history — a proof 
 that the conscience of the nation could not gainsay what 
 was laid to its charge. 
 
 And now, before examining in detail the fundamental 
 points in dispute, let us eliminate the elements of the 
 problem in regard to which there is no controversy. 
 
 1. In the first place, it is not denied that the prophets 
 waged war against the popular religion and worship. 
 The prophets themselves tell us so, and the historical 
 books no less distinctly. The question simply is, Was 
 the popular religion with which they were in conflict the 
 only accepted and recognised religion of the nation up to 
 their time, or was it a declension from it and perversion of 
 
 ^ See Hosea iv. 15 ff. ; ix. 10, 15 ; x. 5 ; xiii. 1. 
 

 The Prophets and the Popular Pelif/ion. " 1'50 
 
 it ? The modern school leaves it to be inferred that it 
 was the religion of Mosaism ; and Diihm seems to say as 
 .much when he declares ^ that the prophetic consciousness 
 was at variance with tlie Jahaveh religion as it was rep- 
 resented at the Temple of Solomon ; and Wellhausen also, 
 when lie says : ^ " In old times the nation had been the 
 ideal of religion in actual realisation : the prophets con- 
 fronted the nation with an ideal to which it did not cor- 
 respond." So far as the attitude of the prophets to the 
 mere externals of religion is concerned, we shall have to 
 speak at length by-and-by. In the meantime, we insist 
 upon the recognition of a religion altogether distinct from 
 the popular conceptions and the popular abuses which the 
 prophets condemned. And the more sober-minded writers 
 of the critical school do not deny this. Eeuss, for example, 
 says:^ "We are persuaded that the essential elements of 
 the collective view of the prophets are older than our 
 oldest witnesses." So Smend says : '^ " Clearly there were 
 fundamental views of religion which the people had in 
 common with the prophets." It is difficult to understand 
 how any other view of the matter could be entertained in 
 the face of the two facts, (1) that the prophets themselves 
 ever appeal to the conscience of the people in attesta- 
 tion of the truths which they deliver ; and (2) that the 
 people in Elijah's days, for example, should have recog- 
 nised the force of the appeal so readily and universally, 
 and acted upon it so energetically. From the beginniug 
 to the end there cannot be found a passage in which a 
 prophet speaks as if he were uttering a new or strange 
 truth, and there are many expressions plainly implying 
 that they were simply enforcing what they and their 
 
 1 Theol. d. Propheten, p. 10 ff. Cf. p. 53. 2 Hist, of Israel, p. 491. 
 
 s Geschichte, p. 316. ■• Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1876, pp. 599-66i. 
 
ICO The Key of the Critical Position. 
 
 hearers accepted as undisputed and indisputable. This is 
 a feature of the prophetic teaching to which the modern 
 theory does not give sufficient weight. It is quite charac- 
 teristic. If we compare, for example, the claims of Mo- 
 hammed on the attention of liis countrymen, we find thnt 
 lie indeed appeals to antecedent teachers who had taught 
 the same truth, but he insists upon it that now, in his 
 jierson, there was a special promulgation of the truth to 
 the people of Arabia. ISTay, the Gospel itself claims to 
 rest upon Old Testament revelation ; yet the Founder of 
 Christianity spoke with authority, setting his " I say unto 
 you " over against the commands of the men of old time ; 
 and St Paul contrasts the time of Gospel revelation with 
 the antecedent times of ignorance. The Old Testament 
 prophets, however, give us no hint that they have got a 
 clearer or more precise message to their times than had 
 been given of old time. On the contrary, they describe 
 their own times as degenerate and apostate, and no one 
 dares to contradict them. The consensus of the whole 
 " goodly fellowship " of the prophets on this point should 
 not be lightly passed over. 
 
 As to the existence of an ideal religion side by side 
 with an actual one, the experience of the world has 
 proved but too clearly that the practices of a people, or 
 their ordinary conceptions in any given epoch, are not to 
 be confounded with the principles of the faith wliich they 
 profess. Eeligious belief and religious practice, indeed, 
 so react upon one another, and practice, as experience 
 shows, is so strong, that it would be vain to search for 
 a people at any time exhibiting a ^mre faith in the 
 proper sense of the expression. "We need not expect to 
 find in ancient Israel a faith untarnished by superstition 
 or free from the limitations of ignorance. It is both un- 
 
The Popular Religion Corrupt, 161 
 
 scientific and unscriptural to look in the Old Testament 
 for either a theology or a religious life which was sem- 
 fer, uhique, et ah omnibus. But it is surely easy enough 
 to distinguish between hindrances or corruptions and 
 purity of germ. What the prophets themselves plainly 
 represent is, that there had been made known to their 
 people of old time a better faith and a purer worship 
 than those of the heathen nations, or of their own degen- 
 erate people ; and in testimony of this, they think it suffi- 
 cient to appeal to the consciences of their hearers.^ 
 
 At the same time, we must recognise to the full 
 what was the actual condition of the popular religion. 
 The Biblical writers do not conceal this from us, but 
 prophet and historian alike dwell upon it as evidence of 
 the national defection. In the first place, they admit that 
 the ancestors of Israel were idol- worshippers, when they 
 say that the fathers of the patriarchs " beyond the river " 
 Euphrates served other gods, and claim for Abraham a 
 special knowledge of the true God. Then history and 
 experience alike go to show that the sojourn in Egypt 
 had a deteriorating influence on the old patriarchal faith , 
 and finally, the position of the people in the midst of the 
 idolatrous nations of Canaan and surrounding lands is 
 ever to be kept in view in estimating the complex 
 product of religious life at the time at which we have 
 undoubted contemporary accounts. When we remember 
 how long it takes for pure religious conceptions to work 
 themselves into the practical recognition of a nation, how 
 isolated Israel was in its days of independence among 
 surrounding nations, and above all, how much tendency 
 there is in human nature — as witness the course of 
 
 ^ Cf. also Micah vi. 4, Jer. vii. 25, Isa. Ixiii. 11, Mai. iv. 4. Cf. Konig, 
 Oflfenbarungsbegriff des Alten Testaments, vol. i. p. 57. 
 
 L 
 
162 The Key of the Critical Position. 
 
 ecclesiastical history — by the imperfection of language 
 for one thing, and by the infirmity of human nature 
 above all, to run down to practical heathenism ; and how 
 superstitious ideas and superstitious practices survive 
 even when there is no external inciting motive, — we need 
 not wonder at the low ideas which prevailed among the 
 common people in the days of Amos and Hosea and much 
 later, or at the tenacity with which superstition kept its 
 hold long after the purest-minded of the prophets had de- 
 livered their message. The thing we do wonder at is, how a 
 succession of prophets kept so far above the level of the 
 ordinary conceptions, and the wonder does not cease but 
 takes a new phase when we come back to the only true 
 explanation — viz., that this nation, so perverse and yet so 
 highly favoured, had been at an earlier time the recipient 
 of a higher truth, up to whose level the best of the nation 
 strove to keep their contemporaries. 
 
 2. Nor need it be disputed that there was an advance 
 m the prophets' own conceptions of religion. In main- 
 taining that there was a national religion made known 
 to Israel and preserved by the prophets, apart from the 
 mere popular conceptions, we are not to be held as main- 
 taining that some complete scheme of theology was in 
 their hands, from which there was no possibility of ad- 
 vance. The writings of the prophets are before us to 
 refute such an idea, should it be entertained. The days 
 are past when it was thought admissible, in arguing a 
 theological point, to cite texts promiscuously from any 
 of the books of Scripture, because all were inspired ; and 
 to handle the Bible as if it were a code or encyclopaedia 
 of theological doctrines. Nor need we expect the reli- 
 gion taught by the prophets to be a philosophical or 
 theological system. The truth which the prophets 
 
Progress in Prophetic Conceptions. 163 
 
 tanght was in themselves a germinating influence, and 
 whether by the events occurring on the political stage, 
 or by their own God-guided reflections, or by the condi- 
 tion of the men among whom they lived and moved, they 
 rose from a lower to a higher stage of spiritual percep- 
 tion. The works of the writing prophets which lie before 
 us show a variety in each writer's conception of Jahaveh's 
 character and of His relation to Israel and the world 
 at large. Amos dwells particularly on the attribute of 
 righteousness ; Hosea's favourite mode of viewing God 
 is from the side of love ; while Isaiah represents Him 
 as the exalted one, the sovereign ruler. But we are 
 never safe in making any individual writer the ex- 
 ponent of any single conception — as many are inclined 
 to do. The various views of the prophets are not so 
 much stages in an orderly progression, as different 
 aspects of one truth which, from personal temperament 
 or from the nature of his surroundings, each prophet 
 was led to emphasise, although each one gives indica- 
 tions more or less explicit that other aspects of it are 
 not ignored by him. We may not indeed observe a 
 strict advance from attribute to attribute in the case of 
 each succeeding writer, yet there is on the whole an 
 advance in the one grand conception as the periods suc- 
 ceed one another, till at a certain late stage we can note 
 a marked difference as compared with the earlier. The 
 ideas of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, for example, are a clear 
 advance upon the more general truths taught by Amos ; 
 but there is no inconsistency between them — there is 
 simply the advance in spiritual perception. Later proph- 
 ets have a wider idea of the world, but they have the 
 same idea of the relation of God to it. To the mind 
 of all tlie prophets and Old Testament writers, the 
 
164 The Key of the Critical Position. 
 
 "nation is the unit of organisation and life. Even the 
 new covenant of Jeremiah is made with the people; 
 though it operates first upon individuals, it is in order 
 to gather them into a people."^ What is maintained 
 is, that the point from which the very earliest prophets 
 start is not the low platform of nature religion, or even 
 the narrow ground of simple national religion, but one 
 mfinitely higher, and one reached by an antecedent de- 
 velopment which the modern school will insist on placing 
 farther down in history — in other words, that from the first 
 the idea is moral or ethical and not naturalistic. That 
 the prophets should have attained purer and more spiritual 
 conceptions of Jahaveh as time went on and events 
 taught them, it is but reasonable to suppose ; though here, 
 as elsewhere, we must beware of putting that first in 
 order of time which appears most elementary in concep- 
 tion : for all prophets had not the same insight ; and it 
 might be given to one at a comparatively early period to 
 catch glimpses of a truth which men of a succeeding age 
 hardly perceived, The post-exilian prophets, for example, 
 do not seem on the whole to have ever reached the 
 height attained by Isaiah and Jeremiah, although they 
 enjoyed the advantage of having their prophecies to in- 
 struct them. Even the prophecies of Balaam are in one 
 respect more advanced than those of the second half of 
 the book of Isaiah : for in the latter there is a constant 
 polemic against the gods of the heathen, whereas in the 
 former the unique character of Jahaveh is boldly asserted. 
 It was by political events and the fate of the nation gen- 
 erally that the best spirits were educated into more spir- 
 itual truths, and the progress of the evolution or reve- 
 lation of divine truth was controlled, as always, by provi- 
 
 ^ A. B. Davidson, in Expositor, third series, vol. v. p. 177. 
 
Prophetic and Pre-prophetic Religion. 165 
 
 dential circumstances ; but the truth to be developed was 
 already there. 
 
 These two points being admitted, however, there still 
 remains for the new theory the difficulty of explaining 
 the prophetic ideas apart from an antecedent revelation 
 of them to the nation. The modern historians, in their 
 negation of a pure pre-prophetic religion, are ever faced 
 with the task of explaining the rise of pure prophetic 
 religion. They do not allow themselves a sufficient start- 
 ing-point for the development ; for the prophetic religion, 
 when we meet it, is not of a germinal or elementary char- 
 acter. They are forced to make sudden transitions and 
 assume such extraordinary changes, as invest the theory 
 with difficulties much greater than those attending the 
 Biblical view. 
 
 I confess that it is extremely difficult for me, not only 
 to believe the position that is taken up, but even to ap- 
 prehend it as a possibility. That Israel, with nothing 
 distinctively peculiar to start with beyond the bare belief 
 that Jahaveh was their only national God, should have 
 adopted and absorbed elements the most diverse, and still 
 have remained Israel ; that the elements absorbed should 
 have been the most distinctively heathenish and low, and 
 yet that the result of it all was not an eclecticism, but a 
 product sui generis ; and that all the time this transmu- 
 tation was going on, a body of men, whose official basis 
 rested on heathenism, should have lashed their country- 
 men with invective and threatening for forsaking the re- 
 ligion of their fathers, — all this is to me as great a 
 psychological and moral miracle as any of the miracles 
 recorded in Scripture. Before we can accept it as a 
 true account of Israel's religious development, we must 
 be satisfied on three points. 
 
166 The Key of the Critical Position. 
 
 First, It must be shown by clear proofs that before the 
 time of the writing prophets the religious beliefs and ob- 
 servances of Israel were on the same level as those of 
 their neighbours, and that this state of things was accepted 
 by the enlightened men of the time as the normal and 
 authorised religion. 
 
 Second, Some differentiating element must be pointed 
 out sufficient to explain the fact that Israel remained 
 Israel all this time. In other words, a national reliojion 
 sufficient to mark off the people as a nation must be 
 exhibited. 
 
 Tliird, The process of development must be pointed out 
 in the historical stadia, through which, from the rudimen- 
 tary stage, Israel arrived at the *' ethic monotheism " of 
 the prophets. 
 
 The chapters that follow will be devoted to a considera- 
 tion of these points. In chapters vii. to x. the main 
 points relied upon to prove the low tone of pre-prophetic 
 religion will be discussed. Chapter xi. will treat of the 
 Jahaveh religion ; and in chapter xii. we shall consider 
 in what way it is alleged the pre-prophetic passed into 
 the prophetic, and Israel arrived at the ethic monotheism 
 of the prophets. 
 
167 
 
 CHAPTEE VII. 
 
 PRE-PROPIIETIG RELIGION — NAMING OF THE DEITY. 
 
 Statement of the critical position as to the low tone of the pre -prophetic 
 religion, and various lines of proof indicated — Subject of the present 
 chapter: Consideration of the argument d/rawn from the names of 
 Deity — It is argued from the free use of the name of Baal in the 
 formation of proper names, that the persons so employing it had no 
 aversion to the Baal worship — Argument examined : Baal as a common 
 appellative name — Condition of Israel in Canaan described — Parallel 
 cases of syncretism at the present day — No case can he cited of un- 
 doubted names of heathen deities being so used — The argument drawn 
 from the correspondence of Hebrew names with those of Babylonian 
 deities — The argument proves too much, and the mode of bestowing 
 names is different from the usual Hebreio custom — This whole mode 
 of reasoning proceeds on a false system of mythologising, and fails to 
 furnish the historical proof which is wanted. 
 
 That the religion of Israel before the time of the writins 
 prophets was on the level of the religions of neigh- 
 bouring peoples, and that these prophets first taught the 
 truth of monotheism, are positions so confidently asserted 
 in modern times that the ordinary reader is apt to take 
 them as truths that cannot be disputed. Thus Pfleiderer 
 says ^ it may be taken as tolerably certain that the 
 Hebrews in their prehistoric period participated in the 
 polytheistic nature-religion of the rest of the Semites. 
 
 ' Die Geschichte der Religion (1869), p. 273. 
 
168 iSfaming of the Deity. 
 
 And with more definiteness of detail, and indicating 
 more precisely what period of time is referred to, Kuenen 
 says : ^ " At first the religion of Israel was polytheism. 
 During the eighth century B.C. the great majority of the 
 people still acknowledged the existence of many gods, 
 and, what is more, they worshipped them. And we can 
 add that during the seventh century, and down to the 
 beginning of the Babylonish exile (586 B.C.), this state of 
 things remained unaltered. Jeremiah could say to his 
 contemporaries, without fear of contradiction, ' According 
 to the number of thy cities are thy gods, Judah ' (Jer. 
 xi. 13 ; ii. 28). This polytheism of the mass of the people 
 cannot be regarded as a subsequent innovation ; on the 
 contrary, everything is in favour of its originality. In the 
 accounts of the preceding centuries we never seek for it 
 in vain. But — and this is decisive — the prophets' con- 
 ception of Jahveh's being and of His relation to Israel is 
 mexplicable, unless the God whom they now acknowledge 
 to be the only one was at first only one of many gods. 
 The relation in which Jahveh stands to Israel is the same 
 as, for instance, that of Chemosh to the Moabites ; Jahveh 
 would never have become Israel's special property, as it 
 were, and would never have come to dwell exclusively in 
 Canaan, if he had been lield from the beginning to be the 
 only true God. That limitation is, on the contrary, ex- 
 tremely natural, if he was originally Israel's tribal God, 
 who, as such, had many other gods beside him." 
 
 The proofs which are adduced in support of this posi- 
 tion are many and various. It is maintained, for example, 
 that the Israelites spoke of their God in the same way 
 as their neighbours spoke of their gods, and even applied 
 to Him the names of Gentile deities, or regarded those 
 
 1 Religion of Israel (Eng. tr. ), vol. i. p. 223 f . 
 
Low Stage of Pre-prophetic Religion. 169 
 
 deities as possessing similar powers and attributes; that 
 they regarded Him as limited to one place or certain places, 
 and powerful only or chiefly in His own territory ; that 
 they thought it not derogatory to His dignity to make 
 visible representations of their deity ; that moral qualities 
 were not prominent, or even essential, in the conception 
 of His character ; or even, as some critics maintain, that 
 they considered it a religious duty to offer to Him human 
 sacrifices. 
 
 All these points are held to be capable of proof from 
 the writings to which we have restricted ourselves, and, 
 as features of the religion of Israel, they are maintained 
 to be distinctly visible in the period of which we have 
 undoubted historic knowledge. Not only so; but it is 
 asserted also that we have conclusive proof that these 
 religious beliefs rest upon and grow naturally out of a 
 more primitive stage of religious culture, the lower con- 
 dition of animism or fetishism which characterises the 
 most savage peoples. Says Kuenen : ^ "To what one 
 might call the universal, or at least the common rule, 
 that religion begins with fetishism, then develops into 
 polytheism, and then, but not before, ascends to mono- 
 theism — that is to say, if this highest stage be reached — 
 to this rule the Semites are no exception ;" and Stade pro- 
 ceeds elaborately to prove that, in the documents before 
 us, we have clear indications of the survival of these 
 primitive conceptions and beliefs to historic times. 
 
 To the proofs brought forward in support of these posi- 
 tions, we must therefore now turn our attention ; and in 
 this chapter we consider primarily the argument based 
 upon the Hebrew mode of naming the Deity. 
 
 We have to consider, first of all, the argument drawn 
 
 ^ Religion of Israel (Eng. tr.), vol. i. p. 225. 
 
1 70 Naming of the Deity. 
 
 from the free use of the name of Baal in forming proper 
 names, even in the families of the most pious Israelites. 
 Thus Tiele:^ "Even so zealous representatives of Jali- 
 vism as Saul and David named their children after Baal. 
 Solomon, who built a magnificent temple to Jehovah, saw 
 in that no hindrance to his erecting sanctuaries also for 
 other gods, which, by later writers, was indeed imputed 
 to him as a sin, but not by his own contemporaries. The 
 Baal whom the prophet Elijah in the northern kingdom 
 so vigorously contended against was not the native Baal, 
 but the Phoenician, whom the Sidonian princess Jezebel, 
 Ahab's wife, had introduced. His pupil Elisha and his 
 adherent Jehu rooted out this foreign cultus with vio- 
 lence, but they did not interfere with the cultus of the 
 native Ashera." 
 
 Now it is a well-known fact that the Israelites, like 
 other Semitic nations, used the name of deity to a large 
 extent in the formation of personal proper names. 
 Names compounded with El, like Israel, and with parts 
 of Jahaveh, like Jehoram. are the commonest in the lan- 
 guage of nomenclature ; and it cannot be disputed that 
 the word Baal is thus found in compound proper names, 
 and that, too, in the families of persons most distinguished 
 for their reverence for the national God of the Hebrews. 
 In the genealogical lists of Chronicles, we find a son of 
 Saul named Eshbaal (1 Chron. viii. 33; ix. 39) called 
 Ishbosheth in 2 Sam. ii. 8, and a son of David named 
 Beeliada (1 Chron. xiv. 7). We have even such a com- 
 bination as Bealiah (Baal is Jah) (1 Chron. xii. 5) as the 
 name of one of David's adherents at Ziklag. Moreover, 
 there is the well-known passage in Hosea (ii. 16, 17), 
 "And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou 
 
 ^ Kompendium der Religionsgeschichte, § 53. 
 
Use of the Name Baal. 171 
 
 shalt call me Ishi [my husband], and shalt call me no 
 more Baali [my master]. For I will take away the 
 names of the Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall 
 no more be mentioned [or remembered] by their name." 
 Here, then, is plain proof, not only that the name Baal 
 was used in the formation of proper names without any 
 sense of impropriety attaching to it, but that the Israel- 
 ites of the northern kingdom, even up to Hosea's days, 
 called their national God their Baal. It does not, how- 
 ever, follow that they identified their national God with 
 the Baal of the surrounding Canaanites in the attributes 
 they ascribed to him, much less that the pious parents 
 who gave such names to their children named them pur- 
 posely after the Baal of the Phoenicians or Canaanites. 
 
 To make this clear, it is necessary to remember that 
 the word haal was a common noun among the Hebrews, 
 a part of the language which they had in common with 
 other Semitic races. It is not a question here of going 
 back to the original meaning of a word, and basing an 
 argument upon some old application of it, or on the sup- 
 posed primary signification — a process of reasoning which 
 sometimes leads to great confusion.^ In the language as 
 spoken at the time to which the passages cited refer, 
 and as a common word in the language, we find haal, in 
 the sense of lord or master (spelled, as we should say, with 
 a small h). In Exod. xxi., in the so-called " Book of the 
 Covenant," we find it used in both the senses of husband 
 of a wife ^ and owner of an ox.^ In the same way the 
 verb haal, in the sense of to rule over, be master of, is 
 
 1 See Note XIV. 
 
 2 *' If he is baal of a wife, his wife shall go out with him " (v. 3). 
 
 3 " If an ox gore a man, &c., the baal of the ox shall be quit" (v. 28 ; 
 of. V. 29). 
 
172 Naming of the Deity. 
 
 found in use in the language down to the time of Isaiah, 
 who employs it in the verse, "other lords besides thee have 
 had dominion over us " (Isa. xxvi. 13), and even as late as 
 the time when the books of Chronicles were written.^ To 
 put it otherwise, there is no reason to suppose that the 
 Hebrews first used the word haal after they came into 
 Canaan and became acquainted with the Baal worship 
 practised there. Like the other word adon, which also 
 means lord, it was a general appellative name. The wife 
 called her husband haali (my lord), and the slave called 
 his owner by the same name. And if a pious Israelite 
 had been asked who was the god whom he and his family 
 or nation revered, there could have been to him no im- 
 propriety in saying that his Baal or his Adon {i.e., his 
 Lord, with a capital letter) was Jahaveh. Tiie suffix 
 in the passage in Hosea shows that the word was 
 used in this appellative sense. So when an Israelite 
 said, "Jahaveh is our Elohim," he was employing the 
 word Elohim which denoted the gods of the nations, a 
 plural word which may have had its origin among a 
 polytheistic people; but we cannot conclude from such 
 phraseology that he put Jahaveh on the level of the gods 
 of the nations, for the expression, when it occurs, gener- 
 ally denotes the very reverse.^ But the circumstances to 
 which Hosea refers show where the danger lay, and how 
 it actually emerged. The Canaanites, having the same 
 word in their language, with that mythological tendency 
 to which all language is liable, had, so to speak, come to 
 write Baal with a capital letter. It was the only name 
 they had for their god, or, at all events, they used it and 
 Adon as proper names, and hence the origin of the myth- 
 
 ' See 1 Chron. iv. 22, "who had the dominion in Moab." 
 •' See Note XV. 
 
The Canaanite Baalim. 173 
 
 ological Baal and Adonis. Moreover, not having attained, 
 or not having held fast to, the idea of one god, they made 
 " lords many," so that there was a lord ihaal or adon) of 
 this or that quality or place ; the lordship of one became 
 a host of Baalim. So long as Israel was not involved in 
 this system — and the very fact of the free use of the word 
 haal as an appellative at the time when they. were con- 
 fessedly professors of the Jahaveh religion, is proof to me 
 that the idolatrous use was of gradual and later growth — 
 they might use the word haal in the old sense, because it 
 connoted nothing inconsistent with their ancestral religion. 
 Not only Hosea, however, but the historians of Israel as 
 well, tell us only too plainly how, in the northern king- 
 dom, there took place a mingling of impure elements with 
 the old Jahaveh religion. From a simple naming of shrines 
 as they were named among the Canaanites, their lips and 
 ears became familiarised first with the religious nomen- 
 clature, and then with the religious conceptions of their 
 neighbours. The Baal of this place had, we may suppose, 
 the reputation of curing this disease, and the Baal of that 
 of giving good harvests, and so on ; just as the Virgin of 
 certain places and the local saints have at the present 
 day. Little by little, through their children associating 
 with those of the Canaanites, through the servants and 
 labourers who belonged to. the soil, through the atmo- 
 sphere, as we say, tlie Israelites conformed to the poly- 
 theistic ideas. Among the mass of the people, if an 
 actual syncretism did not take place, the sharp distinc- 
 tion between Jahaveh and Baal was dulled and blunted, 
 and thus came about the situation so graphically painted 
 by Hosea, when the corn and wine and oil were ascribed 
 to the goodness of the haalim} and the people were in 
 
 ^ The association by Hosea of religious decleusiou with material pros- 
 
174 Nammg of the Deity. 
 
 danger of forgetting that Jahaveh who was the God 
 of their nation was one lord. Any one who has lived 
 in foreign countries knows how insidiously, through daily 
 use of language and common associations of life, one comes 
 to think somewhat as the natives, and, employing their 
 language, to give inadvertently a tacit recognition to their 
 beliefs. And the case we have supposed has its actual 
 parallel, so far as the use of a name with different con- 
 notations goes. The Mohammedans give God the name 
 of Allah. It is the common Arabic name for God ; and 
 the Arabic-speaking Christians who live side by side with 
 them use the same name. But a Mohammedan who 
 knows his Koran, and a Christian who knows his New 
 Testament, attach very different ideas to the common 
 name which they employ; and though both are mono- 
 theists, no doubt each has some confused notion that the 
 God whom he worships is actually a different being from 
 the deity of the other. Yet in outlying places in Syria, 
 where education is not known, a practical syncretism 
 takes place, so that though the Muslims and Christians 
 recognise themselves as such respectively, they can give 
 very little account of the distinction that separates them, 
 and pay in common a superstitious reverence to the same 
 localities or sacred objects.^ It is not difficult to conceive 
 
 perity should not be overlooked. In the same way in the book of Judges, 
 periods of rest always precede times of subjection. This is the philosophy 
 of history which is common to all the Old Testament writers. 
 
 ^ Some years ago I met at Jerusalem a young Syrian Christian who 
 had been sent by the Bishop of Jerusalem (Bishop Gobat) as an evangelist 
 to Es-Salt (Ramoth-Gilead). He found Muslims and Christians living 
 side by side engaged in the tillage of the soil, each sect recognising them- 
 selves as adherents of their ancestral religion, but unable to explain the 
 difference subsisting between them, except in certain formal expressions 
 or observances, "Are you a Christian?" he would say to one, and the 
 answer was, "I am." "What is your faith?" "In the name of the 
 
Hoseas Reference to the Name of Baal. 175 
 
 how such a syncretism should have occurred in the north- 
 ern kingdom, on the account given by the Biblical writers, 
 that it was cut off from religious communication with the 
 southern, in which the Temple stood, and that it con- 
 tained, besides, a larger admixture of Canaanitish elements. 
 Hosea's words become intelligible when it is perceived 
 tliat the word haal, innocent enough in itself, and cap- 
 able of being employed in a good sense, had been the 
 occasion of so much mischief. The very word, he said, 
 would, in the coming time, be taken out of their lips, 
 shunned for its evil associations and the painful recollec- 
 tions which it awakened ; and the idea, good enough in 
 itself, which it once denoted, that Israel was the wife of 
 Jahaveh, would be expressed by another term, which had 
 the same meaning, but was not surrounded with the same 
 associations. Parallel cases in ecclesiastical and political 
 history will at once occur to the mind of the reader. All 
 this, I say, is conceivable on the Biblical view that Israel 
 had fallen from a better faith and practice ; but it is hardly 
 conceivable on any supposition that at Hosea's time, or 
 immediately before it, the Israelites connoted no more by 
 the name Jahaveh than the Canaanites did by the name 
 of the Baalim, and that Hosea, for the first time, was try- 
 ing to raise them from an ancestral polytheism or syncre- 
 tism to the recognition of one God. Such a supposition 
 
 Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." " Are you a Muslim ? " 
 another was asked, and he could repeat, * ' In the name of the merciful 
 and compassionate Allah," and perhaps " there is no deity but Allah ; Mo- 
 hammed is the apostle of Allah." But beyond this they could not go ; 
 and the Christian, pressed to explain his creed, showed how Muslim influ- 
 ences and surroundings had influenced him. " What is meant by the 
 Father?" "That is Allah the most exalted." "And the Son; has 
 Allah a Son ? " To which the reply came, "Allah forbid." How easy it 
 would be to show, on critical development principles, that we have here 
 the crude beginnings of Christianity and Islam ! 
 
176 Naming of the Deity. 
 
 simply contradicts the prophet to his face. There is one 
 consideration which seems to be quite decisive on this 
 subject. Whereas we find proper names compounded with 
 the name Baal as freely (though not as extensively) as 
 with the name El, it is remarkable that we have no in- 
 stances of a similar use of unequivocal proper names of 
 heathen deities — such as Melkart, Eshmun, Astarte, &c.^ 
 — which we should certainly expect if the Israelites 
 were the polytheists they are made out to be. There 
 is, in fact, no instance of any name of God being used 
 to form proper names except the names that were appli- 
 cable to their own national God. "Even in the times," 
 says Noldeke,^ " which are reckoned those of the worst 
 idolatry, there does not appear a single name of a foreign 
 god in the proper names of Israelites — a proof that the 
 people, even when they sacrificed to Baal and Astarte, 
 ever felt that they were wrong, and that they might never 
 denote themselves as worshippers of their deities by nam- 
 ing themselves after them. That no member of the house 
 of Ahab, which the tradition still indicates as the most 
 idolatrous, bore the name of Baal, and that, on the con- 
 trary, that king's son, by his name Jehoram, as well as his 
 sister or daughter Athaliah, belonged to the god of the 
 country, is here significant enough." 
 
 From another quarter instances have lately been pointed 
 out of what is alleged to have been the employment by the 
 Israelites of names of heathen deities, without any com- 
 punction as to their idolatrous associations, and affording 
 a presumption that the pre-prophetic religion of Israel 
 was not the pure Jahavism which Biblical writers rep- 
 resent it to be. Sayce, in his " Hibbert Lecture " on the 
 
 1 Baethgen, Beitriige zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte, p. 145. 
 - In Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morg. Gesell., vol, xv, p. 809. 
 
Sayce on Bahyloniaii Names of Deities. 17? 
 
 religion of the ancient Babylonians, has pointed out vari- 
 ous indications of the contact of Babylonian civilisation 
 and religion with those of Palestine, surviving in names 
 of places, such as Nebo, Anu and Anatu, and Sinai.^ The 
 existence of such names, which are names of Babylonian 
 deities, attached to places in Palestine, is certainly signifi- 
 cant. The recent discovery of the clay tablets at Tell-el- 
 Amarna may, by showing the early prevalence of Baby- 
 lonian influence, make the thing more intelligible : it may 
 also tend to modify the view which Sayce seems to hold 
 on the special point before us. It is this: Among the 
 Babylonian deities whose names have been recovered 
 from the inscriptions is one whose Accadian name was 
 translated into the Semitic Eamanu = the exalted one, 
 which the Hebrew writers have handed down to us under 
 the form Eimmon. Now Kimmon was the name of the 
 supreme god of the Syrians of Damascus, and was there 
 identified with the sun-god Hadad.^ The name, he says, 
 made its way to the non-Semitic tribes of the Taurus, and 
 to Edom, and " like Hadad of Edom, David of Israel will 
 thus have borne a name which the people about him ap- 
 plied to their sovereign god." Elsewhere^ he explains 
 that Hadad, the supreme Baal or sun-god, whose worship 
 extended from Carchemish to Edom and Palestine, is 
 spoken of by Shalmaneser under the abbreviated name of 
 Dada, as a name current in the north ; and that in the 
 south the name was confounded with the Semitic word 
 which appears in Assyrian as dadu, " dear little child." 
 This is the word, he says, which we have in Be-dad or 
 Bendad, the father of the Edomite Hadad ; we have it also 
 in the David of the Old Testament, David or Dod being 
 
 1 Hibbert Lecture, p. 42. 2 i^^^ ^ p 202 ff. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 55 ff. Cf. Modern Review, Jan. 1884. ^^^L^ >. ^-^ 
 
 ijirivBi 
 
178 Naming of the Deity. 
 
 the masculine of the feminine form Dido. Thus, accord- 
 ing to Sayce, the names of Dodo and David point to 
 a worship of the sun-god under the title of the " beloved 
 one " in southern Canaan as well as in Phoenicia. This 
 he thinks is confirmed by the new reading of the Moabite 
 Stone by Socin and Smend, which would show that the 
 northern Israelites worshipped a Dodo or Dod by the side 
 of Jahaveh, or rather adored the supreme God under the 
 name of Dod (nin) as well as under that of Jahaveh. 
 According to this reading of the inscription, Mesha says 
 that he carried away the arel (or altar) of Dodo from 
 Ataroth and dragged it before Chemosh, and from Nebo 
 the arels of Jahaveh, which he likewise dragged before 
 Chemosh. It is suggested that Dod or Dodo was an old 
 title of the supreme God in the Jebusite Jerusalem, and 
 that this explains the word Dodi (" my beloved ") in the 
 brief song in Isa. v. We can easily understand, he con- 
 cludes, how a name of this kind, with such a signification, 
 should have been transferred by popular affection from 
 the deity, to the king of whom it is said that " all Israel 
 and Judah loved him " (1 Sam. xviii. 16).^ 
 
 What Sayce maintains is, that the name David, as 
 also the names Saul arid Solomon,^ were not names 
 given in childhood, but were subsequently applied. This 
 is actually stated in regard to Solomon (2 Sam. xii. 24, 
 
 ^ As long ago as 1842 Daumer explained the name David, "beloved 
 one," as properly a name of the god after whom the Moloch- worshipping 
 king called himself. And in keeping with the idea that the victim offered 
 to Moloch was regarded as his bride, he explains the names Hebron, 
 I^jath Arba, where David reigned, as derived from Tiaber, a companion, 
 lover, and raba, to lie down. In the same connection Og, king of Bashan, 
 is explained as a fiery oven, and his famous bedstead as the iron bed on 
 which the victims were laid. — Feuer und Molochdienst der alteu Hebraer, 
 p. 99 f. 
 
 2 Hibbert Lecture, pp. 51, 52. 
 
Nanus of Saul, Solomon, Moses. 179 
 
 25), as to David, he inclines to the view of those critics 
 who maintain that his name originally was El-hanan or 
 Baal-hanan, and that in 2 Sam. xxi. 19, xxiii. 24, we 
 ought to read "Elhanan who is Dodo" or David. Saul 
 too, he says, is a secondary name, meaning in Hebrew 
 the one asked for by the people ; but it really was the name 
 of a Babylonian deity, Savul or Sawul,^ transported to 
 Edom, and perhaps also to Palestine. Solomon also is 
 a divine name, the cuneiform inscriptions informing 
 us that Sallimmanu, " the god of peace," was a god 
 honoured particularly in Assyria, where the name of 
 more than one king (Shalman-eser) was compounded 
 with it. 
 
 Similarly, Sayce claims thut the name of Moses ^ is not 
 derived from the language of Egypt, but from Masu, an 
 older form of Semitic than that preserved in the Old 
 Testament — i.e., the Assyrian. The word means "hero," 
 and is applied to more than one deity, particularly to 
 Adar, a form of the sun - god, and to Merodach, the 
 tutelar god of Babylon, and Nergal, the sun of night. 
 It also signifies "collector of books." In the sense of 
 "hero" it made its way into astrology, and Masu, the 
 hero of astronomers, must have been the sun-god. It is 
 not more strange, he continues, that a name thus inti- 
 mately associated with the religious and astrological be- 
 liefs of Babylonia should have found its way west, than 
 that names like Nebo (where JMoses died), in sight of the 
 " moon city " Jericho, and Sin, which last we know, from 
 a Himyaritic inscription, had been carried south into 
 Arabia, should have been so transported. It may have 
 been carried north as well, and perhaps the wilderness 
 of Sin is a trace of it ; and tlierefore a shriue may have 
 
 ' Hibbert Lecture, p. 54. 2 i\y{^^^ p 43 fj-. 
 
180 Naming vf the Deity. 
 
 existed on Sinai before the Israelites begged to be allowed 
 to go a three days' journey to it. 
 
 Once more, the name Joseph, which, in the Old Testa- 
 ment, is variously derived from Hebrew roots,^ is the 
 name of a deity that was worshipped by the older in- 
 habitants of Canaan. Thothmes III., more than two 
 centuries before the date given by Egyptologists for the 
 exodus, mentions on the walls of Karnak the names of 
 cities captured by him in Palestine, among which are 
 Yaqab-el (Jacob the god) and Iseph-el ("Joseph the 
 god"). Therefore, he says, we are tempted to think 
 that "the house of Joseph" may have belonged to an 
 earlier period than that in which it was applied to the 
 tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, and that perhaps " the 
 house of Joseph " was simply " Beth-el." For in Assyrian, 
 asipu or asip is = diviner, and the phrase " house of the 
 oracle " is actually met with. Therefore, though not 
 proved, it is probable that Joseph was originally equal 
 to the Babylonian asipu, "the god of the oracle," and 
 that long before the Israelitish house of Joseph took 
 possession of Luz, it had been a house of Joseph in 
 another sense, and the sanctuary of a Canaanitisli oracle. 
 
 Now what is the bearing of all this on the subject 
 before us ? The facts adduced would seem to show that 
 not only names of places in Palestine and the west bore 
 names which were also the names of Assyrian deities, 
 but that even the names of individuals placed by the 
 Biblical writers in the time of the Jahaveh religion, came 
 originally from the same source ;' and, as Sayce would 
 lead us to infer, were knowingly bestowed upon them 
 with a reference to the deities so named. The conclu- 
 sion would be that at the time, say, of David and 
 
 ' Hibbert Lecture, p. 49 f. 
 
Appellative Names. 181 
 
 Solomon, not to speak of earlier times, the recognition 
 of Jabaveli as the only God of the Israelites was not so 
 strong as to prevent the free use of the names of other 
 deities beside Him ; or, at all events, it did not preclude 
 the naming of Him by the names of other gods. 
 
 There are, however, several circumstances to be taken 
 into account which will, if I mistake not, greatly modify 
 such a conclusion. It will be observed, in the first place, 
 that the names upon which this argument is founded are 
 originally appellative names in Assyrian : D^d, the exalted 
 one; Sallimmanu, the peaceful one; Masu, lord; Asip, 
 diviner; and so forth. Some of them, as Sallimmanu 
 and Asip,^ are found also as common appellative names 
 in Hebrew with the same sense ; and Dad has been shown 
 by Sayce himself to be capable of connection with the 
 Hebrew stem meaning to love. Then, further, we are to 
 remember the manner in which, and the extent to which, 
 the Semitic inhabitants of Assyria bestowed names upon 
 their gods. The words of Sayce, in another part of his 
 Hibbert Lectures,^ are necessary here in order to give us 
 some idea of the mythology of the polytheistic Semitic 
 peoples : — 
 
 " Around the three chief gods," he says, " were grouped the mul- 
 titudinous deities which Accadian superstition or Semitic piety had 
 invented or dreamed of. Assur - natsir - pal declares that there 
 were * 65,000 great gods of heaven and earth ' ; and though we 
 may doubt whether the Assyrian king was not indulging in a little 
 royal exaggeration, it is certain that the task of enumerating them 
 all would have exhausted the most indefatigable of priestly scribes. 
 Besides the numberless minor deities of the towns and villages, 
 there were the divine titles out of which new gods had been 
 evolved ; divinities which owed their existence to the linguistic or 
 literary errors of the Semites ; and finally, foreign gods like Kiltum 
 
 5]B>fc5 See Sayce, Hibbert Lecture, p. 50 f. - Ibid., p. 215 ff. 
 
182 Naming of the Deity. 
 
 and Sumaliya of the Kossseans, or Lagarmai of Susa. . . . When 
 we remember how the background of the vast pantheon was filled 
 with the obscure deities and spirits of the ancient Accadian cult, 
 whose names survived in magical charms and exorcisms, while the 
 air above was occupied by the * 300 spirits of heaven,' and the earth 
 below by the ' 600 spirits of earth,' we begin to realise the force of 
 the expression which made the supreme gods rulers of the legions of 
 earth and sky. Bil Kissat, ' tlie lord of hosts,' was a phrase full of 
 significance to tbe believing Babylonian."^ 
 
 We thus see that the ancient Babylonians, like the 
 Aryan nations, in order to denote forces operative behind 
 observed phenomena, employed names expressing the 
 agency or operation, and whether or not these were origin- 
 ally applied to one supreme power, they became personi- 
 fications of individual forces or names of superhuman 
 beings ; but the names themselves had primarily a simple 
 enough and harmless enough signification. As to the 
 existence of such Assyrian names in the Hebrew writings, 
 Sayce points out that there were two periods at which 
 we may assume an active contact with the Semitic thought 
 of Assyria and that of Palestine, either early at the 
 time of the immigration of the Abrahamic tribes from 
 Ur of the Chaldees, or later on during the encroachments 
 of the Assyrians westward, or even during the captivity 
 in Babylon.2 If we go back to the earliest of these times 
 for the influence of Babylonian religion on the west, 
 there will be nothing extraordinary in the prevalence of 
 Assyrian names of places, or even the existence of proper 
 names of persons corresponding to Babylonian names; 
 for the Biblical writers place the beginnings of the 
 distinctive monotheism of the Hebrews at the time of 
 Abraham's immigration, and declare that the fathers of 
 the patriarch served otlier gods beyond the river. To 
 
 1 See Note XVI. 2 Hibbert Lecture, p. 43. 
 
Babylonian Influence on Palestine. 183 
 
 place the introduction of such names as have been ad- 
 duced at either of the later points of contact is surely 
 too late for the purposes of the argument. For though 
 it may be conceivable that legends or beliefs, such as are 
 found in the earliest chapters of Genesis, may have been 
 taken over from the Assyrians or Babylonians as late as 
 the captivity, it is hardly conceivable that the names of 
 David, Solomon, and Saul, not to say those of Joseph 
 and Moses, got into the Hebrew language at that time, 
 or even so comparatively early as the time at which the 
 Assyrians as a conquering power first came upon the 
 horizon of the Israelites, about the ninth century B.C. 
 We are therefore entitled to recognise the stems from 
 which the names in question are derived as part of the 
 linguistic stock of the Hebrews, which they had in com- 
 mon with their Semitic brethren in Assyria, and which 
 they used and developed in their own way. If they 
 were simple appellative terms at first, there is no reason 
 why they should not have remained so in the hands of 
 the Hebrews, but every reason to believe that they did. 
 For this is just the distinctive peculiarity of the course 
 which the development of Israel's religion followed — that 
 whereas the heathen Semitic nations ran off into myth- 
 ology, the Hebrews retained the primary sense of words, 
 and were not led into the deification of mere qualities. 
 The orthodox Mohammedans, to give an illustration of 
 what I mean, have a list of ninety-nine excellent names 
 by which they designate their god; and as they recite 
 these one by one, telling a bead on a rosary with the 
 utterance of each name, they never for a moment regard 
 each as the name of a distinct deity ; for as they tell the 
 hundredth bead, they repeat the name of the One of 
 whom all the other names are mere attributes — Allah I 
 
184 Naming of the Deity. 
 
 This is an illustration of how the strong monotheistic 
 instinct preserves itself safe from the influence of names. 
 No one thinks of saying that when one man is named 
 Abd-ul-Kereem, and another Abd-ul-Majeed, or a woman 
 is named Kereemeh, Jameeleh, and so forth, the words 
 Kereem and Majeed, &c., are names of distinct Muslim 
 deities with female consorts ; they remain mere adjectives 
 expressing different qualities — generous, glorious — ascribed 
 to the one God. Given the polytheistic bent, however, 
 such names as these become raised to the rank of entities 
 and deities, and so the Assyrian pantheon reached its 
 immense proportions ; for every quality that could be 
 assigned to a god, or to the supreme God, takes its place 
 as one of the gods many. 
 
 Now, when we remember the close resemblance be- 
 tween all the Semitic branches of language, is there any- 
 thing remarkable in the fact that out of the extensive 
 treasury of vocables that might thus become names of 
 Assyrian deities, a very considerable number should co- 
 incide with Hebrew proper names ? Why, if a volley 
 were fired at random from the 65,000 (or even much 
 smaller number of) names ascribed to the gods, I suppose 
 that scarcely a vocable in the poor Hebrew language, 
 noun, verb, or particle, would escape deification. That for 
 such a common stem as that lying at the root of Solo- 
 mon's name (the common Semitic word for peace), we 
 should have to go to the name of an Assyrian deity — 
 when these were so easily manufactured — seems a refine- 
 ment of ingenuity that defeats its own end. For no 
 Hebrew, on this mode of reasoning, would be safe to use 
 a single word of his language without committing himself 
 to polytheistic notions. If, for example, the name of 
 Moses simply means lord or hero, and was applied to 
 
Argument from Names misleading. 185 
 
 many gods, the most that can be inferred from its pres- 
 ence in Hebrew is, that a root which is no longer found 
 in Hebrew goes back to an old common Semitic origin, 
 and may have been used like haal as a quite harmless 
 word. A very significant circumstance is that this sup- 
 posed mode of giving names is not in keeping with the 
 Hebrew and general Semitic custom, according to which 
 the proper names of this class are compounded with some 
 name of deity, but are not, as this supposition requires, 
 the actual names of the gods.^ In view of this remark- 
 able difference, and the fact that these names can all be 
 explained in a simpler manner without going so far afield, 
 I am brought to the conclusion that there is nothing in 
 the argument beyond the wealth of learning with which 
 it is maintained. 
 
 But in truth, this mode of arguing from names, apart 
 from the historical circumstances, is quite misleading, and 
 might be employed to prove the most absurd positions if 
 applied to modern names. Yet it is just one of those 
 arguments which have a glamour of something deep and 
 recondite about them, and lead people to say " There is 
 something in them." The thing regarding which we 
 want information is not proved, and cannot be proved 
 on this line of reasoning — viz., whether or not David's 
 parents or his countrymen by the term Dad under- 
 stood a heathen god who at that time was reverenced 
 by neighbouring peoples, and gave him the name in 
 honour of that deity ; or whether they called their own 
 God Jahaveh by that name. The only attempt at his- 
 
 * If there are exceptions to the rule they are very rare. Baethgen 
 inentiona Anath found as a personal name, and perhaps also a name of 
 deity in the expression Beth Anath. — Beitriige zur Semitischen Ke- 
 ligionsgeschichte, p. 141. 
 
186 Naming of the Deity. 
 
 torical proof of this given by Sayce is the doubtful inter- 
 pretation of an obscure phrase on the Moabite Stone. 
 For the rest, his argument might as well prove that we 
 still believe in the old Scandinavian gods because we 
 name the days of the week from those deities ; or that, 
 for example, the existence of a family of the name of 
 King in the United States, would show that the people 
 of that country had a monarchical government; or that 
 Isidore, the bishop of Seville, was a worshipper of Isis ; 
 or the Numidian bishop Asmunius was a worshipper of 
 or named after the god Eshmun.^ 
 
 The particulars we have been considering are but parts 
 of a very wide subject, to which I can only briefly allude — 
 the mythological treatment of the Old Testament. Some 
 have carried this mode of viewing the materials to such 
 an extent as to find the whole cycle of the Aryan Sun 
 mythology in the stories of the patriarchs and the judges.^ 
 It seems to me that to identify proper names like those 
 of David and Solomon with Assyrian names of deities, is 
 but part of the same mode of reasoning; and that the 
 explanation of the phenomena which are made to lend 
 countenance to the view in either case is the same as I 
 have hinted at. A language has a number of primary 
 words denoting certain simple conceptions ; and using 
 these, it gives names to persons and to things cognisable 
 by the senses, or intuitively perceived, or inferred by the 
 reason. But if we find the same name applied to a visible 
 and to an invisible thing, are we to conclude that it was 
 first given to the invisible and then borrowed for the 
 visible ? This would be a most extraordinary freak of lan- 
 guage and of thought. To keep to the examples we have 
 had. If we find tliat haal is the common name for lord 
 
 ' Baethgen, Beitrage, p. 141. - See Note XVTT, 
 
Mythological Treatment of Old Testament. 187 
 
 or husband, but is also used of the deity, are we to sup- 
 pose that a husband of a wife and the owner of an ox were 
 so called because beforehand men had applied the name 
 Baal to the unseen power or powers behind nature ? Or 
 because the name adon is found in Hebrew meaning 
 master, and is also applied to the Lord, are we to suppose 
 that earthly masters were so named because the mind had 
 first arrived at the conclusion that there was a Master 
 and Lord of Creation ? Or again, if Molech (= ruler) is 
 the name of any king, and also of a god of a people, are 
 we to assume that all who called their kings by this name 
 named them after the god ? Further, if two kindred 
 Semitic branches start with a common stock (so far as it 
 goes) of such primary words, and we find that one branch 
 ran into mythology, and instead of retaining the primary 
 senses of their words, allowed them to become personi- 
 fications, are we to conclude tliat another branch, which 
 in clear historical times shows the widest divergence in 
 its modes of conception, is to be held committed, in the 
 use of the primary words, to the secondary application of 
 them made by the kindred stock ? When put in this way, 
 I think that the precariousness (to say the least) of the 
 mythological argument will appear. I do not think it 
 is likely that a people first found names for a host of 
 unseen beings or forces, before giving names to themselves 
 and things around them (the very usage in Assyrian 
 shows that the reverse was the case) ; and if in giving 
 these names they employed the only materials their 
 language furnished, it need not be surprising if gods and 
 men and trees got finally the same or similar names. If 
 the idea of strong attaches to the word el, and if a cer- 
 tain kind of tree is called "a strong thing,'' and the 
 deity or nature spirit is called " the strong one," we are 
 
188 Naming of the Deity. 
 
 not to jump to the conclusion that the tree was so named 
 because a deity resided in it. But this is actually the 
 view, as we shall see, that Stade takes in regard to 
 this word ; though such reasoning can only lead to mys- 
 tification, as may be shown by another example. There 
 is a word in Hebrew, Abir O""?^), meaning "mighty" 
 or "strong," and it is used as a name of God in the 
 expressions " Mighty One of Israel " or " of Jacob." A 
 slightly different form of the word, Abbir (y^^), is 
 used as a name of the ox ; it is applied also to the horse, 
 as also to princes, and is used in the general sense 
 of "strong." Now this word is so temptingly like the 
 name of Apis, the Egyptian bull god (being, as has just 
 been said, also applied to the bull), that mythologists 
 have found it sufficient to hang an argument upon, to 
 the effect that the calf-worship was originally part of 
 the genuine Jahaveh religion, and that traces of the fact 
 remain in the application of the very name of Apis to 
 Jahaveh Himself. This is but a specimen of the kind of 
 argument that perplexes those who do not look narrowly 
 into the state of the matter; which simply resolves itself 
 into this, that the idea of strength was naturally applied 
 to the ox, or the horse, or a prince, and just as naturally 
 attributed to God. It would be quite possible, on this 
 mode of reasoning, to make heathen gods out of many of 
 the words that we employ in daily speech. 
 
 It cannot be denied that Hebrew literature is sin- 
 gularly free from mythological ideas such as we find 
 in other early literatures. With a highly poetic mode 
 of conception, metaphors of the boldest kind and the 
 freest personifications were not only possible, but were 
 freely employed. Yet the writers of the Old Testament 
 do not allow themselves to be carried away by their 
 
Semitic Monotheism. 189 
 
 words. The thing personified remains the thing all the 
 time, though fields clap hands, and floods lift up their 
 voices, and trees rejoice ; and as it would be quite unfair 
 to take such modtis of expression as proofs that originally 
 the fields and floods and trees were endowed with person- 
 ality, so it is unfair to press such common appellative 
 names as we have been considering into the service of a 
 theory of mythology. 
 
 M. Eenan, indeed, who is inclined to ascribe an in- 
 herent tendency to monotheism to all the Semitic races, 
 or at least to the nomad sections of them, says that the 
 attributing of life to words is the cause of mythology, and 
 that the Semitic languages do not lend themselves much 
 to these kinds of personification.^ But the fact remains 
 that otlier branches of the Semitic family ran into 
 mythology, while the Hebrew race alone was preserved 
 from it. The Semitic names El, Baal, &c., says Baudis- 
 sin,2 we judge to be different from the Aryan names not 
 so much on account of the different genius of the Semitic 
 language, as on account of the different conception formed 
 of the deity. And Andrew Lang observes truly that it is 
 a certain condition of thouc^ht, a certain habit of mind, and 
 not a disease of this or that language, that is the cause of 
 mythology. " It is just as easy," he says, " to say heaven 
 is a lover, earth his wife, in a language where heaven is 
 Sarnd and earth is Ars, as in a language where heaven 
 is Uranus and earth is Gaea, as in Greek, or where heaven 
 is Rangi and earth is Papa, as in New Zealand." The 
 same writer, after pointing out the insufficiency of the 
 various explanations that have been given of the so-called 
 myths of the Old Testament, and the essential and striking 
 
 ^ Hist, du peuple d'Israel, i. p. 46. 
 2 Jahve et Moloch, p. 10. 
 
1 90 Naming of the Deity. 
 
 differences to be perceived between them and the myths 
 of kindred or similarly situated peoples, concludes : " The 
 whole question may be insoluble, but is eternally attrac- 
 tive. Behind it all is the mystery of race and of selection. 
 It is an ultimate fact in the history and government of 
 the world, this eminent genius of one tiny people for 
 religion. We know no more; and in M. Eenan's own 
 terms, the people was * selected,' just as, in words more 
 familiar, Israel is * the chosen people.' " ^ 
 
 In conclusion, it seems to me that this reasoning from 
 names proves either by far too much for the theory, or 
 proves nothing at all to the argument in hand. If we are 
 to infer from every Hebrew proper name which may cor- 
 respond etymologically with some god-name of a foreign 
 people, that the Israelites at the time they named their 
 children in this manner believed in or gave reverence to 
 these heathen gods, we manifestly prove too much, for 
 there are far too many of these names, and at the time 
 at which they are found we are in the light of history, and 
 yet find no other proofs of recognition of such deities. 
 Or if it is merely argued that the presence of such 
 names among the Hebrews proves that " originally " the 
 Hebrews believed in all these deities, the answer to the 
 argument is twofold, — (a) that we do not know what is 
 meant by "originally," and (h) that the so-called original 
 belief may resolve itself into a necessary imperfection of 
 language, whereby metaphor was employed, it might have 
 been innocently enough, by the Israelite forefathers. We 
 have seen, from this mode of mythological reasoning, 
 enough to convince any fair-minded person how very 
 vague and precarious are the conclusions to which it may 
 be made to lead. Vague, because the argument does not 
 
 1 The New Review, No. 3, August 1889. 
 
Argument proves too much or Nothing. 191 
 
 undertake to show the precise historical periods at which 
 the mythological conceptions prevailed, but hints at 
 " original " usages, and faded myths, and so forth. And 
 precarious, because the unwary reader is apt to conclude 
 that every so-called mythological expression is an indica- 
 tion of a mythological belief on the part of the writer 
 employing it, which certainly cannot be proved. 
 
192 
 
 CHAPTEE Vlll. 
 
 PEE-PROPHETIO RELIGION CONTINUED — THE DWELLING-PLACE 
 OF THE DEITY. 
 
 The critical position that Israel's God had His original dwelUnrj on Sinai, 
 or was limited to Canaan — Deborah's song — David driven out from 
 the presence of the Lord — The wider reference of the argument — Associa- 
 tion of Jahaveh with the sanctuaries of the land : His dwelling in the 
 ark — In short, the worship of pre-prophetic Israel ivas that of the high 
 places ; and this, according to Stade, arose from the veneration paid 
 to graves of ancestors — The view said to be confirmed by the veneration 
 paid to trees, stones, &c., pointing to original fetish-worship — This part 
 of the theory examined — Remxtrh on the use made of documents in this 
 argument — Confusion of Stade's argument ; reasoning from history of 
 other nations is begging the question ; and for the rest, the argument is 
 mainly based on a forced interpretation of metaphorical language— Pop- 
 ular superstition must be admitted everywhere, but its existence is no 
 proof of the non-existence of a pure faith — A nature-God and a God oj 
 nature — A sure method of testing this precarious mode of reasoning ; 
 check metaphorical language by unambiguous expressions in the same 
 composition, and appeal to books of earliest writing pi'ophets. 
 
 A FAVOURITE line of argument to prove the low tone of 
 the pre-prophetic religion is, that the God of the Hebrews 
 was regarded by them as confined to, or inseparably linked 
 to, their native land, just as the gods of the nations were 
 the patrons and defenders of their territories. 
 
 Palestine, we are told, was not indeed the original seat of 
 Jahaveh, as it was not the original home of Israel. His ori- 
 
^ IVBE3iT 
 
 Sinai Jahaveh^s Dwelling-place, 
 
 ginal abode was Mount Sinai, a mountain sacred of old time 
 among Semitic peoples, from which He came with Israel 
 when they emerged from the desert, fighting at the head 
 of their armies till they subdued Canaan, and returning 
 again to His ancient seat when the war was over. Tliis 
 is proved, as it is maintained, by the song of Deborah, 
 one of the oldest compositions that have come down to 
 us,^ in which, in Wellhausen's words, Jahaveh " is sum- 
 moned to come from Sinai to succour His oppressed peo- 
 ple, and to place Himself at the head of His warriors." ^ 
 Let us try to picture to ourselves the situation which is 
 here set before us. In a time of sore straits, when the 
 tribes of Israel come to deadly grips with the armies of 
 Sisera, in the north of Palestine, they find themselves 
 with nothing but tlieir own arms to rely upon. The only 
 assurance of divine presence they have is the ark, the 
 symbol or representation of Jahaveh, who continued to 
 dwell on Sinai long after the Israelites had settled in 
 Palestine.^ They long for the direct help of their God. 
 They summon Him, and He comes to their aid. What 
 does all this mean ? If they prayed to Him to come, they 
 have already a pretty advanced idea of the power of a 
 God so far distant to hear them and to interfere on their 
 behalf. The truth is, the song says not a word of Jahaveh 
 being "summoned" from Sinai on the occasion of the 
 battle referred to. The only show of support for such 
 an idea is to be found in an obscure expression in verse 
 
 ^ It is not safe, hoAvever, in these days, to assert anything as undisputed 
 in regard to the dates of Hebrew documents ; for quite recently we have 
 been told that this song of Deborah, which "has been believed to be 
 ancient, is, on the contrary, of very late date, and consequently unworthy 
 of credence." — Maurice Vernes, Les Rc'sultats de I'Exdgese Biblique, p. 21. 
 
 ^ Hist, of Israel, p. 344. 3 i\^i^^ 
 
 N 
 
194 TJie Dwelling-place of the Deity. 
 
 13, which may be rendered, " Then a remnant of nobles 
 (and of) the people did go down ; the Lord went down 
 to my help among the mighty " (Queen's Printer's Bible). 
 As for the expressions near the beginning of the song 
 (vv. 4, 5), they have no reference to Jahaveh being 
 "summoned" from Sinai, but consist of a highly poetic 
 di^scription, to be placed side by side with the similar 
 language in Ps. Ixviii. 7, 8, of the manifestation of Jaha- 
 veh at Sinai. All such highly figurative expressions 
 are most naturally to be understood as referring to the 
 extraordinary transactions, in whatever sense we may 
 understand them, that all tradition places in the time im- 
 mediately succeeding the exodus — transactions to which 
 the heart of the people would turn in every time of dan- 
 ger to give them trust in their covenant God. Nay, the 
 expressions are such that Bertheau, in his commentary on 
 the passage, concludes that Jahaveh's seat is to be under- 
 stood, according to the popular belief which here finds 
 utterance, not on Sinai, but on some mountain to the 
 north or east of Palestine, — for it is said, "When Thou 
 wentest forth out of Seir, when Thou marchedst out of the 
 field of Edom, the earth trembled, . . . even yon Sinai, 
 at the presence of the Lord, the God of Israel." From 
 this he reasons that the original abode of Jahaveh — in 
 the popular conception — was elsewhere, and that the 
 verses describe His removal to meet Israel as they came 
 out of Egypt. However this may be, even if we admit 
 that the popular conception embodied in the song made 
 Sinai His peculiar dwelling-place, we cannot accept the 
 view that Jahaveh is regarded by the author of this song 
 as limited by space or time in the circumscribed way 
 imputed to Him ; but, on the contrary, we are bound 
 to conclude that the poet looked upon Him as one whose 
 
David made to serve other Gods. 195 
 
 power could be exerted, as on Sinai, so in North Pales- 
 tine, a land which He had not yet made His own, accord- 
 ing to the theory. That this more exalted view is the 
 only one in keeping with the tenor of the song, will, I 
 think, be evident to one reading the whole piece, with 
 its ever-recurring " Bless ye Jahaveh " ; and its grand 
 conclusion, " So let all thine ^ enemies perish, Jahaveh ; 
 but let them that love Him be as the sun when he 
 goeth forth in his might." Whatever may have been 
 tlie earliest conceptions entertained of Jahaveh, or the 
 conceptions of the people generally at their lowest, the 
 tribes of Israel must have had convictions based on ex- 
 perience of the power of their God to help them any- 
 where before a poet could have celebrated the events of 
 that day in the strains here employed. 
 
 Another argument is drawn from the alleged fact that 
 even in David's time Jahaveh's power to hear and to 
 help was circumscribed by the boundaries of the Holy 
 Land ; ^ for David complains in regard to his enemies : 
 " They have driven me out tliis day that I should not 
 cleave unto [have no share in, marg.'] the inheritance of 
 Jahaveh, saying, Go, serve other gods " (1 Sam. xxvi. 
 19). The passage has been made a great deal of by 
 most writers of the modern school. But they may be 
 asked to explain the meaning of the same expressions, • 
 put even more strongly, in a book which belongs, ac- 
 cording to them, to a period when the " ethic mono- 
 theism " had asserted itself. In Deuteronomy chap, 
 xxviii., among the misfortunes threatened for disobedi- 
 ence of Jahaveh's law, it is said: "Jahaveh shall bring 
 thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto 
 a nation which thou hast not known, thou nor thy 
 
 » See Note XVIII. 
 
196 The Dwelling-place of the Deity. 
 
 fathers; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood .ind 
 stone" (v. 36): and again, — "Jahaveh shall scatter thee 
 among all peoples, from the one end of the earth even 
 unto the other end of the earth ; and there thou shalt 
 serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor 
 thy fathers, even wood and stone" (v. 64). This is 
 surely as strong an expression of the idea that foreign 
 countries were under the tutelary care of foreign divini- 
 ties as tlie words of David. Whatever may have been 
 the precise signification of such phrases to the minds 
 of the ordinary people employing them (if they had a 
 precise signification at all), we are not justified in con- 
 cluding that in either of the passages they amounted to 
 a belief that the power of Jahaveh ceased when His 
 worshipper went beyond Palestine. David, in point of 
 fact, was in the wilderness of Ziph, within the inheri- 
 tance of Jahaveh, in that sense, when he used the words. 
 And let the context in the book of Deuteronomy be 
 noted. Immediately after the verse last quoted, follow 
 the words: "And among these nations shalt thou find 
 no ease, and there shall be no rest for the sole of thy 
 foot; but Jahaveh shall give thee there a trembling 
 heart, and failing of eyes, and pining of soul," &c. 
 (v. 65). Moreover, in chap. xxx. 1-3, we have the 
 following : " It shall come to pass, when all these 
 things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, 
 which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call 
 them to mind among all the nations whither Jaliaveh 
 thy God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto Jahaveh 
 thy God, and shalt obey His voice, according to all that I 
 command thee this day, . . . that then Jahaveli thy God 
 v>ill turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, 
 and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, 
 
The Passage in Deuteronomy, 197 
 
 whither Jahaveli thy God hath scattered thee. If any 
 of thine outcasts be in the uttermost parts of heaven, 
 from thence will Jahaveh thy God gather thee," &c., &c. 
 From all which we conclude that tlie " serving of other 
 gods," which is made a necessary consequence of being 
 driven out from the inheritance of Jahaveh, must be 
 taken in a sense compatible with the belief that He 
 has power to control the destinies of His outcast ones in 
 their banishment, to hear their penitent cry, and to bring 
 them again, in spite of their enemies and in s^^ite of 
 strange gods, to their own land. There is not a particle 
 of proof that David thought his God would no longer be 
 able to hear and help him when he was driven away 
 from his own home ; and there is explicit proof that the 
 writer of the words in Deuteronomy, while employing 
 expressions exactly like David's, held quite the opposite. 
 And thus the refutation of this low view of the Davidic 
 religion gives a very strong confirmation to the Biblical 
 view, for it brings to light a conception in pre-prophetic 
 Israel — at the time of the Judges even — of Jaliaveh's 
 power to hear and help, which we have no reason to 
 believe other nations entertained of their gods. The 
 instance brought forward by Renan^ stands on a much 
 lower level. A certain Salms^zab, in an inscription 
 found at Teima, in the heart of Arabia, not only stipu- 
 lates his right to offer in a strange land sacrifices to his 
 own god, whose priest he is, but desires that the gods 
 of these strange countries, whose power he recognises, 
 may be pleased with the sacrifices which he will offer 
 to his own god, and regard tliem as offered to themselves. 
 Moreov^er, he desires that the sacred place consecrated to 
 his god may be under the protection of the gods of Teima ; 
 
 ^ Histoire du Peuple d'Israel, vol. i. p. 36. 
 
198 The Dwelling-place of the Deity, 
 
 he establishes and endows in a strange land the worship 
 of his own god ; and the gods of Teima accept the stipu- 
 lation, become guarantees for its performance, and accord 
 their protection to Salms(^zab. With this proceeding ^T. 
 Eenan compares the vow of Jacob at Beth-el, " If Jahaveli 
 be with me, and keep me in the way that I go, . . . Ja- 
 Imveh shall be my God, and this stone shall be Beth- 
 Elohim : " and he adds,^ — " Perhaps under the reign of 
 Solomon there took place more than one convention of 
 this kind. Perhaps even the temple of Solomon saw 
 Tyrians sacrificing to Baal, with the pretension that 
 these sacrifices were not disagreeable to Jahaveh." 
 
 All this is very different from anything we find in the 
 actual documents. Jacob never mentions the gods of the 
 strange land into which he is going, but considers the 
 presence of his own God sufficient for protection and 
 sustenance. And in Deuteronomy the God of the scat- 
 tered Israelites is to be with them, inflicting chastisement, 
 hearing their prayer, and bringing them back witliout 
 any reference to the power of the heathen gods. As 
 to what went on at Jerusalem in Solomon's time, the 
 Biblical historians make no effort to conceal his doings ; 
 and notwithstanding the assertion to the contrary, we 
 have very good reason for believing that his conduct did 
 not pass without rebuke from the men of his own time. 
 There is nothing to favour the view of Eenan that an 
 eclecticism of gods was the authorised or even the current 
 religious practice of those times. On the contrary, as we 
 have already seen that even in the most idolatrous times 
 the people refrained from naming themselves after foreign 
 gods, so also, wherever we find the worship of such gods 
 mentioned, there is always the accompanying conscious- 
 
 ^ Histoire du Peuple d'Israel, vol. i. p. 38. 
 
Animism and Fetishism, 199 
 
 ness that they are foreign gods, and not the rightful 
 objects of worship to the Israelites. 
 
 It is to be observed, however, that the argument as to 
 the dwelling-place of deity is, in principle, much more 
 than an attempt to prove Jahaveh's close association with 
 Mount Sinai or the Holy Land. It is maintained that 
 there are even more crude or elementary conceptions of 
 the dwelling-place and energy of the national god, which 
 prove clearly "that the pre-prophetic religion of Israel 
 grew out of a blending of the Jahaveh religion with 
 certain elements of an older animistic or fetishistic re- 
 ligion found on the west of the Jordan."^ The ancient 
 Israelite, says Stade, had no idea that God dwelt in 
 lieaven. If he is the god of the thunder and lightning, 
 he might have been supposed to dwell above the clouds. 
 But that view was not taken. He dwells on earth, al- 
 though the views as to the precise place he inhabits are 
 confused and contradictory. Along with the belief ac- 
 cepted by Israel in the adoption of the Jahaveh religion, 
 that He had His dwelling on Sinai, is found the wide- 
 spread belief that Jahaveh inhabits the sanctuaries of 
 the land. It was a common belief among primitive 
 peoples that the deity dwelt where he was worshipped, 
 l)eing confined in the temple, and that he left the sanc- 
 tuary before it passed into the hands of an enemy. The 
 belief, too, among ancient Israel amounted to this, that 
 Jahaveh in His entireness inhabited each sanctuary. He 
 was not held to be everywhere present, but He was to be 
 found at these different sanctuaries. 
 
 Stade explains the origin of this belief by the fact that 
 the sanctuaries in question were, before the Israelite con- 
 quest of Canaan, the abodes of different Canaanite numina^ 
 
 ^ Stade, Geschichte, i. p. 446. 
 
200 Tlie Dwelling-place of the Deity. 
 
 and that when the Jahaveh worship overcame the Canaan- 
 ite religion, Jahaveh took possession of these holy places. 
 And so it came about that the old Israelite, without 
 feeling conscious of the contradiction to the Jahaveh re- 
 ligion which it involved, spoke of the " god of Dan " and 
 tlie " god of Beersheba " (Amos viii. 14) ; ^ of the Jahaveh 
 Shalom at Ophrah (Judges vi. 24) ; of the El who had 
 revealed himself at Betli-el (Gen. xxxi. 13) ; as also of 
 the One who appeared to Hagar (Gen. xvi. 13). And 
 expressions used by the prophets, such as " the sin of 
 Samaria" (Amos viii. 14), "the calf of Samaria" (Hosea 
 viii. 5, 6), are just their mode of indicating what, in tlie 
 popular language, would be " the god or Jahaveh of 
 Samaria." Yea, the prophets not only do not fully 
 break away from tliis old popular conception ; they 
 actually take it up in another form. They reprove the 
 people, for example, for localising God at Beth-el, and so 
 forth, but take it as a matter of course that He has His 
 dwelling on Mount Zion at Jerusalem,^ which was, as 
 Ezekiel expresses it, the place of His throne and the 
 place of the soles of His feet (Ezek. xliii. 7) ; and which, 
 as that prophet believes. He forsook before the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem. How then was this dwelling of 
 Jahaveh at different sanctuaries reconciled with the be- 
 lief in His unity ? In this way. The place was not con- 
 sidered sacred because Jahaveh dwelt there, but because 
 He had once appeared there. This was the way that the 
 priestly legend accounted for the existence and reverence 
 of these sacred places, associating each of them with sonre 
 theophany in the lives of the patriarchs or national heroes. 
 So Hebron, Beersheba, Ophrah, Beth-el, Zion, had each its 
 .story connected with it of a manifestation of Jahaveh to 
 1 Geschichte, i. p. 447. 2 Yb^^^ ^ p 443^ 
 
Jaliaveh and the Local Sanctuaries. 201 
 
 His favoured ones. But this mode of accommodation is 
 contradicted by the usage of the ritual language which 
 represents Jahaveh as located in the Temple of Jerusalem 
 from the time that His ark was placed there. This 
 localising of Jahaveh's presence at different sanctuaries 
 is of course, Stade proceeds, opposed to the true Jahaveh 
 religion. The God who had brought the people from 
 Sinai was everywhere present, and could be worshipped 
 everywhere ; but in practice, and in point of fact, He was 
 honoured only at particular places. The priestly account 
 of the matter was, that He could be worsliipped only at 
 places where He had made His presence known, and even 
 the book of the Covenant assumes the same thing (Exod. 
 XX. 24). But as these sanctuaries were in existence 
 before Israel came into the land, and as they coincided 
 with certain prominent features of the country, we must 
 conclude that the proposition, " Jahaveh is to be wor- 
 shipped wherever He has made Himself known to the 
 fathers," simply amounts to this : " Jahaveh is worshipped 
 wherever He has in fact been believed to reside." 
 
 So then, Stade argues, the whole worship of ancient 
 Israel comes under the category of the worship so much 
 blamed by the prophets — viz., the worship of " the high 
 places, under green trees." We have good grounds, he 
 says, for concluding that every prominent situation had its 
 Bamah, or high place, just as every good site in Christian 
 countries has its church. The belief that the gods inhabit 
 the hills is found among ancient Greeks, liomans, and 
 Indians; and in no Semitic land is it more strikingly 
 seen than in Palestine, in which a sacredness attaches to 
 every mountain,^ and in which we have quite a number 
 of places named Bamah, Mizpah, Gibeah, all of a sacred 
 
 ^ Geschiclite, i. p. 449 f. / 
 
202 The Dwelling-place of the Deity. 
 
 character. It is a mistake to suppose that such places 
 were the seats of an old astral or solar worship: they 
 were old sacred places or seats of deity, and became 
 sacred to Jahaveh after Israel passed into the country. 
 The prophets call the old Israelite worship the worship 
 of the high places, and the Syrians are made to say that 
 the gods of the Hebrews are gods of the hills (1 Kings 
 XX. 23). 
 
 To explain how this worship of the high places origi- 
 nated, Stade says it is to be noted that at these sacred 
 places are found graves of patriarchs or other heroes. 
 Thus Hebron was the burying-place of Abraham, and, 
 according to later tradition, of the whole family of the 
 patriarchs. In Shechem the bones of Joseph are placed ; 
 Kadesh-Barnea is associated with the oldest traditions of 
 the tribe of Levi ; and there Miriam is buried. We find 
 also sacred trees at most of these places, or sacred foun- 
 tains, as at Beersheba,^ and sacred stones at Beth-el 
 and elsewhere. And in these particulars there is a great 
 resemblance to the legends attached to the graves of 
 Greek heroes. The conclusion to which Stade comes from 
 these indications is, that before there was an altar and 
 offering of sacrifices to Jahaveh at Hebron and Shechem, 
 for example, it had been a custom to make offerings at 
 these places to the souls of the heroes whose names are 
 associated with each place; and thus we obtain proof 
 that the worship of ancestors was a primitive usage 
 among the Hebrews.^ The graves of ever so many of the 
 
 ^ Geschichte, i. p. 451. 
 
 ^ Stade ascribes to this custom as a social influence the formation of 
 families into septs and then into tribes. The derivation of whole tribes 
 from a common ancestor and the naming of them by his name thus rest, 
 according to this view, on ancestral worship. 
 
TheElim. 203 
 
 legendary personages are thus specially mentioned. The 
 remarkable exception in the case of Moses, whose grave 
 is not known, may be a silent protest against the wor- 
 sliip of ancestors, which is opposed to the religion which 
 Moses made known. Or it may be that he is less of 
 a legendary character than others whose graves are 
 known ; although it is not to be concluded that every 
 one whose grave is honoured is a legendary character. 
 A confirmation of the position now reached is found, 
 Stade proceeds, in the proofs we have that trees, stones, 
 and so forth, were also considered sacred objects among 
 the ancient Hebrews. By the altars in the high places 
 trees were planted, and pillars of wood and Maqgebas of 
 stone were set up ; and these are condemned by the 
 prophets as elements of tlie old false worship. The names 
 given to the trees, — elah, elon ; allah, alldn, — though gener- 
 ally explained to mean terebinth and oak, have no doubt 
 a trace of old animistic belief attached to them, for the 
 elah or allah (according to the Masoretic pointing made 
 to differ, but consonantally identical rh^) is no doubt the 
 nomen unitatis of el, which has its plural elim. The green 
 tree, with its perennial life, was thus no doubt among 
 the Hebrews, as among pagans, regarded as animated with 
 the life of a numen. The reverence for sacred stones is 
 no less remarkable. The stone at Beth-el is invested with 
 sanctity and worshipped, and there are several such 
 stones at Gilgal. Though all these again are explained 
 as made sacred by some appearance of Jahaveh at the 
 place where they are found, it is clear they are traces of 
 old fetishistic worship. And the best proof of all is the 
 story of the sacred ark itself, which cannot be regarded 
 as different essentially from other sacred arks of a similar 
 kind among Etruscans, Egyptians, Trojans, and Greeks, 
 
204 The Divelling -place of the Deity, 
 
 which contained images or fetishes. For by the ancient 
 Israelite, Jahaveh was supposed actually to dwell in the 
 ark ; and only in this way is explained the misfortune of 
 the loss of the ark in tlie Philistine war, and the great care 
 which David took to place it in a safe place at Jerusalem. 
 The tradition that the ark contained two tables of stone 
 undoubtedly rests on some fact, and this fact is that an- 
 cient Israel had such an ark with two actual stones — 
 perhaps meteoric stones — connected with and representing 
 the god of the storm. The priestly explanation here given, 
 again, is perhaps a silent rebuke of the primitive fetish- 
 worship, when it represents the stones as being the two 
 tables of the law. 
 
 There is in this a great deal that is exceedingly in- 
 genious. There is much also tliat is suggestive and 
 valuable, from the point of view of the comparative 
 study of religions, as showing how the religious senti- 
 ment finds expression for itself through the medium of 
 language and forms. Thought is at all times limited 
 and circumscribed when it sets itself to give expression 
 to supersensible things ; forms more or less crude, and 
 language necessarily metaphorical, must be resorted 
 to ; and in this respect the development of religious 
 thought must ever be the same among all peoples. We 
 must, however, be careful, in reasoning from the outward 
 forms in which such sentiments are expressed, to test 
 our conclusions by actual facts, if they are available, 
 showing the sense that underlay the forms. In Stade's 
 reasoning, however, there is a great deal of debatable 
 matter, not only in the bold inferences drawn, but in 
 the statements of assumed fact. There is, moreover, 
 such a display of erudition, such a combination of di- 
 verse materials, and piecing together of things that 
 
Manipulation of " Sources!' 205 
 
 stand far apart, that, unless we look into his argument 
 somewhat closely, we shall be smothered in a mass of 
 distracting particulars. 
 
 A remark may be made at the outset on the peculiar 
 manipulation of the " sources " in this argument. Writers 
 of Stade's school are never tired of repeating tliat written 
 documents give us certain information only in regard to 
 the period at which they are composed. They declare, at 
 the same time, that we have no authentic written docu- 
 ments before the eighth or ninth century B.C. These docu- 
 ments, therefore, ought only to be taken as evidences of 
 the religious conceptions of that period ; and yet Stade 
 relies on them for proof of the religious beliefs of Israel 
 at the time of, and even long before the time of Moses. 
 This he does, however, only when he finds elements 
 giving countenance to his own theory; for the moment 
 that a writer of this period gives his testimony to the 
 Biblical theory, his evidence is discredited as a modern 
 reading of old facts, or even a later interpolation of a 
 redactor. To such straits are writers of this school re- 
 duced, that they have to employ discredited works to 
 build up their own theory — reminding one of the Irish 
 Board of Guardians who resolved first to build a new 
 workhouse out of the materials of tlie old ; and secondly, 
 to allow the old workhouse to stand till the new one was 
 erected. If those stories of the patriarchs and suchlike, 
 which are here appealed to, are of value for determining 
 the ideas of that early age, what becomes of the assertion 
 that they are the late dressing up of historical events ? 
 If, strictly taken, they are merely the expression of the 
 ideas of writers of the ninth century, we are as far as ever 
 from reaching the early age. If, again, the argument is 
 based on the forms of speech, it is another case of false 
 
206 The Dwelling-place of the Deity. ^ 
 
 reasoning from metaphorical or mythological language, 
 such as we saw in the last chapter. 
 
 To come, however, to Stack's argument, there seems to 
 nie to be some confusion in his reasoning. He asserts 
 that the pre-prophetic religion of Israel grew out of a 
 blending of the Jahaveh religion with elements of an 
 older fetishistic kind found on the west of the Jordan ; ^ 
 nnd afterwards, in speaking of the localising of Jahaveh 
 at the different sanctuaries, he says : " This localising of 
 Jahaveh's presence at different sanctuaries is of course 
 opposed to the true Jahaveh religion. The God who had 
 brouglit tlie people from Sinai was everywhere present and 
 could be worshipped everywhere ; but in point of fact and 
 in practice, He was honoured only at particular places." ^ 
 Here it would seem to be implied that the lower ani- 
 mistic and fetishistic elements were found by Israel on 
 their entrance into Canaan, and taken into the Jahaveh 
 religion ; and also that, whereas they had attained under 
 Moses to the idea that God was everywhere present, yet 
 on coming into the land of Canaan, they learned to localise 
 Him. Stade thus seems inadvertently to admit the Bib- 
 lical statement of the case — viz., that Israel in Canaan 
 learned the ways of the Canaan ites, and thereby fell away 
 from their own God. He can scarcely, however, mean 
 this, or imply that Israel, when they received the know- 
 ledge of Jahaveh, had no superstitions of their own, 
 for his whole argument is led with a view of reach- 
 ing the nature basis of the pre-Mosaic religion. It is 
 strange, in this view, that he should have to come to 
 Canaan for so much ; and he ought to tell us clearly 
 whether the process of development after Moses was a 
 process of deterioration from the Jahaveh religion, or a 
 
 1 Geschiclite, i. p. 446. = Ibid., p. 449. 
 
Greek y Roman, and Bedaioin Tribes. 207 
 
 process of elimination of older animistic notions by the 
 force of the new faith, or whether both processes went on 
 simultaneously. No one doubts that the popidar religion 
 was deeply affected by contact with Canaanitish idolatry ; 
 nor need we ignore the tendency seen everywhere, even 
 when a purer faith has been learned, to run into carnal 
 and limited conceptions and modes of expression, and the 
 cropping up everywhere in human history of the hard 
 granite of underlying superstition. Stade himself, how- 
 ever, falls back upon the existence of a purer and better 
 religion, made known in the time of Moses ; and if this 
 point is established, the Biblical theory is so far confirmed. 
 In the absence of direct historical evidence in regard to 
 the earlier periods of Israel's history, Stade refers to tlie 
 conditions under which tribes were formed among tlie 
 ancient inhabitants of Greece and Eome, and the mode of 
 growth of the pre-Islamic Bedawin tribes. Such com- 
 parisons are deeply instructive for the light they throw 
 upon the manner in which the human mind comports 
 itself when confronted with the problems of religion. Yet 
 the history of the religious life of Israel is so unique that 
 we have always to be on our guard against assuming for 
 it precisely the same kind of development as is found in 
 other nations. It may be that the religious phraseology 
 of the Hebrews is exactly like that of polytheistic nations, 
 though Eenan, for example, would deny it ; and it may be 
 safe to infer that this similarity proves that the 'primitive 
 notions of both were similar. But the question is. When 
 was the primitive stage among the Hebrews ? The first 
 attempts of man to express conceptions of unseen things 
 result in metaphor, and all religious language is meta- 
 phorical. But metaphorical language may be employed 
 by a people long after they have passed beyond a primi- 
 
208 The Dwelling-place of the Deity. 
 
 live stage of intelligence. "We use to the present day, 
 witliout being misled by it, phraseology full of anthropo- 
 morphisms, and speak of God in the very language 
 employed in the earliest Hebrew writings. To take 
 such phrases in the strictly literal sense, and to maintain 
 that where they were employed by the Hebrews they had 
 tliat sense, is to ignore the simplest laws of language, and 
 to overlook the growth of reflection. Surely no one 
 expects to find in tlie pre-prophetic period the abstrac- 
 tions and generalisations of the modern philosophy of reli- 
 gion. The very best of the prophets never moved in that 
 direction ; their conceptions of God may be said to be not 
 so much excogitated as intuitively grasped, and they were 
 content to employ the same phrases as had been employed 
 from of old by men who could not have reached their 
 lofty conceptions. Stade might have perceived that in 
 referring to Ezekiel's belief that God left the Temple 
 before Jerusalem was destroyed, he was refuting his own 
 argument ; or would he, for example, infer from the 
 words in an exilian psalm, " How shall we sing Jahaveh's 
 song in a strange land ? " (Ps. cxxxvii. 4), that even at that 
 late period the Israelites still believed that their national 
 God was confined to Palestine ? If the prophets of Israel 
 ever attained to a conception of a God who was every- 
 where present, spiritual, and unique, they had attained it 
 in Ezekiel's time in the captivity. To make this prophet 
 hold the crude idea said to be held by pre-proplietic 
 men, that the deity dwelt in a certain sanctuary in the 
 limited sense described, is to reduce the whole reasoning 
 to absurdity, and to make the tracing of development 
 impossible. 
 
 It is no doubt true that certain places were to the an^ 
 cient Israelite more sacred than others, and there can be 
 
Hallowed Places, 209 
 
 no doubt that superstitious reverence was paid by the 
 ignorant and carnal-minded to places and things. We 
 are not, however, inquiring as to the superstitions of the 
 common people, but as to the truth that had been made 
 known to the teachers and guides of the nation. For that 
 matter, we have not yet outgrown a certain reverence for 
 places associated with great historical or religious events, 
 and what Stade calls the priestly tradition is just as likely, 
 in the circumstances, to be a true account of the matter as 
 the one which he gives. A people who already had, accord- 
 ing to Stade's own admission, a knowledge of a God who 
 was everywhere, and who could help anywhere, was quite 
 likely to regard with special reverence such places as 
 had been the scene of critical events, or striking dis- 
 plays of power ; and this in itself was not and could not 
 be reprobated. The transition, however, from pious asso- 
 ciation and veneration to superstitious regard, is very easy 
 among an unreflecting people ; and the same Biblical writers 
 who record the events which made certain spots sacred, 
 tell us also how these very places became the headquarters 
 of idolatry. Had the prophets known that the worship- 
 pers of Jahaveh merely appropriated old heathen shrines, 
 they would not have omitted to mention it. Neither do 
 they give the least hint that the sacred places of the 
 Hebrews were so regarded because they were originally 
 the burial-places of Hebrew or Canaanite heroes, although 
 the fact, if it were a fact, could scarcely have been without 
 a trace in the national recollection. 
 
 Stade also makes a great deal of the awe felt by the 
 Israelite at the thunder, which was God's voice, the import- 
 ance attached to dreams, and so forth, taking all these as so 
 many indications of a primitive nature-worship. But ad- 
 mitting here, also, the necessary imperfection of language 
 
 o 
 
 0» 
 
210 ' TJiC Dioelling-place of the Deity. 
 
 to express religious conceptions, and admitting that people 
 of simple believing hearts used language of the most in- 
 fantile character, it is to be observed that the feelings he 
 speaks of are consistent with conceptions of God of a most 
 spiritual kind. The beliefs of men like Lord Bacon and Sir 
 Thomas Browne, not to mention others, sliould make us 
 very careful in our reasoning here; and in point of fact, 
 the "superstitions" even of the popular conceptions of 
 Israel do not exceed those to be found in the Christian 
 centuries. If, with the conviction that the God whom 
 they worshipped controlled the world of nature as well as 
 the world of man, the early Israelites heard His voice in 
 the thunder, and trembled before His presence in the 
 storm, why should we call this an old belief in a nature- 
 God ? It is quite as reasonable to call it an inborn belief 
 in a God of nature; and there are yet not a few who be- 
 lieve in such a God, although Renan would persuade us that 
 such a God is a fiction. If, again, they felt His presence 
 particularly near in the silent night, and recognised His 
 communings with their spirits in dreams, it is just as 
 reasonable to regard these convictions as part of the human 
 consciousness that man has a close relation to the unseen, 
 as to say that they are remnants of a belief that every 
 bush or tree or stone harboured a divinity. It is now, I 
 think, admitted by the most sober students of anthropol- 
 ogy, that even the lowest forms of fetishism rest upon 
 and are the outcome of a recognition by the human spirit 
 of a spirit above man and nature, and that the presence of 
 crude conceptions or superstitious practices in the midst 
 .of a certain age does not by any means give the key to the 
 understanding of that whole age. Christian countries 
 form tlie best field for the study of the rudest and grossest 
 superstitions. And if it be said tliat these are the traces 
 
Sumval of Superstitions. 211 
 
 of an older naturalistic faith, the question arises, How old 
 must they be if eighteen centuries of Christian civilisation 
 have not rooted them out?^ The main point is: their 
 presence does not prove that a purer faith, a less super- 
 stitious religion, has not been taught and acknowledged 
 at an earlier stage. 
 
 In the face of all that is advanced to prove the low stage 
 of pre-prophetic religion in Israel, we may argue thus : 
 Down to the close of Israel's national existence, we find a 
 struggle going on between a spiritual religion and the most 
 material conceptions ; and, at the first appearance of written 
 prophecy, we find the same, with reproof of the carnal- 
 minded for falling away from a liigher faith. Therefore 
 the struggle may have been going on at a period long ante- 
 cedent ; at all events, it is not yet proved that it began 
 with the prophets whose writings have come down to us. 
 I believe that an unprejudiced view of all the evidence 
 will lead to the conclusion that, as the existence of narrow 
 and sensuous views is attested by historians and prophets 
 alike, so history and prophecy are alike unintelligible 
 without admitting the presence at the same time of a 
 better and purer faith. 
 
 Finally, however, we have, it seems to me, a sure mode 
 of testing the conclusions drawn on this precarious method 
 of reasoning. If these animistic and fetishistic concep- 
 tions lingered on till the time of the Jahavist, and found 
 embodiment in his stories, we ought to find clear indica- 
 tions of them in other writings that belong to about the 
 same period, and to be able to test them by statements of 
 a more decisive nature. Critical writers, it is true, do 
 not give us much latitude in our selection of authorities. 
 
 ' For some curious illustrations, see Arthur Mitchell's ' The Past in the 
 Present' (1880). 
 
212 The Dwelling -2olace of the Deity. 
 
 Still we have some undoubted productions of the time, 
 or near it, when these nature conceptions are said to 
 have been prevalent ; and if we find in them a mode of 
 speaking and thinking which is opposed to the theory, 
 we are entitled to check the lower by the higher, and 
 to accept the Biblical account that by the time in ques- 
 tion a knowledge of a much higher kind had been attained. 
 Take the song of Deborah itself. Not only does it give 
 no countenance to the modern view, unless by a strained 
 turning of exalted poetic diction into flat prose, but its 
 whole tenor and tone show that the tribes at that time 
 had a much worthier conception of their national God. 
 Modern critics will scarcely admit any psalm to have 
 come from David ; but there is one, the 18th, having its 
 counterpart in 2 Sam. xxii., which is often appealed to in 
 support of the low tone of pre-prophetic religion, and 
 which most critics would accept as genuine. This psalm, 
 as has just been hinted, contains some highly figurative 
 and poetical language (vv. 6-16), which has been eagerly 
 seized upon to show that at the time the psalm was com- 
 posed Jahaveh was regarded as a nature-God, riding upon 
 a cherub, breathing forth fire and smoke, shooting forth 
 lightnings as arrows from His bow, and so forth. P>ut 
 the psalm contains also language of a less poetical and 
 more unequivocal character, and it is surely safe criticism 
 to interpret the more obscure by the light of the more 
 evident. It may be put to any one of sober sense whether 
 the expressions that occur in verses 16 and onwards are 
 compatible with the theory we are considering. There is 
 here no difficulty in seeing the standpoint of the writer : 
 " As for God, His way is perfect : the word of Jaliaveh is 
 tried; He is a buckler to all those that trust in Him. 
 For who is God save Jahaveh ? or who is a rock save 
 
Metaphorical Language tested, 213 
 
 onr God ? " (vv. 30, 31). Such expressions cannot be 
 toned down into a belief in a mere storm-God ; on the 
 contrary, those other expressions, of a highly poetical 
 kind must be taken to be in harmony with this higher 
 tone, and therefore given up as proofs of an animistic 
 or fetishistic character of religious conception at this 
 period. 
 
 Then we have the books of the earliest writing prophets, 
 Amos and Hosea ; and Stade actually tries to base an 
 argument for his theory on statements of these prophets, 
 although he positively rejects their testimony to a purer 
 faith in the times before them. And what does his argu- 
 ment from Amos amount to ? The prophet speaks of the 
 God of Dan and the God of Beersheba (viii. 14) ; and 
 therefore it was part of the acknowledged religion of that 
 time to regard the Deity as localised at various centres. 
 Now it is to be noticed that Amos, in the passage appealed 
 to, is reproving those who use such expressions as apos- 
 tate, showing, no doubt, that the popular conception was 
 at fault, but giving no proof that this aberration repre- 
 sented the accepted religion. And then, as to the pro- 
 phets having carried over the localising tendency, and 
 confined Jahaveh's residence to Jerusalem, it may be put 
 to any sane person whether the prophet, who opens his 
 book with the words, " Jahaveh shall roar from Zion, and 
 litter His voice from Jerusalem " (Amos i. 2), and who also 
 ascribes to Jahaveh the bringing of the Philistines from 
 Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir, as well as the Israelites 
 from Egypt (Amos ix. 7), could possibly have thought of 
 Jahaveh as confined within a chest in the Temple, or even 
 limited to Jerusalem as a dwelling-place ; or whether the 
 prophet Isaiah, who saw " Jahaveh sitting upon a throne, 
 high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple" (Isa. 
 
214 Hie Dwelling 'place of the Deity. 
 
 vi. 1), had not vet got beyond a bodily conception of 
 Israel's God. 
 
 If, then, witnesses on whom we rely, clearly hold dif- 
 ferent conceptions from those ascribed to men who are 
 almost their contemporaries, we must either conclude 
 that the lower views, if they are proved to be there, are 
 not to be taken as held by the best of the nation, or that 
 they are wrongly ascribed to those to whom they are im- 
 puted. Seeing that the higher views are expressed in the 
 actual words of the Biblical writers, while the lower are 
 only inferred from doubtful expressions or metaphorical 
 language, a sober criticism must reject the inference which 
 Stade would draw. Moreover, when Stade finds the most 
 primitive conceptions existing side by side with the most 
 advanced ideas, one is disposed to ask what is the value of 
 all the critical processes which profess to be able to separate 
 the component parts of our documents, and to assign the 
 different elements to different periods on the ground of 
 the development of thought which they exhibit ? Even 
 if we considered that he had successfully proved that tliese 
 notions of an animistic or fetishistic character are fairly 
 deducible from the so-called Jahavistic source, seeing that 
 they are so divergent from the conceptions of the writing 
 prophets, the conclusion, on critical grounds, ought to be 
 that these stories of the Jahavist are much older than the 
 eighth century. Stade thinks himself capable of deter- 
 mining on grounds of higher and lower tone in speaking 
 of Jahaveh, that the stories of the patriarchs, being of 
 milder aspect, are later than those of the book of Judges. 
 How much earlier, on his own mode of reasoning, ought 
 both to be than the writinors of Amos and Hosea ! 
 
215 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PRE-PROPHETIC RELIGION CONTINUED — VISIBLE 
 REPRESENTATIONS OF THE DEITY. 
 
 The calf-worship considered^ as to the source from which it came, and as to 
 the regard in which it toas held — Arguments of Vatke and Kuenen 
 from history and from prophetical books — Elijah and Eiisha — Amos — 
 Br Davidson^ s statement — Argument drawn from the ephod — Meaning 
 of the word, and its alleged use to signify an image — Gideon's ephod— 
 Micah and the Danitcs — Vathe's account of the ephod — Kuenen^ s con- 
 tradictory accounts — The whole argument uncertain — Stades pruning- 
 Jcnife — "yln altar in the land of Egypt and a pillar by its border" — 
 A passage in Ilosea examined. 
 
 We have next to consider the proofs brought forward to 
 show that the Israelites, lii^e the neighbouring nations, 
 were in the habit of making visible representations of 
 their national God, and considered it no aberration from 
 their ancestral faith to do so. On this line of argument, 
 reliance is particularly placed upon such facts as the 
 practice of calf-worship, the use and veneration of the 
 ephod, and various considerations drawn from the pro- 
 phetical and historical writings. These we must there- 
 fore consider in detail. 
 
 I. As to the calf- worship, Kuenen says confidently: 
 "Jahveh was worshipped in the shape of a young bull. 
 It may not be doubted that the bull- worship was really the 
 
216 Visible Representations of the Deitij. 
 
 worship of Jaliveh." ^ The account given of the making 
 of the golden calf in the wilderness (Exod. xxxii. 8, 23), 
 and the setting up of calves in the northern kingdom 
 (1 Kings xii. 28), show plainly enough that there was 
 something in this form or accompaniment of worship, 
 which not only did not shock the religious sense of the 
 mass of the people, but even commended itself to them 
 as fitting and lawful. The question is, Was it part and 
 parcel of the ancestral faith and worship, to such a degree 
 that the preservers of the true Jahaveh tradition saw in 
 it no defection from the severity of that religion ? To 
 arrive at a solution of this question, we must inquire, (a) 
 on the one hand, from what source the calf-worship came 
 — whether, that is to say, it is a remnant of old pre- 
 Mosaic or even pre-Abrahamic superstition cropping up 
 at a later time, or whether it came along with and a^ 
 part of the Israelite belief in Jahaveh, or finally, whether 
 it was borrowed and incorporated into their own religion 
 from the religion of some other people; and (b) on the 
 other hand, whether it is formally approved of or not rep- 
 robated by those who in the most special manner stood 
 forth as representatives of the true Jahaveh worship. 
 
 (a) As to the origin of the calf-worship, there is much 
 to be said in favour of the view that the Israelites became 
 familiar with it in Egypt, and brought it with them as an 
 inheritance of degradation from that country. The Old 
 Testament writers do not say that it was borrowed from 
 Egypt — indeed they do not tell us whence it came — but 
 there remain the two facts, that it appeared first in the 
 history immediately after the exodus, and that Jeroboam 
 I., who set it up in the northern kingdom, had lived for 
 some time in Egypt and had a patron in the Pharaoh of 
 
 1 Relig. of Israel (Eng. tr.), vol. i. p. 235. 
 
The Calf -Worship. 217 
 
 his time. Moreover, we find even as late as Ezekiel the 
 firm tradition of an early corruption of Israelite faith 
 with the superstitions of Egypt. In several passages that 
 prophet speaks of the " idols of Egypt " (xx. 7, 8) as 
 having had a sinister influence on Israel at the time of 
 the exodus ; and of the whoredoms in Egypt committed 
 in the nation's youth (xxiii. 3, 8, 19, 21). In the same 
 way, in the parting address of Joshua, the gods which 
 their fathers served beyond the river are classed with 
 those which they served in Egypt as corruptions to be put 
 away (Josh. xxiv. 14). It is true that in these passages 
 the worship of the calf or tlie ox is not expressly men- 
 tioned ; but when it is remembered that the city of On, 
 in which the ox Mnevis was worshipped, lay in Goshen 
 or on its borders,"^ the coincidence of the appearance of 
 the calf-worship immediately after tlie exodus^ with 
 these references to Egyptian idolatry, is very striking and 
 suggestive. Gramberg, for example, who derived the calf- 
 worship from Egypt, explained its prevalence in Israel 
 after this fashion: The worship of Apis, once borrowed 
 by a people prone to a visible cultus, maintained itself 
 all along as a private and unofficial worship, side by side 
 with the ritual connected with the ark. Jeroboam, see- 
 ing that the Jerusalem Court had possession of the ark, 
 and that the Temple ritual had no image, made the wor- 
 ship of Jahaveh Apis the official cultus in his new state, 
 this arrangement being favoured by the fact that Dan 
 
 ^ Ebers in llielim's Handworterbuch, Art. On, p. 1111 f. Comp. p. 529, 
 Art. Gosen. 
 
 ^ It may be observed in passing, that modern critics, as a rule, find no 
 difficulty in accepting as a historical fact the making of the golden calf in 
 the desert, although they will not admit that the tabernacle was also 
 made in the wilderness. Kuenen is consistent in saying (Rel. Isr., i. p. 
 23'0 "it is doubtful whether the bull-worship in the desert is historical." 
 
218 Visible Representations of the Deity. 
 
 was already the seat of an image - worship of Jahaveh, 
 though not perhaps of the calf - worship.^ There is 
 the obvious objection to this theory, that a people just 
 delivered from bondage to a foreign yoke was not likely 
 to set up as a symbol of the God that delivered them the 
 very image of the god of their oppressors. Moreover, 
 although the Egyptians carried about images of bulls in 
 sacred processions, yet the object of their veneration was 
 a live bull, Apis. The difficulty indeed is so great, that 
 we are rather led to believe that the calf, whatever else 
 it was to Israel, was not the actual symbol of any 
 Egyptian deity, but was adopted as a distinctive symbol 
 of their own god by a people whose religious sense had 
 been so utterly debauched by residence in Egypt, that 
 they considered some visible representation of the deity 
 necessary. Their long sojourn among a people whose re- 
 ligious service was so overlaid with symbolism and ima- 
 gery could not have been without its effect in this direc- 
 tion; just as there are in the ritual and other laws of 
 the Hebrews very striking resemblances to the customs 
 of Egypt — in the Urim and Thummim, for example. 
 
 The readiness, nay eagerness, with which the people in 
 the desert accepted the golden calf as the symbol of the 
 God that had brought them out of Egypt, the ease with 
 which the worship of tlie calves was introduced by 
 Jeroboam, and the fact that in both cases a calf or 
 young bull was taken as a symbol, are thought by some 
 to have a deeper root. The golden calf in the desert 
 could scarcely have been a sudden thought ; and we must 
 either think of Israel having become thoroughly impreg- 
 nated with Egyptian idolatrous notions, or having even in 
 their own blood, so to speak, a leaning in that direction. 
 
 \ Gramberg, Krit. Gesch. d. Keligionsideen des A. T. (1829), i. p. 444. 
 
Jeroboam's Calves. 219 
 
 It is still more difficult to explain Jeroboam's step 
 as a simple imitation of the gods of Egypt. He could 
 hardly, one would think, have appealed to Aaron's act 
 as a precedent ; although, indeed, the people in the desert 
 is represented as using the same language as Jeroboam 
 (comp. Exod. xxxii. 4, 8, with 1 Kings xii. 28). Nor 
 could his action have well commended itself to the ac- 
 ceptance of a people who had ceased to have sympathy 
 with such visible representations of the deity from the 
 time of the exodus. Hence some of the soberer critics 
 of modern times ^ believe that the representation of the 
 deity in this form was an old Hebrew idea, or one of 
 those ideas common to the Hebrews, with their Semitic 
 kindred and other nations. Against this view it may be 
 urged that in the stories of Abraham and the other patri- 
 archs there is no reference to calf or ox worship as remain- 
 ing elements of pre-Abrahamic religion, although teraphim 
 are mentioned as remaining in the family of Jacob. Yet 
 since Abraham is represented as coming forth from an 
 idolatrous land, since the symbolism of bulls was common 
 in Assyria, and since the Israelites took to this form of 
 representation so easily, there is a good deal of support 
 for the view that it rests on an old inherent conception. 
 
 We must not ignore the fact that there is ever in the 
 human mind a craving for visible forms to express reli- 
 gious conceptions ; and history shows that this tendency 
 does not disappear with the acceptance nor even with the 
 constant recognition of pure spiritual truth. We need not 
 be astonished at Israel, at the time in question, manifesting 
 the tendency, nor charge them with a crass materialistic 
 idolatry in so doing. They wished, let us suppose, to have 
 
 1 See their names in Konig's Hauptp'robleme, p. 57, from which, also, a 
 good deal of what is here stated is derived. 
 
220 Visible Representations of the Deity. 
 
 a visible representation of strength, and they could not 
 picture the abstract idea of Ahir, Mighty, in a more obvi- 
 ous manner than by an image of the Abbir, the powerful 
 Ox.^ That it was an image of an ox, and not of a human 
 being (although they used the niost marked antliropomor- 
 phic language in speaking of God) is to me a strong reason 
 for supposing that the calf or ox was not meant to be an 
 actual image, but only a symbol, of God. Does not, in- 
 deed, the making of such images, as unlike as possible to 
 the form in which deity can be conceived, prove that the 
 initial impulse to image-making rests on a more spiritual 
 recognition of the Godhead ? It is only when the instinc- 
 tive impulse has stilled down, and the mass of ignorant 
 people rest in forms, that the eIkcdv becomes a charm or 
 even a god. Baudissin says : ^ "As the great and mighty 
 of the earth are often represented under the figure of 
 an ox, and as especially the horn of the ox is an image 
 of strength, so the latter image is not disdained as a rep- 
 resentation of the power and salvation proceeding from 
 Jahaveh ; " and this consideration may furnish at least 
 some explanation of the ideas on whose awakening in the 
 hearts of the common people those who introduced the 
 calf- worship could count as auxiliaries in its adoption.^ 
 
 This view, however, differs widely from that which some 
 of the more advanced critics of the history have put for- 
 ward — viz., that the calf or ox worship was part of the 
 authorised Mosaic Jahaveh religion. On either of the sup- 
 positions that the calf-worship was borrowed from Egypt, 
 or that it was a primitive inherent tendency, there is no 
 inconsistency with the Biblical theory, which traces idol- 
 
 ^ Sec above, chap. vii. p. 188. 
 
 2 Herzog-Plitt, Realencyklopiidie, vii. p. 395 f., Art. Kalb. 
 
 ' So Konig, Hauptprobleme, p. 58. 
 
Vatke and Kuenen on Calf-Worship. 221 
 
 atry to Egypt, aud also declares that the " fathers " of Israel 
 before Abraham served other gods. But the idea that 
 the calf-worship is really part, or the same as, the worship 
 of Jahaveh, is quite opposed to the view of prophets and 
 historians. We must, therefore, examine its claims more 
 closely. 
 
 (h) We shall look presently at those formal statements 
 of prophetic writers which are urged in support of the 
 position. In the meantime we turn to the considerations 
 drawn from history which are said to warrant it. Yatke's 
 general line of argument is, that Moses could not have 
 forbidden Israel to represent Jahaveh in visible form ; 
 because even the ark of the covenant with its cherubim 
 must have led to such visible representation ; because the 
 prohibition of images in the Decalogue is a later out- 
 growth of the polemic against idol-worship, a result of the 
 gradual and later perception of the spiritual nature of 
 God ; and because the absence of opposition to idol-worship 
 which we find even in late times is a proof that Moses 
 could never have prohibited it.^ Kuenen argues very 
 much on the same lines.^ " The priests and worshippers 
 •of the golden bull," he says, "believed that they were 
 worshipping Jahaveh Himself. Jeroboam I., too, the 
 founder of the temples at Dan and Beth-el, calls the image 
 made by him, ' Thy [Israel's] God, which brought thee up 
 out of the land of Egypt ; ' had it been possible to inter- 
 pret the golden bull as a symbol of another deity, the 
 narrator who tells us this detail would not have described 
 it as a representation of Jahveh." Then, after rejecting 
 the idea that the calf- worship was borrowed from Egypt, 
 he says : ^ "It is much more reasonable to suppose that 
 
 1 Vatke, Biblische Theologie (1835), pp. 233-235, 266-272, 398, 403, 483. 
 - Relig. of Israel (Eng. tr.), vol. i. p. 235. 3 ibj^., p. 236. 
 
222 Visible Representations of the Deity. 
 
 the ten tribes, who rxibelled against Solomon's extortions, 
 and his leaning towards foreign manners and customs, 
 introduced a genuinely national and ancient Israelitish 
 worship. For this reason, therefore, it is very probable 
 that Jahveh had already been worshipped under the same 
 form during the period of the Judges." ^ He then pro- 
 ceeds to refer to the symbols in and around the temple, 
 wliich " remind us of the bull-worship, and are evidently 
 related to it," the four horns of the great altar, and the 
 twelve oxen supporting the brazen sea or laver. Else- 
 where 2 he argues that the belief that Jahaveh Himself 
 was present in the ark gives another proof that he was 
 regarded as cognisable by sense. He also shares Yatke's 
 view that the prohibition of image-worship in the Deca- 
 logue comes in awkwardly,^ breaking the connection of the 
 words, and thus betraying itself as a late addition ; and 
 in confirmation, he refers to the making of the brazen 
 serpent, which was worshipped down to the days of 
 Hezekiah. 
 
 But all these considerations are singularly inadequate 
 to bear the weighty inferences based upon them. The 
 cherubim, whatever else they may have been, are never 
 hinted at as representations of Jahaveh, who "sits above" 
 them. And the idea that the Deity was believed to 
 reside in the ark is one of those precarious inferences 
 from an old presumed animistic belief, which are not 
 warranted by any positive evidence to be drawn from 
 the documents. As to the prohibition of image-worship 
 in the second commandment, this would most likely sug- 
 gest itself to a lawgiver in the position of Moses, in 
 view of the idolatrous practices of the heathen nations, 
 
 1 So also Duhm, Theol. d. Propheten, p. 47, Anm, 4. 
 
 2 Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 233. 3 ibid.^ p. 287. 
 
Image -Worship not Mosaic. 223 
 
 and even Kiienen will hardly deny that Moses had at- 
 tained to the notion of a spiritual God. For in one 
 passage,^ after saying that Moses may have shared in 
 the ideas of a somewhat sensuous character held as to 
 the ark, he says if Moses believed that the ark was the 
 abode of Jahaveh, and accordingly offered the common 
 sacrifices before it, 
 
 " then he himself certainly did not erect an image of Jaliveh, 
 much less ordain the use of one. We are inclined to go a step 
 further. May we not conclude from the fact that Moses attached 
 so much importance to the ark, tliat the images of Jahveh did not 
 fully harmonise with his conception of Jahveh's nature and char- 
 acter ? If he had really received a deep impression of Jahveh's 
 majesty, and of the vast diffeience between Him and the 'other 
 gods,' is it not extremely natural that he should not have been 
 altogether satisfied with the image of the bull, which was immedi- 
 ately connected with the usual nature-worship, and led men again 
 and again to sink into it? The conclusion is easily drawn, Moses 
 did not definitely and expressly forbid the use of Jahveh images. 
 But still less did he promote it. He even opposed it indirectly by 
 raising the aik to be Israel's central sanctuary. The prohibition, 
 ' thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,' was not decreed 
 by him, but at a much later period, although it was done in con- 
 formity with his spirit," 
 
 One would think that this was an ample admission 
 that image-worship is not of Mosaic origin, and therefore 
 not a part of the genuine Jahaveh religion. As for tlie 
 brazen serpent, Kuenen himself does not lay much stress 
 on it, for on his view the account of it cannot be accepted 
 as historical ; and even if the Israelites paid reverence 
 to it, this does not prove that Moses, if he made it, set 
 it up for that purpose. The argument drawn from the 
 symbolism about the Temple fails also to establish the 
 point, for it is confronted by one hard fact which makes 
 
 1 Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 289 f. 
 
224 Visible Representations of the Deity. 
 
 for the opposite conclusion. Both Yatke and Graniberg 
 admit that one great feature distinguishing the worship 
 of Jerusalem from that of the northern kingdom was 
 the absence from the Temple of any image of Jahaveh. 
 The fact is the more significant that so much symbolism 
 did exist, and seems to emphasise tlie point conceded 
 above by Kuenen, that Moses did not promote image- 
 worship. Kuenen also admits ^ that the ark stood where 
 an image of Jahaveh should have stood, but does not 
 pretend that there was any attempt to erect such an 
 image. On the contrary he says, " We are nowhere told 
 that Jahveh was worshipped under any visible form in 
 the Temple at Jerusalem; it is much more likely that 
 from the very beginning that Temple was dedicated to 
 the service of the invisible Jahveh." ^ He tries indeed to 
 make out that such images existed at other places where 
 Jahaveh was worshipped. " The same prophets," he says, 
 " whose complaints of the heathen practices of their 
 countrymen we have just noticed, testify at the same 
 time to the fact that Jahveh was universally honoured 
 and served. Thus it is very possible, and even probable, 
 that some of these graven images, the use of which they 
 deplored, were images of Jahveh."^ Wellhausen also 
 says plainly,^ that " images of the deity were exhibited in 
 all the three places (viz., Jerusalem, Beth-el, and Dan), 
 and indeed in every place where a house of God was found." 
 In this they are practically following Vatke, who reasoned,* 
 from Isa. ii. 8, that if the land of Judah was full of idols, 
 the idol-worshippers could not have omitted from their 
 list the greatest or one of the greatest of their gods, 
 Jahaveh himself. It is a mere guess, destitute of any 
 
 1 Eelig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 236. ^ j^j^j^ p^ go. 3 ibid., p. 80. 
 
 4 Hist, of Israel, p. 406. « Bibl. Theol., p. 483. 
 
'Elijah and Elislia and the Calf- Worship. 225 
 
 proof, and, in face of the striking fact in regard to the 
 Temple, it is in the highest degree improbable. We 
 should, on Vatke's reasoning, have concluded that if 
 Jahaveh was to be represented freely by an image at 
 local shrines, a fortiori he would be so represented in 
 the Temple. Only, the facts are against this reasoning, 
 and much reasoning of a like kind. 
 
 But it is said there are direct positive proofs that a 
 worship of Jahaveh by visible images was common and 
 recognised by the best authorities. Of such proofs one 
 is the passage in the book of Judges, in which a grandson 
 of Moses is mentioned as exercising idolatrous priestly 
 functions at Dan. To this we shall recur immediately 
 in speaking of the epliod. Let us now look at other 
 proofs based upon the practices of the prophets them- 
 selves or to be deduced from their writings. 
 
 It is maintained by the modern critics that, as in the 
 legends of Elijah and Elisha we find no mention of a 
 polemic against the calf-worship of the northern kingdom, 
 we may take that as an indication that these prophets 
 did not look upon it as inconsistent with the true 
 Jahaveh religion. As for the words of Ahijah the 
 Shilonite, whom the writer of Kings introduces as de- 
 nouncing Jeroboam for making " other gods and molten 
 images " (1 Kings xiv. 9), these are set down as " the 
 dressing up of the pragmatic view of a later age " ; and 
 the imprecation of the unnamed prophet introduced in 
 the same book (chap. xiii. 1 ff.) is easily got rid of for a 
 similar reason. Letting these references pass, however, 
 as contained in a book written long after the time to 
 which we confine ourselves, we take the admission of 
 Vatke that the legends of the prophets Elijah and Elisha 
 are, comparatively speaking, correct. Now the absence 
 
 P 
 
226 Visible Eeprescntations of the D city. 
 
 from tliem of all polemic against the calves may be 
 admitted to be a very striking circumstance, since it is 
 the case that such polemic formed a prominent and con- 
 stant element of prophetic preaching.^ But in the first 
 place, there were many abuses in the northern kingdom 
 about wliich we hear nothing from Elijah and Elisha. It 
 is certainly remarkable that we do not find either of these 
 prophets at Beth-el or Dan, the seats of the calf-worship, 
 where we might naturally have expected them, had they 
 regarded these as the seats of the true Jahaveh-worship 
 of the time. The fact of their keeping aloof from these 
 places, and forming perhaps, as many have supposed, 
 centres of religious activity around which the piously 
 minded of their nation could gather and keep clear of 
 the prevailing contamination, would tell against the idea 
 that they recognised the worship of Jeroboam's sanctu- 
 aries as genuine. But above all, these prophets had evtni 
 a harder duty to perform than to rebuke the calf-worship. 
 That worship, degraded as it was, called itself a worship 
 of Jahaveh, and, from Jeroboam's days, may have kept 
 the recognition of the national God of Israel in a w\ay 
 prominently before the people. But in the days of Ahab 
 and his queen Jezebel, when Elijah flourished, it came to 
 be a question whether Jahaveh or the Phoenician Baal 
 was to receive recognition as the national god. To this 
 great question Elijah braced himself, and sought to rouse 
 the undivided co-operation of every Israelite. When once 
 that danger passed away, we see his successors direct- 
 ing themselves to the purification of the Jahaveh religion, 
 which had gained the day. The two crises are very much 
 like those which Europe passed through in its religious 
 history — first the struggle as to whether the Crescent or 
 , . Vatke, Bibl. Theol., p. 400 f. 
 
Iloseas Attitude to the Calf- Worshijp. 227 
 
 the Cross should be the recognised symbol of superiority, 
 and then the Eeformation of religion from its own abuses 
 in the sixteenth century. For, as has just been said, the 
 earliest writing prophets ^ are found denouncing the calf- 
 worship as vigorously as Elijah rebuked the worship of 
 Baal. It is not even denied, it cannot well be denied, 
 by the most advanced writers that Hosea at least takes 
 up this attitude to the worship of the calves ; and his 
 position is so well marked in this respect that modern 
 critical writers beat about the bush, but in vain, for 
 any adequate explanation of this advance over the non- 
 writing or acting propliets who immediately precede 
 him. All they are able to suggest is, that in the course 
 of the centuries succeeding Jeroboam I. idolatrous ele- 
 ments had got incorporated with the primitive Jahaveh 
 calf - worship — elements such as the " kissing " of the 
 images referred to in Hosea xiii. 2, 1 Kings xix. 18 — or 
 that the worship of Jahaveh and the idols had got freely 
 combined.^ This mode of evading the difficulty is of a 
 piece with the explanation why Amos and Hosea have 
 left writings while none of the prophets before them 
 wrote anything, that " in the course of a century a non- 
 writing had developed into a literary age." The contrast 
 is too sharp to be slurred over in this way. From all 
 that is recorded of Elijah, we may more reasonably con- 
 clude that if he does not wage polemic against the calves, 
 it is because his polemic was directed against much more 
 than that form of idolatry. 
 
 In regard to Amos a very singular position has been 
 taken by many modern writers. Since this prophet does 
 
 ^ Amos iv. 4, v. 5, vii. 9 ff., viii. 14 ; Hosea viii. 5, xiii. 2. 
 2 See Vatke, p. 401 f. ; Kuenen, Relig. of Israel, i. 78 f.j Stade in his 
 Ztsch. fiir die ATliche Wisseuschaft, 1883, p. 9 f. 
 
228 Visible Eeprcsentations of the Deity, 
 
 not expressly reprobate the calf -worship, it has been taken 
 for granted that he too, like Elijah, saw nothing wrong in 
 it. This view, says Dr A. B. Davidson, has been repeated 
 so often,^ that it may be called traditional ; and I will 
 allow Dr Davidson in his own way to exhibit its super- 
 ficiality. "It is questionable," he says, "if this represen- 
 tation be true, even in the letter. Several passages are 
 hard to reconcile with it, as this : * When I visit the 
 transgressions of Israel upon him I will also visit the 
 altars of Beth-el ; and the horns of the altar shall be cut 
 off, and fall to the ground ' (iii. 14) ; ^ or the ironical in- 
 vitation, ' Go to Beth-el, and transgress ' (iv. 4) ; or this, 
 'They that swear by the sin of Samaria (probably the 
 calf of Beth-el), and that swear. As thy God, Dan, 
 liveth, shall fall, and never rise up again (viii. 14); or 
 the graphic picture of the worshippers gathered together 
 in the temple at Beth-el, which Jehovah smites and brings 
 down upon their heads. These passages appear to carry 
 in them a formal repudiation of the calves. Minds may 
 differ, but if the prophet's language be not a verbal pro- 
 test against the calf- worship, it is because it is a great 
 deal more ; it is a protest which goes much deeper than 
 the calves, and is directed to something behind them. 
 The calves and the whole ritual service as it was prac- 
 tised, were but symptoms of that which gave offence to 
 the prophet, which was the spirit of the worship, the 
 
 ^ See, e.g., Clieyne on Hosea (Cambridge Bible for Schools), p, 31 ; 
 Robertson Smith, Prophets, p. 175 ; Stade, Geschichte, vol. i. p. 579. 
 
 2 Shall we conclude, perhaps, from iii. 14, where the horns of the altar 
 are to be cut off, that in the view of Amps the altar itself is to be allowed 
 to stand ? Wellhausen reasons in this way from a passage of Isaiah, where 
 molten and graven images are condemned, that the local sanctuaries in 
 which these are contained are not to be included in the condemnation. — 
 VVellh., Hist., pp. 25, 46. See below, chap. xvii. p. 450, 
 
The Eplwd. 229 
 
 mind of the worshippers, the conception of the Deity 
 which they had in worshipping, and to which they offered 
 their worship." ^ 
 
 11. Let us see now the argument drawn from the use 
 of the ephod. It is argued that the word ephod, besides 
 being employed to denote the breast - covering of the 
 priest, was also the name of an image, and that such 
 an image was set up by Gideon at Ophrah, and used 
 by David for worship. It is certainly at the first sight 
 remarkable, if this be the case, that the same word should 
 denote two things so very different, and it is important 
 to determine if possible which of the two significations 
 is the primary one, and how one word could have come 
 to have the two senses. There is one passage (Isa. xxx. 22) 
 in which a derivative of the word ephod (^apliitddah) is 
 applied not to the dress of the priest, but to some part of 
 an image ; and the use of that word will perhaps guide us 
 to the truth. In tliat verse we read : " Ye shall defile the 
 overlaying of thy graven images of silver, and the plating 
 (aphioddath) of thy molten images of gold " (E.V.) Here 
 the parallelism shows that the word in question does not 
 denote the image itself, but a part of it, answering in the 
 other half of the verse to " overlaying." If we render this 
 word " coating," it would be an obvious derivative of 
 ephod in the sense of "coat" or dress. In fact the same 
 derivative is used (Exod. xxviii. 6 ff.), when directions 
 are given for the making of the priestly ephod. It 
 was to be of " gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, 
 and fine twined linen, the work of the cunning work- 
 man ; " and (in ver. 8) it is directed that " the curious 
 girdle of the ephod [according to A.V., or, as better ex- 
 pressed in E.V., the cunningly woven band], which is 
 
 ^ Expositor, third series, vol. v. p. 175. 
 
230 Visible Representations of the Deity. 
 
 upon it, shall be of the same." The ephod here described 
 was evidently of rich material, provided with a girdle for 
 tying it, and the verb from which the noun comes is 
 actually employed (Exod. xxix. 5) to denote the girding 
 on of the dress. Vatke, indeed, endeavoured to make out ^ 
 that as, on liis view, the whole account of the arranixe- 
 ments for the giving of the oracle by the high priest is 
 late, we cannot draw the conclusion that the ephod was 
 originally and exclusively part of the priestly dress. But 
 he has himself to admit that the wearing of a linen ephod 
 is distinctly mentioned in the books of Samuel, where we 
 have the boy Samuel (1 Sam. ii. 18), a whole company of 
 priests at Shiloh (1 Sam. xxii. 18), and David, who was 
 not a priest (2 Sam. vi. 14), wearing ephods. Therefore 
 in none of the passages quoted — not even that from 
 Isaiah — is the word applied to an image as such, though 
 it may be applied to the covering, with which, in the form 
 and with perhaps an imitation of the magnificence of the 
 priestly ephod, an image might be overlaid. 
 
 But it is said that the ephod placed by Gideon in his 
 city Ophrah (Judges viii. 27) could have been nothing but 
 an image, for it was made of the gold that was taken from 
 the Midianites. In the first place, however, we are told that 
 " the weight of the golden earrings that he requested was 
 a thousand and seven hundred shekels of gold ;. beside the 
 crescents, and the pendants, and the purple raiment that 
 was on the kings of Midian, and beside the chains that 
 were about their camels' necks." Here, though the weight 
 of gold is certainly great, there is also purple raiment that 
 was on the kings, employed along with the metal in pro- 
 viding the ephod. I do not know that we are bound to 
 conclude that every ounce of tho gold and every inch of 
 
 * Bibl. Theol, p. 270, Anm. 
 
Gideon's Epliod. 231 
 
 the purple was employed in the actual construction of the 
 ephod. Whatever was made, was a thing of magnificence, 
 and implied costly surroundings ; but it is not by all this 
 proved that ephod means an image. It may have been 
 merely a coat of extraordinary magnificence, so heavy that 
 it could stand alone, as we say ; it may have been placed 
 upon an image ; but it was an ephod, and an ejohod, as far 
 as the usage of the language tells us, was a coat or cover- 
 ing. The statement that follows may, of course, be taken 
 as the remark of tlie pious narrator of a later time, that 
 it became a snare ; but there must be truth in his words 
 that Israel went a-whoring after it — viz., that it was sought 
 after as a religious instrument. The snare may have been 
 this : As the ephod was the dress of the priest, and as the 
 priest wearing it gave forth utterances for the guidance of 
 the people, the superstition of the time may have supposed 
 that from such a magnificent ephod, kept by a man like 
 Gideon, who still desired that Jahaveh directly should 
 rule over Israel (viii. 23), guidance would be given in cases 
 of difficulty. We are not bound to make Gideon a man 
 of perfect understanding of such things; he may have 
 thought that his ephod was as good at least, and able to 
 furnish as good guidance, as those employed at the decay- 
 ing sanctuary of Shiloh. The only point we are concerned 
 with now is to show that the ephod was not an image 
 representing the national God of Israel. Some more light 
 is thrown on this subject by the story of Micah (Judges 
 xvii., xviii.) In that story we read that besides the 
 " graven image and the molten image " the " man Micah 
 liad an house of gods, and he made an ephod, and teraphim, 
 and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest." 
 Here also the ephod may be — most probably is — nothing 
 else than the priestly dress. The anxiety of Micah to 
 
232 , Visible Representations of the Deity 
 
 have a regularly qualified Levite to be his priest comes 
 out at every step in the narrative; and the confidence 
 both on his part and on the part of the Danites that such 
 a priest would give unerring guidance, is quite childlike 
 (chaps, xvii. 10-13; xviii. 4-6, 19, 24, 30). As the priest 
 was the wearer of the ephod, the providing of an ephod ne- 
 cessitated the procuring of a priest. For want of a better, 
 Micah sets apart his son to perform the priestly functions, 
 but as soon as he can lay hands on a genuine Levite he 
 instals him into tlie office ; and the direction sought from 
 him by the Danites is exactly tlie kind of guidance which 
 the priest wearing an ephod was in the habit of giving. 
 In any case we should not, of course, take Micah and 
 the wandering Danites as the representatives of the true 
 Jahaveh religion even in that rude age, nor regard the 
 conduct even of Gideon as justifiable. Yet we do not 
 find in these passages any proof that the ephod was taken 
 to be a symbol of Jahaveh, even by Micah with his house 
 of gods, much less that Gideon regarded his ephod, what- 
 ever its shape, as the embodiment of the national God who 
 had made him victorious over the Midianites. In connec- 
 tion with the story of Micah, it is mentioned (xviii. 30) 
 that " Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, 
 he and his sons, were priests to tlie tribe of Dan until the 
 day of the captivity of the land " [or of the ark]. It is well 
 known that the name Manasseh has been produced in this 
 passage by the insertion of a letter to disguise the fact 
 that the name was originally Moses. And much has been 
 made of the fact that a grandson of the lawgiver himself 
 is here represented as at the head of the idolatrous wor- 
 ship of the Danites — a proof, as it is taken to be, that 
 there was nothing in the original Mosaic religion opposed 
 to the practice of image- worship. Not only so ; but the 
 
The JForship at Ban. 2'33 
 
 case of this misguided youth, though it is specially noted, 
 and though it occurred in a degenerate time, is made an 
 example of the rule that was common throughout the 
 land. So Eobertson Smith says:^ "In many*places a 
 priesthood, claiming kinship with Moses, administered the 
 sacred oracle as his successors." It seems to me that this 
 whole story of the Danites is given by the historian not 
 because it was a sample of what was common, but because 
 there was something uncommon and abnormal in the pro- 
 ceeding. The various judges whose exploits are recorded 
 are not specimens of the ordinary Israelite of this period, 
 nor were men all up and down the country killing multi- 
 tudes with the jawbone of an ass, and routing hordes of 
 Midianites with lamps and trumpets. And why go so far 
 afield as Dan, if the writer wished to tell us what was 
 done in Moses' name, and by his authority ? Dan was in 
 historic time the seat of a worship which was particularly 
 obnoxious and vigorously denounced by the prophets ; and 
 the writer of the story in the book of Judges traces the 
 idolatry back to the time at which it was set up, and 
 perhaps, in giving the name of Moses' grandson, hints at 
 one reason why it had its evil prestige — viz., that it could 
 boast of the priesthood of men of Mosaic descent. So far 
 from taking these incidents as types of the everyday life 
 and action of the nation, I would be disposed to think that 
 the writer, like most early writers, singled out for record 
 things that were uncommon, leaving ordinary events un- 
 recorded. The very things in regard to which we search 
 the Old Testament in vain for information, are precisely 
 those that must have been so regular that they were not 
 thought worthy of notice. 
 
 I do not think it will commend this view of the ephod 
 
 1 Prophets, p. 38. 
 
234 Visible Eepresentations of the Deity. 
 
 to the ordinary reader of the Bible to be told, as Vatke 
 tells us, that Gideon's ephod had " probably the form of an 
 ox, or that of a combination of an ox and a man ; " ^ and 
 also that David's ephod " had in all probability also the 
 form of an ox." ^ The ephod symbolism is, no doubt, found 
 connected with the calf- worship, although in the mention 
 of the calves there is not a word about the ephod, nor is 
 there any hint of Gideon having got the idea of his ephod 
 from Egypt or elsewhere. But if David used an ephod 
 which was in the form of an ox, it is difficult to see in 
 what respect Jeroboam's setting up of calves should have 
 been a deviation from normal Israelitish worship, or even 
 a distinction of the northern kingdom. There recurs 
 again the admitted fact that in Solomon's temple there 
 was no image of Jahaveh; and it is simply incredible 
 that Solomon should have made such an advance upon 
 his father David without the writer's ever giving the least 
 hint of it, The evidence in support of this view^ of the 
 ephod cannot be very strong, since Kuenen gives two 
 divergent accounts of it. Thus at one place ^ he says 
 it is " very probable " that Jahaveh had been worshipped 
 under the form of a bull during the period of the Judges, 
 and gives references for the statement to these cases of 
 Gideon and Micah (Judges viii. 27, xvii. 4). And this 
 view is adopted in his later work, ' National Eeligions,' 
 in which he says,* " The old records themselves make it 
 probable that the ephod was an image of Jahveli, silvered 
 or gilt over, and perhaps so constructed that the lots 
 could be concealed within it." In the same place, how- 
 ever, he gives a reference to his earlier work,^ where this 
 very view is " decidedly to be rejected," and the opinion 
 
 1 Bibl. Theol., p. 268. 2 ibid., p. 4OI. » Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 236. 
 * National Religions, p. 82. ^ Relig. of Israel, vol. i. [>. 100. 
 
Maggebas and Asherim. 235 
 
 is given that "it is very improbable that an expression 
 so much in use should have been employed in a double 
 sense ; and, as our preceding investigation teaches us, 
 it is absolutely unnecessary to attach any other meaning 
 to it than that of ' a garment worn by the priest upon his 
 shoulders.' " And this is the conclusion of all the pother. 
 An Arabic saying tells of a grammarian who, " after enor- 
 mous labour, explained that water meant water." 
 
 III. In this connection, we must not omit reference to 
 the Maggehas or pillars, and the Asherim, rendered in E.V. 
 " groves," but probably posts or images of Astarte, which 
 are so often reprobated by prophetical men as adjuncts of 
 tlie corrupt worship. It has generally been admitted that 
 these were some of the corruptions introduced into tlie 
 pure national religion ; and Vatke,^ e.g., believed that the 
 reform of Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 4, 22) not only swept 
 away the images of Jehovah, but extended also to the 
 Ma^Qebas and the Asheras which existed in his time 
 (Isaiah xvii. 8). In this opinion he was followed by 
 Kuenen^ and Duhm.^ Of recent time, however, Stade 
 has taken a step in advance, denying* that the reforms 
 of Hezekiah went beyond the destruction of the brazen 
 serpent, and the removal of the images of Jahaveh, which, 
 he concludes from the words of Isaiah, " must have been 
 found in the hands of many private persons." As for the 
 MaQQebas and Asheras, which had grown up out of the 
 reverence for external objects, stone-worship and tree-wor- 
 ship — that is to say, were remnants of the old animistic 
 religion — the prophets took no offence at them. In other 
 words, these things were part of the authorised or un- 
 disputed religion of Israel. The passage which Vatke 
 
 1 Bibl. Theol., p. 482. 2 Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 80 ff. 
 
 3 Thcol. d. Propheten, p. 195. * Stade's Ztsch. 1883, pp. 914. , 
 
236 Visible Bepresentatiojis of the Deity, 
 
 had relied on for his statement that these things were 
 also removed by Hezekiah, stands, however, in Stade's 
 way. That passage reads (Isa. xvii. 7, 8), " In that day 
 shall a man look unto his Maker, and his eyes shall have 
 respect unto the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not 
 look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall he 
 have respect to that which his fingers have made, either 
 the asherim or the sun images." Stade's usual critical 
 instrument — the pruning-knife — comes to his hand ; and 
 he declares that the words " altars " and " asherim " and 
 "sun images" are interpolations by a later wordy glos- 
 sator, and that the verse originally ran — "He shall not 
 look to the work of his hands, neither shall he have 
 respect to that which his fingers have made." It is 
 certainly very remarkable that a mere glossator should 
 have understood altars particularly as the work of a man's 
 hands. The use of that word, instead of some name of 
 a more superstitious object, is pretty good proof that 
 Isaiah himself wrote it; and if he did, the parallelism 
 justifies the other words in the second half of the verse. 
 But there is another passage, in Micah v. 13 f., which 
 also condemns these objects ; and as the verses cannot be 
 emended, they are in the block declared to belong to a 
 later period. The verses run : " I will cut off thy graven 
 images, and thy pillars out of the midst of thee ; and thou 
 shalt no more worship the work of thine hands. And I 
 will pluck up thine asherim out of the midst of thee, and 
 I will destroy thy cities." This mode of proceeding is 
 only an example of pushing a foregone conclusion. In a 
 case like the present, where positive statements are not 
 numerous, and where these critics themselves have be- 
 forehand with confidence appealed to the prophetical 
 writings as the only reliable authorities, to cut and carve 
 
An Altai' in the Land of Egypt, 237 
 
 them, on the mere grounds of the hypothesis, is the best 
 refutation of the hypothesis itself. 
 
 But there is one passage — and it is the only one — that 
 is adduced by one writer after another to prove that 
 beside the altars of Jahaveh pillars were set up in His 
 honour : " In that day there shall be an altar to the Lord 
 in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar (Mag^eba) 
 at the border thereof to Jahaveh" (Tsa. xix. 19). Let 
 not the English reader suppose that the " border thereof " 
 is the border of the altar; there is no doubt that it is 
 the border of Egypt. The prophet thus foretells that in 
 the midst of the land of Egypt there shall be an altar to 
 the Lord ; and at the border of Egypt there shall be a 
 pillar to the Lord. The conclusion is, that close beside 
 every altar of Jahaveh in Palestine stood also a pillar 
 dedicated to Him; and this is the kind of argument 
 adduced to prove that the setting up of pillars beside 
 Jahaveh's altars was part of the recognised worship. 
 The argument, like many more of its kind, gives proof 
 of great ingenuity, but will hardly commend itself to 
 sober reason as any proof at all. The prophet goes on 
 to say, " It shall be for a sign and for a witness unto 
 the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt ; " and what he 
 seems to mean is, that as the altar shall be for true 
 worship in the heart of Egypt itself, at which the 
 Egyptians " shall worship with sacrifice and oblation, and 
 shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and shall perform it " 
 (v. 21), so the pillar at the border shall be a mark 
 indicating that the whole land is devoted to the Lord. 
 The pillar in itself was no idolatrous object; it was a 
 memorial, or commemorative mark, and as such we fre- 
 quently read of it in the early history. If superstition 
 turned the simple usage to a wrong purpose ; if, especially, 
 
238 Visible Representations of the Deity. 
 
 the pillars set np beside Canaanite altars were imitated 
 by the people in their aping of Canaanite idolatries, that 
 does not prove that pillars were part of the original 
 Jahaveh worship, much less that they were in any sense 
 symbols of Jahaveh Himself. 
 
 There is still another passage which is relied upon to 
 prove that pillars, ephod, and teraphim were all together 
 parts of the genuine Israelite religion; but if I under- 
 stand the passage, it proves the very opposite of what it 
 is adduced to support. In Hosea iii. 4 we read: "For 
 the children of Israel shall abide many days without 
 king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and with- 
 out pillar, and without ephod or teraphim," The passage 
 is one of threatening, and the inference generally drawn 
 from it is, that as the things mentioned are to be taken 
 from Israel as a punishment, they are to be regarded as 
 things of which they were beforetime lawfully possessed. 
 They were, in a word, to be deprived of both political 
 freedom and religious privileges; and as the former is 
 denoted by king and prince, the latter is summed up in 
 the succeeding expressions, which therefore, at Hosea's 
 time, denoted legitimate elements of their worship. This 
 interpretation, however, though looking plausible enough, 
 does not satisfy the context, and leaves the passage 
 without the point which the prophet gave to it. We 
 have to go back to the beginning of the chapter to see 
 what he is driving at. The prophet is instructed to take 
 back his erring wife, the image of Israel estranged from 
 its God ; he buys her from her late paramour, and then 
 comes the passage which explains all : " I said unto her, 
 Thou shalt abide for me many days ; thou shalt not play 
 the harlot, and thou shalt not be any man's wife : so will 
 I also be towards thee." This last phrase naturally means, 
 
Interpretation of Hosea Hi, 4:, 239 
 
 as it is usually expounded, that the prophet was to keep 
 his wife both secluded from her lovers and separated from 
 himself for many days — i.e., she was brought to his house, 
 but kept in a kind of imprisonment till she should come 
 to a better mind. The point is, tliat she would neither 
 enjoy the lawful company of her own husband nor the 
 unlawful company of her paramours. Says Eobertson 
 Smith : ^ " In V. 3 the sense seems to be that for many 
 days she must sit still, not finding a husband (Jer. iii. 1), 
 — not merely, as A.Y., not marrying another, but not en- 
 joying the rights of a lawful wife at all — while at the 
 same time Hosea is 'toward her,' watching over and 
 waiting for her (the phrase is as 2 Kings vi. 11 ; Jer. xv. 
 1. Cf. Hos. i. 9)." And then comes the application : 
 " For the children of Israel shall abide many days with- 
 out king," &c. They also should endure a time when 
 neither would the favour of God be shown to them, nor 
 the help of false gods avail them. And the enumeration 
 of the things that follow should, on this interpretation, 
 exhibit this double reference. The things are in fact 
 arranged in pairs, and I think light at once falls upon 
 the passage when read in this connection, each pair repre- 
 senting at once the true and the false, the good and the 
 evil, of which they would be deprived — 
 
 Neither king nor prince. 
 
 Neither sacrifice nor pillar. 
 
 Neither ephod nor teraphim. 
 
 "Afterwards," says the prophet, "shall the children of 
 Israel return and seek the Lord their God, and David 
 their king." Konig's explanation ^ of the passage, which 
 makes the whole list of possessions consist of things 
 
 ^ Prophets, p. 410. ^ Hauptprobleme, p. 69. 
 
240 Visible Representations of the Deity. 
 
 irregular (even the monarchy), seems forced in itself, 
 besides failing to present the striking idea of the im- 
 mediate context. Eobertson Smith,^ who takes sacrifice 
 and maQQeba, ephod and teraphim, to have been " recog- 
 nised as the necessary forms and instruments of the 
 worship of Jehovah," yet in a note makes the double 
 reference : " So Jehovah will deal with Israel when, by 
 destroying the state and the ordinances of worship. He 
 breaks off all intercourse, not only between Israel and 
 the Baalim, hut between Israel and Himself" There is no 
 reason to say that the monarchy in itself was distasteful 
 to Hosea, or that sacrifice in itself was condemned by 
 him. But if we take the things in pairs, we get the 
 legitimate monarchy and the bastard lordship, legitimate 
 sacrifices and those with which the idolatrous pillars 
 were associated, the legitimate priestly ephod and the 
 superstitious consulting of teraphim. 
 
 1 O.T. in Jewish Church, Lect. viii. pp. 226, 423. 
 
241 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 PRE-PEOPHETIC EELIGION CONTINUED: MOLOCII-WORSHIP — 
 HUMAN SACRIFICES — FIRE-WOESIIIP. 
 
 Statements of Kuencn, Daumer, and Ghillany that Jahaveh was originally 
 a fire or sun god, worshipped with human sacrifices, or identified with 
 Moloch — Semitic mode of naming deities contrasted with Aryan^ 
 Arguments for identification drawn from (1) modes of expression, fire, 
 d-c, metaphor; (2) Bamoth ; (3) circumcision and offering of first-horn ; 
 (4) certain records of events— q.^., offering of Isaac ^ JephthaKs daughter, 
 king of Moab ; (5) declarations of the propthcts, Amos v, 26, Micah vi. 
 7, 8 — " Cumulative'' argument from these indications — Warning against 
 jiroving too much, 
 
 KuENEN, after concluding that the bull was "an in- 
 digenous and original symbol of Jahveh," proceeds to 
 say : ^ " Now we know from other sources that this 
 emblem had its place in the worship of the sun. The 
 bull properly symbolises untamed power, especially the 
 violence of the sun, its scorching and consuming heat. 
 Thus Molcch is represented with the head of a bull, while 
 horns are the invariable tokens of Astarte. Therefore 
 we certainly do not go too far in inferring from the 
 bull -worship an original relationship between Jahveh 
 and Molech." 
 
 1 Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 236. 
 Q 
 
24:2 Moloch -WorsJiip, etc. 
 
 It may seem to the ordinary reader of the Bible that 
 only by extravagant freaks of criticism can such posi- 
 tions be maintained as the following : " Fire and Moloch 
 worship was the ancestral, legal, and orthodox worship 
 of the nation " of Israel.^ " Moses never forbade 
 human sacrifices. On the contrary, these constituted a 
 legal and essential part of the state - worship from the 
 earliest times down to the destruction of the kingdoms 
 of Israel and Judah."^ And it is no doubt the case that 
 the writers from whom we quote went a greater length 
 than more modern critical writers are disposed to do. 
 Kuenen, e.g., in reply to the question whether the Jahaveh 
 of the prophets is a counterpart to Moloch, has no hesi- 
 tation in returning a negative answer. Still he fearlessly 
 asserts that " the conception of Jahveh originally bordered 
 upon that of Molech, or at least had many points of con- 
 tact with it ; " ^ and that " originally Jahveh was a god 
 of light or of the sun, and the heat of the sun and the 
 consuming fire were considered to proceed from him, and 
 to be ruled by him. In accordance with this, Jahveh 
 was conceived by those who worshipped Him to be a 
 severe being inaccessible to mankind, whom it was neces- 
 sary to propitiate with sacrifices and offerings, and even 
 with human sacrifices." * 
 
 In order to the clearer understandiuGf of the bearini>s 
 of this question, it is proper to remark at the outset that 
 a broad distinction is to be observed between the mode 
 of naming of their gods by most Semitic peoples and that 
 
 ^ Title-page of Daumer's Feuer und Molochdienst der alien Hebriier, 
 1842. 
 
 2 Heading to p. 78 fF. of Ghillany's Die Mensclicnopfer der alten 
 Hebriier, 1842. 
 
 3 Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 241. •* Ibid., p. 249. 
 
'' Nomina Numina." 243 
 
 of Aryan nations. The names given to their gods by tJie 
 kindred nations in the neighbourhood of Israel had nearly 
 all a similar signification, and were of a more comprehen- 
 sive import than the usual names of the heathen divini- 
 ties. We have already seen that Baal, which is the same 
 name as the Babylonian Bel, means lord ; so does Adon, 
 which passed into Adonis. El and Elohim had a similar 
 general meaning of power or might, as also Shaddai ; and 
 Elyon means Most High. Moloch — or, more correctly, 
 Molech — is closely akin to the word standing for king 
 in Hebrew, and signified ruler (perhaps originally in an 
 abstract sense). In the same way, Chemosh seems to 
 be derived from the idea of subduing or repressing. 
 Such a mode of nomenclature is different from that of 
 the Aryans, who named their deities from single natural 
 phenomena, as fire, light, and so forth ; and even although 
 the Semitic deities were associated with natural pheno- 
 mena of that kind, the names preserved their general 
 significance, and allowed the mind of the worshipper 
 a wider scope. So that the often - repeated dictum, 
 Nomina numina, however applicable to Aryan myth- 
 ology, is not found prevailing among Semitic peoples.^ 
 It is this peculiar feature of Semitic religion that led M. 
 Eenan to his well-known position that these nations had 
 an instinctive leaning to monotheism ; for it is plain that 
 when a people calls its god the rider, the Icing, the most 
 high, there is not felt the same necessity for gods many, 
 as if every object in nature was the abode or symbol 
 of a special deity. A people keeping to such general 
 designations of the deity, is, if not monotheistic, on tlie 
 way to monotheism, and in a different position, e.g., from 
 the Assyrian Semites, who multiplied gods with the use 
 
 ^ Baudissin, Jahve et Moloch, p. 9. 
 
244 Moloch-Worship, etc. 
 
 of every appellative name. The discoveries of Assyri- 
 ology have shown that a Semitic people could run to the 
 same excess in multiplying deities as Aryan nations ; and 
 mat even where the name assigned to the deity was of 
 a general kind, he might be associated with fire, light, or 
 heaven, as in heathen mythology. M. Eenan has, there- 
 fore, now so far modified his position as to claim a mono- 
 theistic instinct for only the nomad Semitic peoples. At 
 the same time, the feature of the nomenclature just de- 
 scribed has to be kept in view, for it furnishes some 
 explanation of the possibility some have found of iden- 
 tifying the God of the Hebrews with the gods of the 
 surrounding nations. 
 
 The precise question for us, now, is not what might have 
 been done, but what was actually done in times of which 
 we have historical knowledge. "We have some information 
 as to the character ascribed to Moloch by his worshippers, 
 and the manner in which he was worshipped. What we 
 have to inquire is, whether the same or similar qualities 
 were ascribed by the Israelites to their national God, and 
 whether they paid Him similar honours, whether even 
 the two deities were so far identified in conception as 
 that when a Hebrew said, Our God is Melech, he meant 
 to imply that Jahaveh was the same as the deity whom 
 the heathen worshipped as Molech. The identification 
 or close assimilation of the two deities is supposed to be 
 made out by a consideration of certain modes of speech, 
 as well as of certain ceremonies or practices testified to 
 in the Hebrew writings ; by the record of certain events, 
 obscured no doubt by popular tradition or prophetic 
 leaching, but still intelligible; and even by unequivocal 
 statements of the prophets themselves. We have there- 
 fore to consider the various proofs, and see whether they 
 
The Deity as a Sun or Fire God. 245 
 
 are substantiated by a sober exegesis of the passages 
 which are appealed to. 
 
 (1.) To begin with certain expressions or modes of speak- 
 ing of God. It is maintained that the constant application 
 to Jahaveh of language denoting fire and light is a proof 
 that the popular conception made Him a sun or fire 
 God, so that He was not distinguishable from Moloch. The 
 passages in which this mode of speech is employed are 
 too numerous to be quoted.^ Kuenen adds, "They are 
 too numerous to be looked upon as accidental, or as the 
 result of arbitrary choice ; and this is the less possible 
 that the comparison also recurs continually beyond the 
 prophetic literature in its narrower sense." ^ He then refers 
 to the glory of the Lord being said to be like devouring 
 fire on Sinai (Exod. xxiv. 17), to the angel appearing in 
 a flame of fire in the bush (Exod. iii. 2), to the expres- 
 sions " a consuming fire, a jealous God " (Deut. iv. 24 ; cf. 
 ix. 3), and the description in tlie 18th Psalm of smoke 
 going up out of His nostrils, fire out of His mouth de- 
 vouring (Psalm xviii. 8), &c. He is careful to guard 
 himself by saying^ that of course the pious among the 
 Israelites, in using these expressions, were aware that 
 they spoke in metaphor, but still it is on consideration 
 of such passages that he makes the assertion we have al- 
 ready quoted, " that the conception of Jahaveh originally 
 bordered upon that of Moloch, or at least had many points 
 of contact with it." This conclusion, however, is warrant- 
 able only if these metaphorical expressions, when orig- 
 inally used, were not regarded as metaphors at all, but 
 
 1 A few of the more striking may be noted : Amos i. 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 
 ii. 2, 5, vii. 4 ; Hos. viii. 14 ; Isa. x. 17, xxix. 6, xxx. 27, xxxiii. 14, — all 
 "from prophetic Scriptures. 
 
 2 Kelig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 240. 3 Ibid., p. 241. 
 
246 Moloch -Worship^ etc. 
 
 plain statements of fact. For I do not think Kuenen 
 means to imply that the original conception of Moloch 
 by his worshippers was that of a spiritual being to whom 
 they applied these expressions in a metaphorical sense. 
 If, however, Kiienen and his school will insist upon it 
 that metaphorical language must originally have been 
 used as plain statement of fact, then the essential point 
 in dispute is assumed, for we must necessarily admit 
 that, on this concession, all religious thought at first ex- 
 presses itself in language borrowed from material things ; 
 and therefore without more ado we may say that all 
 religion begins with the worship of material things or 
 with purely materialistic conceptions. Stade, in speaking 
 of fetishism, says bluntly,^ " Nothing on earth begins as a 
 symbol, but is taken as a reality." I should think that 
 the very first attempts at language are symbols, and con- 
 sciously regarded as such Language is the effort of in- 
 telligence to express itself; but if a savage makes a 
 gesture or utters a cry, he knows quite well that that is 
 a sign and symbol, and that it is taken by his fellow- 
 savage as a symbol of something to be conveyed from 
 mind to mind. It is simply impossible for man to use 
 language in regard to religious feelings and ideas without 
 falling into metaphor; even the current phraseology of 
 Christianity is highly metaphorical. Will Kuenen or any 
 of his school tell us what expressions in any language 
 were available, when consciousness first sought to express 
 itself on these subjects, that would not be liable to similar 
 misapprehension? Holiness, purity, and such other ex- 
 pressions, in the most elevated diction that we possess, 
 come back to be properties of matter. As regards the 
 manifestations of Deity with the accompaniments of 
 i Gesch., vol. i. p. 405, footnote 3. 
 
" Original" Conceptions. 247 
 
 thunder, lightning, or fire, it is evident that if such theo- 
 phanies are conceivable at all, they could have no more 
 striking accompaniments. And as to the use of language 
 denoting light, it need only be remarked that as the sun 
 is the most striking object in the firmament, the one source, 
 as it seems to the simple primitive mind, of light and 
 \varmtli, pure, exalted, potent, we need not wonder that not 
 only Moloch-worshippers, but seekers after God in all lands 
 and in all states of education, have taken it as the image of 
 the great and holy Being after whom they seek, and de- 
 veloped their religious vocabulary by ringing the changes 
 on the phrases that denote its unique qualities. No 
 doubt many tribes using this mode of speech have paid 
 reverence to the sun itself; but it requires to be proved 
 whether this is the " original " view or an aberration ; 
 and at all events, to grant that Israel did the same, 
 because they used the same mode of speech, would be, as 
 has been just said, to concede the very point in dispute. 
 The question is. To what precise time does Kuenen refer 
 when he says that the conception of Jahaveh originally 
 bordered upon that of Moloch ? If it was the time when 
 this mode of speaking of God first came into use, then 
 we may be driven back to a primitive period when the 
 earliest of the Semitic peoples were seeking to give ex- 
 pression to religious instincts; and the phraseology, so 
 obvious in its first use, and so expressive, may have main- 
 tained itself, as it has done to our own time, without 
 leading to misunderstanding. There is a transparent 
 fallacy underlying all this kind of reasoning, that, if a 
 primary meaning can be fixed to a term, that meaning 
 may be held to adhere to the term at whatever time it 
 is employed. In this way "original" meanings are 
 attached to expressions down to the period immediately 
 
248 Moloch- Worshi}!, etc. 
 
 preceding the writing prophets, or even later. This school 
 of thinkers must either tell us what kind of language 
 could have been employed by a people with any spiritual 
 perceptions at all ; or they must simply declare that no 
 people could at the outset entertain any conception "of a 
 spiritual kind, which is to beg the whole question. 
 
 (2.) An argument for the identity of Jahaveh and 
 Moloch has been drawn from the practice of the worship 
 of both on high places or hamotJi ; but Kuenen ^ sees the 
 weakness of the argument, and lays little stress upon 
 it. For the practice is so common and obvious in all 
 religions that it can prove nothing. In my opinion, far 
 too much has been made of the practice in Israel, as if in 
 itself it was more sinful to worship on hills than on plains, 
 and as if the prophets found fault with it for the mere 
 situation. It was the associations of the worship with 
 heathen rites and superstitious beliefs that made it obnox- 
 ious, just as it was not sacrifice in itself but unmeaning or 
 idolatrous sacritice which the prophets condemned. The 
 quiet of the mountain, its remoteness from the busy world, 
 and its nearness to heaven, would, in any country and in 
 any age, suggest hallowed thoughts (we cannot forget the 
 custom of Him who went up into a mountain to pray, and 
 spent all the night in prayer) ; and, given a place made 
 sacred by religious sentiment, the aberrations of supersti- 
 tion are liable to follow. So the shady tree and the cool 
 sparkling spring, in a country where shadow and refresh- 
 ing water are the greatest comforts, would irresistibly 
 make them the scene of quiet reflection, then of devotion, 
 and then of superstition. People in our colder climates 
 are apt to forget or ignore such things ; but I believe the 
 prophet, who reproved the worship under green trees, came 
 
 ^ Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 241. 
 
Circumcision, Dedication of First-horn. 249 
 
 nearer to a true explanation of the origin of the worship 
 in tlie hint, " because the shadow thereof is good " (Hos. 
 iv. 13), than modern critics, with their learned disquisi- 
 tions as to the tree suggesting life and being the abode of 
 a spirit or a divinity. 
 
 (3.) We come now to consider an argument for the 
 identity of Moloch and Jahaveh drawn from the observ- 
 ances of circumcision and the dedication of the first-born. 
 These practices, though toned down and softened into 
 harmless religious ceremonies, are held to be proofs that 
 Jahaveh was originally regarded as a bloodthirsty being, 
 not the preserver of life but its destroyer, identical with 
 Moloch. Kuenen^ admits that he has here very little 
 positive proof to rely upon, and even indicates certain 
 considerations that might be construed into arguments 
 against his own position. For instance, the account of 
 the institution of circumcision (in Gen. xvii.) might be 
 taken to prove that the rite was "an arbitrary symbol of 
 dedication to Jahveh " ; but this account, he says, is " late," 
 and " we do not at all see why this particular ceremony 
 is to serve as a token of the covenant between El-Shaddai 
 and Abraham, together with his descendants." He also 
 concedes that " perhaps its meaning was afterwards some- 
 what modified, and it was looked upon as a purification 
 by which the Israelite was rendered fit to draw near to 
 Jahveh. At all events, it is remarkable that in other 
 nations of antiquity it was only performed upon the 
 priests." The only passage, in fact, that Kuenen relies 
 upon, is the brief passage, Exod. iv. 24-26, " When Jahveh 
 assails Moses and seeks to kill him, his wife Zipporah 
 circumcises her son and throws the foreskin to Jahveh, 
 whereupon the latter lets Moses go." The passage is very 
 
 1 llelig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 238 f. 
 
250 Moloch- Worship, etc. 
 
 obscure, the text itself being uncertain;^ but whatever it 
 may mean, it cannot be taken as a proof that circumcision 
 represents an old custom of human sacrifice. It may 
 mean that an uncircumcised Hebrew was liable to death, 
 but that is quite another thing; and it can be quite 
 naturally construed to mean that circumcision was in 
 its first conception — as Kuenen admits it became at a 
 later date — a symbol of purification and dedication to 
 Jahayeh. His admission that among other nations of 
 antiquity it was only performed upon the priests, might 
 have convinced him that some such idea was fundamental: 
 Daumer as usual goes further, and maintains^ that cir- 
 cumcision was only a milder substitution of castration, 
 and refers to such a custom among the Hottentots. He 
 does not, however, attempt to prove that Moloch-worship- 
 pers practised this in honour of their god ; nor has any 
 one shown that Moloch- worshippers practised even cir- 
 cumcision. Instead of reasoning from a single doubtful 
 passage and general considerations, this class of writers 
 should tell us when this precise rite took the place of hu- 
 man sacrifice, and why this precise rite, so unlike human 
 sacrifice, should have been substituted — a rite which can 
 be so obviously explained on the principle that the deity 
 claimed the sanctification of life, not its destruction. 
 
 By precisely the same kind of reasoning it is sought to 
 be made out that the dedication of the first-born to Jahaveh 
 is a remnant of an older custom of sacrificing the first-born. 
 Kuenen admits here again that, taken alone, the custom 
 may be classed with the presentation of the first-fruits of 
 the earth, as an act of acknowledgment to the bountiful 
 
 ^ For various explanations, see the Queen's Printer's Bible on the 
 passage. 
 
 ^ J^'euer und Molochdienst, p. 2*2. 
 
Sacrifice of the First-horn. 251 
 
 Giver of all that is good, the source of all fruitfiilness. 
 But he maintains that the historical explanation which the 
 Biblical writers give of the origin of the custom (though in 
 his view it is not historical) is in favour of his position. 
 At the exodus from Egypt Jahaveh slew the first-born of 
 the Egyptians, but spared those of the Israelites, and from 
 that period the first-born in Israel belong to Him, and are 
 either sacrificed in His honour or ransomed from Him. 
 This account being late, we can only conclude from it 
 that at a later period the dedication of the first-born was 
 brought into connection witli the deliverance from the 
 Egyptian bondage. "Yet it is probable that while this 
 was done, the original meaning of tliis custom was yet 
 adhered to as closely as possible. But in that case Jahveh 
 appears here again as a severe being, who must be pro- 
 pitiated by sacrifices, and induced to waive his right to 
 the lives of men and beasts. In other words, we have 
 the same idea of the character of the Deity which lies at 
 the root of the dedication of the first-born and of human 
 sacrifice." ^ Now it must seem very strange that at a late 
 time, when, according to Kuenen's view, prophetic influ- 
 ence would be strongly felt, an attempt should be made 
 by bringing this custom into connection with the deliver- 
 ance from Egypt, to adhere to the original meaning of the 
 custom, and under the guise of an unhistorical story as 
 to the slaughter of Egypt's first-born to explain how a 
 rite of long standing in Israel was originally a custom of 
 sacrificing their first-born. Here again it would be more 
 to the point to tell us when the substitution of the 
 milder for the more cruel rite took place, and why, the 
 milder rite having established itself (presumably as a 
 better), the effort should have been made to keep alive 
 
 1 Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 239 f. 
 
252 Moloch - Worship, etc. 
 
 the remembrance of one that was cruel and long obsolete. 
 Kuenen says truly, that in regard to both this custom 
 and that of circumcision we should look for a reference 
 to the nature of the deity to whom they were rendered as 
 religious acts. Now, in both cases the ceremonies are 
 quite as reconcilable with the nature of a deity who was 
 the giver and defender of life, as with that of one who was 
 its destroyer, and in this connection the parallel custom 
 of offering the first-fruits of the earth should not be over- 
 looked. Moreover, there is not only the nature of the 
 deity to be considered, but the effect upon the mind of 
 the worshipper. And both rites, if taken as symbolical 
 of the consecration to God of the first and best that man 
 has, are not only quite in keeping with all the Scriptural 
 indications which we possess, and consistent with those 
 obscure references on which Kuenen proceeds, but even 
 very significant as religious acts and means of religious 
 education. The thing we want to prove is the nature 
 of the deity reverenced in these services. The services 
 in themselves do not suggest a deity of a repulsive char- 
 acter, who is the enemy of life, but are thoroughly in 
 keeping with the character of a deity such as the Hebrew 
 prophets represented their national God to be. The rites 
 themselves, confessedly at the time of which we have his- 
 torical knowledge, had the more beneficent associations. 
 
 (4.) We next come to consider the argument drawn 
 from certain records of alleged events, which, though ob- 
 scured or misinterpreted by the narrators, give evidence, it 
 is said, that human sacrifice to Jahaveh was an original 
 custom in Israel, and that therefore the God of Israel 
 was no other than Moloch, or at all events a deity of 
 similar character. 
 
 We begin with the account given in Gen. xxii. of 
 
Abraham's Oj^ering of Isaac. 253 
 
 Abraham's offering of his son Isaac, which is much relied 
 upon in this connection,^ And, not to take an extreme 
 representation of the view, let us hear the rather moder- 
 ate statement of the argument by Kuenen : ^ " The well- 
 known narrative of Abraham's offering . . . does not by 
 any means recommend human sacrifice, but the disposi- 
 tion evinced in the sacrifice of a child, the readiness to 
 give up even the most precious object to Jahveh, is 
 highly extolled by the author (vers. 16-18) ; if Jahveh 
 does not wish that disposition to be confirmed by the 
 deed itself, still by his unqualified praise he makes 
 known that it is no more than just and appropriate, and 
 that what he does not desire he could demand from his 
 servant." Now it seems to me that though we admit all 
 that Kuenen here says, we are as far as ever from estab- 
 lishing the existence of the custom of human sacrifice; 
 and when he proceeds, " we are not surprised, therefore, 
 that human sacrifice appears as an element of the bull- 
 worship in the kingdom of the ten tribes," there is no 
 connection between his premises and his conclusion. We 
 are, to be sure, warranted in concluding from the narrative, 
 that the narrator knew what was meant by the offering 
 of human sacrifice, and that he means to convey to us 
 that Abraham understood by it the offering of the very 
 dearest possession to Jahaveh. But we ask, if such offer- 
 ings were the custom in the writer's day, as Daumer 
 would assert, or if it was the common practice in the 
 Abrahamic stage of worship, why does the writer make 
 so much of the one instance of it, and record it as a 
 singular triumph of devotion ? If we may be allowed for 
 a moment to suppose that there is historical truth in the 
 narrative (in other words, to put ourselves in the position 
 
 1 Daumer, p. 34 ff. ^ Rglig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 237. 
 
254 Moloch - Worship, etc. 
 
 of the narrator), we should say that tlie whole story ex- 
 hibits not only the faith of the patriarch, but part of his 
 education in the spiritual character of his God. Educa- 
 tion by contrast is one of the most effective kind, and 
 the Biblical writers make us familiar with it by their 
 various references to the religious beliefs and practices of 
 the peoples around Israel, and in such injunctions as, " So 
 shall ye not do to Jahaveh your God." To Abraham, 
 not unfamiliar with various ways in which among his 
 heathen ancestors the deity was propitiated, the testing 
 question comes, " Art thou prepared to obey thy God as 
 fully as the people about thee obey their gods ? " and in 
 the putting forth of his faith in the act of obedience, he 
 learns that the nature of his God is different.^ Instead, 
 therefore, of saying that the narrative gives proof of the 
 existence of human sacrifice as an early custom in Israel, 
 it is more reasonable to regard it as giving an explana- 
 tion why it was that, from early time, this had been a 
 prime distinction of Israel that human sacrifice 7vas not 
 practised as among the heathen. The fundamental idea 
 of the heathen rite was the same as that which lay at the 
 foundation of Hebrew ordinance, the best to God; but by 
 presenting to us this story of the offering of Isaac, and 
 by presenting it in this precise form, the writer simply 
 teaches the same truth taught by all the prophets, that 
 to obey is better than sacrifice — in other words, that the 
 God worshipped in Israel from Abraham's time was a 
 
 ^ In a similar manner, in the story of Abraham's intercession for the 
 cities of the plain, he is taught the merciful character of the God to 
 whom he prays. It is a shallow view of this narrative to represent it 
 as a hucKstering proceeding, in which the suppliant beats down the deity 
 to the lowest point. The story illustrates the Christian truth, " Ac- 
 cording to your faith it shall be done to you," for as long as Abraham 
 Las faith to pray he is answered. 
 
Jephthah and his Daughter. 255 
 
 God who did not delight in destroying life, but in saving 
 and sanctifying it. 
 
 Just as little, I think, does the story of Jephthali 
 (Judges xi.) and his daughter prove that human sacrifice 
 was the custom in Israel at the time of the Judges^ 
 or at any time. Even if we admit that Jephthah con- 
 templated the possibility or probability of a member 
 of his household being the first to come out to meet 
 him — even if we admit that when he " did with her 
 according to his vow which he had vowed" (v. 39), he 
 actually offered her as a sacrifice, — I maintain that by 
 any sober criticism of the passage, nothing is proved 
 beyond the solitary act. No doubt we must admit that 
 Jephthah may have been acquainted with human sacri- 
 fice as practised by the nations about him. The writer 
 of the narrative, if we place him in the early " literary 
 age " of Israel, could not but have known of it. But all 
 the details of the narrative, all the circumstances associ- 
 ated with the event— the sadness and grief of the father, 
 the pause before the execution of the vow, the annual 
 ceremony of a four days' lament for Jephthah's daughter — 
 show that the thing was regarded as quite unusual, and 
 had stamped itself in the national mind as an occurrence 
 rare in history. Possibly, nay probably, a certain glory 
 encircled the name of Jephthah's daughter for her extra- 
 ordinary devotion, but this was just because the devotion 
 was extraordinary, not because it was an instance of a 
 common usage. It is idle in such a connection to talk of 
 this as a proof that the Mosaic law forbidding human 
 sacrifice was not known to Jephthah. Such a law, or a 
 hundred similar, may have existed and not been known 
 to this Gileadite chieftain ; but even if the law was 
 
 1 Daumer, p. 40 £F. 
 
256 Moloch -Worship, etc, 
 
 known, he was not in a mood to regulate his actions by 
 such considerations. The man was burning with passion 
 for revenge, and to nerve himself to his utmost effort, he 
 bound himself by the most solemn vow he could think 
 of. Thenceforth, when the victory was secured, there 
 was no question, to a superstitious man, of Mosaic laws — 
 nay, he repressed his strongest human instincts ; but the 
 act was not, as our critics would make us believe, the 
 ])erformance of an ordinary rite to a bloodthirsty God. 
 Jephthah's god for the time was his own feeling of re- 
 venge and injured pride, and his law was the honour and 
 sacredness of the vow. 
 
 We have still to refer to another passage. It is re- 
 lated ^ that the King of Moab, sore pressed by the allied 
 armies of Israel and Judah and Edom, and having failed in 
 an attempt " to break through unto the King of Edom," 
 " took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, 
 and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And 
 there was great indignation against Israel, and they de- 
 parted from him and returned to their own land." The 
 I)assage has been variously explained, and in different 
 ways an argument has been drawn from it to prove that 
 Moloch and Jehovah were identical, or that the tone of 
 Israel's belief in their God was as low as that of the 
 Moabites. Daumer, e.g., who takes the lowest possible 
 view, says, " This offering, according to the Biblical repre- 
 sentation of it, worked so effectually that the besiegers 
 had to withdraw." And as the word translated " indigna- 
 tion " is the word used of the divine wrath, he goes on to 
 
 ^ 2 Kings iii. 26, 27. This passage is also referred to in another connec- 
 tion as a proof that the power of Jahaveh was confined to his own land, 
 and that beyond its boundaries the gods of the respective nations were 
 more powerful. — Stade, Geschichte, vol. i. p. 430. 
 
The King of Moab and his Son, 257 
 
 say, " There came a great wrath of Jehovah upon Israel 
 and drove them away, so that the God to whom the 
 Moabite prince presented this horrible offering, evidently 
 coincides with the Biblical Jehovah, and the power and 
 effectiveness which such sacrifices had with Jehovah lie 
 before our eyes as recognised by the Bible itself." ^ Others 
 explain the passage to mean that the wrath of the Moabite 
 god, called forth by this costly appeal to him, was aroused, 
 and proved so effective that Israel had the worst of the 
 battle ; and that under the obscure phraseology the Hebrew 
 writer indicated, what he would not say outright, that 
 Jahaveh was not a match, on this occasion, for the Mo- 
 abite god on Moabite territory. I confess I do not know 
 what precisely the passage means ; ^ the multiplicity of in- 
 terpretations given of it is a proof how^ obscure it is. But 
 to attempt to explain it with this perpetual insinuation 
 that the Biblical writers have something to conceal, is to 
 come to it with a prepossession, and seems to me to be 
 fatal to any satisfactory exegesis. The writer, if he was 
 so afraid of compromising the dignity of the national god, 
 could have omitted the reference altogether, or safeguarded 
 the national faith in a less ambiguous manner. This is 
 not an instance of a writer finding a very ancient docu- 
 ment, and having to gloss it over to conceal its original 
 meaning. The time referred to is in the historical period ; 
 and the writer was under the influence of prophetic ideas, 
 and was not likely to express, in this hesitating and doubt- 
 ful way, the convictions of his time as to the relative power 
 of Jahaveh and heathen gods. 
 
 (5.) As little convincing is the argument drawn from 
 
 * Feuer unci Molochdienst, p. 46. 
 
 * It is supposed by many that there may be an obscure reference to 
 tliis occurrence, whatever it was, in Amos ii. 1. 
 
258 Moloch-Worship, etc. 
 
 statements of the prophets. One passage, indeed, is so 
 convincing to Daumer,^ that he says it " shatters all our 
 traditional theology with one blow." It is the passage in 
 Amos (v. 25 f.) which Daumer interprets to mean that 
 " Israel, during all the forty years long in the wilderness, 
 did not serve Jehovah, but Saturn-Kijjun, as their king 
 (Melech, Molech, Moloch)." Such a distinct declaration, 
 he says,^ should be seriously faced, and he complains that 
 only in liis own time (1842) had writers begun to give 
 their due weight to such prophetic utterances, and in this 
 way to lay the foundations of an entirely new history 
 of the Old Testament. In point of fact, from Vatke^ 
 onwards, critical scholars have relied very strongly on 
 this passage in support of their views. Kuenen may be 
 taken as a moderate exponent of the argument. He says,** 
 " The prophet Amos states that the Israelites carried about 
 in the desert * the tabernacle [or some other object : the 
 reading is uncertain] of their king,' or ' Melech,* and other 
 idolatrous apparatus besides. This statement may be re- 
 garded as historical. At their entrance into Canaan the 
 Israelites found there the worship of a deity to whom 
 children were sacrificed (Deut. xii. 30, 31 ; 2 Kings xvi. 
 3. Comp. Levit. xviii. 21 ; xx. 2-5), probably likewise 
 called Melech. It may be assumed that the Israelitish 
 Melech-worship became fused with the Canaanitish, and 
 that thus from the time of their entrance into Canaan tliis 
 worship existed, and the sacrifice of children to Melech 
 occurred sporadically. The worship of Melech, however, 
 was of no great importance." With this last statement 
 Daum.er would not agree; but, letting that pass, it is 
 worth while drawing attention to the readiness with 
 
 r : 1- Feuer mid Molochdienst. p. 47 ff. ^ Ibid., p. 49, 
 
 » Bibl. Theol., p. 191. ■* Relig. of Israel, vol, i. p. 250. • 
 
Amos on the Wilderness Period. 259 
 
 \vliich all this school accepts as " historical " a statement 
 of the prophet Amos in regard to a time of which, in other 
 connections, they are fond of telling us, he could have had 
 no knowledge whatever ; and it is somewhat peculiar to 
 find writers who tell us that there was no forty years' 
 wandering in the desert at all, accepting the testimony of 
 Amos in regard to the religious practices of a time which 
 he so precisely defines. Again, a favourite proceeding 
 with the modern school, when a passage is inconvenient 
 for their theory, is to say that it has been touched by 
 later hands, or that it disturbs the connection, and there- 
 fore is to be rejected as an interpolation. The English 
 reader may look at the passage before us in its connection 
 and see whether it is not particularly one of that descrip- 
 tion. Yet we never hear from the critics a word against 
 its genuineness. I do not mean to cast suspicion on it on 
 that account, or to dispute Kuenen's assertion that the 
 statement of the prophet " may be regarded as historical." 
 My difficulty is that, as the various interpretations of the 
 passage will show, one can scarcely make out what the 
 statement precisely is.^ And whatever it may be, the 
 question arises. If this Moloch -worship was the recog- 
 nised national worship of Israel in the desert, why should 
 Amos make that a matter of reproach, as he seems to do ? 
 To which the only reply can be the usual one. The pro- 
 phet, from his prophetical standpoint, projected his own 
 ideas into the past, and gives us an unhistorical view of 
 the religion, — the same prophet who in the same breath 
 is taken as a proof of a historical statement to the very 
 opposite effect. I do not suppose modern criticism can 
 go much further. If it be urged that Amos merely states 
 that this Moloch-worship was practised in the desert, then 
 
 1 See Note XIX. 
 
360 Moloch -Worship, etc. 
 
 who is to deny that? Tlie Biblical historians represent 
 the religious life of Israel at that time as far from correct ; 
 and it is they who tell us plainly of the practice of Moloch- 
 worship in the time of the Kings. But it is a fiction of 
 modern writers that this worship was ever regarded by 
 prophetic men, or by the best of the nation, as the national 
 worship of Israel. 
 
 There is still the famous passage in Micah vi. 6, 7: 
 " Wherewithal shall I come before Jahaveh ? . . . Shall I 
 give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my 
 body for the sin of my soul?" in which, says Kuenen, 
 " it is undoubtedly implied that in his days such a sacri- 
 fice was not looked upon as at all unreasonable ; ... if 
 human sacrifice had been foreign to the service of Israel's 
 God, he could not have mentioned it in this manner."^ 
 Daumer goes further : " In these words is expressed witli- 
 out doubt the prevailing belief to be that Jehovah has 
 pleasure not only in animal sacrifices but also in human 
 offerings, and that in the offering of a first-born son there 
 was the efficacy of wiping out sin. . . . Israel worships 
 its Jehovah with burnt-offerings, calves of a year old, 
 rams, oil, and the offering of first-born sons, and believes 
 that this is necessary for salvation and in accordance with 
 Jehovah's will and law;"^ and in a footnote he blames 
 Gramberg for still adhering to the old belief that the 
 custom of offering children liad passed over from the 
 Moloch-worship to that of Jehovah. It is difficult to 
 place one's self in the mental attitude of one who can 
 reason in this way, or to understand how to such a one 
 the rhetoric of a Hebrew writer can have any force. The 
 prophet propounds a most solemn question — How is man 
 
 ^ Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 237. 
 2 Feuer und Molochdienst, p. 52. 
 
The Passage in Micah. 261 
 
 to find acceptance with God? — and his answer^ takes the 
 form of a climax in which he rises from the idea of a 
 costly to that of a still costlier offering, and, as Kuenen 
 rightly observes, he knows tliat there is a better way tlian 
 by any such sacrifice. To Daumer it may be replied, if 
 the offering of children was as common as the offering of 
 rams and oil, why does the prophet make all this ado 
 about it ? The prophet has no idea of ordinary offerings 
 in his mind. Does Daumer mean to tell us that it was 
 the common thing for an individual offerer, in order to 
 atone for sin, to offer thousands of rams, and ten thousand 
 rivers of oil? It is on these points that the emphasis 
 lies ; and it is these that give force to the grand climax, 
 shall I give my first-horn for my transgression ? The 
 prophet supposes the very highest form conceivable of 
 sacrifice, and declares that it is all in vain. And the 
 proper conclusion to be drawn from his word is, that no 
 sacrifice in itself is pleasing to Jahaveh, not even the 
 most costly that could be conceived. But it is asked, 
 Why does lie instance this kind of offering if he did not 
 know of it ? The answer is, He did know of it, but he 
 did not know of it as a tiling done to Jahaveh, any more 
 than he knew of ten thousands of rivers of oil being 
 offered. Is there no such thing as rhetoric for our critics ? 
 When St Paul, in one of his most eloquent flights, says, 
 " Though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and though 
 I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, I am 
 nothing," are we to conclude that the early Christians of 
 his day, having as at Pentecost given all their goods to 
 a common fund, were also in the habit of worshipping 
 
 ^ It may be pointed out that the passage, standing in connection with 
 V. 5, may be taken as expressing, dramatically, a question put by Balak 
 (vv. 6, 7), with Balaam's answer (v. 8). 
 
 Of THS 
 
 [TJ'5IVBI 
 
262 Moloch - Worship, etc. 
 
 this same fiery Moloch ? One would say there was less 
 reason for St Paul making such a rhetorical supposi- 
 tion of self-immolation in his day than for Micah, with 
 Moloch-worshippers around him, making it in his. But 
 in neither case is the custom proved, and tliere is ab- 
 solutely nothing more in the critical argument from the 
 words of Micah than an aggravating attempt to spoil 
 one of the finest passages of sacred oratory. 
 
 It is unnecessary to enter into lengthened examination 
 of other passages relied upon in tliis connection, such as 
 David's slaughter of Saul's descendants to appease the 
 Gibeonites (2 Sam. xxi. 1-14), and Samuel's hewing Agag 
 in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal (1 Sam. xv. 33). The 
 general remark may be made, that by themselves they are 
 not even so plausible as the cases already stated, and like 
 these do not really touch the point in dispute.^ Kuenen, 
 feeling that such passages as have been considered do not 
 yield a decisive result for his view, makes the remark : ^ 
 " A solitary instance of this nature would perhaps be 
 susceptible of another interpretation ; in their interdepen- 
 dence these various facts undoubtedly bear witness to the 
 accuracy of the conclusion advanced above;" and it is a 
 favourite method with writers of his school to speak &f 
 the argument as cumuLative. It is a very specious plea, 
 and I believe more are led by it to give their adherence 
 to the modern theory than by any one positive and con- 
 clusive proof. Seeing that so many passages and references 
 can be made to lend countenance to the theory, they come 
 to the conclusion that " there must be something in it," 
 and are vaguely convinced or half persuaded. Yet we 
 are familiar with the similar marshalling of evidence in 
 favour of all kinds of extravagant theories. The in- 
 1 See Note XX. 2 j^gUg. of jgrael, vol. i. p. 237. 
 
Cwnulative Argument, 263 
 
 dividual proofs have no force till the theory to be 
 proved is thrown into the balance, although an op- 
 posing theory would equally well act as counterpoise, or 
 even suit better. Before there can be cumulative evi- 
 dence, there must rest in each individual case a pre- 
 sumption, and two cases must not mutually supplement 
 one another, else it is a cumulus of unsupported suspi- 
 cions. We know how in social life the iteration of a 
 calumny is supported by innumerable little incidents, not 
 one of which in itself has any positive value, but all, 
 strung together on the string of whispered slander, suffice 
 .by their cumulative evidence to ruin a character. It is 
 necessary to protest against such a mode of reasoning, 
 because it is apt to sap the very foundations of exegesis on 
 which alone any positive result must rest. When Daumer, 
 for example, in his effort to establish his thesis, draws 
 proofs from the practices of nations at the most remote 
 distances from one another, and in the most diverse stages 
 of culture, and forces the most natural usages of language 
 into evidences for his view, one is led to despair of the 
 possibility of getting any reliable conclusion at all from 
 the Biblical writings. For him it is sufficient that there 
 is a river in Macedon and a river in Monmouth, and that 
 there is salmon in both. But his mode of procedure 
 brings Biblical exegesis into contempt; and it is a pity 
 that more modern writers have not been warned by his 
 example not to enter upon a line of reasoning which 
 manifestly ends in absurdity. Surely in the examin- 
 ation of a problem so very delicate and so very vital, 
 it is becoming to proceed with the utmost caution. If a 
 passage called as evidence is seen to have no direct force, 
 when calmly interpreted in the light of the context, the 
 witness should simply be made to stand down, and not be 
 
264 Moloch - Worship, etc, 
 
 again appealed to. It should not be beneath the dignity 
 of a critic to say frankly that a passage, whether from the 
 condition of the text or from our ignorance of its reference, 
 is neutral or unintelligible, so that attention may be con- 
 centrated on less ambiguous proofs. 
 
 After all their bold pretensions, therefore, to prove that 
 the pre-prophetic religion of Israel was of the low char- 
 acter affirmed of it, the critics, it seems to me, succeed in 
 proving very little. They have done valuable service in 
 drawing attention to popular conceptions or misconcep- 
 tions; and had their labours been confined to this as a 
 contribution to our knowledge of the working of the reli- 
 gious instinct at all times, they would have been excellent. 
 This indiscriminate mixing up of early and late, however, 
 which is seen in the reasoning from metaphorical language 
 and so-called mythological expressions, defeats the very 
 end of the argument, which is to show development. And 
 there is ever the objection to the whole argument, that it 
 assumes a tone of prevailing thought on religious matters 
 at the very time of the first writing prophets, which is 
 inconsistent with the tone in which these men write, 
 and directly in the teeth of the declarations which they 
 make on the whole subject. 
 
 - Finally, however, the modern historians should beware 
 of attempting to prove too much in this direction ; for the 
 more the pre-prophetic religion is depreciated, the more 
 difficult it will be to account for its sudden rise to the 
 level in which we find it in the earliest writing prophets. 
 There is not only the task of accounting for the continu- 
 ance of Israel as a separate people, with distinctive beliefs 
 and practices, during the long period that this low stage 
 lasted, but there is the greater difficulty of showing how, 
 from the low level which is assumed, it was possible for 
 
Proving too much. 265 
 
 the religion by ordinary development to rise to the ethic 
 monotheism in which it so soon appears. Granted even 
 that the case for the modern theory has been so far made 
 out, what was there at all in the religion of Jahaveh to 
 make it a distinctive religion of Israel, and to give to 
 that people the only bond that could unite them to one 
 another, and mark them off from their neighbours ? Or 
 if that is not enough, what was there to enable them to 
 rise, as they did rise, from this low level to the height of 
 the so-called ethic monotheism ? And how was it that, 
 with the first appearance of written prophecy, we find the 
 teaching of a much purer faith, appealing also to a hoary 
 antiquity for its sanction ? 
 
 We must therefore now inquire particularly what was 
 this Jahaveh religion, and how its subsistence for so long 
 and its rise to its purest form are accounted for. 
 
266 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 THE JAHAVEH RELIGION. 
 
 The Jahaveh religion characteristic of Israel — The points to he examined in 
 this chapter : I. Its origin ; II. Its specific initial significance — /. 
 Origin sought for in (1) Indo -Ger manic ; (2) Assyro-Babylonian ; (3) 
 Egyptian; (i) Kenite ; and (5) Canaanite language or religion — Con- 
 clusion that it is distinctively Israelite — //, Significance — Etymological 
 considerations — Critical derivation, " thunderer" — Biblical derivation 
 — Historical considerations in its favour — Importance of determining 
 the initial signification of the name — // it is of Israelite origin, and 
 introduced under definite historical circumstances, it must have a 
 specific signification — The other explanation is open to the following 
 objections: (1) There is no evidence that Jahaveh was a tribal God; 
 (2) No reason is given for the substitution of the name Jahaveh for 
 El ; (3) Stadc's proofs are a confusion of early and late, and give no 
 intelligible account of the initial significance of the pre-prophetic con- 
 ception of Jahaveh — Conclusion that higher qualities were there from 
 the first. 
 
 The thing that distinguished Israel in early times from 
 the surrounding nations, and in later times, was their con- 
 tribution to the religious good of the world, was the pos- 
 session of the Jahaveh religion. Even if we admit that, 
 as is maintained, Jahaveh was only to them what the gods 
 of the nations around them were to their worshippers, they 
 had this, at least, as a distinctive mark ; and it was from 
 it as a germ that the purer religion of the propliets was 
 
Points to he determined. 267 
 
 developed. Even if, in pre-prophetic times, the national 
 religion v^as of a low type, at the bottom of it lay tlie 
 belief that Jahaveh was Israel's God ; nay, even if they 
 thought it no sin to employ the names of heathen deities 
 in forming proper names and so forth, they were all the 
 time professors of the Jaliaveh religion, and the most that 
 can be said is, that they bestowed on Jahaveh Himself 
 those names that other nations applied to their gods. I 
 have advanced considerations to show that the positions 
 referred to as to the low character of the pre-prophetic reli- 
 gion are not by any means established. But I insist upon 
 this point now, that even if they were established, the 
 great problem has still to be solved. Two points, mentioned 
 in a former chapter ,i still remain to be demonstrated: 
 (1) We must be shown the origin of the Jahaveh religion, 
 and it must be seen to have such distinctive marks as will 
 make it characteristic of Israel, and bind them together at 
 the most critical period of their history ; and then (2) the 
 process of development must be pointed out by which, in 
 well-marked historical stadia, it rose to the religion which 
 is described as ethic monotheism. Briefly put, we must 
 have an explanation of the Jaliaveh religion at both ex- 
 tremities of its development, at its start and at its final 
 development ; and it is incumbent on those who refuse 
 to take the Biblical account of the matter to present 
 lis with another that will stand the test of historical 
 criticism. They must show us {a) the source of the 
 Jahaveh religion ; (b) its specific initial significance ; and 
 (c) its historical development from the lower to the higher 
 stage. A consideration of the first two of these three 
 points will be the subject of this chapter. 
 
 I. In regard to the origin of the Jahaveh religion, as in 
 
 1 Chapter vi, p. 166. 
 
268 The Jahaveh Religion, 
 
 regard to other distinctive features of the history, investi- 
 gations have been pursued in various directions with the 
 view of discovering, if possible, some point of contact with 
 and dependence upon other nations with which Israel was 
 brought into connection ; and different investigators have 
 thought that they have discovered either the actual name 
 Jahaveh, or the idea which it expresses, in the languages 
 and religious conceptions of different peoples. Inquiries 
 of this kind are perfectly legitimate, and often lead to 
 most instructive results. The issue of them, however, 
 must be carefully noted. When, for example, Wellhausen 
 says that Nabiism passed over from the Phoenicians to 
 Israel at a certain time, that is not a final explanation of 
 Israelite prophetism. Even if the fact were as he asserts 
 — and it depends very much on his assertion — there still 
 remains to be explained how the "passing over" took 
 place at such a time, and the more difficult fact that it 
 passed over into so different a phenomenon ; and for 
 both these circumstances we have to fall ba'ck upon 
 some predisposing cause, and some inherent capability 
 in Israel. Similarly, should it be proved that the name 
 Jahaveh, or the idea denoted by the name, is found 
 among some other people, we are no nearer the solution 
 of the problem. First of all, we are driven a step farther 
 back in our search for its origin, and have to explain 
 whence that other people got it ; and secondly, we have 
 to account for Israel's adopting it ; and lastly, we have 
 to explain why it became, in their hands, quite a new 
 thing. 
 
 The investigations that have been made in the direc- 
 tions indicated are interesting and exhaustive. The 
 name, or the idea which it expresses, has been in turn 
 sought for in (1) Indo-Germanic ; (2) in Assyro-Babylon- 
 ian ; (3) Egyptian ; (4) Kenite ; and (5) Canaanite Ian- 
 
Indo-Gerinanw Derivation. 2G9 
 
 guage or religion. We must briefly consider the arguments 
 advanced for these various views. 
 
 (1.) An Indo- Germanic source of the name has been 
 sought by some scholars. Thus Yon Bohlen,^ referring 
 to the varying forms, Jave, Jaho, and Jao (law), under 
 which the name appears in writings of the Jews, Samari- 
 tans, and Christian fathers, says that " in this shape it is 
 clearly connected with the names of the Deity in many 
 other languages " — Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit — and that 
 the original form would liave been Jah. This opinion 
 has been pronounced by J. G. Miiller^ as "not lightly 
 to be set aside." The idea is that the Tndo-Germanic 
 root div = shine, which lies at the basis of Jovis or 
 Diovis, is to be recognised as also underlying the Hebrew 
 tetragrammaton, which originally may have sounded Javo, 
 Jevo, Jove, or Jeva. But the connection of the Indo- 
 Germanic root with the Hebrew vocable cannot be made 
 out so easily as is thus done. And there are two special 
 difficulties in the way of such a theory, — {a) that if 
 Jahaveh is originally an Indo - Germanic word corre- 
 sponding to a root div, which is widely diffused in these 
 languages, it does not appear to have passed over in this 
 sense into the Semitic languages generally, but only to 
 have been appropriated for a special name by a small 
 and comparatively insignificant branch of them ; and {h) 
 more particularly, there is already in the Hebrew lan- 
 guage, not to speak of other branches of Semitic, a 
 common root, hawa, from which the name can be de- 
 rived by an exact analogy with other proper names, like 
 Isaac, Jacob, and so forth. 
 
 * Introduction to the Book of Genesis, Hcyvvood's Tianslation (1855), 
 vol. i. p. 151 f. Compare Vatke, Bibl. Theol., p. 672. 
 
 * Die Semiten in ihrera Verhiiltniss zu Cbamiten u. Japhethiten (1872), 
 p. 163 f. 
 
270 The Jahavclh Religion. 
 
 Hitzig^ sought in another way to derive the name, or 
 rather the idea, from an Aryan source. The Armenian 
 name of God is Astuads (Astovads) — i.e., astvat, "the 
 becoming one " ; and Hitzig supposed that Moses — to 
 whom he ascribes the introduction of Jahaveh as a 
 divine name — reflecting on the truth and depth of the 
 thought contained in this designation of the Deity, adopted 
 it in a translated form as the name of the God whose re- 
 ligion he taught. What gives a colour of support to this 
 explanation is, that some of the earliest traditions of the 
 Hebrews seem to come from or to be connected with 
 Armenia and the north-east generally.^ There remains 
 the difficulty, however, of explaining how Moses, in the 
 land of Egypt, should have had a knowledge of the 
 Armenian language, and should have turned to that 
 quarter for an idea to denote his God. If tliere is any 
 truth in the theory at all, it would rather lead to a pre- 
 Mosaic origin of the idea. And if the early Armenians 
 expressed tlie idea they attached to God by a word de- 
 noting Being or Becoming, it is possible to conceive that 
 the family of Abraham, travelling from Babylon by that 
 way. may have reached the same notion ; and that thus 
 the idea, kept as a primitive tradition down to the time 
 of Moses, found expression in the tetragrammaton which 
 was its translation. 
 
 (2.) Turning now to another quarter, Friedrich Delitzsch^ 
 has lately maintained that tlie name Jehovah is of Assyro- 
 
 J Bil.l. Theol. d. Alteu Test., p. a7 f. 
 
 - Dillmann, in a paper, " Ueber die Herkunft der urgeschichtlichen 
 Sagen der Hebraer" (Sitzungsbericlite der Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu 
 Berlin, 27 April 1882), contends that many of these traditions not only 
 have their counterparts in Babylonian beliefs, but are the common pro- 
 perty of other Eastern peoples. 
 
 3 Wo lag das Paradies ? (1881), p. 158 flf. 
 
Assyro-Babylonian Derivation. 271 
 
 Babylonian origin. The divine name Jau, he says, the 
 Hebrews had in common with at least the Philistines, 
 and probably with the Canaanites generally ; and it was 
 in fact to distinguish their own God from the Jau of the 
 other peoples that the name was modified to the Hebrew 
 form, in the sense of the " becoming one." But, he pro- 
 ceeds, this Canaanite name Jah (like most other Canaanite 
 divine names) has its root in the Babylonian pantheon, 
 answering to Ja-u (corresponding to Ilu), the supreme God 
 of the oldest Babylonian system. The name, however, 
 is the creation of the non-Semitic people of Babylon, 
 though it came to the Canaanites through the Semitic 
 Babylonians. The original Accadian form of the name 
 was i, which the Semitic Babylonians transformed into 
 Jau, in which form it reached the Canaanites ; so that, 
 instead of forms like Jah, Jahu, being abbreviations of 
 the longer Jahaveh, the longer form was produced by 
 successive modification from the primary monosyllabic i. 
 As to this opinion, it is just as conceivable, to say the 
 least, that the full name Jahaveh became contracted into 
 Jahu, Jau, Jo, or Jah, as that the converse process took 
 place. We have a parallel example to illustrate the con- 
 tracting process,^ but the lengthening process," especially 
 as described by Delitzsch, seems highly artificial ; and, 
 in point of fact, another competent authority,^ in ex- 
 amining the question whether the name Jahaveh can 
 be traced to Accadian - Sumerian origin, denies that 
 deities of the names Jau and i were ever recognised at 
 all in those regions. 
 
 ^ As has been pointed out, there is a complete analogy in the form 
 yishtahaveh ('n'lnTlK''''")? regularly contracted into yishtahu ('^riDSJ*''') 
 
 2 Friedrich Philippi in Ztschr. fiir Volkerpsychologie u. Sprachwissen- 
 Bchaft (1883), pp. 175-190. 
 
272 The Jaliaveli Eeligion. 
 
 In another way it has been attempted to prove that 
 this name came from the same quarter. It is supposed 
 that Canaanite immigrants who wandered out from the 
 region of the Erythraean Sea ^ and came in contact with 
 Semitic peoples, brought this name with them, and that it 
 was adopted into Semitic. In support of this view it is 
 pointed out that Toi, king of Hamath, in David's time 
 sent his son, named Joram, to salute David (2 Sam. viii. 
 9), and that the name of this son contains the tetra- 
 grammaton in an abbreviated form, just as certain names 
 of Hebrew personages do. There are other isolated cases 
 found on the cuneiform inscriptions ; but seeing that 
 they occur at a period when the religion of Jahaveh was 
 long the acknowledged religion of the Hebrews, it is 
 perhaps safer to regard these as isolated instances of what 
 was not uncommon — a non- Semitic people adopting the 
 name of a Semitic god into the circle of their deities. 
 This is the view taken by Baudissin,^ and also by 
 Schrader, whose cautious remarks, in favour of a con- 
 current derivation of the name Jahve by the Hebrews 
 and Assyrians, are worth referring to.^ 
 
 (3.) Let us turn now to Egypt and see whether any 
 light can be derived from that quarter. And here we 
 have, (a) first the attempts to trace the name itself, as by 
 Eoth/ who identifies Jahaveh with, or makes it a modi- 
 fication of, the Egyptian Job, the moon-god. He does not 
 
 ^ In proof of such wandering, see Konig's Hist. Krit. Lelirgebaude der 
 Heb. Sprache, vol. i. (1881) p. 14 f. The proof, he maintains, is not in- 
 validated by Budde, Die Biblische Urgeschichte (1883), p. 329 ff. 
 
 - Der Ursprung des Gottes namens law, in his Studien, vol. i. p. 223. 
 
 ^ The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Test., Eng. transl., vol. i. 
 p. 23 ff. 
 
 ■* Geschichte unserer Abendlandischen Philosophic, Erster Band, 2te 
 Auflage (1862), Note 175, p. 143. 
 
Egyptian Derivation, 273 
 
 explain, however, how it was that the name of a god 
 especially associated with the moon should have been 
 bestowed on a deity of whose connection with the moon 
 we have no trace ; and it is very probable that we have 
 here nothing more than a fortuitous coincidence of two 
 names which never had any connection in the minds of 
 those who employed them, (b) On the other hand, not 
 a few have thought that the idea expressed by the name 
 is to be found in Egyptian sources, and may have been 
 borrowed in Hebrew form by Israel in Egypt, (a) Plu- 
 tarch mentions an inscription on the temple of Isis at 
 Sais, in which a deity is described in terms resembling 
 the " I am that I am " denoted by Jahaveh (Exod. iii. 14) ; 
 but the ideas conveyed by the two do not, when examined, 
 correspond in the way that it is alleged.^ (/3) Others, 
 again, find in the name Jahaveh a Hebrew reproduction 
 (I am that I am) of the Egyptian mck pic mch^ But on 
 this subject we should hear what is said by so competent 
 an authority as Le Page Eenouf : * 
 
 " It is quite true that in several places of the Book of the Dead the 
 three words nuk pu nuk are to be found ; it is true that nuk is the pro- 
 noun I, and that the demonstrative -pu often serves to connect the sub- 
 ject and predicate of a sentence. But the context of the words requires 
 to be examined before we can be sure that we have just an entire sen- 
 tence before us, especially as pu generally comes at the end of a sen- 
 tence. Now if we look at the passages of the Book of the Dead where 
 these words occur, we shall see at once that they do not contain any 
 mysterious doctrine about the divine nature. In one of these pas- 
 sages the deceased says, ' It is I who know the ways of Nu.' In 
 
 ^ Konig, Hauptprobleme, p. 31, to whom I am indebted for much of the 
 material and many suggestions in this chapter. 
 
 '^ So Wahrmund, Babylonierthum, Israelitenthum, Christenthum, p. 
 219. 
 
 3 Hibbert Lecture for 1879, p. 244 f. 
 
 S 
 
274 Hie Jahaveh Religion. 
 
 another place he says, *I am the ancient one in the country [or 
 fields] ; it is I who am Osiris, who shut up his father Seb and his 
 mother Nut on that day of the great slaughter.' '' 
 
 These attempts to derive the name or the idea from 
 Egypt are therefore very precarious. 
 
 (4.) Once more, the idea has been put forth that the 
 national God of Israel was first of all the tribal God of the 
 Kenites, with whom Israel came in contact in the wilder- 
 ness, and to whose family Moses is represented as being 
 related by marriage (Exod. ii. 16 ; Judges i. 16, iv. 11). 
 This supposition, advanced by Ghillany,^ has been taken 
 up and advocated by Tiele,^ and also by Stade.^ The only 
 shadow of proof I can find for this view as put forth 
 by Stade is, that Moses must have borrowed the name 
 of his deity from some one ; and as Jethro was a priest 
 and Moses was in close association with him, the name was 
 simply carried over, and thus marks tlie continuation of 
 an older faith. Of actual proof that this was so, we have 
 none ; and even if we had, we should simply have to go 
 in search of an older source. No proof is given that 
 Jahaveh was the tribal God of the Kenites, nor is any 
 explanation given why the Hebrews, if they had no tribal 
 god before, should have adopted this deity, or, if they had, 
 why they made the exchange at this particular time. It 
 may be urged, moreover, against this supposition, that the 
 
 ^ Theologische Briefe an die Gebildeten der deutschen Nation von 
 nichard von der Aim (1862), vol. i. pp. 216, 480. Though Ghillany 
 writes under this pseudonym, tlie tone of this work, like that which finds 
 expression in liis * Meuschenopfer der Hebriier,' is unmistakable. The 
 deity of the Kenites, he says, was the sun — worshipped, however, not aa 
 a liviiig bull as in Egypt, but in the form of a metallic image. 
 
 2 Vergelijkende Geschied. van de Egypt, en Mesopot. Godsdieusten, p, 
 559 ; Kompendium, § 52. 
 
 ' Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. p. 130 f. 
 
Kenite or Canaanite Derivation. 275 
 
 Kenites, though both in the wilderness and in Canaan 
 seen in close friendship with Israel, are always a small 
 body, and occupy somewhat the position of pious so- 
 journers or proselytes; and it seems contrary to the 
 usual way in which even the critical writers explain 
 events, that the larger people should have adopted the 
 god of the smaller tribe. 
 
 (5.) Most of the views that have already been mentioned 
 have this in common, that they place the adoption of the 
 Jahaveh religion by the Hebrews at some period anterior 
 to their entrance into Canaan. We have now, however, 
 to look at another explanation, which regards the name 
 of Jahaveh as one gradually adopted with other parts of 
 religious belief and practice from the Canaanites in 
 Palestine.^ As, however, this view has been success- 
 fully attacked by wTiters of the same general school of 
 criticism, it may be sufficient to refer to what these 
 latter have advanced in the way of refutation. The ob- 
 jections urged by Kuenen against Land^ deserve special 
 emphasis. He argues as follows : {a) It cannot be de- 
 nied — Land himself admits it — that, in the struggles 
 that took place between the Canaanites and the Israelites, 
 there was involved a contest between the gods of the two 
 peoples ; and since at the close of the contest the Israelites 
 and their God were victorious, it cannot be supposed that 
 the deity who thus asserted his superiority was originally 
 of Canaanite origin. Further, Q)) not only have we, he 
 
 1 This view was independently put forward by Culenso (Pentateuch, 
 Part II. chap, viii.), who afterwards discovered (Part VII. chap, xix.) 
 that he had been anticipated by Hartmann, Yon Bohlen, and Von der 
 Aim. It has also been advocated by Dozy (De Israeliten te Mecca, Germ, 
 transl., 1864, p. 39), Land (Theol. Tijdschr., 1868, pp. 156-170), and 
 Goldziher (Mythology among the Hebrews, Eug. tr., pp. 272, 290). 
 
 ' Relig. of Israel, vol. i, pp. 398-403. 
 
276 . The Jaliaveh Eeligion. 
 
 contends, in the names Jochebed (Moses' mother), Joshua 
 (Moses' contemporary), and Jonathan (Moses' grandson) 
 — in all which the name Jo or Jeho enters as an element 
 — an indication that the name was known to the Israel- 
 ites independently of and prior to their contact with 
 Canaanites; but also the song of Deborah, in which 
 Jahaveh is represented as coming from Seir, furnishes a 
 plain proof that the God of the Israelites was conceived 
 as liaving His original home outside of Palestine. Lastly, 
 (c) he argues rightly tliat the view under consideration 
 deviates from the whole tenor of Israelite tradition, which 
 gives no support to the supposition that Jahaveh was a 
 God of Canaanite origin. " I will not/' he says, " assert 
 that the latter [i.e., the Canaanite origin of the name] 
 must be rejected on this account alone, but I do assert 
 that it is only on strong grounds that it can be accepted. 
 In other words, it must be clearly and irrefragably proved 
 that Jahaveh was really a god of the Canaanites. The 
 evidence with which this is attested must be of such a 
 nature as to leave no room for reasonable suspicion of 
 Israelite or Old Testament influence. But such proof as 
 this is not furnished."^ The principle which Kuenen 
 liere lays down is of wide application, — viz., that the clear 
 testimony of the religious consciousness of Israel — in other 
 words, a persistent tradition — is only to beset aside on the 
 most undoubted positive proof. Kuenen himself is far 
 from observing his own canon, and Wellhausen openly 
 contradicts it ; ^ although by rejecting it we cut ourselves 
 away from any firm ground of historical criticism. 
 
 ^ lu spite of Land's rejoinder in Theol. Tijdsehr., iii. Bd., 1869, pp. 347-362, 
 Kuenen's position may be held as proved. So Baudissin has on this point 
 taken Kuenen's side, Studien, vol. i. pp. 213-218. 
 
 2 Hist, of Israel, pp. 318, 319. . 
 
Von Bohlens Theory. 277 
 
 Among the writers who seek to derive the name of 
 Jaliaveh from a Canaanite source reference may be made 
 to Von Bohlen,^ who would place the introduction of the 
 name as late as the time of David and Solomon. Some 
 of his arguments are of little force, and he has found 
 few supporters of his view ; but there is one argument 
 he employs which, though not valid for his purpose, 
 directs our attention to a fact which is worth noting. 
 He remarks that proper names compounded with the 
 more primitive name of God, El, such as Israel, Samuel, 
 disappear from history more and more from David's time, 
 and that names compounded with Jeho first appear in 
 David's reign or about his time. Now it is a fact that 
 this element does not appear widely in proper names 
 before the time of Samuel. We have the names of 
 Joash, father of Gideon (Judges vi. 11), Jotham, Gideon's 
 son (Judges ix. 5, 7), and Jonathan, grandson of Moses 
 (Judges xviii. 1^0). Besides these, we have two names before 
 the time of Samuel — viz., Joshua, the companion of Moses, 
 whose name is said to have been changed from Hoshea 
 (Num. xiii. 16), and Jochebed, the mother of Moses (Exod. 
 vi. 20). In view of these it becomes no longer a question 
 as to the introduction of the name Jeho or Jahaveh in the 
 time of David, but how we are to explain its existence 
 in the name of Joshua, Moses* contemporary, or, allowing 
 that to be an altered name, in the name of the mother 
 of Moses. It is known that wliereas the Jahavist writer 
 in Genesis freely uses the name Jahaveh in reference to 
 times antecedent to that of Moses, the Elohistic writer 
 retains faithfully the distinction of the periods ; but the 
 name of the mother of Moses would lead us to conclude 
 that even before the time when the God of Israel pro- 
 
 1 Introduction to Genesis, Hey wood's transl., vol. i. p. 153 f. 
 
27S The Jaliavch Belir/ioiu 
 
 claimed His sacred name to Moses at the bush, the name 
 itself had been known beforehand in a narrower circle, 
 or at least in the family of Moses himself. And this 
 view is adopted by many of the best interpreters.^ On 
 this subject Kuenen says, "Moses can scarcely be sup- 
 posed to have invented the name 'Jahaveh'; in all 
 probability it was already in use, among however limited 
 a circle, before he employed it to indicate El Shaddai, 
 the God of the sons of Israel;"^ and to the same effect 
 Wellhausen ^ says that Jahaveh was before Moses a 
 designation for El, and that he was originally a god in 
 the family of Moses or in the tribe of Joseph. 
 
 On a review of this whole inquiry, therefore, we need 
 not wonder that Kuenen'* comes to the conclusion that 
 the name is of Israelitish origin. It may be observed 
 in passing that it is somewhat remarkable that the 
 attempt should always be made to derive the religious 
 conceptions of the Hebrews from non-Hebrew sources, 
 without supposing that an influence in the opposite direc- 
 tion may have been exerted, from the Hebrews to their 
 non-Hebrew neighbours. It is no doubt the case that 
 the tradition places the native place of Abraham in 
 Chaldiea, and it is natural to suppose that the pro- 
 genitors of the Israelites were affected by the thoughts 
 of the time and country from which they came, just as 
 the nation was sensibly affected by contact with Egyp- 
 tians and Canaanites. It must be remembered, however, 
 that the tradition ascribes Abraham's departure from his 
 native land to religious impulse, and Eenan has dwelt 
 
 ^ A list of writers who take this view is given by Konig, Hauptpro- 
 bleme, p. 27. 
 
 - llelig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 279 f. ^ jjjgt. of Israel, p. 433. 
 
 * Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 398. 
 
Unanimous Israelite Tradition. 279 
 
 upon the circumstance that religious conceptions remain 
 more pure and elevated among simple nomads than 
 among civilised dwellers in cities.^ The exhaustive in- 
 quiry, however, that has been made by scholars, has its 
 justification in the conclusion to which it comes, that there 
 is no outside source from which it can be shown that the 
 religion of Jahaveh was derived. The use of the name is, 
 at least, as old as the time of Moses ; and whether to any 
 extent (which in any case must have been limited) it was 
 known before his time, he has the distinction of having 
 impressed it upon the consciousness of the people of his 
 time in a special way as the designation of their national 
 God, under the aspect in which He was distinctively 
 made known to them, and by them to be exclusively rev- 
 erenced. The unanimous voice of Israelite tradition is 
 that the declaration, " I am Jahaveh thy God," was made 
 through Moses. There is not the least hint in the re- 
 collections of the people that the name was proclaimed 
 by any other person. Between Moses and Samuel there 
 was no time at which we can conceive it to have been 
 introduced ; and the time of Samuel itself is but a time 
 of revival and reformation, after which it was not un- 
 natural that the name of the covenant God, to whom 
 the people's heart had again turned, should appear, as 
 has been pointed out, more extensively in the formation 
 of proper names. 
 
 In opposition to all attempts at deriving the name, 
 or conception from a foreign source, and as showing how 
 it was regarded throughout by the people of Israel as a 
 distinctive possession of the nation, there stands the hard 
 fact that in Scripture Jahaveh is ever the God of Israel 
 alone. According to the views of the Hebrew writers, 
 
 ^ Hist. d'Israel, vol. i. chap. iii. 
 
280 TJie Jahaveh Beligion. 
 
 the non-Israelite has no part or right to Jahaveh, but 
 knows only the general name of Elohim, God, or that of 
 his own native deity. ^ In the mouth of such a one the 
 name Jahaveh would denote a strange god — i.e., the god 
 of the people of Israel (of. 1 Kings xx. 23 with v. 28). 
 So when a Hebrew speaks to a non-Israelite, he is repre- 
 sented as using the name Elohim, and so also w4ien a non- 
 Israelite addresses a Hebrew. And in such cases it is 
 noticeable that the name Elohim is sometimes construed 
 with a plural verb (cf. 1 Sam. iv. 8), the narrator there- 
 by assuming for the time the standpoint of the non-Heb- 
 rew speaker or hearer. 
 
 This hard fact is not to be set aside by any vague ety- 
 mological arguments. Even if it were shown to be cer- 
 tain, or even probable, that the name or the conception of 
 Jahaveh was got from some non-Israelite quarter at some 
 time or another in history, it would remain beyond dis- 
 pute that, on the one hand, the name thus borrowed dis- 
 appeared from the language and thoughts of the people 
 from which it was derived ; and on the other, that it 
 came very soon to be regarded as the exclusive and 
 distinguishing possession of the people who borrowed it 
 ■ — a supposition which, considering the attributes with 
 which Jahaveh was endowed, and the readiness of poly- 
 theistic nations to retain the names of any number of 
 gods, especially such as had vindicated themselves as 
 powerful, is not to be entertained. 
 
 II. We come now to inquire whether we can determine 
 what precisely was the idea attached to this name among 
 its earliest possessors, so as to discover, if possible, where- 
 
 ^ This is well brought out by Tuch in his Comm. to Genesis, second edi- 
 tion, p. xxxii. He refers to these and other passages : Judges i. 7, vii. 14 ; 
 1 Sam. iv. 7, 8 ; Jonah iii. 3, where with verses 5, 8, 9, 10, compare 1 
 Sam. XXX. 15, xxii. 3. 
 
Signification of the Name. 281 
 
 in the inner potency of the Jahaveh religion consisted. 
 The introduction of a new name we would expect to be 
 accompanied with a new reference, a new attitude, a new 
 mode of regarding the deity; and we naturally ask 
 whether the name itself does not furnish its own ex- 
 planation. 
 
 Those who seek to prove that the religion of Israel wag 
 originally a nature religion, in which the powers of nature 
 were deified, explain the name Jahaveh in keeping with 
 this view. Thus Daumer ^ connects the verb from which it 
 is derived with the idea of destroying, and makes Jahaveh 
 " the Destroyer," an idea which suits his notion that 
 Jahaveh and Moloch were originally names for the same 
 deity. The more common view of those who similarly 
 seek the source of the name and idea in nature religion, 
 is that the verb from which the name is derived means 
 to " come down," " fall down," and then in its transitive 
 form " to send down " or " cast down " ; according to which 
 Jahaveh would be a Jupiter tonans, the Being who casts the 
 thunderbolt, or the lightning, to the earth. In support of 
 this view, we are pointed to the fact that the verb in 
 Arabic [liaiva), which, letter for letter, corresponds to the 
 Hebrew verb, has the sense of gliding freely, and par- 
 ticularly of gliding or falling down. This sense, it is 
 said, actually attaches to the Hebrew verb itself in one 
 place at least (Job xxxvii. 6), " He saith to the snow. Fall 
 thou on tlie earth." 
 
 The Biblical derivation of the word, as is well known, is 
 from the verb in the sense " to be " or " become." It may 
 be that from such a primary and material sense as that 
 of " falling," the verb in Hebrew came to have the more 
 abstract and secondary meaning of becoming — viz., to 
 
 ^ Feuer unci Moloclidienst, p. 11. 
 
282 The Jaliaveli Religion, 
 
 "fall out," " happen," "come to pass," as in Gen. vii. 6, 
 " the flood was upon the earth." ^ This is certain, that 
 the sense " to fall " can at most be only detected as 
 adhering to the Hebrew verb, which has, however, 
 appropriated to itself the one signification of becom- 
 ing. In other words, from the earliest time at which 
 we know the language, this verb was the usual one 
 employed to express the idea of "being," not, however, 
 in the abstract sense of " existence," but in the sense of 
 " becoming " ; there was no other verb in the language 
 with that signification ; the meaning of " falling," if it 
 originally belonged to it, had almost disappeared ; and 
 another verb altogether was employed to express that idea. 
 We can quite easily comprehend how a verb " to fall," 
 and then "to send down," could, among a polytheistic 
 people, or even a monotheistic people at a primitive stage 
 of culture, furnish the starting-point for a name of the 
 deity. He would then be the Being who " sends down " 
 rain, or thunder, or whatever it might be. The name 
 would stand on the same level, or, I should say, a lower 
 one, than such names as El, or Shaddai, the " strong one," 
 or Baal, Adon, " lord," or Molcch, " ruler " ; for any one 
 of these gives a fuller significance to the Being so named. 
 Against this origin of the name among the Hebrews, 
 however, we have, besides the fact that there is no proof 
 whatever of the Hebrews adopting a god of that name 
 from Arabic tribes as Stade will have it, or of their 
 attaching such an idea to the name of their national 
 
 •* For the idea of being and becoming, the Hebrew uses almost exclu- 
 eively Jiayah riM, hawah ilin being found in that sense only in poetic 
 archaic passages ; as in Gen. xxvii. 29, where Jacob is blessed by Isaac, 
 *' Be lord over thy brethren," also Isa. xvi. 4, the oracle on Moab. Later 
 "writers are influenced by Aramaic. 
 
Derivation of the Name. 283 
 
 god, the stronger fact just alluded to, that the verb 
 had appropriated to itself the sense of le, hecome, which 
 would be transitively to cause. That is to say, assuming 
 that such a name was formed or introduced at some his- 
 toric time, at some time when the language contained the 
 roots or stems it now possesses, the mere utterance of 
 the name would call up in the mind of the hearer the 
 idea of being, becoming, causing. And tliis is very much 
 the same as saying that the person who introduced it 
 wished to convey by it that meaning, since he could not 
 but have seen that it would suggest such an idea. To 
 attach to the name the other and more physical signifi- 
 cation, would necessitate some proof that the name is of 
 much older origin than the time of Moses, older than the 
 language in the form in which we have it ; and that — if 
 the primary meaning of descender or sender down attached 
 to it— there must have been a constant effort in the mind 
 to retain this antiquarian idea, and to exclude another 
 which was soon suggested and which was more exalted. 
 For it is a point of the greatest significance here, that the 
 other names of God found among the Hebrews and their 
 neighbours are connected with stems which are in the 
 language and have a precise and intelligible meaning. 
 On this line of reasoning, then, I should conclude, that 
 from the time that the verb to be, to become, was a regu- 
 lar constituent element of the language, the name Jaha- 
 veh must of necessity, if it was later than the verb, have 
 partaken of that signification. Either the name Jahaveh 
 was directly formed from an existent verb " to be " ; or 
 it was formed from a verb having the meaning to descend 
 which meaning, however, was, if not obliterated, yet cer- 
 tainly overshadowed, at tlie earliest known stage of the 
 language, by another sense. 
 
28 4 The Jahaveli Eeligion. 
 
 Of course this argument proceeds on the assumption 
 that those who used the name, or at least the thoughtful 
 part of the nation when they used it, attached to it some 
 signification, which is surely very likely, and in analogy 
 with such names as Moloch and Baal, which could not 
 but keep in the mind the ideas of kingship or lordship. 
 It would surely be an extraordinary supposition that the 
 Hebrews had got hold of a non-Hebrew name for their 
 deity which tliey used for a time without attaching to it 
 any sense at all, and then read into it a meaning suggested 
 by its resemblance to a common verb in the language. 
 It is not certainly to be concluded that the bare etymo- 
 logical meaning and no more would always adhere to a 
 word ; but if this name Jahaveh starts from the idea of 
 being, or must have suggested that idea at its first use, 
 the expansion of the conception in the minds of thinks 
 ing persons would be in the line of the primary meaning. 
 
 Now, as we have already seen, the name was introduced 
 at what the tradition makes a pretty advanced stage in -the 
 development of the religion. By the time of Moses the 
 whole patriarchal phase uf it had run its course; and, ac- 
 cording to the Biblical account, the earlier conception of 
 the deity had been expressed by the terms El and Shaddai, 
 embodying the simpler ideas of strength, power. Stade 
 himself tells us that in the pre-Mosaic religion, the name 
 El was used to denote the native spirit or spirits, and the 
 name Elohim is certainly old. And just as the abstract 
 idea of being, or transitively the idea of causing, is one 
 that comes comparatively late in consciousness, or at least 
 does not come at the primitive stage, so the introduction 
 of the name of Jahaveh, " He who will be," or " who will 
 cause to be," marks a point of advance in the conception of 
 the national God. It is therefore fitly placed in the time 
 
IsraeVs God from Egypt, 285 
 
 of Moses ; for it cannot be denied that, as the whole con- 
 sciousness of Israel looked back to the period of the exo- 
 dus as a new era in their national life, so the belief that 
 Jahaveh was their God from Egypt onwards, as it is ex- 
 pressed by Hosea, was deeply rooted in tlie nation's mind 
 and heart. 
 
 It seems to me that the frank recognition of this fact, 
 so firmly embedded in the national life and literature, 
 would go far to explain the striking phenomena which 
 criticism has brought into clear light ; and, on the other 
 hand, that the refusal to accept it frankly has led modern 
 writers to the precarious shifts and extravagant positions 
 which mark the course of their disquisitions. They look 
 ■for development, but they will not look for it at the right 
 place. Instead of accepting the fact, that in the patri- 
 archal period there was already a knowledge of God, at 
 least on a level with, and presumably higher than, that of 
 the polytheistic nations around Israel, they insist on find- 
 ing the transition from the barest animal religion going on 
 in a period after that stage had, for the enlightened part 
 of the nation, passed away. Instead of accepting the fact 
 that the name Jahaveh denotes a high stage achieved, 
 they insist on starting with that name as embodying the 
 most primary conceptions ; and in tracing the develop- 
 ment of the conception in the hands of the prophets, they 
 neglect the clue given to the development in the posses- 
 sion of the name itself. I take my stand upon the as- 
 sumption that this name must have had some meaning, 
 some suggestion, to the thinking portion of the people, 
 and must have, to an appreciable extent, controlled the 
 conceptions of God which were raised in the mind by the 
 mention of the name. There were other names — El, Elo- 
 him, Shaddai, Elyon, Baal, Molech- — all of which may have 
 
286 The Jahaveh Religion. 
 
 been used to denote deity ; but each and all of them have 
 a specific meaning attached to them, and Jahaveh must 
 have also had its meaning, a specific meaning ; and being 
 a special proper name, must have been intended to denote 
 all the others put together, nay, more than all the others 
 combined, else there would have been no reason for the 
 introduction of a new name. The question is. What was 
 that meaning ? If the name meant merely " the one that 
 sends down rain " or " thunderer," I submit that that does 
 not go beyond El or Shaddai, and would not therefore en- 
 title Jahaveh to be selected as the highest name that the 
 best could bestow on God. There is the verb " to become " 
 lying patent as a verb with which to connect a name which 
 comes to supplement or to comprehend all the other names. 
 And the name is put at the very period when the nation's 
 consciousness of a destiny before it is represented as ap- 
 pearing. All this cannot be fortuitous, nor is it likely to 
 have occurred as a happy thought to the early writers 
 who have left us these traditions. The conclusion seems 
 well justified, that, with the use of the name Jahaveh, 
 the idea seized the mind of Moses and his successors that 
 the God they worshipped was one of ever - developing 
 potency, an ever self-manifesting, ever actively-defending 
 God, whose character was not so much denoted by a 
 quality as by a constant activity, or rather (judged by the 
 analogy of similar personal names) by a person ever active ; 
 that in fact, as a nation does not die, so their national God 
 would ever be with them. The name comes in at a definite 
 historical crisis in the nation's life, and was meant to in- 
 dicate that the deity so named was concerned, not merely 
 with natural phenomena, but with national and historical 
 events. 
 
 Let us try to think of Moses proclaiming to his people 
 
The God of the Patriarchs, 287 
 
 a new name that they had never heard before, or heard 
 only as the name of the sender of the lightning, and his 
 saying to Israel — and with effect — " this Thunderer is to 
 be your only God for all time coming," The question 
 would naturally arise, " Who is Jahaveh that ice should 
 serve Him ? We know what is meant by a ' Strong One,' 
 a 'Lord,' a 'Master,' a *Most High One' (for kindred 
 nations had called their gods by such names as far back 
 as we have knowledge, and why should the Hebrews be 
 placed beneath them in intelligence ?). But who is the 
 sender of rain or of thunder any more to us than the deity 
 we already worship ? What is He to us, or what are we 
 to Him in particular, that we should be thus wedded to- 
 gether?" The only answer that he could conceivably 
 have given to such most obvious questions is, that Ja- 
 haveh had done something for them to claim their regard. 
 People do not set up gods for nothing. What then had 
 Jahaveh done for them ? Wellhausen comes to our aid 
 (though Stade refuses to go so far), and tells us that the 
 people had experienced His power in the deliverance from 
 Egypt.^ This is a reasonable account to give ; but it 
 only raises another question, " Who was this that inter- 
 fered on behalf of a nation of slaves in Egypt, and why 
 did He interfere ? " And the only answer that all these 
 questions admit of is just the Biblical answer, "The God 
 of our fathers hath appeared to me : " in other words, there 
 is a linking on of the deliverance of the present to the 
 recollections of the past ; the God of Abraham is not dead, 
 but alive and acting on behalf of Abraham's seed; and 
 
 1 Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, pp. 429-433 ; cf. here Kuenen, Relig. of 
 Israel, vol. i. p. 276 fF. Stade will not even admit that the Israelites, in 
 any appreciable sense, ever sojourned in Egypt. "If any Hebrew clan 
 dwelt in Egypt," he says, "no one knows its name." — Geschichte, vol. i, 
 p. 129. 
 
283 The Jahaveh Religion. 
 
 ill commemoration of the new deliverance, and to mark 
 a new era, He receives or adopts a new name, distinctive 
 from mere appellations of deity generally, and the God 
 of pre-Mosaic times is the same God in fuller manifesta- 
 tion still. Moses, says Prof. A. B. Davidson, "stamped 
 an impress upon the people of Israel which was never 
 effaced, and planted seeds in the mind of the nation which 
 the crop of thorns that sprang up after his death could 
 not altogether choke. Of course, even he did not create 
 a nation or a religious consciousness in the sense of mak- 
 ing it out of nothing. AVhen he appealed to the people 
 in Egypt in the name of Jehovah their God, he did not 
 conjure with an abstraction or a novelty. The people 
 had some knowledge of Jehovah, some faith in Him, or 
 His name would not have awakened them to religious or 
 ■national life. In matters like this we never can get at 
 the beginning. The patriarchal age, with its knowledge 
 of God, is not altogether a shadow, otherwise the history 
 of the exodus would be a riddle. Moses found materials, 
 but he passed a new fire through them, and welded them 
 into a unity; he breathed a spirit into the people, which 
 animated it for all time to come ; and this spirit can have 
 been no other than the spirit that animated himself."^ 
 The importance of dwelling on this question of the 
 meaning attached to the name of Israel's national God 
 in its initial conception and at its first use will be self- 
 evident. It brings to a point the sharp contrast between 
 the Biblical account of the matter and the views presented 
 by writers of the modern critical school. We may say, 
 in a general way, that the various aspects of the pre-pro- 
 phetic religion, as we have seen them put forward in the 
 ^preceding chapters, have this in common, that they rep- 
 
 ^ Expositor, third series, vol. v. p. 42. 
 
Jahaveh and the Elim. 289 
 
 resent the Jahaveh of pre -prophetic times as a being 
 rather of might than of moral greatness, a nature-God 
 rather than a God of nature, the only national God of 
 Israel indeed, yet, except in this particular, very little 
 if anything different from the gods of the surrounding 
 nations even in the estimation of His own worshippers. 
 Such representations of Jahaveh are the natural develop- 
 ment of the initial conception with which these writers 
 start. Wellhausen says^ that "no essential distinction 
 was felt to exist between Jehovah and El, any more 
 than between Asshur and El;" and Stade tells us that 
 El denotes a superhuman being, though not sharply sep- 
 arated from nature in which he operates. Each place 
 had its El, and the collective Elim or Elohim was the 
 sum of these, or the expression in a plural of majesty, 
 of the power of these superhuman beings.^ According 
 to the view of these writers, then, the name Jahaveh, 
 given originally to a family or tribal god, either of the 
 family of Moses or tribe of Joseph, as Wellhausen ^ sup- 
 poses, or of the tribe of the Kenites as Stade thinks, 
 implied no more than El ; only, having become current 
 within a powerful circle, it " was on that account all the 
 more fitted to become the designation of a national God." 
 But if there is any force at all in the considerations 
 that have been put forward, that this name Jahaveh is not 
 of foreign but of Israelitish origin, that as a separate and 
 new name it must have indicated something more than 
 other names already existing, and that in its derivation 
 or immediate suggestion it had the sense of " becoming," 
 then we must demand for the initial stage of the Jahaveh 
 religion a much higher level than the critical school allows. 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 433. 2 gtade, Geschichte, vol. i. p. 428. 
 
 3 Hist, of Israel, p. 433. 
 
290 Tlic Jahaveh Religion. 
 
 In addition to this general remark, there are the following 
 points again to be insisted on : — 
 
 (1.) There is absolutely no proof that Jahaveh was orig- 
 inally the name of a family or tribal god in the sense 
 understood by these writers. Even if the name of the 
 mother of Moses be taken as an indication that the name 
 was known in the circle of his family, there is no proof 
 that it denoted no more than El or a superhuman nature- 
 spirit. 
 
 (2.) And then no reason is assigned for the name 
 Jahaveh superseding El or the Elim, if, according to the 
 hypothesis, it signified no more than these names. Dill- 
 mann remarks^ that wherever an actual change in the 
 religion of a people takes place, there is ever a histori- 
 cal consciousness of the fact preserved among them. The 
 assertion that this name was a special name of El, which 
 had become current in a powerful circle, and on that ac- 
 count was all the more fitted to become the designation of 
 a national god, is, in the first place, destitute of historical 
 proof, and, in the second place, most improbable. If the 
 introduction of the name was connected with some strik- 
 ing event, such as the exodus, we should expect the name 
 to mark an advance — as the Biblical writers represent — on 
 the conception ; but according to the modern view, Jaha- 
 veh still remains a nature-God : although a national God, 
 His attributes are almost entirely physical. 
 
 (3.) In the next place, though the proofs from Scripture 
 which Stade, for example, advances in support of his pic- 
 ture of the character of the pre-prophetic Jahaveh, are 
 selected and manipulated in the extraordinary fashion to 
 which reference has already been made,^ yet it is exceed- 
 
 1 Ursprung der Alttestl. Religion, p. 6, quoted by Baudissin, Jahve et 
 Moloch, p. 77. ^ In chap. viii. p. 205. 
 
Elijah at Sarepta. ^^^-^J^^^"^* 
 
 ingly difficult to form a conception of the character he 
 seeks to delineate. He roams at will over Genesis, the 
 historical books, and even the prophets, finding in later 
 productions proofs of a low tone, and in the earlier books 
 proofs of a high tone of religious thought, till it is abso- 
 lutely impossible to make out what the initial conception 
 of Jahaveh, in his theory, could have been. An ex- 
 ample may be taken from his treatment of the story of 
 Elijah. At one time, in the midst of his argument to 
 prove that Jahaveh's power was confined to His own 
 land, he tells ^ us that Elijah, who fights valiantly in 
 the land of Israel against the worship of Baal, yet goes 
 and lives with a widow at Sarepta, who must have 
 been a Baal- worshipper, and eats her food, which would 
 be consecrated by offering to Baal — touclies for which 
 there is absolutely no warrant, and which make the 
 character of the " prophet of fire," as drawn by the nar- 
 rator, simply incomprehensible. Presently he tells us 
 that in this same story of Elijah the belief finds expres- 
 sion that Jahaveh accompanies His worshippers in their 
 wanderings, for He performs miracles at Sarepta at the 
 prophet's request, and sends him back to his own land.^ 
 This same belief, he says, is expressed in the promise to 
 be with Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 15, J.), in His being with 
 Joseph in Egypt (Gen. xxxix. 2, J.), and in His going 
 down to Egypt with Jacob (Gen. xlvi. 3 f., J. and E.) 
 And in order to prove the same thing he refers to 
 a passage as late as Isaiah xix., where the prophet 
 speaks of Jahaveh riding on a swift cloud and coming 
 to Egypt, and tlie idols being moved at his presence. 
 Similarly he proceeds in speaking of Jahaveh's power. 
 The conceptions of all-mightiness and omniscience, we are 
 
 1 Stade, Geschichte, vol. i. p. 430. 2 ^^j^j^ p 431 
 
292 The Jahaveh Relifjion. 
 
 told, are not yet reached. That He was not regarded as 
 knowhig all things is seen from the patriarchal stories, 
 which speak, for example, of God going down to Sodom 
 to see whether its condition was such as the cry repre- 
 sented it.^ Still the same God knows Sarah's thoughts, 
 and the belief in the oracle shows that He was regarded 
 as having a knowledge of secrets such as children ascribe 
 to God. His power came in the same way to be repre- 
 sented by the religious sentiment as adequate to anything, 
 as appears in the saying, " Is anything too hard for Jaha- 
 veh ? " (Gen. xviii. 14) ; and in that other saying, " There 
 is no restraint to Jahaveh to save by many or by few " 
 (1 Sam. xiv. 6). So He performs wonders, shakes the 
 earth, overthrows cities, punishes His land with famine 
 and plague, and slays men without any apparent disease. 
 One other example may be given of Stade's reasoning. 
 The preponderance of the idea of might in the conception 
 of God, he says, combined with the fact that in a primitive 
 age the difference between evil and misfortune was not 
 apprehended, hindered men from regarding Jahaveh as a 
 Being who always acted for moral ends. Traces of a 
 higher conception are not indeed wanting in the pre- 
 prophetic age. Jahaveh, as the defender of His people 
 and of the land, is the guardian of moral customs, the 
 avenger of broken covenants, and so far as concerns the 
 relations of one Israelite to another. His will is the ex- 
 pression of moral and just rule.^ Thus He avenges a 
 broken oath, and fulfils the prayer of the unjustly op- 
 pressed. Especially is He the avenger of innocent blood, 
 which cries to Him from the ground (Gen. iv. 10, xlii. 
 22, E.) So, as He is the God of the land, He maintains 
 law and order in it, punishing — e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah 
 
 1 Stade, Geschichte, vol. i. p. 432. 2 ibid., p. 434. 
 
Jahavch the Author of Evil. 293 
 
 — for breaking it. By such advances as these the idea of 
 holiness was enlarged and purified in later times. But in 
 earlier times these ideas did not extend to the general 
 course of events, and to the relation of Israelites to non- 
 Israelites and the surrounding world. In such matters 
 moral conceptions are so little apparent, tliat God is the 
 author even of evil. Men had not reached the belief in a 
 world in which imperfection was necessarily involved, and 
 of evil left for a time even for the sake of the good. Ac- 
 cordingly, when we would say God permits this or that, 
 the ancient Israelite said straight out that Jahaveh did 
 it.^ Evil and misfortune are expressed by one word, ra ; 
 and Amos says (iii. 6), " Is there evil in the city, and Jaha- 
 veh has not done it ? " And not only outward calamities, 
 but the evil passions and inner impulses of men, are 
 ascribed to Jahaveh ; and, as among heathen nations. He 
 is believed to make people mad, or leads them on to do 
 things which will bring down His own wrath. Thus the 
 schism of the kingdoms, the greatest misfortune to Israel, 
 was from Jahaveh (1 Kings xii. 15). So He sends a lying 
 spirit among the prophets of Ahab, that the king may be 
 led to go confidently against Eamoth-Gilead, and only 
 the prophet Micah remains unmoved (1 Kings xxii. 20 ff.) 
 So He sends an evil spirit between Abimelech and the 
 Shechemites. And that this is not merely or in all cases 
 a punishment for former transgression, is proved by the 
 remarkable passage (1 Sam. xxvi. 19) in which David 
 says to Saul, " If Jahaveh hath stirred thee up against 
 me, let him accept an offering ; but if it be men, let them 
 be accursed of Jahaveh." 
 
 This kind of reasoning may be carried out indefinitely, 
 but though it may make a big book, it does not amount 
 
 ^ Stade, Geschichte, vol, i. p, 435. 
 
294 The Jahaveli Eeligion. 
 
 to a strong argument. Stade does not or will not see 
 that by thus heaping together texts referring to different 
 periods within or beyond the prophetic period indiscrimi- 
 nately, he is destroying the position he holds that the 
 prophetic religion is an advance on the pre-prophetic. 
 And when he finds in such a writer as Amos, or even 
 Isaiah, instances of the lower type of conception, what 
 becomes of the position that higher types found in Genesis, 
 e.g., are " signs of advance " or " breaking down " of narrow 
 views ? What we want to know is the alleged initial 
 stage at which the national God was no more than El, a 
 nature-God ; and instead of this we get this mixing up of 
 early and late which is quite unintelligible. The truth 
 is, the difficulty he finds in reconciling the contradictory 
 or conflicting statements of contemporaneous authorities 
 arises simply from the fact that the " higher " or moral 
 conception is present from the first. In opposition to all 
 this kind of reasoning I would take my stand upon the 
 reasonable principle, that in writings belonging practi- 
 cally to tlie same period the lower expressions are to 
 be controlled by the higher, and that one statement 
 in plain terms should outweigh any amount of meta- 
 phorical or figurative language. The Hebrew writers 
 employ the boldest anthropomorphisms, for example; 
 but as Stade himself says, this was a necessity for people 
 unaccustomed to philosophical speculation : it is more, it 
 is a necessity of religious language. Nor are they afraid 
 to employ the most simple and childlike expressions ; but 
 there is ever the absence of gross conceptions, and ever 
 and anon the utterance of the most exalted ideas, showing 
 what the essential character of Jahaveh, in their opinion, 
 was. Side by side with the boldest anthropomorphisms 
 are found the most spiritual expressions, and the same 
 
Loiuer Expressions controlled hy Higher. 295 
 
 writers who speak of Jaliaveli as having a local seat 
 ascribe to Him control over all the nations of the world. 
 In view of all tliis it is sheer trifling to explain the one 
 set of expressions as remnants of a belief in a nature- 
 God, and the other as signs of a breaking down of nar- 
 row views. The Hebrew writers, from the earliest times 
 at which we have access to their words, are on a higher 
 plane of thought than the modern critics will allow ; and 
 just because they are so firmly fixed there, they do not 
 hesitate to employ the boldest pictorial or metaphorical 
 language to express their thoughts. 
 
296 
 
 CHAPTEE XII. 
 
 ETHIC MONOTHEISM. 
 
 The great objection to the modern account of the Jahaveh rdigion — /. Neces- 
 sity of postulating moral elements in Jahaveh'' s character, and how their 
 origin is explained by Stade — Distinctive features in the Jahaveh reli- 
 gion as stated by him — Jealousy, and sole reverence — Examination of 
 this: (1) Are these really distinctive? (2) // they are really so, the 
 theory is at fault, for no sufficient explanation of their origin is given — 
 //. Transition to ethic monotheism — Distinction of monolatry and mono- 
 theism — Proofs of monolatry — Jephthah — First Commandment —Nam- 
 if^J of gods of the nations — Kuencn's argument examined — Popular 
 conception of power nourished by political events — Agreement of prophets 
 with popular idea in fundamental principles — Rise beyond this on the 
 appearance of the Assyrian power — Appeal again to earliest writing 
 projjhets, in whom monotheism is not nascent, but fully developed — The 
 prophets claimed to be the true interpreters of the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of the religion — The attribute of grace or love which is made 
 central by Hosea, gives the explanation of the origin of the popular 
 and the prophetic views. 
 
 The difficulties in the way of accepting the modern 
 account are seen to be greatest when we inquire what 
 it was that distinguished the Jahaveh religion from 
 the religions of neighbouring nations. We are told 
 ad nauseam the points in which it resembled them ; one 
 feature after another is toned down to the level of nature 
 or national religion. Yet the pre-prophetic religion must 
 
Slades Points of Distinction, 297 
 
 have had something distinctive to mark out the Israel- 
 ites from their neighbours, and give them the pride in 
 their national faith which they possessed. It must have 
 contained, moreover, some germ which by way of devel- 
 opment enabled it to rise to the so-called ethic mono- 
 theism of the prophets. We must now examine the 
 modern theory as to these elements. 
 
 I. Stade, in drawing his picture of the pre-prophetic 
 Jahaveh as a national deity evolved from a nature-God, is 
 bound, as we have seen, to put in here and there features 
 of a more elevated and moral character. All tliat he can 
 say as to the origin of these higher conceptions is, that 
 they arise not from mental reflection, but from religious 
 feeling and impulse. In this way, for example, " the feel- 
 ing arises" that Jahaveh, although the God of the land of 
 Israel only, will accompany His worshipper into a foreign 
 country ; and also " the confidence arises " that He will be 
 more powerful than the gods of the heathen, just as Israel 
 itself, when in captivity, bursts its bonds. These two ideas 
 blend into the conviction that Jahaveh, brought willingly 
 or by force into a strange land, will there show His power 
 by inflicting evil on the heathen gods, as happened to 
 Dagon at Gath, and as is indicated in the passage of Isaiah 
 to which reference has already been made. And, more par- 
 ticularly, he strives to find, amid all the features that are 
 common to Jahaveh and the heathen gods, some distinctive 
 characteristics which will ensure the Jahaveh religion hav- 
 ing an independent existence and a possible development. 
 In this connection he lays particular stress on two things : — 
 
 (1.) While the early Israelite conceptions of Jahaveh's 
 power and holiness are in strict analogy with the lieathen 
 conception of their gods, there is one element, he says, 
 which distinguishes the religion of Israel. The anger 
 
298 Ethic Monotheism, 
 
 of Jahaveh takes the form of jealousy of the worship of 
 any other God ; which worship He avenges and punishes. 
 And this idea, which attains its full development in the 
 teaching of the prophets, is an element of the Mosaic re- 
 ligion. On Stade's theory the power of Jahaveh is first 
 of all thought of as a terrifying attribute, for He is the God 
 of the storm, and the idea is not for some time reached 
 that divine might must be exercised on the side of good. 
 His holiness also is merely majesty jealous of its honour, 
 and insisting on due reverence, so that the bounds be- 
 tween Him and man are not to be trespassed with im- 
 punity. Instances illustrating this are found in the judg- 
 ments that befell the people of Beth-shemesh and Uzzah, 
 for looking into or touching the ark, the symbol of His pre- 
 sence ; and the idea is found as late as Isaiah (viii. 14), 
 who speaks of a sanctuary as an object of terror.^ This 
 representation of Jahaveh, however, assumes a milder 
 form and kindlier aspect from the fact that He is Israel's 
 God, and will defend His own people. But it is to be 
 noted that, while He is true and faithful to His own, the 
 counterpart of His faithfulness to Israel is His anger 
 against Israel's foes. This is seen chiefly in war. Tlie 
 oldest monument of Hebrew poetry, the song of Deborah, 
 represents Him as coming from Sinai to discomfit the 
 army of Sisera, and Meroz is cursed because it did not 
 come to the help of the Lord against the mighty.^ A 
 trace of the same idea is found in the title of the ' Book 
 of the Wars of Jahaveh,' and in Abigail's speaking of 
 David lighting Jahaveh's battles. So the ark, according 
 to the oldest views, was taken into the battle, and Jahaveh 
 was the " Lord of hosts." 
 
 (2.) Another fundaniental point of difference between 
 
 1 Stade, Geschichte, vol. i. p. 434. 2 l\,{^\^^ p. 437^ 
 
JaJiavch not a Primus inter Pares. 299 
 
 the pre-prophetic religion of Israel and heathen systems, 
 according to Stade, is this : ^ Whereas in Greece, Eome, 
 and Egypt, the worship of ancestors and reverence for 
 founders of tribes remained alongside the worship of the 
 gods— the latter remaining at the head of what came to be 
 a family, consisting of gods, half-gods, and heroes, so that 
 the inferior gods really came to receive the greater homage 
 from the mass of the people — this development never took 
 place in Israel. They have no mythology, and the reason is 
 that Jahaveh did not admit the worship either of ances- 
 tors or of heavenly bodies along with His own. His wor- 
 ship is directly opposed to such, and so gradually elimin- 
 ated it. And we have neither the slightest trace in Israel 
 of Jahaveh being regarded as a primus inter pares, nor of 
 His having a consort as Baal had in Astarte. 
 
 This distinguishing feature of the Jahaveh religion, 
 Stade concludes, cannot be traced to any peculiarity in 
 the Semitic race, for other members of the Semitic family 
 exhibit polytheism exactly like that of Greece. It can 
 only be explained on the supposition that from tlie 
 moment Israel received the Jahaveh religion His char- 
 acter was differently apprehended from that of tlie poly- 
 theistic gods. But when we expect him to tell us what 
 the element in Jahaveh's character was which thus dis- 
 tinguished Him, this is what he tells us : The dis- 
 tinguishing thought which made this religion of Jaha- 
 veh different from these can only have been that Jahaveh 
 was the only God of Israel, and therefore His worship 
 excluded that of all other gods. Had not this idea been 
 firmly held from the beginning, considering the tempta- 
 tions that lay on every side, from the time the tribes 
 entered Canaan, to polytheistic views, the result could not 
 
 1 Geschichte, vol. i. p. 438 f. 
 
300 Ethic Monotheism. 
 
 have been the view of Jahaveh's unity that came to prevail. 
 It goes back for initiation to the founder of the religion. 
 This much is due to the work and the thought of Moses.^ 
 
 These statements of Stade deserve to be well weiojhed. 
 They suggest two questions : — 
 
 (1.) Are the points which he marks out as distinctive of 
 the Jahaveh religion actual points of diflerence from other 
 Semitic religions as these are understood by himself ? He 
 and other writers of his school are never tired of telling 
 us that Jahaveli was the God of Israel or of Canaan, just 
 as Chemosh was the god of Moab. And Kuenen says 
 plainly ^ that though Jahaveh was believed by Israel to 
 be mightier than the gods of other nations, there was 
 nothing in this to distinguish the Israelite religion, for 
 this was the belief of the Moabite with regard to Camosli 
 (Chemosh), and of the Ammonite with regard to Malcam 
 (Moloch). As to the national god being able to follow his 
 worshipper and defend him in a strange land, the inscrip- 
 tion of Salmsezab, referred to by Kenan, is urged in proof 
 that this was a common belief. As to its being a distinc- 
 tion that Jahaveh was at the first declared to be the sole 
 deity to be reverenced in Israel, the neighbouring nations 
 also had each their national and exclusive god. If Stade 
 should reply that these nations admitted the recognition 
 and worship of other gods alongside their national god, 
 why, this is the very thing that he and his school say the 
 Israelites all did up to the time of the prophets. It is 
 they also who point to the obscure passage in the book 
 of Kings to prove that the god of the Moabites was stirred 
 up by the horrible sacrifice of the king's first-born to de- 
 fend his own people ; so that the jealousy of one national 
 god against another, which Stade makes a distinctive 
 
 1 Geschichte, vol. i. p. 439. ^ National Religions, p. 118. 
 
Initial Distinctiveness of Character. 301 
 
 mark of the Jabaveh religion, is, on his own principle, a 
 common belief. 
 
 (2.) If these points are really distinctive of the Jabaveh 
 religion in any significant sense, then what becomes of 
 the whole position of Stade and his school, that the 
 Jabaveh religion was at first a mere nature-worship ? On 
 this ground it is not a question of showing how pre- 
 prophetic Jahavism was purified and exalted by the 
 prophets; it is a question of explaining this initial dis- 
 tinctiveness which runs back to Mosaic times. How 
 can Stade explain the manner in which a mere nature- 
 god was adopted by Israel, and made from the beginning 
 the sole object of worship ? When he says that the 
 character of Jabaveh was from the first differently appre- 
 hended from that of the heathen gods, this is just what 
 the Biblical writers say. But when he goes on to say 
 that the distinguishing thing was that this God alone was 
 to be Israel's God, he is giving no adequate explanation. 
 The question is. Why was Jabaveh regarded as Israel's 
 God to the exclusion of all others ? and Stade answers. 
 Because from the first He was so regarded. Surely it 
 was something in His character, something that He did 
 or was believed to have done, that gave Him this pre- 
 eminence. But Stade, held fast in his naturalistic theory, 
 cannot admit this, and so lands himself in helpless con- 
 fusion. The distinctive elements of the Jabaveh religion, 
 as he puts them, are not distinctive at all ; or if they 
 are, they are distinctive in a much higher sense than he 
 ascribes to them. 
 
 II. The modern theory, it seems to me, thus breaks down 
 utterly at this the initial point; and I do not think it 
 can establish itself any more successfully in explaining 
 the development at the other end — i.e., in accounting for 
 
302 Ethic Monotheism. 
 
 the alleged transition from belief in a merely national 
 god to the "ethic monotheism/' as it is called, of the 
 prophets. On this subject writers of the modern critical 
 school 1 draw an intelligible distinction between monol- 
 atry and monotheism — i.e., the worship of one God, and 
 the belief that there is only one God.^ The ancient 
 Israelites, says Stade, were theoretically polytheists, but 
 practically monotheists: they believed in the existence 
 of Chemosh, the god of Moab ; of Milkom (Moloch), the 
 god of the Ammonites ; and Baalzebub, the god of the 
 Ekronites, and others, just as they believed in the exist- 
 ence of Jahaveh, their own God. The distinction which 
 they drew was not between God and idols, or between God 
 and no-gods, but between Jahaveh and the " gods of the 
 nations." This explains the expression " the God of the 
 Hebrews" (Exod. iii. 18, &c.), and the other expression, 
 " Jahaveh the God of Israel " (Judges xi. 21, &c.), and even 
 the mode of speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob. The idea of a universe, he says, was beyond the 
 comprehension of a people who knew only the countries 
 round about Canaan; and the passages that represent 
 God as the Creator of all things are the product of later 
 times. Such passages as Amos v. 8, 9, which are from an 
 early book, are inconvenient for this theory, and accord- 
 ingly are set aside as disturbing the progress of the dis- 
 course, and probably not genuine.* But this is a trifle. 
 
 The argument at first sight seems forcible, but on 
 examination it will be found not to sustain the position 
 which it is used to support. No doubt the Biblical writers 
 continually speak of the gods of the nations by name, as 
 if they believed in their existence and operation. So 
 
 1 stade, Geschichte, vol. i. pp. 428 fif., 507. ^ g^e Note XXI. 
 
 3 Kuenen, National Relig., p. 113. Comp. above, chap. vi. p. 146. 
 
The First Commandment, 303 
 
 does Milton in his ' Paradise Lost.' The passage (Judges 
 xi. 24) in wliich Jephthah says to Moab, "Wilt not 
 thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee 
 to possess ? " seems to be quite decisive on this point ; 
 and so it has been referred to constantly from Vatke^ 
 to Wellhausen 2 to prove that originally " Israel is a 
 people just like other people, nor is even his relation- 
 ship to Jehovah otherwise conceived of than is, for ex- 
 ample, that of Moab to Chemosh." But, as Dr Davidson 
 has pointed out,^ Wellhausen invalidates his own argu- 
 ment when in another place* he makes this whole pas- 
 sage an interpolation based on Numbers xxi. 29, which 
 would bring it well down in the age of the canonical 
 prophets. Indeed, as Davidson points out, there is a 
 passage of Jeremiah (xlviii. 7) which would prove that 
 even he believed in the godhead of Chemosh, — a proof 
 that such a mode of reasoning has no force. 
 
 So, too, the language of the Decalogue, "Thou shalt 
 have no other gods before me," may seem at first sight to 
 imply that the existence of other gods was taken for granted, 
 only that Jahaveh alone was to be worshipped by Israel. 
 On this I cannot do better than quote the thoughtful words 
 of Dr Davidson : — 
 
 " To our minds such a statement as this, that Israel shall have no 
 God but Jehovah, immediately suggests tlie inquiry, whether there 
 be any other god but Him. But such questions might not present 
 themselves to minds of a different cast from ours and in early times, 
 for our minds are quickened by all the speculations about God which 
 have filled the centuries from the days of Moses to our own. We 
 may not have evidence that the mind of Israel in the earliest time 
 put these general and abstract questions to itself. But we are cer- 
 
 1 Bibl. TheoL, p. 258. 2 jjig^. of Israel, p. 235. 
 
 ^ Expositor, third series, vol. v. p. 49. 
 
 ■* See Bleak's Einleitung, 4te Aufl., p. 195. 
 
304 Ethic Mo7iot7ieism. 
 
 tainly entirely preclmled from inferring from the form of the first 
 commandment that the existence of other gods was admitted, only 
 that Israel should have none of them. For if we consider the moral 
 element of the Code, we find the commandments all taking the same 
 negative form ; but who will argue that when Moses said to Israel, 
 Thou shalt not kill, he made murder unlawful merely in Israel, 
 without feeling that it was unlawful wherever men existed ? " ^ 
 
 The truth is, we have here to do with an instance of 
 the imperfection of language and the freaks the human 
 mind plays in the use of names. How was an Israelite to 
 speak of the heathen gods unless by using their names ? 
 And as soon as we give a thing a name, it has a certain 
 existence for us. St Paul tells us how hard it was for 
 Christians in his day, accustomed to the names of heathen 
 gods, to grasp the fact that "an idol is nothing in the 
 world ; " ^ and even at the present day, I doubt very much 
 whether the majority of people who speak of Jupiter and 
 Apollo consciously carry in their minds the conviction 
 that these are mere names of what never had existence.^ 
 The early preachers of Christianity in pagan countries 
 had the utmost dijSiculty in rooting out the belief in 
 heathen gods. So long as the names lingered, the unso- 
 phisticated mind assigned to the numen an actual exist- 
 ence; and hence, perhaps, we may explain how the mis- 
 sionaries and their converts turned these pagan objects of 
 worship into demons or evil spirits. We need not wonder, 
 in the face of this psychological phenomenon, if the simple- 
 minded Hebrews use language that may be drawn into a 
 
 1 Expositor, I.e., p. 44. ^ 1 Cor. viii. 4-7. 
 
 ^ Au amusing instance of the facility with which the name takes the 
 place of the thing is furnished by Voltaire. In the Latin Bible the witch 
 of Endor is called Pythonissa (in the LXX. EyyaaTpifMuOos) ; and Voltaire 
 argued that since the name Python could not have been known to the 
 Hebrews in the days of Saul, this history cannot have been earlier than 
 the time of Alexander, when the Greeks traded with the Hebrews. One 
 wonders how mauy of Voltaire's readers perceived his mistake. 
 
Elijah's Mockery of Baal. 305 
 
 wrong sense. If they asked themselves at all what they 
 meant by such language, the common people would be 
 perhaps as perplexed as, e.g., an ordinary person would be 
 if asked to explain what Allah, or Moloch, or Asshur is in 
 his mind. The modern Jew would not admit that his 
 nation's God is the Allah of the Mohammedan; but are 
 we to say that the Jew is not yet a monotheist?^ I 
 believe it may safely be asserted that there is not a 
 single passage in the Old Testament which can be taken 
 to prove that the leaders of religious thought — prophets 
 and prophetic men— ever regarded Jahaveh as on a level 
 with the gods of the nations, as no more to Israel, no 
 more in the world, than Chemosh or Milcom or Baal to 
 their worshippers. Nay, there is one passage, in an early 
 writing too, which ought to be decisive of this matter. 
 Elijah, on Carmel, is represented as using language in 
 regard to the Phoenician Baal (1 Kings xviii. 27) which, 
 if it is taken as a mockery of the conceptions of the Baal- 
 worshippers, is in striking contrast with even the boldest 
 anthropomorphisms applied by Israelites to their God, and, 
 in any case, shows that this prophet had got very nearly 
 to, if he had not actually apprehended, the truth that " an 
 idol is nothing in the world." This may not be mono- 
 theism in an abstract pliilosophical sense — for religion 
 was to Israel not a product of thought but an instinct 
 — yet it is infinitely more than the bare monolatry of 
 which modern writers speak. 
 
 We come now to consider the arguments by which it is 
 sought to be proved how, from a circumscribed national 
 monolatry, in which Jahaveh was regarded as the only 
 God of Israel, there was reached the "ethic monotheism " 
 
 ^ Do not we continue to speak of the God of the Christian, although we 
 believe that there is none other ? ' 
 
306 " Ethic Monotheism. 
 
 of the prophets, in which He is viewed as the God of the 
 whole earth, the only God. Here we take for our guide 
 Kuenen, who has devoted a special work ^ to the subject. 
 
 In the popular conception, says Kuenen (p. 118), Jalia- 
 veh was a great and mighty God, mightier than the gods 
 of other nations. And this popular conception was stimu- 
 lated and supported by political events. " When David 
 waged the wars of Yahweh with a strong hand (1 Sam. 
 xviii. 17 ; xxv. 28), and when victory crowned his arms, 
 he made Yahweh Himself rise in the popular estimation, 
 Solomon's glory shone upon the deity to whom he had 
 consecrated the temple in his capital." In this popular 
 conception of their national deity, the attribute oi might 
 was the principal element. The people no doubt ascribed 
 to their God moral attributes (as is proved by the 
 priestly Torah), but these were only some among many 
 of His attributes, and in the popular conception the stage 
 of an ethical character had not been reached (p. 115). 
 Jahaveh as a very mighty One, and Jahaveh inseparably 
 bound to Israel His people, these were the fundamental 
 ideas of the popular religion. In proof of this, Kuenen 
 appeals to the historical books of *' the Old Testament — 
 whose authors certainly stood higher in this respect than 
 the great masses." In these books " the idea comes into 
 the foreground more than once, that Jahaveh had to up- 
 hold His own honour, and therefore could not neglect to 
 protect and bless His people. Thus, in the conception of 
 the people, Yahweh's might, or, if you prefer to put it so, 
 Yahweh's obligation to display His might, must often have 
 overbalanced both His wrath against Israel's trespasses 
 and che demands of His righteousness" (p. 115 f.) 
 
 With this popular view the prophets so far agreed. 
 
 ^ Hibbert Lecture for 1882, National Religions and Universal Religions. 
 
Agreement of Popular and Prophetic Ideas, 307 
 
 although on essential points they differed from it. As 
 to the agreement, I quote Kuenen's words (p. 105):^ 
 " Yahweh Israel's God, and Israel Yahweh's people ! It 
 surely needs no proof that the canonical prophets en- 
 dorse this fundamental conception of the popular reli- 
 gion, that not one of them ever thinks of denying it. 
 The whole of their preaching takes this as its starting- 
 point, and leads back to it as its goal. On this latter 
 point I wish to place the utmost emphasis." He then 
 goes on to show that though the prophets looked 
 forward to the extinction of the national life of Israel, 
 and the captivity of the people into a strange land, yet 
 in their mind tliis was to be followed, sooner or later, by 
 a restoration. This is indeed to be accompanied by a 
 transformation in the people themselves. *' But however 
 great the change may be — though the wolf lie down with 
 the lamb and the suckiug child play by tlie adder's hole ; 
 nay, though there be new heavens and a new earth, yet 
 the relation between Jahaveh and Israel remains the 
 same" (p. 106 f.) So that the canonical prophets of the 
 eighth and succeeding centuries are not only the legiti- 
 mate successors of Elijah and Elisha, but it would be 
 a contradicting of these prophets themselves were we 
 to begin by loosening the tie that unites them to the 
 Israelite nation. 
 
 " We are indeed doing the prophets ill service if we conceal the 
 fundamental thought of all their preaching. In tliis respect, Iliacos 
 intra muros iieccatur et extra. Eationalists have branded as * par- 
 ticularism,' and supranaturalists have done their best to explain 
 away or evaporate, what is really nothing less than the very essence 
 of the Israelitish religion, to which even the greatest prophets could 
 not be untrue without sacrificing that religion itself" (p. 109 f.) 
 
 * See also Kuenen's Religion of Israel (Eng. trans.), vol. i. p. 219 
 
 
308 Ethic Monotheism. 
 
 And now, having seen to what extent the prophets 
 agreed with the popular religious conceptions of their 
 time, we have to consider in what respects, according to 
 Kuenen, they differed from them. For there is no doubt 
 that in essential points they stood opposed to the religious 
 opinions of their day, and held views that brought them 
 into sharp antagonism with not only the common people, 
 but even the official heads of the nation. " The prophets," 
 says Kuenen (p. 73), " while admitting the national wor- 
 ship of Jahaveh as a fact, nevertheless condemn it from 
 time to time in the strongest terms. It answers in no 
 degree to their ideal." 
 
 "The images of Yaliweh which adorned most of the bamoth as 
 well as the temples at Dan and Beth-el, imply that the ideas men 
 had of Him were crude and material in the extreme. Of the re- 
 ligious solemnities we know little, but enough to assert with con- 
 fidence that they embodied anything but spiritual conceptions. 
 Wanton licence on the one hand, and the terror-stricken attempt 
 to propitiate the deity with human sacrifices on the other, were the 
 two extremes into which the worshippers of Yahweh appear by no 
 means exceptionally to have fallen. No one will undertake to 
 defend all this, especially as at that very time there was already 
 another and a higher standard in ancient Israel opposed to the 
 lower, and judging it" (p. 75 f.) 
 
 What then was this " ideal," this " higher standard," in 
 ancient Israel which the prophets had got hold of ? The 
 true prophet, we are told (p. 112), was, as Jeremiah 
 characterises him (Jer. xxviii. 8, 9), a prophet of evil. 
 And why ? Because he was " the preacher of repentance, 
 the representative of Yahweh's strict moral demands 
 amongst a people that but too ill conforms to them." 
 That is to say, holiness is now no longer one attribute 
 among many others, as it was in the popular conception : 
 "in the consciousness of the prophets, the central place 
 
Difference between Popular and Prophetic Ideas. 309 
 
 was taken, not by the might but by the holiness of 
 Yahweh. Thereby the conception of God was carried up 
 into another and a higher sphere (p. 119)." And " as 
 soon as an ethical character [as distinguished from merely 
 a moral attribute among others] was ascribed to Yahweh, 
 He must act in accordance with it. The Holy One, the 
 Eighteous One, might renounce His people, but He could 
 not renounce Himself " (p. 115 f.) 
 
 " This profoundly ethical conception of Yahweh's being," 
 Kuenen proceeds to reason (p. 114), "could not fail to 
 bring the prophets into conflict with the religious con- 
 victions of their people." For whereas the latter had 
 emphasised the attribute of might, and relied upon the 
 fact that Yahweh and Israel were inseparable, so that He 
 was bound to help them, even at the expense of His 
 holiness, the prophets put it differently — that, being 
 above all things holy. He was bound to assert His 
 holiness even at the expense of His people. Thus, when 
 the people, as troubles gathered on the political horizon, 
 thought they could appease their God and secure His 
 favour by more numerous and costly sacrifices and mul- 
 tiplied vows (p. 115), reckoning with certainty (Micah 
 iii. 11) upon the help of the God who was in their 
 midst, or when in straits they cast about for new help, 
 lavishing even sacrifices of their own children (p. 122), the 
 prophets denounced such confidence as vain, and saw in 
 the very troubles that came upon the nation the righteous 
 hand of Yahweh Himself, asserting not only His might, 
 but pre-eminently His holiness against an ungodly nation. 
 Thus the two modes of viewing political events and 
 national experience were diametrically opposed. The 
 one, the popular view, based its faith on earthly prosperity 
 and success. " But," says Kuenen (p. 118 f.), " it lies in the 
 
310 Ethic Monotheism, __ x- \ 
 
 nature of the case that a faith reared upon such foun- 
 dations was subject to many shocks, and under given 
 circumstances might easily collapse. Born of the sense of 
 national dignity, growing with its growth and strengthen- 
 m^ with its strenofth, it must likewise suffer under the 
 blows that fell upon it, must pine and ultimately die 
 when, with the independence of the nation, national 
 self-consciousness disappeared." The other, the prophetic 
 view, making Yahweh's holiness His central attribute, and 
 ascribing to Him an ethical character, was not dependent 
 ou the fluctuations of political events. "When others," 
 says Wellhausen, " saw only the ruin of everything that 
 is holiest, they saw the triumph of Jehovah over delusion 
 and error;" to which Kuenen adds (p. 124): — 
 
 "What was Ihus revealed to tlieir spirit was no less than the 
 august idea of the moral (jovernment of the world — crude as yet, and 
 with manifold admixture of error, but pure in principle. The 
 prophets had no conception of the mutual connection of the powers 
 and operations of nature. They never dreamed of the possibility 
 of carrying them back to a single cause or deducing them from it. 
 r>at what they did see, on the field within their view, was the 
 icalisalion of a single plan — everything, not only the tumult of the 
 peoples, but all nature likewise, subservient to the working out of 
 one great purpose. The name "ethical monotheism" describes 
 better than any other the characteristics of their point of view, for 
 it not only expresses the character of the one God whom they 
 worshipped, but also indicates the fountain whence their faith in 
 Ilim welled up." 
 
 Thus then, though the prophets were regarded by their 
 contemporaries as speaking nothing less than blasphemy 
 (p. 117) when they declared that Jerusalem should be 
 destroyed and its people carried into captivity, and 
 though in effect they were the destroyers of the old national 
 religion,' yet they were led by the contemplation of political 
 
Foundation for Universal Religion. 311 
 
 events, and by the working out of their own ethical 
 conceptions, to lay the foundations of a religion of world- 
 wide application and significance. They still held to the 
 inseparability of Jahaveh and Israel ; but in their glowing 
 descriptions of the blessings of the coming age, they 
 represented Israel as no longer the special object of God's 
 care and recipient of His favours, but as the organ and 
 instrument of blessings to the whole world. Thus 
 anticipations which, in the popular conception, were 
 limited, became transformed. " Many of the descriptions 
 of Israel's restoration, and of the role which the heathen 
 will take therein, have none but literary and aesthetic 
 claims on our admiration " (p. 126) ; whereas, on the 
 other hand, it lay in the nature of the case that ethical 
 monotheism, even in the period of its genesis, must give 
 a fresh turn to expectations with regard to Yahweh 
 and the peoples. In its full development, of course, 
 this idea of universalism took its highest flight of all, 
 as is seen most conspicuously in the exalted ideas 
 and comprehensive views of the prophets which cul- 
 minate in the glowing anticipations of the second Isaiah 
 (p. 128). 
 
 There is much truth and much suggestiveness in what 
 Kuenen here puts forward. What he says throws much 
 light both on the relation of the prophets to the " popular 
 religion," and also on the gradual progress in the con- 
 ceptions of the prophets themselves. In speaking of the 
 "popular religion," we must, with Kuenen, admit that 
 " all sincere religion is true religion, and must secure its 
 beneficent result;" that "not in vain did men thank 
 Yahweh for the blessing of liarvest, perform their work 
 with eyes fixed upon Him, trust in His help under afflic- 
 tions, and turn to Him for succour in times of peril" 
 
312 Ethic Monotheism. 
 
 (p. 76). And in regard to the prophetic religion, wo 
 frankly admit that the course of political events taught 
 the propiiets much, and that through outward events and 
 tlie germination of the inner conception which tliey en- 
 tertained, tliey reached purer and more comprehensive 
 views as time went on. But all this does not reach the 
 point we wisli to attain. What we wish to know is the 
 best and highest tliat any in the nation had reached at 
 tlie earliest times at which we can catch a view of the 
 Jahaveh religion, and how much of that survived as a 
 national inheritance. We wish to know wliether the 
 popular religion and the prophetic had not a common 
 starting-point, one source from which they sprang and 
 ihen separated ; we want to know whether this prophetic 
 ideal is not derived from tlie pre-prophetic times ; and if 
 it is not, we wisli a definite explanation of its origin and 
 its development out of the lower conceptions to which it 
 stood opposed. And this I think Kuenen with all his 
 ingenuity has not furnished. 
 
 1. In the first place, when Kuenen sets down as the 
 very essence of the Israelitish religion the fundamental 
 article on wliich people and prophets agreed, Yahwch 
 Israel's God, and Israel Yahiceh's 'people , he only states in 
 his own way what tlie Biblical writers one and all insist 
 on, and what the " Hebrew historians represent in various 
 fashions as an election or clioico of Israel by Jahaveh, or 
 a covenant relation between tlie two. It is but just to 
 Kuenen to draw attention to the fact that he ascribes to 
 Moses this amount at least of influence on Israel, in 
 saying that " the consciousness that a peculiar and inti- 
 mate relation existed between the God in whose name 
 Moses came forward and the tribes of Israel, never died 
 out." . He would not call this a covenant in the Biblical 
 
The Covenant, 313 
 
 sense/ and he insists that the conviction went no further 
 than this brief acknowledgment, since Moses failed in 
 impressing on the people his own ideas of God's moral 
 nature. " In one word," he says, " whatever distinguished 
 Moses from his nation remained his personal possession 
 and that of a few kindred spirits. . . . Under Moses' 
 influence Israel took a step forward, but it was only one 
 step." ^ In view, however, of Kuenen's clear recognition of 
 the one fundamental piece of common ground occupied by 
 prophets and people, we are entitled to ask him what was 
 the common conviction from which both started, seeing 
 that both in their respective modes held so tenaciously 
 Lo it. There must have been some objective fact in the 
 history that gave a start to tliis common conception, or 
 some point of time at which this relationship was pressed 
 home on the consciousness of the nation, to give it this 
 firm, incontrovertible position with people and prophet 
 alike. And if the conception is synchronous with the 
 adoption of the Jahaveh religion — if, that is to say, as 
 Stade has concluded, from the moment that Jahaveh was 
 accepted as the God of Israel, the impression that He and 
 none but He was to be their god — then we go back to the 
 time of Moses for the common fountain of this conviction. 
 That is to say, at a historical time and under some his- 
 torical conditions, the whole nation became possessed of 
 the idea that Jahaveh and His people were inseparably 
 
 ^ Smend (Moses apud Prophetas, p. 19) says distinct]y, " That a cove- 
 nant was once on Mount Sinai concluded by Moses, is affirmed from of old 
 by the most certain and unanimous tradition." Wellhausen, however, 
 perceiving that the admission of a covenant entered into under definite 
 historical conditions would shatter his system, says that the word for a 
 covenant between Jehovah and His people is not to be found in the older 
 prophets (Hist, of Israel, p. 417 f.) See Note XXII. Cf. below, p. 338. 
 
 2 Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 294. 
 
314 Ethic Monotlicism-. 
 
 joined to one another. And then the question arises, 
 "What were those historical conditions ? and which of tlie 
 two shall we take as the better interpreters of what that 
 relation was — the mass of the unthinking and careless 
 people, or the dite of the nation's religious men ? Surely 
 an idea held so tenaciously by all classes in common must 
 rest upon something more definite and positive than the 
 mere choice by a nation, or by their leader for them, of 
 some " Thunderer." Kuenen himself is obliged to admit 
 that, even in the popular conception, the idea of holiness 
 was present from the very first, though not as a central 
 attribute. If, then, the conception of holiness was there 
 from the first, are not the prophets more likely tlian the 
 common people to have preserved, to have inherited from 
 the best of their predecessors, from their spiritual teachers, 
 tlie place of that attribute in Jahaveh's character ? The 
 attribute of might never disappeared from the conception 
 which the prophets had, nor can a time be pointed to 
 when the attribute of might existed apart from that of 
 holiness. Since Kuenen and his school feel themselves 
 constrained to postulate a moral attribute from the very 
 first, it is much more reasonable to believe that the think- 
 ing and more religious part of the nation would assign 
 to the moral a higher and more central place than to 
 the physical. In brief, the character of Jahaveh was 
 moral in its initial conception. 
 
 2. In the second place, I think his reasoning is quite 
 insufficient to show that mere political events produced 
 either the popular or the prophetic conceptions. No 
 doubt these nourished the one idea or the other, or 
 stimulated it to greater developments; but something 
 deeper, in the one case and the other, must be assumed, 
 before we can understand either set of phenomena. 
 
Influence of Political E cents, 315 
 
 Tlie popular idea, he says, was stimulated and supported 
 by political events, so that David's wars and Solo- 
 mon's magnificence reflected a glory upon the national 
 God in the popular estimation ; ^ and that is no doubt 
 true in a sense. But it is not so easy to follow him 
 when he goes on to say that the popular conception, 
 born of the sense of national dignity, was bound to 
 suffer under the blows that fell upon it, and ultimately 
 to die, when, with the independence of the nation, na- 
 tional self-consciousness disappeared (p. 119). We are 
 confronted by historical facts that are irreconcilable 
 with this sweeping assertion. If the popular conception 
 was " born of the sense of national dignity," and had no 
 firmer foundation, it would have disappeared long before 
 the time of the Assyrian invasions. There were times in 
 the nation's history when the national fortunes were at 
 the very lowest point, such as the times succeeding 
 Joshua, and the period immediately preceding the ap- 
 pearance of Samuel. If outward reverse had been able 
 to break up the feeling of national consciousness, it was 
 at such times that the thing would have happened. But 
 it did not ; and in fact it is just at times of deepest de- 
 pression that the religious life of Israel makes new depar- 
 tures. Wellhausen, e.g., places the rise of Nabiism in the 
 time when Israel was held down hardest by the Philis- 
 tines. On Kuenen's own principles, therefore, we are 
 bound to assume that (since a faith born of mere 
 national dignity cannot stand such shocks) the popular 
 faith had something else to sustain it. The popular faith 
 must at these earlier times have had a confidence resting 
 on something else than a mere belief in the arbitrary 
 
 1 National Religious, p. 118. Compare also Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, 
 p. 20. 
 
316 Ethic Monotheism. 
 
 might of Jahaveli. We conclude, therefore, that what 
 Kuenen calls the prophetic belief must have been in 
 existence from such an early period — was indeed pre- 
 prophetic; that in fact pre-prophetic and prophetic are 
 identical, both resting on some historical experience. 
 
 Even more inadequate, in my opinion, is his attempt 
 to prove that the j'^'^ophdic belief was brought about by 
 political events. Kuenen seems to be so well satisfied 
 with Wellhausen's statement of the case here,^ that he 
 contents himself with repeating his words almost ver- 
 batim. The passage is as follows: — 
 
 "Until the time of Amos there had subsisted in Palestine and 
 Syria a number of petty kingdoms and nationalities, which had 
 their friendships and enmities with one another, but paid no heed 
 to anything outside their own immediate environment, and re- 
 volved, each in its own axis, careless of the outside world,^ until 
 suddenly the Assyrians burst in upon them. They commenced the 
 work which was carried on by the Babylonians, Persians, and 
 Greeks, and completed by the Eomans. They introduced a new 
 factor, the conception of the world — the world, of course, in the 
 historical sense of that expression. In presence of that conception, 
 the petty nationalities lost their centre of gravity, brute force dis- 
 pelled their ilhisions, they flung their gods to the moles and to the 
 bats (Isa. ii.) The prophets of Israel alone did not allow themselves 
 to be taken by surprise by what had occurred, or to be plunged in 
 despair ; they solved by anticipation the grim problem which his- 
 tory set before them. They absorbed into their religion that con- 
 ception of the world which was destroying the religions of the 
 nations, even before it had been fully grasped by the secular con- 
 sciousness. Where others saw only the ruin of everything that is 
 holiest, they saw the triumph of Jehovah over delusion and error." 
 
 I humbly think that the language here used is badly 
 chosen at the very point where we want the utmost clear- 
 ness. If the words are to be taken literally, it is little 
 
 1 Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 472. Kuenen, National Religions, pp. 
 120-125. 
 
 2 See Note XXIII, 
 
Prophetic CoTiception of the World, 317 
 
 wonder that the nationalities lost their centre of gravity, 
 or even their gravity itself, over the performance here 
 ascribed to a " conception." A "conception" of the world 
 was introduced by the Assyrians ; at its presence the petty 
 nationalities lost their centre of gravity ; the prophets of 
 Israel alone did not allow themselves to be taken by sur- 
 prise; they "absorbed" into their religion that conception, 
 " even before it had been fully grasped by the secular con- 
 sciousness," — and the thing was done. Let us, however, try 
 to get behind the phrases and understand the thing that is 
 supposed to have actually happened. The Assyrians ap- 
 peared upon the narrow stage on which Israel and other 
 little nationalities moved. With their appearance arose 
 the conception of the world in the usual historical sense 
 — i.e., I suppose the petty nationalities came to under- 
 stand that there was a world much larger than their own 
 circumscribed territory, and agencies at work superior to 
 those witli which they were familiar. If the most of the 
 petty nations threw their idols to the moles and to the 
 bats, it would be because they were convinced that these, 
 their own gods, were of no avail to resist the stronger 
 power, which, under the patronage of foreign gods, was 
 trampling down petty nationalities like their own. The 
 "conception," therefore, which is not a thing floating in 
 the air, but a product of reflection, arose in the minds of 
 Israel's neighbours as well as in the minds of the prophets. 
 This is all plain enough ; but when we come to the vital 
 point. Why did the prophets of Israel take a different 
 view ? we have no explanation of the fact. We are 
 simply told they "absorbed the conception into their 
 own religion, even before it had been fully grasped by 
 the secular consciousness." That is to say, before even 
 the secular consciousness had fully grasped the fact that 
 
318 Ethic Monotheism, — ^ - 
 
 there were greater powers outside their narrow confines- 
 than their local national gods, the prophets at once 
 started to declare that it was their own national God 
 that was controlling these forces — at once they leaped 
 from the idea of a local national deity to that of a deity 
 controlling the world ; or, at all events, they saw a divine 
 plan, a Providence in all these things, which so staggered 
 others. Then, I suppose, it was that the shifting took 
 place in the conception of the attributes of Jahaveh, and 
 He came to be conceived as One with not only moral 
 attributes, but with ethical character. I cannot see that 
 the thing is made any clearer, or that the development 
 is made out. What we w^ant to know is, What enabled 
 the prophets alone to read the signs of tlie times as they 
 did? Their teaching, in face of the events, is a clear 
 proof that from the first utterance of it they had a higher 
 idea of their God to start with. The solution of the 
 political problem was indeed ready before the problem 
 presented itself, just because the idea of a God whose 
 character was ethical was a much older idea. The 
 earliest writing prophets knew of a God different from 
 the gods of the nations around them ; and they them- 
 selves speak of such a God as revealing Himself to 
 prophets before them. Even the writer or writers of 
 the patriarchal stories, and the writer of the accounts 
 of Elijah, at a time when there was no threatening of a 
 collapse of the State from foreign invasion, have pure 
 ethical conceptions of Jahaveh, and regard Him as con- 
 trolling the destinies of the world. The conception of 
 Jahaveh as a Euler of the world is much older than the 
 time in which Kuenen and his school would place it; 
 and it is in vain that we ask the outward events of the 
 history to give an explanation of that religious conscious- 
 
Dcvelojj7)ient demanded. 319 
 
 ness which, from the earliest times, underlies all these 
 events. 
 
 3. But in tlie third place, let us leave abstract in- 
 quiries into what must have happened, and this subtle 
 following of the movement of a conception : let us come 
 to actual facts. If it be true that the appearance of the 
 Assyrians gave the first impulse to this wider view, the 
 view is so far removed from what is called the pre-pro- 
 phetic conception that we ought to see it growing under 
 our eyes. At the Assyrian period, we have the con- 
 temporary writings of Amos and Hosea ; and from them 
 onwards, we have the writings of other prophets who 
 lived through the trying times of the Assyrian invasions, 
 and down to the Babylonian captivity. Amos speaks 
 only in the vaguest terms of the great Assyrian power ; 
 Isaiah saw it in the land ; Jeremiah witnessed the final 
 collapse of Israelite independence. We ought to be able 
 to trace the gradual expansion of the prophetic view, from 
 its first stage to its last. Now what do we find? We 
 find indeed an advance from Amos to Jeremiah as to 
 the conditions on which the relation of Jahaveh to Israel 
 rests, and in regard to the relation of the Jahaveh religion 
 to the outside world ; but within the range of written 
 prophecy we do not find the development of the idea of 
 Jahaveh Himself. In regard to the conception that He 
 controls the whole world, there is no difference in the 
 teaching of Amos and Jeremiah. I know that Wellhausen 
 and Stade would reject all passages in Amos^ which 
 express such high views of Jahaveh's character, on the 
 ground that they disturb the connection, Eobertson 
 Smith ,2 though he does not reject them, says mildly 
 
 1 Such passages as Amos iv. 13, v. 8 ff., ix. 1-7. See chap. vi. p. 146. 
 
 2 Prophets of Israel, p. 398 f. 
 
320 Ethic Monotheism. 
 
 that they are not necessary for the imderstandmg of 
 the context ; and he refers, apparently with favour, to 
 Wellhausen's explanation of their presence in the text — 
 that they are lyrical intermezzi, like those that are found 
 so frequently in the Deutero-Isaiah. Lyrical intermezzi 
 forsootli ! Any one with the least sympathy with the 
 \vriters will recognise in them the outpourings of hearts 
 that were full of the noblest conceptions of the God 
 whom they celebrate, and will perceive that they come 
 in most fitly to emphasise the context. 
 
 On this point Kuenen has to defend himself, and he 
 explains at length ^ his position as compared with that of 
 Baudissin and contrasted with that of H. Schultz. His ex- 
 planation amounts to this, that, if the prophets of the eighth 
 century use expressions concerning Jahaveh's supremacy 
 over the heathen world as well as Israel, and concerning the 
 gods of the heathen, which practically amount to a denial of 
 the existence of the latter, this shows that they belong to 
 a period of transition or of nascent monotheism. Traces 
 of this are still to be found distinctly in Deuteronomy 
 itself.^ This nascent monotheism in the prophets of tlie 
 eiglith century Kuenen describes as " a repeated overstep- 
 ping of the line between monolatry and the recognition 
 of one only God." He says : " I recognise monotheism de 
 facto in these strong expressions of the prophets, and only 
 deny that they had acquired it as a permanent possession. 
 Now and then they rise to the recognition of the sole 
 existence of Jahaveh, and the denial of "the other gods"; 
 " but generally they do not get beyond the monolatry in 
 which they, or at any rate the earlier ones among them, 
 had been brought up." He maintains, however, in opposi- 
 
 ^ National Eeligions, note vii. p. 317 ff. 
 2 Theol. Review, 1874, pp. 347-351. 
 
Nascent Monotheism. 321 
 
 tion to Schultz, that "the still older monotheism of the 
 period before the prophets has no existence." 
 
 Now, if we examine this so-called nascent monotheism, 
 which is admitted to be de facto monotheism, we find 
 it full-grown at its birth. Amos, the earliest writing 
 prophet, utters it in clear tones, as a familiar and ad- 
 mitted truth, in saying that Jahaveh had brought the 
 Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir, as he 
 had brought Israel from Egypt, and in ever representing 
 righteousness as the basis of the divine character. A 
 being whose character is ethical, and whose rule unerr- 
 ingly controls the destinies of all nations alike (Amos ix. 
 7), is infinitely more than a national god, such as heathen 
 nations conceived their deities ; and in no case does Amos 
 give any countenance to the so-called monolatry, as if 
 the monotheism he taught was held loosely in his hands. 
 But what are we to think of Kue.nen's position that this 
 nascent monotheism is also still to be found a century 
 after Amos in the book of Deuteronomy ? It is there 
 de facto in Amos ; still a century later it is only nascent ; 
 whereas in Elijah, a century before Amos, it has no 
 existence, although in another connection both are de- 
 clared to be equally organs of the Jahaveh religion. And 
 we are to accept all this on the "I recognise" and "I 
 maintain " of Dr Kuenen. In regard to the ethical char- 
 acter of Jahaveh, Amos and Hosea were just as bold and 
 firm in chiding the sins of their contemporaries as Isaiah, 
 who on this theory is supposed to have attained a con- 
 ception of holiness which was only nascent in these earlier 
 prophets; and the prophets that follow Isaiah are not 
 more emphatic in the same strain, and yet they do not, 
 like Isaiah, call Jahaveh the Holy One of Israel. In 
 fact, this explanation of the rise of pure monothe- 
 
 X 
 
322 Ethic Monotheism. 
 
 ism is artificial in the extreme, and the "ethic mono- 
 theism " is merely a pretentious phrase. The same truth 
 that Amos proclaimed finds expression in the words put 
 in the mouth of Abraham by the Jehovistic narrator, 
 " Shall not the Judge of all the world do right ? " (Gen. 
 xviii. 25) ; it was de facto held by Elijah and the seven 
 thousand who like him would not bow the knee to Baal ; 
 it was held also by Samuel when he set up the stone 
 Ebenezer, saying, Hitherto Jahaveh hath helped us : ^ and 
 these men could not have asserted it, one after the other, 
 so emphatically as they did, in times of deepest national 
 depression, unless it had been deeply impressed on the 
 hearts of the best of the nation from the early times at 
 which the Biblical writers assume it. 
 
 4. Lastly, let us come back to Kuenen's emphasised as- 
 sertion that the prophets agreed with the people in the 
 tenacity with which they clung to the belief that Jahaveh 
 and Israel were inseparable. The point is not disputed ; 
 but surely such a conviction must have been based 
 upon something definite and positive, and it is most 
 reasonable to assume that that something was believed 
 to be inherent in the nature of Jahaveh Himself. If the 
 nation believed that He would never give them up, how- 
 ever far they fell from Him ; if the prophets believed 
 that He would never give them up, and even would have 
 ar' special favour for them when He became the God of all 
 the families of mankind, — there must have been in the 
 minds of all a belief of some quality strong enough to 
 bind Jahaveh in this inseparable manner to His own 
 people. Neither 'might,' nor holiness in its terrifying 
 aspect, will explain this. Now such a quality or character 
 we do find ascribed to Him by the earliest prophets, 
 although it is a quality to which I think Kuenen makes 
 
 ^ Kouig, Hauptprobleme, p. 44 f. 
 
Bond of Popidar and FropJietic Conceptions. 323 
 
 no reference. It is an attribute, witliout taking account 
 of which we can neither understand the Old nor the New 
 Testament. I call it, without hesitation, the quality of 
 grace. In various ways the belief in it comes out; by 
 various names the shades of its signification are expressed ; 
 but this variety only shows how central, to use Kuenen's 
 own word, this attribute was in the conception. And I 
 am not to reason from abstract principles here, or from the 
 whole tenor of Biblical teaching. I take as witness one of 
 the earliest of the writing prophets, who lived at the very 
 time Kuenen's supposed development should have been 
 taking place, and it is marvellous to me that Kuenen and 
 other writers could have passed by a witness whose testi- 
 mony is so precise. The whole of Hosea's book turns 
 upon that idea, — God had loved Israel in the time of the 
 nation's youth ; and the touching story (or figure) of the 
 wayward wife, going her own evil course, yet not rejected, 
 — ^just because her husband had loved her at first, — and 
 finally brought back, and by the power of love taught to 
 love her husband, — all this is applied for us by the pro- 
 phet himself to the history of Israel.^ Here is another 
 attribute than either might or holiness — and it is here at 
 the very dawn of written prophecy, and placed by the 
 prophet at the dawn of the national history — an attribute 
 which surely raises the character of Jahaveh to a higher 
 level, and casts light upon the apparent contradictious 
 which Kuenen has exhibited. Jahaveh was, above all 
 things, " faithful." He had done great things for Israel 
 (Amos ii. 9-11) in the past out of mere grace, not be- 
 cause they had deserved it. The prophet Amos also, 
 though he dwells more on the righteousness of Jahaveh, 
 does not leave out of account the divine love and mercy. 
 
 ^ This is the substance, under any interpretation, of chapters i. to iii. 
 See also chapter xi. 8 ff., " How shall I give thee up, Ephraim ? " 
 
324 Etliic Monotheism. 
 
 Tliese attributes are implied in the great thinj^s tliat 
 had been done for the nation in the past, and emphati- 
 cally taught in the 7th chapter in the repeated visions 
 of the prophet, in which the Lord " repents " of the evil 
 about to be inflicted on His people : " It shall not be, 
 saitli Jahaveh." We get thus, instead of mere reasonings 
 as to how conceptions arise, positive historical facts as the 
 means of producing the idea which was held so tenaciously 
 to the last. If the people perverted this doctrine, and 
 sinned that grace might abound ; if they presumed that, 
 because Jahaveh could not deny Himself, therefore they 
 miglit sin and repent, — this is no more than thousands 
 have done in the times of the Gospel. But their tenacity 
 to the belief that He luould not forsake them can hardly 
 be explained without such a belief underlying it. Even 
 their redoubled zeal in the matter of vows and offer- 
 ings, taken in connection with this belief in Jahaveh's 
 faithfulness, is not without its significance, — not as show- 
 ing that they believed these would turn the faithful 
 One from His purpose, but as showing that they recog- 
 nised them as the outward expression of their faithfulness, 
 or promise of faithfulness, on their part. At all events, 
 this unconquerable conviction, which the prophets held 
 in a purer, and the people in a more corrupted form, 
 guarantees the conclusion that both alike recognised in 
 the character of Jahaveh an attribute which had a more 
 personal relation to them than either the attribute of 
 might or that of holiness, an attribute which Hosca 
 simply calls love ; which will explain, on the one side. His 
 forgiveness of offences, and on the other His unalterable 
 care and regard. And therefore we are entitled to con- 
 clude tliat ihiQ fundamentcd conception of Jahaveh under- 
 lying the views of people and prophets together, was 
 substantially that embodied in the declaration of His 
 
JahaveKs Character proclaimed to Moses. 325 
 
 character, which is by the Biblical writers placed as far 
 back as the time of Moses (Exocl. xxxiv. 6, 7, E.V.) : 
 " Jahaveh, Jahaveh^a God full of compassion and gracious, 
 slow to anger and plenteous in mercy and truth ; keeping 
 mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression 
 and sin ; and that will by no means clear the guilty ; 
 visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and 
 upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the 
 fourth generation," It seems to me that if we place at 
 the outset such a conception of Jahaveh, which is two- 
 sided, and capable of expansion in two different lines, we 
 can account for the development of the popular idea 
 equally with that of the prophets from one common 
 source ; that we can give some explanation of the clear- 
 ness with which the very earliest of the writing prophets 
 represent the character of the national God, and also the 
 persistency with which the people held to their view 
 to the last. We obtain, in a word, development from a 
 definite starting - point, whereas on Kuenen's view we 
 neither find a reasonable meeting - point for the two 
 divergent tendencies, nor can follow the steps in the 
 development of either the one or the other. 
 
 "The principles which we see operating from the 
 earliest times," says Professor A. B. Davidson, " are the 
 principles wielded by the prophets. They are few but 
 comprehensive. They form the essence of the moral law 
 ' — consisting of two principles and a fact, — namely, that 
 Jehovah was Israel's God alone ; and that His being was 
 ethical, demanding a moral life among those who served 
 Him as His people: and these two principles elevated 
 into a high emotional unity in the consciousness of re- 
 demption just experienced."^ 
 
 ^ Expositor, third series, vol. v. p. 43. 
 
326 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 AUTHORITATIVE INSTITUTIONS — THEIR EARLY DATE 
 
 Connection of this with the preceding — Ecasons for postponing consideration 
 of forms, (1) because practice is not a sure index of profession, and (2) 
 because external forms, even when authorised, are not sufficient index of 
 the truth of which they are signs — Mode of procedure as before — Three 
 things to be distinguished. Law, Codification of Law, Writing of Law- 
 books, on all of which the Biblical theory allows a latitude of view — 
 Points at which the Biblical and the modern view are at variance — The 
 conclusions of the modern theory, (1) Law not of Mosaic origin, (2) Codes 
 so inconsistent that they must be of different dates — Position similar to 
 that before assumed — Presumption that Moses gave definite laws — The 
 Covenant, how signalised — Proofs from prophetical writers; from 
 Psalms ; from admitted historical boohs — Conclusion that a Norm or 
 Law, outside of prophets and superior to them, was acknowledged — 
 What was itt 
 
 Up to this point the object of our inquiry has been 
 to determine, as far as possible, what the religion of 
 Israel was, in its essential and internal elements, at the 
 earliest period to which we have access. We have ex- 
 amined the testimony given by the earliest admitted 
 written sources to the nature of the religion at the date 
 to which they belong, and have endeavoured to estimate 
 the value of this class of witnesses for the determina- 
 tion of the religion of an antecedent and early time. 
 Without relying on disputed books, we have found that 
 
Connection with preceding Discussion. 327 
 
 those which are admitted confirm in many ways the 
 statements of those which are not primarily taken into 
 account. The earliest writing prophets, though not ap- 
 pealing to the authority of books, appeal to admitted and 
 undeniable facts which are asserted in these books ; and 
 our conclusion has been, that whereas the modern theory 
 is obliged to overstrain those admitted facts of history 
 and experience which have a show of being in its favour, 
 and to underrate those which seem to oppose it, the 
 Biblical theory is confirmed in the main, and that the 
 religion of Israel had, at a much earlier stage than the 
 modern critical writers admit, the purer and more ethical 
 character which they would relegate to a later time. 
 
 We come now to consider whether in outward form 
 also and positive institutions the religion of Israel had 
 not, before the time of the earliest writing prophets, 
 or before the time at which modern critical writers 
 place such an organisation, a more defined shape and 
 authoritative arrangement than the modern historians 
 allow. The two things are closely connected. Eeligious 
 belief and practice always act and react upon one another. 
 According to the Biblical view, as there was an early 
 revelation of spiritual truth; so there was an early in- 
 stitution of law and religious observance. On the 
 modern view also the two things are intimately related. 
 Wellhausen says,^ "All writers of the Chaldsean period 
 associate monotheism in the closest way with unity of 
 worship ; " and it is a fundamental element of his theory 
 that the process of centralisation and spiritualisation 
 which marks the development of the law and worship 
 went on under prophetic influence and pari passu with 
 the development of prophetic thought and teaching.^ 
 
 » Hist, of Israel, p. 27. ^ ibij.; cf. p. 26 with 47, 81, 103. 
 
328 Authoritative Institutions — their Early Bate. 
 
 It might seem at first sight that it would have been 
 more proper to begin with outward observances, which 
 are so obvious and give so tangible a representation of a 
 people's religious belief; and then to reason from them 
 to the essential character of the religion. There are, 
 however, these two considerations to be taken into ac- 
 count. (1) In the first place, outward observance is not 
 always, nor indeed generally, a faithful indication of 
 religious profession; and when we are in search, as we 
 are in this case, of a religion which claims to have been 
 positively given with definite fundamental principles as 
 well as formal institutions, it would be unfair to rest 
 either upon the moral practice or the religious usages of 
 a people making profession of such a religion. Forms 
 may be perverted, obscured, or corrupted, and the life of 
 the people is pretty certain to fall short of tlieir faith. 
 We might, for example, from the mere observance of facts 
 and ]Dhenomena gather what was the " state of religion," 
 as we use the phrase, in any given age of the Christian 
 Church, but we would not be safe, from the mere contem- 
 plation of any age, in drawing a conclusion as to the 
 essential character of Christianity. To argue from custom 
 or observance in religion to the requirements and essence 
 of religion would, in the case before us, be begging the 
 question, which is virtually as to whether or not there 
 was an ideal or positive religion to start with. By 
 examining, as we have done, first of all the writings of 
 the prophets, we gain some guiding light on this the 
 fundamental point. And (2) in the second place, outward 
 rites and ceremonies, in a special manner, do not furnish 
 a sufficient indication of the truth of which they are 
 symbols or concomitants. In such rites there has often 
 been a carrying over and adaptation of old customary 
 
OhseiDances a7id their Significance. 329 
 
 observances, which are in this transference invested with 
 a new meaning. Many of the observances of Christen- 
 dom are of this description ; even the sacraments of 
 the New Testament rest, as symbolic ordinances, upon 
 earlier usages, although in the Gospel they are in- 
 vested with new meaning. So also it is well known 
 that some of the observances that are now characteristic 
 of Islam were adopted and adapted from pre-existing 
 Arabian usages. In any of these cases, to argue from the 
 forms, without knowing what they were meant to signify, 
 would be manifestly and grossly unfair. It would be 
 similar to the false reasoning, which we have had occasion 
 to notice already, from the primary or etymological 
 signification of a word, without taking note of the sense 
 in which, at a given time and in a particular context, 
 it is employed. And it is necessary now to enter this 
 caveat^ because, as we shall have occasion to notice, 
 this mode of reasoning is not a little relied on in the 
 treatment of this subject. Certain observances of the 
 Israelite religion, which are represented by the Biblical 
 writers as commemorative or symbolical of national 
 religious facts, have the outward forms of old observances 
 or popular customs, and several of them are connected 
 with the cycle of the natural year; and the conclusion 
 is drawn, that down to a very recent period the sacred 
 festivals signified nothing more than the bare outward 
 form expressed. Hence the necessity of determining, first 
 of all, as we have endeavoured to do, whether in religious 
 conceptions and beliefs Israel had not at a much earlier 
 period passed beyond the elements of a mere naturalistic 
 faith. Hence also the necessity of caution in reasoning 
 from the mere outward concomitants and expressions of 
 religion to the essence of the thing signified. ^ 
 
'330 Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 
 
 No doubt a certain prepossession, on the one side or 
 the other, arising out of the preceding inquiry, attends us 
 as we enter on this part of the subject. If we admit the 
 conclusion that the religion of Israel was gradually evolved 
 or developed from an animistic stage, we shall scarcely 
 expect to find in the pre-prophetic period institutions of 
 a high moral significance ; but if, on the contrary, we are 
 satisfied that the religion was in its earlier and funda- 
 mental stage of a more ethical and exalted character, it 
 will not surprise us to find, in the period referred to, a set 
 of religious institutions in keeping with and expressing 
 the higher class of conceptions. We shall, however, 
 endeavour to consider this part of the subject indepen- 
 dently of any conclusions already reached ; and in doing 
 so, to follow the same method of procedure as before. 
 From the known and admitted we shall seek to make 
 our way to the unknown or disputed ; endeavouring from 
 clear indications of the records which are unquestioned to 
 make out the state of religious ordinances of their time, 
 and the testimony which they may give to a greater 
 antiquity. And here again what is primarily to be de- 
 termined is, not the date of certain books in which the 
 formal statement and prescription of outward observances 
 are contained, but the existence of the institutions, or the 
 knowledge of the prescriptions at the time and on the 
 part of the writers whose dates are known. If we shall 
 find that the witnesses who are available testify to the 
 existence of laws and ordinances such as are found in the 
 documents whose date is unknown, there is a strong 
 presumption that these ordinances are the things we are 
 in search of ; and even if the documents in which they 
 are embodied should be of late composition, they will to 
 us still retain substantially their historical value. 
 
Laiu, Law-Codes, and Law-Books. 331 
 
 In the inquiry now before us there are three things 
 which are easily distinguishable, and which ought to be 
 kept distinct in our minds. These are, (a) the origin of 
 laws and observances, (h) the codification of laws, or the 
 formal ratification of observances, and (c) the composition 
 of the books in which we find the laws finally embodied 
 or the ordinances described. Laws and institutions may 
 grow out of custom, or they may be matter of formal 
 enactment ; but in either case they may exist for a longer 
 or shorter time without being embodied in written pre- 
 scriptions. Again, the writing down of such prescriptions 
 may be a gradual process, and result in the formation of 
 more than one code ; but even after laws are codified and 
 institutions enacted, all experience proves that they may 
 undergo modification. Finally, the writing of a book or 
 books, in which codes or collections of laws and prescrip- 
 tions of observances are strung upon a historical thread 
 may quite conceivably be a work later than the formation 
 of separate codes, and much later than the origination of 
 the laws or ordinances. 
 
 A full investigation into all these subjects would take 
 us very far afield ; but we are kept within limitations by 
 the nature of our present inquiry, and also by the circum- 
 stances of the case. We are not called upon, for example, 
 to go into the abstract question of the origin of law and 
 institutions, any more than in the former part of our 
 inquiry we had to investigate the origin of religion. The 
 Biblical writers maintain that from a certain historical 
 period onwards — viz., from the time of Moses — Israel had 
 a certain body of positive institutions (just as they assert 
 that from Abraham's time they had a pure faith); and 
 that these institutions are embodied in certain law-books 
 which are preserved to us. Our inquiry is therefore 
 
332 Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 
 
 limited to a certain time, and concentrated upon certain 
 subjects. It is also important to observe that, on all the 
 three points just indicated, in so far as they are elements 
 of the inquiry into the history of the religion of Israel, 
 various views may be held, and that the Biblical theory, 
 within certain limitations, leaves room for great latitude 
 of view on details, {a) Eeligious observances, such as 
 sacrifice, are spoken of as matters of course, and existing 
 before there was formal legislation in regard to them. 
 Even the so-called Grundschrift or Priestly Code does not 
 exclude sacrifices from the patriarchal age, nor represent 
 them as originating in the time of Moses. Nor is there 
 anything either in history or in the nature of the case to 
 make it improbable that usage at a certain point was 
 stamped with the authority of law. (h) Further, if we take 
 the statements of the law-books themselves, we are led to 
 the conclusion that the laws therein contained were 
 written down at different times. Moses is said to have 
 written this and that, and in regard to many more, it is 
 not said who wrote them at all. In regard to the collec- 
 tions of laws in particular — while it is said that Moses 
 wrote the laws of the book of the Covenant and the 
 Deuteronomic Code — it is not said that he wrote the 
 Levitical laws, nor are we told who wrote them, (c) And 
 finally, the books of the Pentateuch, as composite produc- 
 tions, containing both law and history, are anonymous 
 compositions, and may have assumed their present form 
 after the laws had existed for a time as a separate code 
 or codes. It is greatly to be lamented that so much has 
 been made of the mere question of the authorship of these 
 books containing the laws. Although other books, which 
 are also anonymous, are accepted as materials for history, 
 although the books of the Pentateuch, with supreme in- 
 
Tivo Theories again opposed, 333 
 
 differencG, say nothing about their authorship, it has been 
 tacitly assumed that their whole value stands or falls 
 with their Mosaic or non-Mosaic authorship. A broad 
 distinction is evident between the questions, By whose in- 
 strumentality or authority was law given ? and. By whose 
 hands were books written which contain the law ? The 
 essential question is not as to the early or late date of the 
 books of the Pentateuch, but as to the relation in which 
 the leojislation of the Pentateuch stands to the whole de- 
 velopment of the history. 
 
 On this deeper question of the origin and religious 
 meaning of the laws and institutions the two theories 
 are as much opposed as we have seen them elsewhere. 
 For just as, in the matter of religious conception and 
 belief, the earlier phase is toned down by the modern 
 historians to a naturalistic level, so in the matter of law 
 the element of early positive enactment is minimised to 
 the lowest possible degree. Custom and usage are made 
 to account for the origin of a great part of the laws; 
 for ages the nation is supposed to have been without 
 authoritative law ; and the actual amount of influence 
 exerted by Moses is so explained away as to be almost 
 inappreciable. On the other hand, though the Hebrew 
 writers do not say anything as to who wrote the law- 
 books, they assert positively that the law laid down 
 in these books is Mosaic. Moreover, the theories being 
 opposed as to the character of the Mosaic religion, their 
 interpretation of the institutions will vary. To a deity 
 who might be worshipped anywhere, who was circum- 
 scribed in the place of his abode, and who was merely 
 a storm or sun or fire god, a kind of service might be 
 appropriate that would be without proper significance in 
 the worship of a deity who was in his central attributes 
 
334 Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 
 
 lioly, and in his nature spiritual. The Mosaic or pre- 
 prophetic religion will determine the significance (if not 
 the outward form) of the Mosaic or pre-prophetic insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 It is clear that to determine the point in dispute, we 
 must appeal, if possible, to some independent testimony 
 outside the laws themselves or the books in which they 
 are contained; and that the value we shall attach to 
 these legislative books will depend on the conclusions to 
 be drawn from such independent sources. The only use 
 that can be made of the laws themselves in the contro- 
 versy, is to compare them with one another and with the 
 prophetical and historical literature whose authority is 
 admitted. Such a comparison has in fact been the task 
 of criticism. As a result, the modern historians claim to 
 have proved, (1) that the history of the time succeeding 
 Moses, and down to a comparatively late period, does not 
 show that the laws claiming to be Mosaic were in force, 
 but shows, on the contrary, that the practice of the best 
 men of the nation was inconsistent with them; from 
 which the inference is drawn, that these laws were not up 
 to that time in existence ; and (2) that the laws themselves 
 which are called Mosaic, when examined and compared, 
 are so inconsistent with one another that they cannot all 
 have been in force at the same time ; particularly there 
 are three codes discernible, which indicate three distinct 
 modes of observance, and must have belonged to three 
 historical periods, widely separated, which periods can be 
 determined by comparing the requirements of the respec- 
 tive codes with the practice prevailing at different times 
 in the history. In short, gradual growth by development 
 is to be made to explain the origin of institutions, just as 
 it explained the origin of religious conceptions ; and this 
 
Ascription of Law to Moses. 335 
 
 growth is to be exhibited within the field in which we 
 have the means of testing conclusions by historical docu- 
 ments. Accordingly, just as we had to inquire into the 
 elements of the Mosaic religion of Jahaveh, and trace the 
 connection of the pre-prophetic with the prophetic re- 
 ligion, so here we have to inquire into the origin of the 
 laws, and the consistency of the codes which are con- 
 tained in the Pentateuch, in order to determine whether, 
 or to what extent, they may be held to be, or proved not to 
 be. Mosaic. In the present chapter we confine ourselves 
 to the inquiry whether there is any presumptive or any 
 positive proof that Moses gave to Israel such a positive 
 legislation as the law-books exhibit. 
 
 It occurs at once as a striking thing that the uniform 
 tradition is, that Moses gave laws and ordinances to Israel. 
 And that it is not a blind ascription of everything to some 
 great ancestor, may be gathered from the fact that there 
 are ordinances and customs which are not traced to him. 
 The Sabbath is made as old as the creation ; circumcision 
 is a mark of the covenant with Abraham ; sacrifices are 
 pre-Mosaic ; and the abstaining from the sinew that shrank 
 is traced to the time of Jacob. The body of laws, however, 
 that formed the constitution of Israel as a people, is in- 
 variably referred to Moses. There must be some histor- 
 ical basis for the mere fact that all the three successive 
 codes, as they are called, dating, as is alleged, from 
 periods separated from one another by centuries,^ are as- 
 cribed to Moses ; whereas another alleged code, found in 
 the book of Ezekiel, never obtained authoritative recogni- 
 tion. The persistence with which it is represented that law, 
 moral and ceremonial, came from Moses, and the accept- 
 
 * The separate codes will be more particularly described in the next 
 chapter. 
 
336 Autlioritative Institutions— their Early Date. 
 
 ance of the laws by the whole people as of Mosaic origin, 
 proves at least that it was a deeply seated belief in the 
 nation that the great leader had given some formal legal 
 constitution to his people. It seems to me that it is trifling 
 with a great subject to say, in the same breath, that Moses 
 could scarcely have been even the author of the whole of 
 the Decalogue, and also that he "was regarded as the great 
 lawgiver, and all laws which God was considered to have 
 sanctioned were placed under his name, that being the 
 regular and only method of conferring authority upon new 
 enactments." ^ The testimony of a nation is not to be so 
 lightly set aside : it is the work of criticism to explain 
 and account for tradition, not to give it the lie. And all 
 the circumstances of the time make it abundantly probable 
 that the tradition rests upon some good foundation. 
 
 Moses and his people came out of a country that had 
 been long civilised, and in wdiich ritual and legislation were 
 particularly attended to. They came into a land which, 
 as we now know, possessed civilisation and education 
 before they appeared in it, and they not only secured a 
 footing, but gained supremacy and maintained it, believ- 
 ing all the time that they were divinely guided. Now, 
 if the tribes whom Moses led had any unity at all, if 
 they did not wander aimlessly into Canaan, if they had 
 the least feeling of the necessity of adhering closely toge- 
 ther in the face of the inhabitants whom they dispossessed,^ 
 such a unity and cohesion would be produced or fostered 
 by the possession of definite laws or customs, marking 
 them off from their neighbours, and binding them together 
 into one. Mere common belief, especially of the elemen- 
 tary kind which modern writers allow to them, would not 
 have sufficed to separate them from the Canaanite inhabi- 
 
 1 Allan Meuzies, National Religion, p. 17 f. ^ gee Note XXIV. 
 
Circumstaiices of the Mosaic Time. 337 
 
 tants in such a way as to ensure their ultimate supremacy ; 
 a common tradition must be put into practical shape and 
 active operation by common observances. Even if the 
 work of Moses was merely the consolidation of common 
 observances prevailing prior to the Mosaic age, these must 
 have been stamped with special authority, supplemented 
 by special institutions, and raised to the dignity of definite 
 ordinance, if there is any truth at all in the unanimous 
 ascription of law to Moses. Moreover, if ever there was 
 a crisis in the history of Israel at which the setting up of 
 formal institutions, the laying down of formal rules for 
 national guidance, was naturally to be expected, it was at 
 this stage. It is strange indeed that critical historians of 
 Israel should postulate the putting forth of " legislative 
 programmes" at various later points in Israel's history, 
 and should be so unwilling to admit the same for the 
 time of Moses. For just as individuals in their early life, 
 when moved by a high purpose, sketch out for themselves 
 careers and lay down rules of conduct and principles of 
 action, it was surely the most natural thing in the world 
 for the great leader of Israel to trace out a programme of 
 conduct, and hedge it round with precautionary measures, 
 at a time when his nation was to pass from a nomadic to 
 a more settled life, and when they were liable to be led 
 away by various temptations from the simplicity of their 
 primitive faith. Any one who can recall his plans and 
 resolutions formed in early life, or who has perchance pre- 
 served juvenile journals or memoranda, will admit that in 
 such circumstances there is a natural tendency to run into 
 minute details, which the exigencies of actual life after- 
 wards modify or even render impracticable. The First 
 Book of Discipline, drawn up by Knox and his associates 
 at the Eeformation in Scotland, is a striking historical 
 
 Y 
 
338 AulhorUative Institutions — tJieii- Early Date. 
 
 instance of such a programme.^ So that, if in the post- 
 Mosaic history of Israel we find little mention of many of 
 the enactments ascribed to Moses and the early Mosaic 
 time, this need not surprise us when we bear in mind the 
 totally new environments of life of the people, and the 
 common frailties of human nature. How much more may 
 be implied in the undoubted fact that the succeeding 
 books take little account of the detailed legislation of the 
 Pentateuch, we need not here consider. Enough has been 
 said to prove in a general way that a certain amount of 
 legislation must be ascribed to Moses. If his name stands 
 for any fact at all in the history of Israel, if in any con- 
 ceivable way he made an abiding impression upon hii§ 
 people, it was by producing, or by cementing an already 
 existing intimate relation between their consciousness and 
 the national God. This relation the Biblical writers call 
 a covenant.''^ Critical writers can hardly avoid using the 
 expression, and are bound to admit the fact, by whatever 
 name it may be called. They tell us that the compact 
 amounted to this, '*' Israel was to be Jahaveh's people, and 
 Jahaveh Israel's God." Is it conceivable that at a period 
 such as that in which this compact is placed, at a time 
 when the nation needed outward props and helps, a time 
 when forms of worship and observance were the most 
 natural and unavoidable, even a bare covenant like this 
 should have been unaccompanied with any ceremonial to 
 keep it alive in the national consciousness, and impress 
 its significance upon their lives ? Can we believe that 
 iMoses taught the people that the God whom they could 
 not see was "just and righteous," that by being just and 
 
 1 Story's Church of Scotland, Past and Present. See particularly vol.'. 
 ii. p. 437, foot. 
 
 " See Note XXII., and compare above, p. 313. 
 
Covenant implies Observances. 339 
 
 righteous tliey could best please Him, that, in a word, 
 " Moses set up the great principle that the true sphere of 
 religion is common life," ^ and yet that he left a people 
 such as they were without any ordinances of worship, and 
 without any laws for the guidance of their daily life ? 
 A people, too, who at that very time, and in the power 
 of their faith, were asserting their individuality ! A 
 " peculiar " people, as such a covenant necessarily made 
 them, must have distinctive outward marks; a "holy" 
 nation, on the very lowest ideas of holiness, must be 
 separated from what is unclean ; a " lioly " deity, still on 
 the most elementary conception of the term, must be 
 fenced off by some restrictions, must be reverenced by 
 some sacred ceremonial. The very idea of a covenant, if 
 it does not even imply sacrifice, is intimately associated 
 with it (Ps. 1. 5). Whether the ceremonies were adapta- 
 tions of old customs or new institutions, if such a definite 
 thing as a covenant stands at the threshold of the national 
 history, then to deny to Moses the organisation of Israel 
 on the basis of definite observances, not only of a moral 
 but also of a ceremonial character, is altogether an excess 
 of arbitrariness, and leaves the unvarying tradition of later 
 time without any adequate explanation or support. 
 
 But more precise and direct proof may be drawn from 
 the prophetical and other accepted literature of the time 
 to which we are confining ourselves. We may not have, ' 
 indeed, unequivocal " references " to the books of the Law, 
 or to the codes in which certain laws are contained ; nor 
 do we find full accounts of the observances of the minute 
 ceremonial and liturgical prescriptions of the Pentateuch. 
 It has been too much the habit of apologetic writers to 
 look for positive citations of the books of the Pentateuch, 
 
 1 Allan Menzies, National Religion, p. 24, 
 
340 Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 
 
 or to argue from the use of certain expressions in pro- 
 phetical or historical books that the legislative books in 
 which such or similar expressions also occur were then 
 in existence and were thus consciously referred to.^ But 
 critical writers have gone to the other extreme in arguing 
 that where a law or ordinance is not mentioned by his- 
 torical or prophetical authors, it was not known to them, 
 and therefore had no existence in their day. We shall 
 have to test the value of this argument in the sequel ; in 
 the meantime we have to look at the testimony borne by 
 the prophetical and other books on this subject. 
 
 From the whole tone of the prophetical literature we 
 may argue in a general way that there was in the times of 
 the earliest writing prophets a universal recognition of a 
 well-known norrii or rule of conduct as possessed by the 
 nation, though sadly dishonoured so far as concerns its 
 observance. The attitude of reproof taken up by the 
 prophets, and the absence of gainsaying on the part of 
 the people whom they addressed, prove the recognition of 
 some authoritative norm lying at the threshold of the 
 nation's history, according to the principles laid down by 
 St Paul (Eom. iii. 20), that through the law is the know- 
 ledge of sin, and (v. 13) that sin is not imputed where 
 there is no law.^ An argument of this kind is not indeed 
 sufficient to establish the Mosaic origin of all the legis- 
 lation of the Pentateuch ; it may not even necessarily 
 lead to the conclusion that formal codes were in existence 
 at all ; but it warrants the conclusion, not merely that 
 guidance was given to the people, from time to time 
 as occasion required, by prophetic or priestly men, but 
 
 ^ See before, chapter v. p. 108. 
 
 2 So De Wette reasoned in a Review of Vatke in Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 
 for 1837, p. 1003. 
 
References of Early Prophets. 341 
 
 that some standard of obedience and religious observance 
 was acknowledged as set up for permanent appeal and 
 authority. 
 
 But we can go much further than this. The manner 
 in which the earliest prophets refer to such an authority 
 — if language is to retain its ordinary meaning at all — 
 implies principles of action embodied in concrete recog- 
 nised laws. When Amos threatens Judah, "because 
 they have rejected the law of the Lord, and have not 
 kept His statutes " (Amos ii. 4), whether he is thinking 
 of books or not, he is certainly thinking of certain stand- 
 ing principles objectively regarded as regulative of moral 
 and religious life. Law or Torah may conceivably have 
 been at first, as the critics assert, no more than instruc- 
 tion conveyed from time to time by prophet or priest; 
 and this matter we shall consider in the next chapter. 
 But the conjunction of the word "statutes" leaves no 
 room for doubt that the prophet referred to an objective 
 and concrete norm. Torah may be teaching, but statutes 
 are determinate things, not given once and then forgotten, 
 but set up as a standing rule. Moreover, the sins for which 
 Israel in the sequel of the same chapter is reproved, 
 though all of a moral kind, are just such sins as are con- 
 demned in the moral parts of the Pentateuchal codes. 
 This prophet has no doubt, and his hearers dare not deny, 
 that the oppression of the poor, the retaining of pledges,^ 
 the perversion of justice, and the like, are violations of 
 rules which every one admitted to be binding upon the 
 nation. It is particularly to be noticed that the sins 
 for which Israel and Judah are threatened are more pre- 
 cise and special than those breaches of the most element- 
 ary laws of humanity against which the prophetic reproofs 
 1 Amos ii. 8. Comp. Exod, xxii. 26. 
 
342 Authoritative Institutions— their Early Date. 
 
 of other nations, Damascus, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, 
 Amnion, and Moab, are directed ; and that it is precisely 
 in Judah, where "law" and "statutes" would be best 
 known and most universally acknowledged, that their 
 violation is singled out for reprobation.^ 
 
 The case is similar with the prophet Hosea. " They 
 have wandered from me," he says (vii. 13) : " they have 
 transgressed my covenant and trespassed against my 
 law " (viii. 1). The sins for which he reproves the men 
 of Israel of his time are just such sins as the moral laws 
 of the Mosaic legislation condemn ; ^ and we have in one 
 passage a clear indication that written law, and that of 
 considerable compass, was known and acknowledged in 
 his days. The passage (Hosea viii. 12), much as it has 
 been commented upon, and sought to be explained away 
 in this connection, cannot be taken to give any other 
 sense that is at all reasonable. Whether we read, with 
 the Eevised Version, " though I write for him my law in 
 ten thousand precepts," or, with the margin, " I wrote for 
 him the ten thousand things of my law " — whether, that is 
 to say, we take the words as positive or hypothetical, as 
 referring to the past, or to the present or future — the 
 prophet indicates a thing that his hearers would regard 
 as either done, or natural to be done, and that thing is 
 the writing of law in a copious manner, and the writing 
 done directly by divine authority. 
 
 The manner in which Wellhausen gets rid of this pass^ 
 age is exceedingly characteristic. He says : ^ — 
 
 ^ I do not press the allusions in Amos iv. 4, 5, although an argument 
 might be drawn for the recognition of ritual laws, which are there repre- 
 sented as exaggerated or perverted. — See Bi-edenkamp, Gesetz u. Pro- 
 pheten, p. 82. 
 
 2 See the whole of Hosea iv. 
 
 3 Hist, of Israel, p. 57. - • 
 
Hosca's Beferencc to Written Law. 343 
 
 • "In anotlier passage (viz., this) we read, ' Epliraim has built for 
 nimself many altars, to sin ; the altars are there for him, to sin. 
 JIow many soever my instructions (torothdi) may be, they are 
 counted those of a stranger.' This text has had the unmerited 
 misfortune of having been forced to do service as a proof that Hosea 
 knew of copious writings similar in contents to our Pentateuch. 
 All that can be drawn from the contrast, ' instead of following 
 my instructions they offer sacrifice' (for that is the meaning of 
 the passage), is that the prophet had never once dreamed of the 
 possibility of cultus being made the subject of Jehovah's directions." 
 
 Here, to begin with, Wellhausen omits in liis citation 
 the significant word " write," a proceeding which, looking 
 to the question involved, is, at the least, not ingenuous ; 
 for the word so rendered cannot be toned down to the 
 general sense of "prescribe." And then, if all that the 
 passage means is what he says, " instead of following my 
 instructions they offer sacrifice," is it not a very remark- 
 able way of saying it, and does not the mention of " writ- 
 ing," in this subsidiary fashion, prove all the more strongly 
 that written instructions (torothdi, and where are such to 
 be found if not in some code or other?) were familiar' 
 and well known ? Not in this fashion does Wellhausen 
 pass by significant words in a verse when these can be 
 turned to the support of his theory. The fact that 
 " writing " occurs to the prophet where he does not base 
 his main argument upon it, is the strong point ; and 
 thus, occurring in the connection in which it stands, 
 this single passage suffices to establish the existence of 
 written law of considerable compass at the time of Hosea. 
 And as if to assure us that ritual ordinance was as well 
 known as moral precept, and as if to anticipate Well- 
 hausen's remark that "the prophet never once dreamed 
 of the possibility of cultus being made the subject of 
 Jehovah's direction," the prophet goes on in the following 
 
344 Aiithoritative Institutions — their Early Bate. 
 
 verse to say, " As for the sacrifices of mine offerings, they 
 sacrifice flesh and eat it." The occurrence of the single 
 suffixal mine here, as in Isaiah i. 12, "to tread my courts," 
 in a passage in which that prophet is by modern critics 
 maintained to deny the divine authority of all sacrificial 
 service, are much more convincing proofs to the contrary 
 than formal statements would have been. Both these 
 prophets rebuke the performance of sacrifice as it went 
 on in their day, and we need not wonder at the sharp- 
 ness of the rebukes. But at the same time, both of them, 
 in claiming Temple and offerings as belonging rightly to 
 Jahaveh, tacitly confirm the supposition, which is most 
 natural in itself, that Israel up to their time had a law 
 of worship which was undisputed, and that the Temple, 
 set apart to the outward service of the national God, was 
 provided with an authoritative order and ritual.^ 
 
 These indications in the earliest writing prophets are 
 entirely against the supposition that it was through the 
 influence of the prophets that the codes of law came into 
 existence, as they are against the idea that law was re- 
 garded by them as a thing still in flux, and given out from 
 time to time by either prophet or priest as occasion de- 
 manded. Any references that are found to laws or ordi- 
 nances in the prophetical writings are always of the nature 
 of references to things existing and well known in their 
 times. If, in a few passages, the law or laws are spoken 
 of as having been given by prophetic mediation, it will be 
 found that the references (as in Ezra ix. 10, 11) will apply 
 to Moses, who is regarded as a prophet and the leader of 
 the prophets.2 In any case, the law or norm is regarded aa 
 a thing antecedent to the prophets, and having a divine 
 sanction and authority apart from themselves. 
 
 1 See Note XXV. 2 peut. xviii. 15 ; Hosea xii. 13. 
 
References in the Psalms. 345 
 
 Passing beyond the prophetical books — and we have only- 
 glanced at the earliest of these — we might find the same 
 conclusion confirmed in a very striking way by an exam- 
 ination of the Psalms, in which God's law, statutes, and 
 commandments are referred to in such a manner as to 
 suggest positive, well-understood things as the guides of 
 religious conduct, the comfort of a religious life. Here, 
 however, the dates and authorship of the compositions are 
 so much disputed, that, with the limitations we have im- 
 posed on our inquiry, we must content ourselves with 
 a brief reference. When all has been done that modern 
 criticism can do to relegate the bulk of the Psalms to a 
 late period, and make the Psalter the book of praise of the 
 post -exilian synagogue, there still remain, even in the 
 accepted pre -exilian Psalms, certain expressions which 
 cannot be explained away. Evan so thorough-going a 
 critic as Hitzig accepted the latter part of Psalm xix., 
 with its praise of the law, as Davidic, although Cheyne ^ 
 has recently pronounced it to be late. But if any part of 
 the Psalter is to be ascribed to David at all, it is the 
 1 8th Psalm ; and, not to speak of other references it con- 
 tains to God's " ways " and His " word," it is not easy to 
 see what precise meaning can be attached to v. 22, " For 
 all His judgments were before me, and I did not put away 
 His statutes from me," if there was no body of positive 
 religious principles of action existent in his day. Tlie 
 " uncritical " English reader should, however, be reminded 
 here that it is not on linguistic considerations, but on the 
 grounds of a higher criticism — i.e., of a theory of the re- 
 ligious development — that so many of the Psalms are 
 assigned to a late date. 
 
 1 The Book of Psalms ; or, The Praises of Israel. A new translation 
 with commentary (1888). 
 
346 Authoritative Institutio7is — their Early Date. 
 
 Let us next consider what conclusion is to Le drawn 
 from the undisputed portions of the books of Judges and 
 Samuel. Though they do not give us much information 
 as to legal observances, and are usually claimed as proving 
 that the Deuteronomic and Levitical codes were unknown 
 at the periods to which they refer, there are certain in- 
 dications in them pointing unmistakably to the conclu- 
 sion that there was a recognised order of some kind in 
 those days. It is self-evident that the Tabernacle at 
 Shiloh could not have existed, nor have formed the centre 
 of worship, without some recognised ritual. Even should it 
 be proved that the practices of Eli's sons mentioned in 
 the book of Samuel were inconsistent with the require- 
 ments of the Levitical code, this is no more than might 
 have been expected from such men. The wonder would 
 be if the practices of men such as they are depicted were 
 in keeping with any conceivable authoritative rule at all. 
 The point, however, now insisted on is, that the Shiloh 
 worship must have been invested with authority; and 
 therefore that the idea of authoritative law for ceremonial 
 was familiar by that time. And so the sacrifices offered 
 by Samuel, even should it be proved that his manner of 
 performing them contradicts the requirements of the 
 codes, imply a recognised and authoritative law or rule 
 of sacrifice. They are offered to Jahaveh and in con- 
 nection with the national recognition of Him, and must 
 therefore have been regarded as sanctioned and accepted 
 by Him. In other words, at that time there was some 
 received legislation. So in the period of the Judges there 
 are indications that the people were acquainted with some 
 standard of authority, and accustomed to conceptions in- 
 volving national obligations. 
 
 There is, for example, the incidental mention of the ark 
 
Laiv in the Period of the Judges. 347 
 
 in Judges XX. 27, 28. It is true this occurs in a portion 
 of the book which is pronounced to be late. But even if 
 we had not this mention at all, we come upon the ark 
 again at the opening of the book of Samuel, where it 
 is the centre of the worship for the time ; and we should 
 be bound to explain whence it came, and how it had 
 acquired this dignity. The very brevity of the allusion 
 however, in Judges, is proof that the writer looked 
 upon the ark as a national institution ; and if the state- 
 ment has any historic value at all, it proves the pos- 
 session by Israel of some outward bond of religious life. 
 In other words, they were not at this time merely a num- 
 ber of isolated tribes, related in some loose way to one 
 another, and owning one common tribal god ; but they had, 
 previous to this time, been accustomed to regard them- 
 selves as one people, and, as a mark of their unity, had 
 some form of outward worship. We must therefore go 
 back to the time preceding the Judges for some account of 
 this feature of their religious life ; and no Biblical writer 
 gives the least hint of the existence of anything like it in 
 the early patriarchal age. The reference to Phinehas, the 
 son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, who ministers at the ark, 
 indicating a hereditary priesthood in the family of Aaron, 
 of course does not suit the modern theory. It is simply 
 called by Wellhausen ^ " a gloss which forms a very awk- 
 ward interruption." Much more to his purpose is the 
 statement (in xviii. 30) that Jonathan, the son of Ger- 
 shom, the son of Moses, became a priest to the Danites, 
 as a proof that there was no regular Aaronic priesthood 
 — although it is added in the next verse that " Micah's 
 graven image " was at Dan " all the time that the house 
 of God was in Shiloh." At all events we have here, iu 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 237. 
 
348 Authoritative Institutions — tJieii- Early Date. 
 t 
 ' these two incidental allusions, sufficient to carry us back 
 
 to a period antecedent to the Judges for an explanation of 
 the religious position of the people at that time. The 
 ark of God, a priesthood, whether hereditary or not, a 
 house of God at Shiloh — all these imply much more than 
 they express. The priest must have a function, the house 
 of God some ritual, an ark some history. These things 
 could not have been borrowed from the Canaanites the 
 moment the conquest was secured. Even such matters as 
 the distinction of clean and unclean animals, the pro- 
 hibition of certain foods, and the treatment of lepers, 
 which may, and probably do, go back to pre-Mosaic times, 
 imply regulation, ceremony, and, in many cases, the offer- 
 ing of sacrifices. All these, however, are just the things 
 that would be taken under the sanction of the covenant, 
 which was to set apart a holy people, and made matters of 
 prescription by a legislative founder like Moses. For it is 
 always to be remembered that by this time certainly the 
 Israelite tribes were in possession of the Jahaveh religion. 
 Tliese outward arrangements, whatever their origin, were 
 associated with their worship of Him as their only God ; 
 and as that religion, on any explanation of it, was the char- 
 acteristic mark separating them from their neighbours, it 
 is surely most extraordinary to suppose that the outward 
 concomitants of the religion should present no difference 
 from the worship of the peoples around them. 
 
 Again, it is maintained by Wellhausen and his school 
 that the tribe of Levi was originally a secular tribe like 
 the others, and associated with the kindred tribe of Simeon, 
 whose fate it shared in being dispersed in Israel ; and it 
 is maintained that the Levitical guild was a growth of 
 much later time, when priestly development had far ad- 
 vanced. Now the story of Micah in the book of Judges is 
 
The Levites in the Time of the Judges, 349 
 
 inuch relied on by the critics for the state of religion ^ at 
 this early period. In that story (chap, xvii.) a young man 
 of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, departs from 
 Bethlehem-Judah to sojourn where he could find a place, 
 and comes to Micah, who hires him to be his priest. 
 It is added : " Then said Micah, Now know I that the 
 Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my 
 priest." And again, in the 19th chapter, which is allowed 
 to contain archaic matter, we find a certain Levite so- 
 journing on the farther side of the hill -country of 
 Ephraim. Now it might be said, these are simply 
 members of the extinct tribe of Levi. But it does seem 
 remarkable tliat in both cases they should be seen sojourn- 
 ing — moving about, in fact — as the Levites, according to 
 the legal requirement, might be expected to do. And 
 more remarkable is the fact that they are specially called 
 Levites — though why the tribal designation is kept up 
 when the tribe is absorbed is not clear ; and most remark- 
 able of all that Micah, steeped to the lips in superstition, 
 should believe that good was sure to come to him because 
 he had a Levite for a priest. On the theory of the Old 
 Testament writers, the fact, notwithstanding all the sur- 
 rounding superstition, is easily explained. There was a 
 tribe of Levi without territory, with a priestly or qicasi- 
 priestly function, the members of wliich were held in 
 repute on tliat account. On the new theory, we meet 
 with a feature of the life of that rude age that calls for 
 an explanation, and fails to find it. To my mind such 
 an incidental notice is a very strong corroboration of the 
 history which declares that a tribe of Levi was set apart 
 for sacred functions ; and considering the age in which the 
 events occurred, a more convincing proof of the accuracy 
 
 ^ See chapter ix. p. 231, 
 
350 Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 
 
 of the book than an elaborate attempt to show that all 
 the requirements of the Levitical law were in force. The 
 discovery of a fact like this, in the darkness and igno- 
 rance of those times, sends ns back to a time antecedent 
 to the Judges for the proper basis of the religious consti- 
 tution of Israel. 
 
 The references we thus find in undoubtedly early com- 
 positions, though not perhaps numerous, yet just because 
 they are incidental and indirect, establish a very strong 
 presumption that the pre-prophetic religion was backed 
 up by a well-recognised system of positive enactments, 
 and account for the persistent ascription of code after 
 code to Moses. There are other considerations, pointing 
 in the same direction, which should not be left out of 
 account. There is, e.g., the remarkable fact that, during 
 the whole of the regal period, we never hear of the kings 
 making laws, while there is a constant reference to law, 
 in some sense or other, as an authoritative thing in the 
 nation. The solitary instance that is recorded (1 Sam. 
 XXX. 25) only proves the rule. Again, there is the undis- 
 puted fact that a recognised priesthood existed in Israel 
 from very early times. It is hardly conceivable that such 
 an order should have existed without formal regulation 
 and prescribed functions; and as the critical historians 
 refer to priestly circles the very earliest collection of laws, 
 contained in the book of the Covenant, and admit that the 
 priests always appealed to the authority of Moses, the 
 inference does not seem unwarranted that a priestly law, 
 of some extent and of a definite description, formed part of 
 the constitution given to Israel by the great lawgiver. 
 
 It is, it must be confessed, somewhat remarkable that 
 so little is said of Moses by the earlier prophets, though 
 some have overstated the matter, and have drawn from it 
 
References to Moses hy Prophets. 351 
 
 a conclusion which is quite unwarranted. Ghillany/ e.g., 
 mentions it as a circumstance hitherto unnoticed, that the 
 name of Moses, except in the post-exilic Malachi (iv. 4) 
 and Daniel (ix. 11, 13), does not occur in any of the pro- 
 phets ; or at least he had not discovered the name anywhere 
 else in the prophets — not even in Ezekiel. Elsewhere ^ he 
 says that Moses, so renowned among the Jews after the 
 captivity, is only named five times altogether in tlie whole 
 prophetical literature, and that of all the prophets who 
 lived before B.C. 622, the year in which the so-called 
 Mosaic law was found in the Temple, not one mentions 
 Moses as a lawgiver or appeals to his authority. Only in 
 one of the prophets before that period (Micah vi. 4) is 
 there found an exception ; and this passage is declared to 
 be an interpolation. It is clear, however, that Hosea, 
 though he does not name him, directly refers to Moses 
 when he says that by a "prophet" the Lord brought 
 Israel out of Egypt (xii. 13). Jeremiah also must have 
 had Moses in mind when he said, " Since the day that 
 your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto 
 this day, I have even sent unto you all my servants the 
 prophets, daily rising up early and sending them " (Jer. 
 vii. 25, &c.) Moreover, in Isa. Ixiii. 11, Moses is expressly 
 named. The inference, however, from such texts, is rather 
 against than in favour of the modern theory.^ So pre- 
 carious is the argument from silence, that one is almost 
 tempted to maintain the paradox that the things which 
 are least mentioned were the most familiar. The historical 
 fact stands undoubted, that, from first to last, legislation 
 
 ^ Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebriier, p. 27. 
 2 Theologische Brief e von Richard von der Aim, vol. i. p. 179 ff. 
 ^ Konig, Hauptprobleme, p. 16 ; Delitzsch, Comm. on Genesis, Eug^. 
 trans., vol. i, p. 11 f. 
 
'352 Authoritative Institutions — their Early Date. 
 
 was ascribed to Moses ; and if the critics should succeed 
 in making out from this silence that the earlier prophets 
 knew little or nothing of Moses, then it is all the more 
 difficult to explain how a person so unknown and undis- 
 tinguished should have had invariably the immense work 
 of legislation ascribed to him. Much rather should we say 
 that the work of Moses was so familiar to the national 
 mind that there was no need to mention him by name ; a 
 mere reference to Egypt or Sinai was to the popular mind 
 more than a verbal mention. We know how in other 
 Scriptures, which are not from the hands of prophets, the 
 highest place is assigned to Moses as an organ of divine 
 revelation (Exod. xxxiii. 11 ; Num. xii. 6-8 ; Deut. xxxiv. 
 10). Such passages are surer indications than express 
 mention of his name, that Moses was in the estimation 
 and recollection of the nation " the most exalted figure in 
 all primitive history";^ and account satisfactorily for 
 the constant ascription to him of the legislation. Still 
 we come back to what is better than verbal references, 
 the underlying assumption in the earlier prophets and 
 extra-legislative literature, that there was an objective 
 and undisputed norm, to whose authority prophets, 
 priests, and people alike acknowledged submission. The 
 question, therefore, which now presses itself upon us for 
 solution is. What was the law or norm which is thus 
 referred to? 
 
 ^ Ranke, Universal History, translated by Prothero, p. 31. 
 
353 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 AUTHORITATIVE INSTITUTIONS — THEIR RELIGIOUS BASIS. 
 
 Brief summary of leading positions of the modern school — Examination of 
 main points: (1) Oral law before written law; references to lata of 
 priests and prophets ; theory of law orally given from time to time 
 doion to reign of Josiah shown to be untenable : (2) Origin of feasts 
 and worship according to the theory — Natural and agricultural basis, 
 centralisation, fixity, historical reference — TJie theory criticised : (a) 
 the mere joyousness of a nature feast made too much of ; the basket of 
 fruits ; (b) exaggerated importance of idea of centralisation ; (c) fail- 
 ure to show transition from agricultural to religious feasts, and to ex- 
 plain the historical reference — The Passover a glaring instance. 
 
 In the preceding chapter we have seen reasons for ascrib- 
 ing to Moses a definite and authoritative system of law. 
 If the references of the prophetical and other books have 
 been rightly interpreted, we should expect to find some- 
 where d code or codes of laws regulating the life and 
 worship of Jahaveh's people ; and as we know of no other 
 laws than those contained in the law-books, there is a 
 primary presumption that these are the laws in question. 
 If not, the question is, Where are the laws, or what has 
 become of them ? or, put otherwise. What are the laws 
 which these books contain ? 
 
 The account the modern theory gives of the matter is 
 something to the following effect: Moses neither wrote 
 
 z 
 
354 Authoritative Institutions — their Religious Basis. 
 
 I nor ordained an elaborate body of laws. Law (Torali) 
 was at first and for a long time an oral system of instruc- 
 tion, which at definite and comparatively late periods was 
 codified for special purposes. Nor are the religious rites 
 and ceremonies that claim to have been given by Moses 
 of Mosaic origin, but survivals of old customary obser- 
 vances, principally connected with the agricultural year, 
 and transformed at a late time into ceremonies of a more 
 national and religious nature. This view, it is claimed, is 
 not only consistent with the statements of the prophets, 
 but is the only one in harmony with the history. To the 
 main points here stated we now turn our attention. 
 
 (1.) In the first place, we are told there was an oral law 
 before there was a written law. The priests had as their 
 function to teach the people ; the prophets also were 
 teachers ; but the law or teaching communicated by both 
 was an oral thing, given forth as occasion demanded, at 
 the request of individuals who came to the priests for 
 direction, or spontaneously by the prophets when they 
 Were moved to give their testimony. The priestly Torali 
 was a more regular thing; the prophetic, sporadic and 
 occasional ; and there was this difference, that the priest 
 rested upon tradition, whereas the prophet spoke by his 
 own authority, or rather in the name of God directly. 
 i"The priests derived their Torah from Moses; they 
 claimed only to preserve and guard what Moses had 
 left (Deut. xxxiii. 4, 9 seq.) He counted as their ancestor 
 (xxxiii. 8; Judges xviii. 30); his father-in-law is the 
 priest of Midian at Mount Sinai, as Jehovah also is 
 derived in a certain sense from the older deity of Sinai." ^ 
 When priests and prophets are mentioned together, " the 
 priests take precedence of the prophets. . . . For this reason, 
 
 1 \Vellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 396. 
 
Meaning of the Word Tor ah. 355 
 
 that they take their stand so entirely on the tradition and 
 depend on it, their claim to have Moses for their father, 
 the beginner and founder of their tradition, is in itself the 
 better founded of the two." ^ " The prophets have notori- 
 ously no father (1 Sam. x. 12). . . . We have thus on 
 the one side the tradition of a class, which suffices for the 
 occasions of ordinary life ; and on the other, the inspiration 
 of awakened individuals, stirred up by occasions which are 
 more than ordinary." ^ The priestly Torah was chiefly 
 confined to law and morals, though the priests " also gave 
 ritual instruction {e.g., regarding cleanness and unclean- 
 ness)." In pre-exilian antiquity, however, " the priests' 
 own praxis [at the altar] never constituted the contents 
 of the Torah," which " always consisted of instructions to 
 the laity." 3 
 
 That the word Torah is applied to oral instruction, and 
 means originally, like the corresponding words ht^axn and 
 doctrina, simply teaching, need not be disputed. It seems 
 to have the primary idea of throwing out the hand in the 
 gesture of guidance or direction^ (which would perhaps 
 be a better rendering), and it is found in this general 
 sense in Prov. i. 8, iii. 1, iv. 2 : " The instruction of 
 thy father, and the law of thy mother;" "my law." So 
 
 1 Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 397. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 398. 3 ibi(j_^ p^ 59^ note. 
 
 ^ There seems, however, no reason to conclude that Torah, from a verb 
 " to throw," originally referred to the casting down of some kind of dice, 
 as, e.g., Urim and Thummim, to determine a course of action, as Well- 
 hausen (Hist, of Israel, p. 394) supposes. There is no instance of decision 
 by the Urim and Thummim being called Torah ; and Wellhausen himself 
 strenuously maintains an oral Torah by the prophets, which could not 
 have been of this description. Stade, of course, traces back the oracle 
 and the use of the lot to fetishistic and animistic practices, and the priest 
 to the soothsayer. The prophet who, at a later time, contended with the 
 mechanical priestcraft, was also a survival of the primitive "seer." — Ge- 
 schichte, vol. i. pp. 468-476. 
 
356 Authoritative Institutions — their Religious Basis. 
 
 that any advice, for the purpose of guidance (for that is 
 always implied), is naturally denoted by it ; and the guid- 
 ance or instruction of priests or prophets, who were the 
 religious guides or instructors of the people, is, as a mat- 
 ter of course, denoted by one common word, Torah. Ex- 
 amples of the use of the word to express prophetic teach- 
 ing are found in Isaiah, who says : " Hear the word of the 
 Lord, ye rulers of Sodom ; attend to the law of our God, 
 ye people of Gomorrah " (i. 10), where he is clearly refer- 
 ring to his own teaching ; and even if we suppose a ref- 
 erence to a written law, it could only be to the substance 
 and not the letter of it that he directed attention. So 
 when he says, " Bind up the testimony, seal the law among 
 my disciples" (viii. 16), though he is speaking of some- 
 thing objective, positive, and authoritative, it is most 
 natural to see a reference to what he had just said or was 
 about to say. Probably also a general sense should be 
 given to the word in xxx. 9, " This is a rebellious people, 
 lying children, children that will not hear the law of the 
 Lord." Again we have mention of a specific pnestly Torah 
 in the Blessing of Moses, one of the oldest pieces of Heb- 
 rew literature, where it is said of the tribe of Levi, " They 
 shall teach Jacob Thy judgments, and Israel Thy law: 
 they shall put incense before Thee, and whole burnt-offer- 
 ings upon Thine altar " (Deut. xxxiii. 10). Whatever else 
 we may learn from the verse, the function of the Levite 
 to teach is clearly stated, and this means a course of in- 
 struction or acts of instruction to the people. That a 
 distinction was drawn between the teaching of the priests 
 and that of the prophets, we may also conclude from 
 such a passage as Micah iii. 11, "The heads thereof 
 judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, 
 and the prophets divine for money." A similar distinc- 
 
Prophetical ami Priestly Tor ah. 357 
 
 tion, showing the existence of a priestly law, is found in 
 Jeremiah, " The law shall not perish from the priest, nor 
 counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet " 
 (xviii. 18); in Lamentations (ii. 9), "Her king and her 
 princes are among the nations where law is not ; yea, her 
 prophets find no vision from the Lord ; " and in Ezekiel, 
 " The law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from 
 the ancients" (vii. 26); "her priests have violated my 
 law, and profaned mine holy things," &c. (xxii. 26). 
 In other passages, again, "law" seems to be used as 
 synonymous with " the word of the Lord," generally to 
 express the whole of the truth of revelation, as in Isaiah 
 ii. 3, V. 24, xlii. 4 ; Micah iv. 2 ; and perhaps Amos ii. 4, 
 and Hosea viii. 1. 
 
 While, however, these distinctions are noticeable, the 
 inferences drawn from them are not at all warrant- 
 able. The general use of the word to denote divine 
 revelation of truth as a whole implies a unity in that 
 truth, and to this extent it is true that even the priestly 
 Torah was mainly, or we should rather say, fundamentally, 
 of a moral character ; although we have seen in the last 
 chapter good reason for concluding that the prophets I 
 knew of and recognised a ritual law as well. But the ■ 
 main point now in hand is the alleged long existence 
 of oral apart from and antecedent to written Torah ; 
 and it may be maintained, even on the ground of the 
 passages just cited, that the inference is too bold. Let us 
 make the supposition demanded by Wellhausen, that the 
 priests had the practice of giving oral decisions as occasion 
 arose. Still, the question arises. Did the priests decide 
 individual cases according to their individual judgment ? 
 and if not, what precisely were the guiding principles on 
 which they acted ? It is hardly conceivable that such in- 
 
358 Authoritative Institutions — their Heligious Basis. 
 
 struction, if regularly given, np to a comparatively late 
 time, should not have assumed, in practice, some concrete 
 expression. The sentences uttered on various and re- 
 curring occasions must, at all events, have been regarded 
 as self- consistent, and of concordant tenor, before they 
 could be spoken of under this comprehensive term of 
 Torah or instruction. Then we have to note particularly 
 how it is admitted that the oral priestly Torah, whicli is 
 thus assumed, always claims for itself, not only high 
 antiquity, but Mosaic sanction. And, since even the 
 priestly Torah is represented as a unity, we are led to 
 inquire whether there was not some positive guide in 
 the form of typical decisions which would account for 
 so firm a tradition, and give some kind of uniformity 
 to the oral sentences. If an oral teaching by the prophets 
 did not prevent them from writing down their discourses, 
 why should the priests, who had a teaching of a much 
 more detailed and technical kind to convey, not have 
 had a written Torah for their guidance ? Wellhausen 
 feels the force of this, for he says it might be sup- 
 posed that, even if Deuteronomy and the Levitical Code 
 are late, the Jehovistic legislation contained in the book 
 of the Covenant (Exod. xx.-xxiii., xxxiv.) " might be re- 
 garded as the document which formed the starting-point 
 of the religious history of Israel. And this position is in 
 fact generally claimed for it." ^ It belongs, however, he 
 says, to a period much later than the active oral Torah 
 of the priests, and he reduces the Mosaic elements in it 
 to the barest minimum, scarcely even admitting the 
 Mosaic origin of the Decalogue. 
 
 So that the alleged oral Torah, on the hypothesis, rests 
 upon nothing but immemorial custom, eacli decision as it 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 392. 
 
Moses hearing Cases in Person. 359 
 
 was given constituting a Torali or law to meet the case in 
 hand. That this was the way the law arose, and not by 
 the promulgation of a set of statutes, is said to be indicated 
 by a chapter in Exodus (xviii.), which represents Moses 
 himself as sitting hearing cases in person, and deciding 
 each case on its own merits. But this very chapter, so 
 mucli relied upon, seems itself to draw the distinction 
 between legislation and administration. Moses is repre- 
 sented as discharging both functions ; but the chapter 
 tells how he was advised to separate them. He set 
 over the people able men, who were to judge the people 
 in small matters, reserving the "great matters" for his 
 own decision. If the critics are prepared to take this 
 chapter as a plain historical statement, then we get a 
 positive starting-point for Mosaic law, and that, too, of a 
 pretty comprehensive compass. For if the decisions on 
 great matters were given by Moses, we have Mosaic 
 legislation, since his sentences were given (presumably) 
 on new cases or were regulations of older usages ; and 
 the small matters doubtless were controlled by precedents 
 set by him. There is no reason to assume that such 
 decisions as were given by Moses and his assessors re- 
 mained unwritten, or in flux, till the time to which 
 the book of the Covenant is brought down ; and it is 
 to be noted how care was taken, by the appointment 
 of capable judges and by the teaching of the "statutes," 
 that uniformity and consistency should be maintained. 
 Unless, indeed, there was some guiding rule, the decisions 
 could not have remained consistent with themselves, and 
 could never have assumed a shape in which, collectively, 
 they would have acquired respect. So in the passage 
 already cited from the Blessing of Moses, where it is 
 described as the function of Levi to teach the people the 
 
360 Authoritative Institutions their Beligious Basis. 
 
 law, there is presumably something definite and positive 
 to be taught ; just as the second half of the verse speaks 
 of the offerings which they had to present on the altar. 
 Wellhausen's position, so confidently assumed, that the 
 " teaching is only thought of as the action of the teacher " 
 — if the teaching is to have any consistency at all — seems 
 to me only conceivable on the supposition of a guidance 
 of the teacher, an inspiration, in fact, of a kind that I 
 fancy Wellhausen would be the last to admit. It is, be- 
 sides, flatly contradicted by such a passage as Hosea iv. 6, 
 where the priest is reproached (according to the common 
 interpretation which applies the passage to the priestly 
 class) for having forgotten the law of God, as indeed by all 
 the passages which reprove the priests for unfaithfulness. 
 If everything taught by the priest was Torah, with no 
 guiding norm, such reproofs were out of place. Yet it is 
 to be observed that the prophets, whatever they may say 
 about the priests as a class, always speak of their Torah 
 as a thing of unquestioned authority ; and they were not 
 the men to speak tlms of the haphazard decisions on " law 
 and morals " given by a class which was too often both law- 
 less and immoral. Looking at it from any possible point 
 of view, in the face of this persistent ascription of law to 
 Moses, we are bound to assume something positive and 
 plain, of such a character that a priesthood, often ignorant 
 and corrupt, would be guided to give forth sentences that 
 prophetic men could speak of with respect. To say noth- 
 ing of the intricate cases of ceremonial cleanness and de- 
 filement, which Wellhausen admits constituted an element 
 of the Torah, there were also " law and morals," as he tells 
 as, and there must have been countless cases of casuistry 
 and jurisprudence calling for decision at the mouth of 
 these men, from whom there was no appeal ; and the 
 
The Priests' own Praxis at the Altar. 361 
 
 whole, when collected, forms, we are to suppose, the legis- 
 lation on these subjects which afterwards became syste- 
 matised into codes. Moreover, there were the matters 
 relating to the right performance of priestly functions and 
 the proper observance of sacred ceremonies. Wellhausen 
 indeed says positively — although on no positive evidence — 
 that " the priests' own praxis [at the altar] never consti- 
 tuted, in pre-exilian antiquity, the contents of the Torah." ^ 
 Yet, considering the punctilious observance that must 
 have been required in such services, and the jealousy of 
 a priestly class to maintain forms in their rigour, one 
 would have expected that just in mutters of this kind the 
 Torah, whether oral or written, would be most definite. 
 Although there was no need for the priests to instruct 
 the laity in these matters, they were of such a kind as 
 would suggest the writing of them down in longer or 
 shorter collections to aid the memory of the priests them- 
 selves, to guide the partially initiated, and to secure ac- 
 curate preservation. Many of the laws of Leviticus, in 
 fact, to an ordinary reader, have the appearance of " mem- 
 oranda " which might be ready at hand for instruction 
 in such functions. The insistence on the authority of 
 law, combined with the reproof of the priesthood, can 
 thus have but one meaning — viz., that the priests were 
 in possession of an ancient authoritative norm, accord- 
 ing to which even ignorant men with technical training 
 could have no excuse for going astray. 
 
 The priests' function, indeed, was to give instruction to 
 the people, but the fact that they did so orally is no proof 
 that there was no written or objective standard by which 
 they taught. Nay, we have positive proof to the contrary. 
 Both in Haggai (ii. 11) and in Malachi (ii. 7), by whose 
 
 ^ Hist, of Israel, p. 59, note. 
 
362 Authoritative Institutions — their Bdigious Basis. 
 
 time certainly the law was codified and recognised, there 
 is mention of the oral teaching of the priests. And if 
 oral instruction was necessary at that time, though co- 
 existent with a written law, we are not bound to conclude 
 when Micah, for example, speaks of the priests of his time 
 teaching for hire (Micah iii. 11), that they drew upon a 
 tradition which was entirely in their own possession. 
 We have still Christian pastors and teachers, although 
 the Scriptures are in every one's hands, and expounders 
 of the law would be more necessary in ages when print- 
 ing was unknown and books rare. Indeed, if at a late 
 time, when the law was fully codified, there was need of 
 oral exposition, much more would oral instruction require 
 a definite basis at the earlier periods when priests and 
 people were so tempted to fall into corruption. Yet 
 during even tlie worst times the prophets have no doubt 
 of the purity and fixity of the priestly Torah. In speak- 
 ing of the instruction of the priests, they regard it as a 
 thing superior to and binding upon the class and the 
 people. " Sentences," " judgments," " statutes " could have 
 had no coherency apart from a standard. It need not of 
 course be concluded, that wherever " law " occurs there is 
 a reference to the Pentateuch as a wliole, or to any look 
 whatever in the modern sense. But the alternative is not, 
 as seems to be hastily assumed, that there was no concrete 
 law nor written code of guidance — nothing, in short, but 
 oral law, still in process of being delivered. Such a sup- 
 position is in itself hardly conceivable, considering the 
 conditions of the nation and the long period over which 
 this oral law is said to extend ; nor is it supported by an 
 unforced exegesis of the prophetic utterances. 
 
 (2.) We have next to consider the assertion that the 
 ceremonies and observances of the reli(?ion of Israel were 
 
Naturalistic Basis of Feasts. 363 
 
 not matters of divine authoritative appointment at first, 
 but were the growth of custom. 
 
 " In the early days/' says Wellhausen, " worship arose out of the 
 midst of ordinary life, and was in most intimate and manifold con- 
 nection witli it. A sacrifice was a meal— a fact showing how remote 
 was the idea of antithesis between spiritual earnestness and pecular 
 joyousness. . . . Year after year the return of vintage, corn- 
 harvest, and sheep-shearing brought together the members of the 
 liousehold to eat and to drink in the presence of Jehovah ; and 
 besides these, there were less regularly recurring events which were 
 celebrated in one circle after another. . . . The occasion arising out 
 of daily life is thus inseparable from the holy action, and is what 
 gives it meaning and character ; an end corresponding to the situa- 
 tion always underlies it." ^ 
 
 And this is the case even in regard to the more distinc- 
 tively national feasts : — 
 
 " It cannot be doubted, generally speaking and on the whole, that 
 not only in the Jehovistic but also in the Deuteronomic legislation ^ 
 the festivals rest upon agriculture, the basis at once of life and of 
 religion. The soil, the fruitful soil, is the object of religion ; it 
 takes the place alike of heaven and of hell. Jehovah gives the land 
 and its produce. He receives the best of what it yields as an ex- 
 pression of thankfulness, the tithes in recognition of his seignorial 
 right. The relation between Himself and His people first arose from 
 His having given them the land in fee ; it continues to be main- 
 tained, inasmuch as good weather and fertility come from Him." ^ 
 
 So that the great feasts, which were the prominent fea- 
 tures of the worship, are ultimately traceable to the 
 Canaanites, just like Nabiism, which was a chief char- 
 acteristic of the religion. For — 
 
 "Agriculture was learned by the Hebrews from the Canaanites, 
 in whose land they settled, and in commingling with whom they, 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 76. 
 
 2 These two stages of legislation, as will appear in the sequel, are placed 
 by the critical school, the former in the earlier writing period, and the 
 latter about 621 B.C. 
 
 3 Hist, of Israel, p. 91 f. 
 
364 Authoritative Institutions — their lieligious Basis. 
 
 during the period of the Judges, made the transition to a sedentary- 
 life. Before the metamorphosis of shepherds into peasants was 
 effected, they could not possibly have had feasts which related to 
 tigriculture. It would have been strange if they had not taken 
 them also over from the Canaanites, The latter owed the land and 
 its fruits to Baal, and for this they paid him the due tribute ; the 
 Israelites stood in the same relation to Jehovah. Materially and in 
 itself the act was neither heathenish nor Israelite ; its character 
 either way was determined by its destination. There was therefore 
 nothing against a transference of the feasts from Baal to Jehovah ; 
 on the contrary, the transference was a profession of faith that the 
 land and its produce, and thus all that lay at the foundations of the 
 national existence, were due not to the heathen deity, but to the 
 God of Israel." i 
 
 The transition from this simpler and more naturalistic 
 phase of worship to distinctively religions and non-secular 
 observance took place, according to the theory, in con- 
 nection with and in consequence of the movement for 
 centralisation of worship, that culminated in the introduc- 
 tion of the Deuteronomic Code and the reform in the time 
 of Josiah. The view is, that up to that time the worship 
 at the Bamoth or high places up and down the land ^ was 
 the regular and normal thing, and that the reform of 
 Josiah abolished these local sanctuaries, and concentrated 
 the worship at the one sanctuary at Jerusalem, thus sever- 
 ing the connection between the old joyous religious wor- 
 ship and the daily life (p. 77). "Deuteronomy indeed 
 does not contemplate such a result," and, as we have al- 
 ready seen, the assertion is that still in the Deuteronomic 
 legislation the festivals rest upon agriculture. The transi- 
 tion was only fully effected in the Priestly Code (which 
 dates at the earliest from the time of Ezra). 
 
 " Human life has its root in local environment, and so also had 
 the ancient cultus ; in being transplanted from its natural soil 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 93 f. ^ g^e before, chap. viii. p. 199 ff. 
 
Severance of Worship from Daily Life. 365 
 
 it was deprived of its natural nourishment. A separation between 
 it and the daily life was inevitable, and Deuteronomy itself paved 
 the way for this result by permitting profane slaughtering. A man 
 lived in Hebron, but sacrificed in Jerusalem ; life and worship fell 
 apart. The consequences which lie dormant in the Deuteronomic 
 law are fully developed in the Priestly Code" (ibid., p. 77). 
 
 And then as to the distinctively historical references 
 which the feasts eventually attained, Wellhausen says : — 
 
 " It is in Deuteronomy that one detects the first very perceptible 
 traces of a historical dress being given to the religion and the wor- 
 ship, but this process is still confined within modest limits. The 
 historical event to which recurrence is always made is the bringing 
 up of Israel out of Egypt, and this is significant in so far as the 
 bringing up out of Egypt coincides with the leading into Canaan, 
 that is, with the giving of the land, so that the historical motive 
 again resolves itself into the natural. In this way it can be said 
 til at not merely the Easter festival but all festivals are dependent 
 upon the introduction of Israel into Canaan, and this is what we 
 actually find very clearly in the prayer (Deut. xxvi.) with which at 
 the Feast of Tabernacles the share of the festal gifts falling to the 
 priest is offered to the Deity" (ibid., p. 92). 
 
 It is, how^ever, as has been said, in the Priestly Code 
 that the development is fully carried out, and 
 
 "the feasts entirely lose their peculiar characteristics, the occa- 
 sions by which they are inspired and distinguished : by the mon- 
 otonous sameness of the unvarying burnt- off'ering and sin-offering 
 of the community as a whole, they are all put on the same even 
 level, deprived of their natural spontaneity, and degraded into mere 
 * exercises of religion.' Only some very slight traces continue to 
 bear witness to, we might rather say to betray, what was the 
 point from which the development started — namely, the rites of 
 the barley-sheaf, the loaves of bread, and the booths (Levit. xxiii.) 
 But these are mere rites, petrified remains of the old custom" (ibid., 
 p. 100). 
 
 There is a certain coherence and roundness about this 
 theory that make it very specious ; but unfortunately it 
 
366 Authoritative Institutions — their Eeligious Basis. 
 
 is supported by little positive proof, and it fails, besides, 
 to give an adequate account of well-established facts. 
 
 (a) In the first place, no one can object to the state- 
 ment that "religious worship was a natural thing in 
 Hebrew antiquity ; it was the blossom of life, the heights 
 and depths of which it was its business to transfigure 
 and glorify" (p. 77). But just because it was so, we 
 should have expected the worship to pass beyond the 
 ordinary level of the soil to those " heights and depths " 
 which had been reached in connection with the early 
 national history. It is simply inconceivable that a 
 people who were ever erecting pillars and offering sacri- 
 fices to commemorate deliverances or celebrate victories, 
 who associated ever so many places with events in their 
 religious history, and who had, from the time of Moses, 
 passed through an unparalleled experience, should still, 
 in the time of Hosea or later, have practised merely a 
 worship whose sole motives were "threshing-floor and 
 wine-press, corn and wine," and "vociferous joy, merry 
 snoutings its expression " (p. 98). By the time of Hosea, 
 Israel had lived through a very considerable part of its 
 national and political existence, and by the days of Josiah 
 that life had wellnigh run its course. Yet Wellhausen 
 would have us believe that, even as late as the time of 
 Josiah, the first perceptible trace is visible of a historical 
 reference in the worship, and that, in the time of Hosea, 
 
 "the blessing of the land is the end of religion, and that quite 
 generally — alike of the false heathenish and of the true Israeli tish. 
 It has for its basis no historical acts of salvation, but nature simply, 
 which, however, is regarded only as God's domain and as man's field 
 of labour, and is in no manner deified. The land is Jehovah's 
 house,^ wherein He lodges, and entertains the nation ; in the land 
 
 ^ Hosea viii 1, ix. 15. 
 
The Land JehovaNs House. 367 
 
 and through the land it is that Israel first becomes the people of 
 Jehovah. ... In accordance with this, worship consists simply of 
 the thanksgiving due for the gifts of the soil, the vassalage payable 
 to the superior who has given the land and its fruits " (p. 97). 
 
 In opposition to this low and narrow view of the con- 
 ceptions of that time, we can point to the fact before con- 
 sidered,^ that Hosea dates the intimate union between 
 Jahaveh and His people from the exodus and the desert 
 life, before the land had become " Jehovah's house." In 
 the very passages which Wellhausen here cites, a distinc- 
 tion is drawn between the Baalim (unlawful lovers) and 
 Jahaveh (the rightful husband), as if to prove that it was 
 not "through the land that Israel first became the people of 
 Jehovah." No doubt an agricultural people, if they would 
 offer anything to their God, must offer what they had, — 
 the fruits of the land ; but does a Christian who gives his 
 money for missions, let us say, recognise no blessing that 
 God has bestowed upon him but silver and gold ? No 
 doubt Hosea and all the prophets, early and late, connect 
 the fertility of the land and material prosperity with the 
 blessing of Jahaveh and the fidelity of His people, as 
 many people still do.^ But the thing to be noted is 
 that Hosea, appealing to the consciousness of the men 
 of his time, reminds them of God's doings for them 
 
 ^ See chap. v. p. 110. 
 
 2 Wellhausen's own opinion is frankly stated in another place. In speak- 
 ing of Samuel's words, " God forbid tliat I should cease to pray for you and 
 teach you the good way" (1 Sam. xii. 23), he makes the comment: "They 
 do not need to trouble themselves about means for warding off the attacks 
 of their enemies ; if they fast and pray, and give up their sins, Jehovah 
 hurls back the foe with His thunder and lightning, and so long as they 
 are pious He will not allow their land to be invaded. All the expenses are 
 then naturally superfluous by which a people usually safeguards its own 
 existence. That this view is unhistorical is self-evident. . . . It is the 
 offspring of exilic or post-exilic Judaism." — Hist, of Israel, p. 255. 
 
368 Authoritative Institutions — their lleligious Basis. 
 
 as a people in the early days. His very reproof, in the 
 connection appealed to, is one against unfaithfulness to 
 Him who had betrothed Israel to Himself before they 
 came into Canaan ; and " I refuse to believe " (to adopt 
 one of Wellhausen's modes of reasoning^) that a pro- 
 phet with views so advanced as Hosea saw no more 
 in worship than an acknowledgment of vassalage, pay- 
 able to the superior of the land, whoever he might 
 be. Yet not only in the days of Hosea, but two cen- 
 turies later, Wellhausen would have us believe that 
 Israel was in this condition, for "it is in Deuteronomy 
 that one detects the first very perceptible traces^ of 
 a historical dress being given to the religion and the 
 worship." That it is, however, " confined within modest 
 limits," he tries to prove from the prayer or hymn which 
 was uttered at the presentation of fruits. He quotes the 
 prayer at length, but if it has any meaning at all, every 
 clause of it contradicts the conclusion built upon it : — 
 
 " A wandering Aramsean was my father ; and he went down to 
 Egypt, and sojourned there a few men strong, and became there a 
 nation, great, mighty, and populous. And the Egyptians evil en- 
 treated them, and oppressed them, and laid upon them hard 
 bondage. Then called we upon Jehovah, the God of our fathers, 
 and He heard our voice, and looked on our affliction, and our 
 labour, and our oppression. And Jehovah brought us forth out of 
 Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with 
 great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders ; and brought us 
 unto this 'place, and gave us this land, a land where milk and honey 
 flow. And now, behold, I have brought the best of the fruits of the land 
 which Thou, Lord, hast given me " (Deut. xxvi.) 
 
 Wellhausen emphasises the words put in italics, and 
 concludes triumphantly (p. 92), "Observe here how the 
 
 ^ Hist, of Israel, p. 51. 
 
 2 Compare Kuenen's account of "nascent monotheism" at the same 
 period. See above, chap. xii. p. 320. 
 
The basket of Fruiis. ^%^' 369 
 
 act of salvation whereby Israel was founded issues in the 
 gift of a fruitful land." We all knew that, as we also 
 knew that the only gift which Israel could offer in return 
 was the produce of the land. But what of all the other 
 blessings, of a national and religious hind, which are 
 heaped up, clause by clause, as if the suppliant would stir 
 up his soul, and all that was within him, to forget not all 
 the benefits bestowed upon the nation ? "Re went down. 
 . . . The Egyptians evil entreated them. ... He heard 
 our voice and brought us forth." If the author of this 
 prayer had not a clear recognition of the unity of the 
 nation from the time of the patriarchs, and of the national 
 blessings from first to last which they had received, then 
 language has no meaning. It seems to me that this 
 little basket of fruit, like Gideon's cake of barley-bread, 
 upsets the whole array of Wellhausen's well-marshalled 
 argument of feasts taken over from the Canaanites, and 
 tribute offered indifferently to Baal or Jahaveh, as lord 
 paramount of the land, not to speak of "the soil, the 
 fruitful soil, taking the place alike of heaven and hell." 
 As to the references to agricultural matters in even the 
 earliest code, the book of the Covenant, which are made 
 so much of to prove that this legislation could have had 
 no existence till Israel came into Palestine, it is enough 
 to say that it is taken for granted that Moses had no 
 knowledge of agricultural situations, and that he had 
 no idea he was leading his people into a country like 
 Palestine, or no forethought to give them guidance for 
 their ordinary life in it ; for none of which have critical 
 writers any authority.^ 
 
 (b) Again, an influence altogether exaggerated is 
 ascribed to the centralisation of worship. This, indeed, 
 
 • ^ See Note XXIV. 
 2 A 
 
370 Authoritative Institutions — their Religious Basis. 
 
 is Wellhausen's strong point, on which he rests his 
 whole theory. " My whole position/' he says, " is 
 contained in my first chapter [entitled, The Place of 
 Worship] ; there I have placed in a clear light that 
 which is of such importance for Israelite history — 
 namely, the part taken by the prophetical party in the 
 great metamorphosis of the worship, which by no means 
 came about of itself."^ Speaking of Hosea and Amos, 
 he says: — 
 
 " The language held by these men was one hitherto unheard of, 
 when they declared that Gilgal, and Bethel, and Beersheba, Jeho- 
 vah's favourite seats, were an abomination to Him ; that the gifts 
 and offerings with which He was honoured there kindled His 
 wrath instead of appeasing it ; that Israel was destined to be 
 buried under the ruins of His temples, where protection and 
 refuge were sought (Amos ix.) . . . That the holy places should 
 be abolished, but the cultus itself remain as before the main con- 
 cern of religion, only limited to a single locality, was by no means 
 their wish. But at the same time, in point of fact, it came about 
 as an incidental result of their teaching that the high place of 
 Jerusalem ultimately abolished all the other Bamoth. External 
 circumstances, it must be added, contributed most essentially 
 towards the result" (p. 23 f.) 
 
 He then goes on to explain (p. 24) how the downfall of 
 the kingdom of Samaria left the way clear for the sanc- 
 tuary at Jerusalem to assume importance. Still, although 
 Hezekiah is said to have even in his time made an at- 
 tempt to abolish the Bamoth (p. 25),^ it was not till about 
 a century after the destruction of Samaria that men ven- 
 tured " to draw the practical conclusion from the belief 
 in the unique character of the temple at Jerusalem" 
 (p. 26). This was done, not " from a mere desire to 
 be logical, but with a view to further reforms ; " and so 
 prophets and priests combined to prepare the Code of 
 
 ^ Hist, of Israel, p. 368, - See below, p, 450. 
 
Centralisation of Worship. 371 
 
 Deuteronomy, which was officially and for the first 
 time to authorise the Jerusalem Temple as the place of 
 worship. 
 
 "The turning-point in the history of the sacrificial system was 
 the reformation of Josiah ; what we find in the Priestly Code is the 
 matured result of that event " (p. 76). 
 
 " The spiritualisation of the worship is seen in the Priestly Code 
 as advancing 'pari passu with its centralisation. It receives, so to 
 speak, an abstract religious character ; it separates itself, in the 
 first instance, from daily life, and then absorbs the latter by be- 
 coming, strictly speaking, its proper business" (p. 81). 
 
 Of the alleged influence of the prophets in bringing 
 about centralisation of worship and codification of the 
 law, and also of the alleged discrepancy of the three 
 Codes, we shall have to speak at length in the sequel. In 
 the meantime, attention must be drawn to this effect of 
 centralisation on the spirit and heg.rtiness of the worship. 
 Wellhausen's idea is, that " to celebrate the vintage fes- 
 tival among one's native hills, and to celebrate it at 
 Jerusalem, were two very different things ; " that " it was 
 not the same thing to appear by one's self at home before 
 Jehovah, and to lose one's self in a large congregation at 
 the common seat of worship " (p. 77) ; and hence that the 
 old joyousness of the feasts was destroyed by the cele- 
 bration at the Temple at Jerusalem. Now, admitting for 
 a moment that this centralisation took place in the way 
 he explains, it simply is not the fact that the joyous 
 feature disappeared. Delitzsch has shown ^ that in the 
 period of the second Temple, when the Priestly Code 
 received paramount attention, and when the national 
 
 1 " Dancing and the Criticism of the Pentateuch in relation to one 
 another," now published along with other i>aper8 in * Iris, Studies in Colour 
 and Talks about Flowers,' 1869. 
 
372 Authoritative Institutions — their Religious Basis. 
 
 life was none of the happiest, even the most solemn 
 feasts of Israel were occasions of joyful merrymaking, 
 and some of them remarkably so. It is shallow and 
 unnatural to speak, in this connection, of " the antithesis 
 between spiritual earnestness and secular joyousness" 
 (p. 76). For a people, as Delitzsch says, " is and remains a 
 natural, not a spiritual quantity, and therefore celebrates 
 even religious festivals with a natural outburst of feeling, 
 simple mirth, jubilant exultation. It lies in the nature 
 of a people as such."^ We have only to think of the 
 infectious influence of a great throng at any public cele- 
 bration, of the thorough and hearty manner in which all 
 Orientals enter into any occasion of public rejoicing, and 
 finally, of the aid to enjoyment furnished by the kindly 
 climate, to see that Wellhausen's position is altogether 
 opposed to human experience. And over against this 
 sapient talk of the individual losing himself in the great 
 crowd, and the depressing influence of " exercises of re- 
 ligion," I would simply set those psalms that speak of 
 the festive throng, and express the psalmist's delight in 
 the public celebrations of religion. If these psalms be 
 early, or if they be late, they tell equally against the 
 theory ; for they exhibit a delight not only in nature, but 
 in the God of nature, and above all, in the service of a 
 God who had, in the nation's history, done great things 
 for them, whereof they were glad. 
 
 (c) Once more, Wellhausen fails to prove that mere 
 nature feasts passed over in the time he mentions into the 
 religious festivals of the Deuteronomic or Priestly Codes. 
 That the three great cycle feasts, Passover, Pentecost, and 
 Succoth, fell at or were fixed at turning-points in the 
 natural year, and that the celebration of them had pointed 
 
 1 Iris, p. 196. 
 
Agricultural Basis of Great Feasts. 373 
 
 reference to the agricultural seasons, is very far from 
 being the same as to say that they grew out of and for 
 centuries remained merely agricultural festivals. One 
 might as well argue that all the festivals of the " Christian 
 year" have their sole reference to the natural seasons. 
 What Wellhausen says of the soil being the basis of 
 religion, has this much of truth in it, that the teachers of 
 religion always, and rightly, sought to impress upon the 
 people the material blessings which God bestowed. The 
 task, however, before him is to explain how the historical 
 references in these feasts came in, as they did come in 
 somehow, sooner or later. Having described, as an instance 
 of what he is pleased to call " the manner of the older 
 worship as we are made acquainted with it in Hos. ii., ix., 
 and elsewhere," ^ the celebration of the vintage festival 
 by the Canaanite population of Shechem (not very high 
 authorities on such matters, we should say) ; and having 
 referred to the yearly festival in the vineyards at Shiloh, 
 as mentioned in the book of Judges,^ — he looks about for 
 proof that these or suchlike are the three cycle feasts 
 prescribed in the book of the Covenant or Jehovistic leg- 
 islation. And what does he find? "Amos and Hosea, 
 presupposing as they do a splendid cultus and great 
 sanctuaries, doubtless also knew of a variety of festivals, 
 but they have no occasion to mention any one by name " 
 (p. 95). This is extraordinary meekness in one who is 
 in the constant habit of declaring, when a prophet does 
 not mention a thing, that he knew nothing at all about 
 it because it had no existence. But stay ! " More definite 
 notices occur in Isaiah. The threatening that within a 
 year's time the Assyrians will be in the land is thus 
 (xxix. 1) given : ' Add ye year to year, let the feasts 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 107. ^ ibjjj^ ^ 94 . Judges ix. 27, xxi. 19 f. 
 
374 Authoritative Institutions — their Religious Basis. 
 
 come round; yet I will distress Jerusalem/ and at the 
 close of the same discourse the prophet expresses himself 
 as follows (xxxii. 9 seq.) : ' Eise up, ye women that are at 
 ease ; hear my voice, ye careless daughters ; give ear unto 
 my speech. Days upon a year shall ye be troubled, ye 
 careless women ; for the vintage shall fail, the ingather- 
 ing shall not come. Ye shall smite upon the breasts, for 
 the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine.* " Putting these 
 two passages together, he pictures Isaiah, after the uni- 
 versal custom of the prophets, coming forward at a great 
 popular autumn festival, in wliich the women also took 
 an active part. But this aulAimn festival, he argues, 
 takes place at the change of the year, as may be inferred 
 from the phrase " let the feasts come round," and " closes 
 a cycle of festivals here for the first time indicated " (p. 
 96). It gives me pleasure to say that I quite agree with 
 the sentence that follows : " The preceding survey, it 
 must be admitted, scarcely seems fully to establish the 
 alleged agreement between the Jehovistic law and the 
 older praxis." " Names," he goes on to remark, '*' are 
 nowhere to be found, and in point of fact it is only the 
 autumn festival that is well attested, and this, it would 
 appear, as the only festival, as the feast. And doubtless 
 it was also the oldest and most important of the harvest 
 festivals, as it never ceased to be the concluding solem- 
 nity of the year." All thafc needs to be said on this part 
 of the argument is this : Isaiah's reference to feasts " com- 
 ing round " may quite as suitably apply to feasts which 
 have a religious and historical meaning as to purely agri- 
 cultural celebrations, and his references in the close of 
 his address, if they are not indeed quite general, may 
 equally apply to the feasts as they are prescribed in 
 the law. If on these slight notices the modern 
 
Introduction of Historical Reference. 375 
 
 critics are satisfied to base the proof of a set cycle of 
 agricultural feasts, we ought to hear less of the argument 
 from silence as conclusive of the non-existence of the 
 Mosaic feasts: but of this again.^ Attention should be 
 given to the difficulty experienced by Wellhausen in 
 accounting for the historical reference which undoubtedly 
 is attached to the feasts in the Codes, even in the earliest.^ 
 
 " According as stress is laid upon the common character of the 
 festival and uniformity in its observance, in precisely the same de- 
 gree does it become separated from the roots from which it sprang, 
 and grow more and more abstract. That it is then very ready to 
 assume a historical meaning may partly also be attributed to the 
 circumstance that history is not, like harvest, a personal experience 
 of individual households, but rather an experience of the nation as 
 a whole. One does not fail to observe, of course, that the festivals 
 — which always to a certain degree have a centralising tendency — 
 have in themselves a disposition to become removed from the particu- 
 lar motives of their institution, but in no part of the legislation has 
 this gone so far as in the Priestly Code " (p. 103). 
 
 " For after they have lost their original contents and degenerated 
 into mere prescribed religious forms, there is nothing to prevent the 
 refilling of the empty bottles in any way accordant with the tastes 
 of the period" (p. 102). 
 
 And so, in a word — 
 
 " One can characterise the entire Priestly Code as the wilderness 
 legislation, inasmuch as it abstracts from the natural conditions and 
 motives of the actual life of the people in the land of Canaan, and 
 rears the hierocracy on the tabula rasa of the wilderne'ss, the nega- 
 tion of nature, by means of the bald statutes of arbitrary absolutism " 
 (p. 104). 
 
 A great deal of this mode of representing the Priestly 
 Code arises from ignoring or misstating the character of 
 that Code, which is brief, terse, technical, a manual for 
 ceremonial to the priests, rather than a book of exhorta- 
 
 ' 3ee below, p. 401. 2 g^e Exod. xxiii. 15, 
 
376 Authoritative Institutions— their Beligious Basis. 
 
 tion and guidance to the people like Deuteronomy. For 
 the rest, Wellhausen fails entirely to show any occasion 
 for this late turning of the reference from agriculture to 
 national history. These ceremonies, we are to suppose, 
 went on from year to year with their accompaniments of 
 presentation of fruits and so forth. That is to say, they 
 were never " separated from the roots from which they 
 sprang." The mere fact of centralisation might add to 
 the richness of the ceremonies, as is always the case ; but 
 this, one would suppose, would prevent them from becom- 
 ing " more and more abstract." The people were as much 
 an agricultural people after Josiah's time as before ; prob- 
 ably they were much less of a mercantile people than they 
 had been at an earlier period of the monarchy. If the 
 great events of the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and 
 in general the experiences which had made them a nation, 
 did not impress the national consciousness when it was 
 plastic and fresh, are we to suppose that, for the first time 
 when foreign nations were about to sweep them away, 
 they began to read into their worship and ceremonial a 
 meaning which had not occurred to them for centuries ? 
 If at a time when Hosea and Amos were reminding them 
 of the days of the youth of the nation, and thus appealing 
 to the strongest motives that could influence them — if at 
 such a time there were many feasts and imposing rituals, 
 are we to suppose that not once in all these was there a 
 commemoration of the founding of the nation, and of the 
 achievement of the nation's success ? No doubt the feasts, 
 at such times as those of Hosea and Amos, would be over- 
 laid with superstitious observances. But that is not the 
 point. Because the modern Greeks at Jerusalem make 
 Easter a time of riot, are we to conclude that Easter does 
 not commemorate the resurrection ? What country has not, 
 
The Tabula Easa of the Desert. 377 
 
 at one time or another, thus buried its holiest associations 
 under carnal and sensuous forms ? All this does not suf- 
 fice to show that the better meaning does not underlie the 
 institution ; much less that a better meaning is merely an 
 afterthought, read into an empty form, just because it is 
 empty. Forms are never empty in the strict sense. They 
 are full of something. The corrupt must be purged oui 
 before the clean can be poured in; and we can find no 
 time in Israel's history at which a tabula rasa was formed, 
 and history made out of nothing. Even the critical school 
 has to admit, as we shall see, that the Priestly Code was a 
 gathering up of the practice which had prevailed before 
 the exile ; and without coming so far down, we see enough 
 already in the Deuteronomic Code to convince us that the 
 historical reference was full and clear when that Code was 
 drawn up. Nay, even in the Jehovistic book of the 
 Covenant, the Passover is made distinctly to refer to the 
 coming out of Egypt. 
 
 Wellhausen's difficulties over the Passover may indeed 
 be pointed to as evidence of the weakness of his theory at 
 its foundation. The following is his account of the matter : 
 As the Israelites were a pastoral people before they be- 
 came agriculturists, their oldest feasts must have had a 
 pastoral basis (p. 92 f.) The Passover is a remnant of 
 these, and is, from the nature of the case, the oldest of 
 all the feasts, its primary form being the offering of the 
 firstlings ; and so, with perfect accuracy, it is postulated as 
 the occasion of the exodus (p. 87). The exodus was not 
 the occasion of the festival, but the festival the occa- 
 sion, if only a pretended one, of the exodus (p. 88). " Let 
 my people go, that they may keep a feast unto me in the 
 wilderness, with sacrifices and cattle and sheep ; " — this 
 from the first is the deniand made upon Pharaoh. And 
 
378 Autlioritative Institntions — their Religious Basis. 
 
 because Pharaoh refuses to allow the Hebrews to offer to 
 their God the firstlings of cattle that are His due, Jehovah 
 seizes from him the first-born of men. " But it is curious," 
 says Wellhausen (p. 93), " to notice how little prominence 
 is afterwards given to this festival, which, from the nature 
 of the case, is the oldest of all. It cannot have been 
 known at all to the book of the Covenant, for there 
 (Exod. xxii. 29, 30) the command is to leave the firstling 
 seven days with its dam, and on the eighth day to give it 
 to Jehovah." There are, however, two names given to this 
 feast, Mazzoth (or unleavened bread), and Pesach (passover). 
 The latter indicates the original character of the feast, as 
 a sacrifice of the first-born; but the other name throws 
 light upon the manner in which this came into the cycle 
 of the agricultural feasts. Mazzoth, or unleavened bread, 
 denotes the hastily made cake of the first corn, which was 
 eaten at the time the sickle was first put in to commence 
 the harvest, when a sheaf was presented to the Lord. 
 This happened at the season of the year when tradition 
 fixed the exodus, the spring; and in the account of the 
 exodus it is mentioned (Exod. xii. 34) that in their haste 
 to leave Egypt the Israelites " took their dough before it 
 was leavened ; " and these two circumstances assisted in 
 the transition of the conception to a commemorative feast. 
 '•' Probably," says Wellhausen, " through the predominance 
 gained by agriculture, and the feasts founded on it, the 
 Passover [in its original sense] fell into disuse in many 
 parts of Israel, and kept its ground only in districts where 
 the pastoral and wilderness life still retained its import- 
 ance " (p. 93). " The elaboration of the historical motive of 
 the Passover," however, we are told, " is not earlier than 
 Deuteronomy, although perhaps a certain inclination to 
 that way of explaining it appears before then, just as in 
 
The Passover. 379 
 
 the case of the Mazzoth (Exod. xii. 34). What has led to 
 it is evidently the coincidence of the spring festival with 
 the exodus, already accepted by the older tradition, the 
 relation of cause and effect having become inverted in 
 course of time" (p. 88). 
 
 A very ingenious piece of patch- work ! But the facts 
 are these : The book of the Covenant (Exod. xxiii. 15, 16), 
 and the related Law of the Two Tables (Exod. xxxiv. 18 f.), 
 which are said by critics to be older by at least two cen- 
 turies than the Code of Deuteronomy, call the feast Maz- 
 zoth or unleavened bread, and in both cases give the 
 reason for keeping the feast that in the month Abib the 
 people came out of Egypt. The Code of Deuteronomy, 
 according to Wellhausen's own authority (p. 87), is the 
 first that mentions Pesach, but it has the name Mazzoth 
 as well ; and the elaboration of the historical motive, he 
 has just told us, is not earlier than Deuteronomy. " The 
 only view," he says, " sanctioned by the nature of the case 
 is, that the Israelite custom of offering the firstlings gave 
 rise to the narrative of the slaying of the first-born of 
 Egypt: unless the custom be presupposed, the story is 
 inexplicable, and the peculiar selection of its victims by 
 the plague is left without a motive " (p. 88). As to this 
 conclusion, if critics are to determine historical questions 
 by the nature of the case as they judge it, and to assume 
 a liberty of putting effects for causes when it suits them, 
 we may get startling " scientific results," but we make no 
 solid progress. What requires explanation is the fact 
 that Mazzoth is mentioned as a feast commemorative of 
 the exodus, in what is pronounced the earliest legisla- 
 tion, and no reference made therein to the offering of the 
 firstlings; and that only two centuries later the name 
 which is supposed to point to the original character of 
 
380 Aidhoritative Institutions — their Religious Basis. 
 
 the feast is for the first time employed, and yet the de- 
 scription of the feast agrees (only being fuller) with the 
 older. The truth is, as any fair-minded person may see, 
 this laborious attempt to foist in the historical reference 
 at a late date breaks down just because the historical 
 reference was present from the first. The fundamental 
 fallacy of this whole argument is the assumption that " in 
 the land and through the land it is that Israel first be- 
 comes the people of Jehovah." For this assertion there is 
 not a scrap of evidence, whereas the concurrent testimony 
 of all Israelite antiquity is, that it was because He had 
 chosen this people, and after he had signalised His choice, 
 that He brought them into a goodly land. And the con- 
 clusion of the matter is, that as there was a formal system 
 of law at a much earlier time than the critical theory 
 postulates, so also there was an earlier reference in their 
 worship and ceremonial to the events in the nation's 
 religious history which marked them out as Jahaveh's 
 people. 
 
381 
 
 CHAPTEE XV. 
 
 THE THREE CODES. 
 
 The legislative dements in the Pentateuch a subject of difficulty — The tradi- 
 tional theory mahes it unnecessarily difficult, while the critical theory 
 raises greater difficulties — The three positions of the modern theory as 
 to the Codes : I. there are three Codes ; II. far apart in time ; and 
 III. inconsistent with one another — As to I. there is nothing incon- 
 sistent with Biblical theory or nature of the case in variation or pro- 
 gression of Codes — Laio is modified even after it is codified — //. But the 
 critical position is that the Codes belong to times far apart — How this 
 conclusion is reached — 2he evidence of dates is inferential — Argument 
 examined — The booh of the Covenant — No satisfactory account given of 
 introduction of this Code at the alleged time, and why codification, once 
 begun, sho%ld have stopped for two centuries — What happened in the 
 intervals of the Codes? — Wellhausen's position, legem non habentes, <fcc. 
 — The two points involved in this position : (1) argument from silence and 
 non-observance; (2) praxis and programme — ///. Alleged inconsistency 
 of the Codes, particularly as to the centralisation of worship — The argu- 
 ment examined. 
 
 The legislative parts of the books of the Pentateuch, in 
 their form and setting no less than in their contents, 
 present many difhculties. The laws are found, not col- 
 lected together and systematised, but scattered over sev- 
 eral books. Not only is there a repetition in one collec- 
 tion of what may be found in another, but the same laws 
 may be repeated with little or no alteration in the same 
 
382 The Three Codes. 
 
 collection.^ And then there are discrepancies in the regu- 
 lations found in different places on the same subject ; and 
 laws relating to subjects apparently the most diverse are 
 brought into strange juxtaposition, as also are laws bear- 
 ing upon what seem very different conditions of life and 
 states of society. We should have expected a writer, if he 
 were the author of all the legislation, to work more syste- 
 matically : whether he was early and looked forward to 
 the future, or late and looked back upon the past, we 
 should have expected a better arrangement of details, a 
 more completed whole. On what is called the traditional 
 theory, that Moses not only gave the law, but wrote sub- 
 stantially the books in which it is contained, the literary 
 difficulties are very great indeed, and the expedients that 
 have been resorted to in order to remove them are very 
 often artificial and hazardous. The modern critical theory, 
 on the other hand, starting with a good motive, gets in- 
 volved in what I consider a vicious method, and ends by 
 raising greater difficulties than those which it attempts to 
 remove. Advocates of the traditional theory burden them- 
 selves with an unnecessary difficulty by assuming that the 
 books of the Pentateuch were written by Moses ; for the 
 books do not say so of themselves, and even the older 
 Jewish tradition that Ezra " restored " the law, pointed 
 to redaction as a probable solution of many of the diffi- 
 culties. Too much praise cannot be given to those who 
 have laboured in the field of Pentateuch criticism, for 
 the minute examination they have made of details, in the 
 endeavour to sift and distinguish the sources; and as a 
 literary feat, the labour may be pronounced on the whole 
 successful, although it will hardly be asserted that the 
 
 ^ Compr.rc Xum. xv. 1-16 with Levib. i.-vii. ; Num. v. 5-10 with Levit 
 V. 5 flf., vi. 5 if.; Num. xv. 22-28 with Levit. iv. 13 fF. 
 
The Codes distinguished. 383 
 
 last word on the subject has yet been spoken.i At the 
 same time, it seems to me that the difficulties of the 
 critical theory increase at every step when the attempt 
 is made to determine the origin of the Codes^ and their 
 relation to one another and to the history. The three 
 leading positions of the modern critical theory are : 
 I. That there are three distinct Codes of Law. II. That 
 these belong to three different periods far separate. III. 
 That on essential points the Codes differ. How these 
 positions are established, and what consequences are 
 drawn from them, will be seen as we proceed. 
 
 I. By a process of critical analysis, into which we do 
 not here enter at length, the legislation contained in the 
 Pentateuch is divided into various Codes, distinguished 
 by certain literary and material characteristics. (1.) The 
 Code contained in Deuteronomy stands by itself, marked 
 by a certain hortatory tone, and by the absence of the 
 minute ritual prescriptions and distinctions found par- 
 ticularly in the book of Leviticus. (2.) There is also dis- 
 tinguished a book of the Covenant attached to the 
 Jehovistic historical portion of the Pentateuch, and em- 
 braced in Exod. xx.-xxiii. ; closely related to which, and 
 usually classed along with it, is chap, xxxiv. of the same 
 book, sometimes called the Law of the Two Tables. 
 (3.) Then, in the remaining parts of Exodus, in the whole 
 of Leviticus, and in some chapters of Numbers, are found 
 a number of laws, moral, civil, and ceremonial, which are 
 all classed together as the Levitical Code or Priestly Code, 
 so named from the prevalence of the ritual element in its 
 contents. A portion of this Code, contained in Levit. xvii.- 
 xxvi., is sometimes spoken of as a code or collection by 
 itself, the "law of holiness," and supposed to have a 
 
 1 See Note XXVI. 
 
384 The Three Codes. 
 
 special history of its own. Moreover, there is a collection 
 of regulations, mostly ritual, found in Ezekiel (from chap, 
 xl. onwards) which it is customary to take into account in 
 the critical history of the Codes. So far as the legislation 
 of the Pentateuch, however, is concerned, we have to deal 
 with the three collections — the Jehovistic book of the 
 Covenant (with related chapter), the ]3euteronomic Code, 
 and the Priestly Code ; and it is maintained that they are 
 to be historically arranged in the order in which they have 
 just been mentioned. 
 
 So far there is nothing in the modern theory essen- 
 tially incompatible with the Biblical account of the 
 matter, except the order of the Codes. The Biblical order 
 is : Book of the Covenant, Levitical Code, Deuteronomic 
 Code ; but they are ascribed to different times, although 
 these periods all fall within the lifetime of Moses. There 
 is nothing unreasonable in itself in the supposition that 
 laws or codes of laws were promulgated at different times ; 
 and different sets of laws, so given, for special purposes 
 or on special occasions, might run severally their respec- 
 tive literary courses. Nor is it difficult to conceive how 
 such several collections might overlap one another, and 
 after a time have certain features of inconsistency. The 
 law-books themselves give us to understand that, as the 
 situation of the people changed, the law had a varying 
 reference, and even that a law on a certain subject might 
 be abrogated or modified to suit altered circumstances. 
 So that, even in the Biblical theory, not to speak of what 
 is known of the course of law generally, it is possible for 
 law to undergo modification even after ib is codified. We 
 find, for example, within the compass of one book, a modi- 
 fication in the age at which the Levites were to serve at 
 
Ancient Institutions modified. 385 
 
 the sanctuary.^ Music of an elaborate kind, we know, 
 was introduced into the Temple service, though it is not 
 prescribed, as we should expect to find it, in the Levitical 
 Code. Again, the law of inheritance, contained in Num. 
 xxvii., is modified within the Levitical Code itself by 
 Num. xxxvi. ; and it is notorious that by New Testament 
 times and in modern Jewish usage there are modifications 
 in the manner of celebrating the Passover, particularly 
 in the use of wine and certain hymns, that constitute very 
 considerable variations from the ceremonial prescribed in 
 the law. Nay, Ezra, to whom, on the modern theory, the 
 introduction of the Priestly Code is ascribed, makes a 
 modification on the amount of the tax payable for the 
 expenses of the Temple,^ fixing it at a third of a shekel, 
 whereas the code which he is said to have drawn up 
 fixes it at half a shekel.^ 
 
 It seems, therefore, reasonable to suppose that, just as 
 the Passover is an institution of ancient Israel, although 
 it has gathered about it usages of a comparatively recent 
 time, so many of the laws contained in the Pentateuch 
 may, before reaching the form in which they now stand, 
 have been modified, tlirough changing circumstances in 
 the national life, and yet be in their origin and character 
 Mosaic. Even if we supposed that all the laws of the Peuf 
 tateuch were originally written down by Moses — though 
 the Biblical writers never say that they were — there 
 is the probability — nay, the certainty — that these were 
 copied from time to time in whole or in portions. And 
 seeing that practice, in regard to some things at least, 
 varied, and there was no hesitation about introducing 
 
 * Num. iv. 3, viii. 24 ; comp. also 1 Chron. xxiii. 3, 27 ; 2 Chron. xxxi. 17. 
 2 Neh. X. 32 ff. 2 Exod. xxx. 13. 
 
 2 B 
 
38S Tlie Three Codes. 
 
 certain alterations in the observances, the transcriber in 
 a later age, in writing out a code for practical use, might, 
 so to speak, translate the details of prevailing ordinances 
 into the language of his own time, and describe the thing 
 in the form in which he knew it. If such a double pro- 
 cess went on, it would go far to account for the strange 
 mixture of new and old that we find in these laws, some 
 relating to and only practicable in the desert life or a 
 more primitive state of society, and others denoting a time 
 when the national life was in a more consolidated position. 
 In short, we should have before us a kind of history of the 
 observances, on the understanding, however, that the rites 
 had been observed. The aspect of the Levitical Code, in 
 particular, is hardly intelligible on any other supposition. 
 To say that it was all drawn up at one time by persons set- 
 ting themselves to the systematic work of framing a code 
 without written materials before them, is to ascribe to 
 the writers either great want of skill on tlie one theory, 
 or a design to deceive on the other. In view of the only 
 statements which the Biblical writers themselves make on 
 the subject, there is nothing to preclude the supposition 
 of various editinc^s of the laws at different times, while 
 yet the system as a whole, and even the three separate 
 Codes, had a positive basis in Mosaic legislation. 
 
 II. This, however, does not satisfy the modern critical 
 writers. They think they can prove, by a comparison of 
 the Codes, and by references to history, that the Codes 
 belong to periods very far apart. This, in fact, has been 
 a great part of the laborious task of Pentateuch criticism ; 
 and while, on the one hand, it has been claimed that by 
 pure literary criticism the three Codes have been dis- 
 tinguished from one another, it has been finally con- 
 fessed, on the other hand, that the order of the Codes 
 
Ilistoriccd Argument. 387 
 
 and tlieir respective dates cannot be determined solely 
 from the Codes themselves, but must be ascertained 
 from an examination of the historical and prophetical 
 books which follow them in the Canon. The line of 
 ariiument has been as follows : If from a consideration 
 of the books relating to a time subsequent to Moses, 
 we find a state of matters corresponding with the re- 
 quirements of one of these Codes, it is concluded that 
 the Code in question was known and recognised and in 
 operation ; if, on the contrary, the state of matters shows 
 that what were the requirements of any one Code were 
 not put in force, and were ignored not only by the people, 
 but by the religious leaders and guides of the people, we 
 conclude that such a Code, not receiving official recogni- 
 tion, was in fact non-existent. According to this prin- 
 ciple, then, it is argued that the Deuteronomic Code was 
 not known, and therefore was not existent till the time of 
 Josiali; because up to that time not only the nation at 
 large, but even the religious teachers of the nation, openly 
 and without compunction practised the worship of Jahaveli 
 at the high places, in direct contradiction to the command 
 reiterated in Deuteronomy, that there was to be a central 
 sanctuary, at which alone the formal rites of worship were 
 permissible. In the same way, it is argued that the dis- 
 tinction of priests and Levites so clearly marked in the 
 Levitical Code did not in fact come into existence till 
 after the Deuteronomic Code; that many of the laws 
 contained in the Levitical Code were not known, and 
 did not exist till the time of Ezra ; and therefore that 
 the Levitical Code as a whole belongs to the time of 
 Ezra, or even a subsequent date. The order of the Codes, 
 therefore, on this view, is — Book of the Covenant, Deutero- 
 nomic Code, Levitical Code, and they are separated by wide 
 
388 The Three Codes. 
 
 distances; for whereas the hook of the Covenant helongs 
 to the earliest period of written composition — the century 
 B.C. 850-750 — the next in order, the Deuteronomic, comes 
 at least two centuries later — viz., in 621 B.C.; and the 
 Levitical Code, if placed, at the earliest, in the time of 
 Ezra, falls two centuries later still — viz., ahout 444 B.C. 
 
 It does not require to be said that there is no direct 
 historical evidence of the introduction of the various Codes 
 at the dates assigned. It is by a process of inference 
 from the history, and by a comparison of the Codes, that 
 the conclusions are reached that under certain definite his- 
 torical circumstances each successive Code was introduced, 
 and that certain appreciable influences were at work to 
 bring about their acceptance. Let us therefore look a 
 little more closely at wliat the position implies, and how 
 it is related to certain admitted facts. 
 
 It is obvious that the general position here is part of the 
 whole scheme of reconstructed history, according to which 
 the law came gradually into existence and authoritative 
 recognition. In connection with this part of the argument, 
 the positions considered in the preceding chapters should 
 be borne in mind, as to the alleged hasis of the law in cus- 
 tom and in spontaneous nature feasts, because we ought 
 now to find some precise information as to the circum- 
 stances that led to the stamping of custom with authority, 
 and the transition from a mere nature reference to re- 
 ligious significance. We come, in fact, face to face with 
 the questions, when and under what circumstances the 
 respective laws became codified. 
 
 Critical writers prefer to commence their investigations 
 with Deuteronomy; we prefer, for reasons that will ap- 
 pear, to take the Codes in the alleged order of their 
 promulgation. Now it is not a little remarkable that 
 
The Book of the Covenant, 389 
 
 modern critics, while they tell us very particularly the 
 historical circumstances under which the Deuteronomic 
 and Priestly Codes were produced, can tell us very little 
 about the earliest of all the Codes, the Jehovistic. Yet 
 this is the very one which we should think must have 
 had a controlling influence on subsequent legislation and 
 codification. Wellhausen, it will be remembered,'^ in fix- 
 ing the period at which Hebrew literature first flourished, 
 makes this collection of laws contemporaneous with the 
 earliest historiography, and somewhat earlier than the 
 legends about the patriarchs and primitive times. He 
 says^ that both the Jehovistic law and the Jehovistic 
 narrative " obviously belong to the pre-prophetic period " ; 
 for it is inconceivable that the prophets Hosea or Amos, 
 or any like-minded person, could glorify (in connection 
 with the history of the patriarchs) the local sanctuaries 
 in the way that these narratives do. Therefore at some 
 period earlier than the first writing prophets — earlier 
 than or about as early as the patriarchal histories — " cer- 
 tain collections of laws and decisions of the priests, of 
 which we have an example in Exodus xxi., xxii., were 
 committed to writing." We are told in another passage 
 that the Jehovistic history-book, whose character is best 
 marked by the story of the patriarchs, has legislative 
 elements taken " into it only at one point, where they fit 
 into the historical connection — namely, when the giving of 
 the law at Sinai is spoken of, Exod. xx.-xxiii., xxxiv." (p. 7), 
 although soon after we are also told that " the Jehovist 
 does not even pretend to being a Mosaic law of any kind ; 
 it aims at being a simple book of history " (p. 9). All this 
 throws very little light upon this first collection of written 
 laws , which, one would have thought, was epoch-making, 
 i The passage is quoted above in chap. iii. p, 60 f. ^ Hist, of Israel, p. 32. 
 
390 The Three Codes. 
 
 Indeed Wellliausen goes on repeating that the Torah of 
 Jehovah still continued to be the special charge of the 
 priests, though "it was not even now a code or law in 
 our sense of the word; Jehovah had not yet made His 
 Testament ; He was still living and active in Israel ; 
 . . . the Torah had still occupation enough, the pro- 
 gressive life of the nation ever affording matter for 
 new questions" (p. 468). And as to the outward ob- 
 servances of religion, we are told " the cultus, as to 
 place, time, matter, and form, belonged almost entirely to 
 the inheritance which Israel had received from Canaan ; 
 to distinguish what belonged to the worship of Jehovah 
 from that which belonged to Baal was no easy matter" 
 (p. 469). 
 
 Now, suppose we grant that the book of the Covenant 
 was codified as late as is here asserted, it bears on the face 
 of it, at all events, a testimony to Mosaic authorship, and 
 authoritative sanction, and has a strictly religious basis. 
 It is misleading in Wellhausen to say that " the Jehovist 
 does not even pretend to being a Mosaic law of any kind." 
 It aims at being a true history, and it brings in this Code 
 under definite historical conditions as given by Moses. 
 What more do the writers of the other law-books ? More- 
 over, to whatever extent the worship may have followed 
 Canaanite practice, a sharp line is drawn here between 
 Mosaic requirements and the worship .of the nations 
 (Exod. xxii. 20, xxiii. 23 ff.) Let it be supposed that this 
 Code is merely the embodiment of praxis or the crystal- 
 lisation of custom — and it is certainly more — the praxis 
 or custom was at all events by that time of so high antiq- 
 uity and invested with such authority that the Code was 
 made Mosaic ; and we ask the critics in vain for an ex- 
 planation of this ascription of the very earliest laws to 
 
Idea of Codification is Ancient. 391 
 
 a time so long antecedent, and to circumstances so posi- 
 tively historical. 
 
 But what we want very particularly to know is the 
 occasion that at this precise time called for a codification 
 of law even of this modest compass. What set the pro- 
 cess of codification agoing at least two centuries before it 
 occurred to any one to prepare an authoritative book of 
 law ? For this is the way in which Deuteronomy is 
 spoken of : " The idea of making a definite formulated 
 written Torah the law of the land is the important point ; 
 it [viz., the Deuteronomic Code] was a first attempt, and 
 succeeded at the outset beyond expectation." ^ This book 
 of the Covenant, however, shows that such an idea is much 
 older, though the fact is simply slurred over. 
 
 Further, if this Code was the statement of the legal 
 customs of that comparatively late time, it cannot have 
 been the statement of the whole of them. By the time 
 assumed the national life had taken definite form; the 
 Temple of Solomon had long been in existence, priests as 
 well as prophets were a numerous and influential class. 
 The mere appearance of this Code at what is called the 
 earliest period of literary composition presupposes, as we 
 have argued,^ an antecedent education and a literary 
 activity in priestly circles. Thousands of cases of casu- 
 istry, jurisprudence, and ceremony had arisen and been 
 settled in some way before the time this Code is alleged 
 to have existed. At length (we are told) it had oc- 
 curred to some person or persons to draw up this Code, 
 brief though it be, in all the sententiousness of this 
 class of composition. Now it does seem very remark- 
 able that, a beginning having been made, at the very 
 
 ^ Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 402. 
 ^ See above, chap. iv. p. 1 05. 
 
392 The Three Codes. 
 
 earlieat period of written composition, the thing was 
 entirely discontinued for at least two centuries, and that 
 during a period when literary composition of other 
 kinds attained its bloom; at a time too when the civil, 
 religious, and commercial situations of the people were 
 such as would demand authoritative regulation and con- 
 trol. A glance at the prescriptions contained in the book 
 of the Covenant will show that it contains, though in a 
 brief and germinal manner, legislation in all the directions 
 that are followed out more fully in the larger Codes, and 
 is enough to suggest the hundreds of cases and relations 
 similar to those then provided for that must have arisen 
 in the daily life of the people, and demanded standing 
 rules for their settlement. If it be said tliat oral teach- 
 ing would determine all these, we ask, Why were not 
 such other matters as, e.g., of fire arising in a corn-field, or 
 of an ox goring a man, left to the same authority ? The 
 marvellous thing is that, codification having begun, even 
 at the time to which this Code is assigned, it did not go 
 pn. Is there any class of literature more voluminous, 
 more liable to grow from its own inherent impulse, than 
 the legal ? And when history, prophecy, poetry flour- 
 ished, when every kind of literature, in fact, which Israel 
 produced had reached its best before the time of Josiah, 
 that the legal and ceremonial should have once taken a 
 start and then stood still is surely something which it 
 requires the faith of a modern critic to believe. It is 
 much more probable that when Hosea speaks of the 
 writing of ten thousand precepts,^ he was familiar with 
 and alluded to a literary activity in this field of com- 
 position of a much more copious extent than the brief 
 book of the Covenant. 
 
 ^ See above, chap. xiii. p. 342. 
 
Dijffwultics of the Modern Theory^ 393 
 
 Difficulties like these, arising out of the theory so far 
 as it refers to the book of the Covenant, suggest other 
 difficulties in connection with the succeeding Codes and 
 with the process of codification in general. There is, for 
 example, the difficulty of explaining the source of the 
 laws embodied in the succeeding Codes. The book of 
 Deuteronomy contains laws that relate to circumstances 
 of the desert life, and so does the Levitical Code. Where 
 were these laws preserved up to this time, if they had 
 an existence at all ? If they did not exist, whence came 
 they into codes which were for quite different circum- 
 stances ? Again, the Code of Deuteronomy, which is said 
 to have been introduced for the specific purpose of cen- 
 tralising the worship at the Temple of Jerusalem, is 
 singularly poor in regulations for ritual, the very thing 
 we should have expected to be attended to, when a multi- 
 tude of local sanctuaries, with presumably varying, not 
 to say corrupted, worship, were abolished. On the other 
 hand, the Levitical Code, drawn up, as is alleged, at a 
 time when the Temple was in ruins and ritual worship 
 impossible, deals above all, and in minutest detail, with 
 ceremonial matters. One naturally asks. What was the 
 source whence came the ritual and ceremonial laws which 
 bulk so largely in the final Code of Leviticus ? And then, 
 what occurred in the long intervals between the succes- 
 sive Codes ? Were these Codes sudden appearances, some- 
 thing quite new for their respective times, or did they 
 come about gradually and receive acceptance as a matter 
 of course ? 
 
 It must be confessed that it is not very easy to follow 
 the reasoning of Wellhausen in his treatment of these 
 and suchlike questions, for he seems to be not quite con- 
 sistent with himself in the positions he takes up at 
 
394 The Tliree Codes. 
 
 different parts of his argument. For example, he says 
 at one time that " proofs of the existence of the Priestly 
 Code [previous to the exile] are not to be found — not a 
 trace of them" (p. 365); that the Code was not only not 
 operative, but "that it did not even admit of being 
 carried into effect in the conditions that prevailed pre- 
 vious to the exile " (p. 12). On the other hand, he says 
 that the " real point at issue " is " not to prove that the 
 Mosaic law was not in force in the period before the 
 exile;" that he and his school "do not go so far as to 
 believe that the Israelite cultus entered the world of a 
 sudden — as little by Ezekiel or by Ezra as by Moses ; " 
 and that it is a mistaken assumption that on the modern 
 hypothesis "the whole cultus was invented all at once 
 by the Priestly Code, and only introduced after the exile " 
 (p. 366). In brief, he sums up his position in the words 
 which he prefixes as a motto to the first part of his book, 
 " These having not the law, do by nature the works of the 
 law." If this merely meant, as it might at first sight 
 seem to mean, that the respective Codes were all actually 
 observed in some form previous to the times at which 
 they are said to have been introduced, and that only the 
 loriting of them in the forms in which they appear was 
 a matter of later date, there would not be much objection 
 to the position ; and I do not know that it would be irre- 
 concilable with the Biblical theory ; but we shall see that 
 the hypothesis involves a much more serious assumption. 
 It is plain that for the establishment of Wellhausen's 
 thesis there must be historical proof of two things: (1) 
 that the law, as expressed in the Codes, was not in the 
 possession of Israel up to the time the Codes were intro- 
 duced, aocording to the one half of his motto — "these 
 having not the law ; " and (2) that the things contained 
 
The Argument from Silence. 395 
 
 in the law, the works of the law, were practised by- 
 nature — i.e.y without prescription — before these dates. 
 Attention must be drawn to the different reference of the 
 words as used by St Paul and by Wellhausen. The 
 apostle is speaking not of a ceremonial or ritual law, 
 but of moral principles " written on the heart," the opera- 
 tion of which can be traced in the Gentile world. What 
 Wellhausen has to prove is, that a law such as that 
 contained in the Priestly Code was taught by nature and 
 practised as a custom by Israel before its details were 
 prescribed by any authority, — a very different matter. 
 
 (1.) For the establishment of the first position reli- 
 ance must be placed for the most part on the argument 
 from silence, as it is called — i.e., if the thing we are in 
 search of is not mentioned, particularly if it is not 
 mentioned where we should look for it, it is assumed 
 that the thing did not exist. Wellhausen objects to the 
 process followed by him being called by this name, and 
 says, "What the opponents of Graf's hypothesis call its 
 argument ex sileniio, is nothing more or less than the 
 universally valid method of historical investigation " (p. 
 365). One would think it depended not a little upon 
 the manner and the extent to which the process is 
 carried out ; and it would be easy to illustrate the havoc 
 that might be made in general history by a reliance 
 upon this argument.^ We have already in a former 
 
 ^ Whately, for example, in his 'Historic Doubts,' draws attention to 
 the fact that the principal Parisian journal in 1814, on the very day on 
 which the Allied armies entei-ed Paris as conquerors, makes no mention of 
 any such event. So, too, the battle of Poictiers in 732, which effectually 
 checked the spread of Mohammedanism across Europe, is not once re- 
 ferred to in the monastic annals of the period. Again, Sir Thomas 
 Browne lived through the civil wars and the Commonwealtli ; yet, says 
 a biographer, " no syllable in any of his writings, notwithstanding their 
 profound and penetrative meditations upon vicissitudes in human lives 
 
 
396 The Three Codes, 
 
 chapter^ observed the significant absence of all reference to 
 education ; and in regard to many other things, we are left 
 in like ignorance by the Scriptural writers. Graphic as 
 their descriptions are when they exist, there are hundreds 
 of details of daily life and ordinary custom in regard to 
 which we would fain have information. The prophet 
 Isaiah, in one well-known passage,^ gives a complete in- 
 ventory of the wardrobe of a fashionable lady of Jeru- 
 salem ; but a great number of the words he employs are 
 found only in that passage, and are such that we can only 
 guess at the precise things they are meant to signify. 
 And to speak more particularly of customs and observ- 
 ances, who shall describe to us, from information drawn 
 from the Biblical books, the mode in which the Sabbath 
 was observed in the time of the prophets ? We know 
 from their references to it ^ that the Sabbath was specially 
 sacred; and the book of the Covenant, at the latest, 
 vouches for the existence of the Decalogue, which en- 
 joins the sanctity of the Sabbath : yet we remain in almost 
 total ignorance of the manner in which its sanctity was 
 preserved. And the same thing holds of other feasts, 
 whether we regard them as matters of custom or of pre- 
 scription. Things of daily occurrence and of standing ob- 
 servance, just because they are such, are most naturally 
 passed by without notice. It is perfectly evident that 
 the Old Testament writers contemplated as their readers 
 
 and empires, betrays the least partisanship in the tragedy enacted on the 
 world's great stage around him." And, once more, Sale notes that cir- 
 cumcision is held by the Mohammedans to be an ancient divine institu- 
 tion, the rite having been in use many years before Mohammed ; and yet 
 it is not so much as once mentioned in the Koran. 
 
 1 Chap. iv. p. 75. 2 ig^. iii. 16-24. 
 
 '^ Amos viii. 5 ; Hosea ii. 11 ; Isa. i. 13 : cf. 2 Kings iv. 23, xi. 5, 7, 9, 
 xvi. 18. 
 
The Great Day of Atonement. 397 
 
 those who were familiar with the most familiar things 
 in their national life and history. As for Hebrew prophets 
 not referring to legislative books, it is much more remark- 
 able that they do not refer to prophetical books, and 
 scarcely make a quotation from one another. I do not 
 know that we have positive historical evidence (of a con- 
 temporary kind) that would establish the existence of the 
 great bulk of the existing prophetic literature before the 
 captivity; and quite recently a French critic ^ has put 
 forth the view that the greater part of the literature of the 
 Hebrews is a free creation of a school of theologians after 
 the restoration. 
 
 A mode of reasoning like this can be tested by one 
 striking instance, and such an instance is furnished in 
 the great day of atonement (Levit. xvi.) A ceremonial so 
 imposing, one would think, would not pass without notice, 
 and the modern school points with confidence to the fact 
 that though the institution bulks so largely in the Leviti- 
 cal Code, it is not once referred to in the pre-exilic history, 
 and therefore it must have been devised first of all by 
 Ezra or his successors. But the instance proves too much, 
 for, as a matter of fact, there is no positive historical ac- 
 count of the observance till about the beginning of the 
 Christian era, at the earliest the time of John Hyrcanus or 
 even Herod the Great, 37 B.C., a date at which it was im- 
 possible that the prescription of the ceremony could have 
 been inserted in the Law Code, which, according to Well- 
 hausen, was introduced in B.C. 444.^ 
 
 ^ Maurice Vernes, Lea R^sultats de I'Exdg^se Biblique, Paris, 1890. 
 
 2 Delitzsch, Peutateuch-Kritische Studien in Luthardt's Ztsch. f. Kirkl. 
 Wissenschaft und Kirkl. Leben, 1880, p. 173 f. ; Dillmann, Comm. on Lev., 
 p. 525 ; Bredenkamp, Gesetz u. Proplieten, p. 116. The fact that Ezekiel, 
 in his [vision of] ritual, does not mention the day of atonement, is taken 
 by the critics to prove that he was not aware of the legislation of the 
 
398 The Tliree Codes. 
 
 But, indeed, we do not need to come so far down in 
 history for evidence that the non-observance or the 
 absence of mention of a law is not a proof of its non- 
 existence. On the position of the modern critical writers, 
 the Jehovistic book of the Covenant was in existence 
 two centuries before Deuteronomy. And yet, not to 
 speak of the moral precepts with which the Code is 
 charged, and which were so sadly violated in the life of 
 the people, can distinct proof be produced that the Sab- 
 batic year prescribed in Exod. xxiii. 10, 11, or even the 
 weekly Sabbath itself, was observed in the time during 
 which this Code is said to have been the sole law-book ? 
 Why, the Deuteronomic law itself was systematically 
 violated after the time of Josiah.^ Down even in the 
 times after the exile, among a community which had 
 learned by misfortune the evil of breaking the law, and 
 which had returned through hardship to set up a new 
 state at Jerusalem, Ezra and Nehemiah had to contend 
 for the observance of the most fundamental principles 
 that lay not only at the basis of the Deuteronomic Code, 
 but at the foundation of Israel's national existence.^ 
 
 So far, then, as the first part of Wellhausen's thesis is 
 concerned, it cannot be sustained. The argument from 
 silence does not prove it, since we know that many things 
 
 Priestly Code in which it is prescribed. It is urged, however, in reply, 
 that Ezekiel's idea of a double atonement for the sanctuary (Ezek. xlv. 
 18-20) may be an intensification of the atonement required in the Priestly 
 Code. And Dillmann remarks, " Why Ezekiel should first have produced 
 the idea of such an atonement is not at all apparent, still less how people 
 of a later time ventured to hit upon quite different characteristics, and to 
 give out these as Mosaic." 
 
 ^ Compare Deut, xv. 12 f. with Jer. xxxiv. 13 f. 
 
 - Compare Ezra ix. 1, 2, Neh. x, 30, xiii. 23, with Exod. xxxiv. 16, Deut. 
 vii. 3. Compare also Neh. x. 31 with Deut. xv. 2 ; and Neh. x. 37, 39, 
 with Deut. xii. 17. 
 
Praxis and Programme. 399 
 
 of miicli greater significance to the prophets than ritual 
 are not mentioned by them. The argument from non- 
 observance does not prove it, since the Deuteronomic and 
 Levitical Codes themselves were broken systematically 
 after the admitted dates of their introduction. And the 
 existence of the book of the Covenant, or even of such a 
 part of it as would satisfy Wellhausen's own account of its 
 origin, flatly disproves the assertion that up to the time of 
 Deuteronomy the Israelites were in the position of people 
 " having no law." 
 
 (2.) The other part of Wellhausen's motto that has to 
 be established is, that Israel, without the law, did the 
 works of the law ; in other words, that the Codes were not 
 suddenly introduced. On this subject, the use of the 
 two terms, "praxis" and "programme," plays a prominent 
 part in the discussions; and we can understand a code 
 coming into existence by either process. The practice or 
 usage of the time is systematised more or less, and put 
 down in the form of prescription ; this is the codification 
 of praxis. Or, on the other hand, a person or persons, 
 considering the existing state of matters unsatisfactory 
 or insufficient, may devise a better scheme, and set it 
 forth in orderly form as a legislative programme. It is 
 remarkable how, on either hypothesis, the critical writers 
 find it difficult to get rid of the postulate of Mosaic legisla- 
 tion, to which they have so much objection. For they tell 
 us that the Deuteronomic Code was a programme drawn 
 up by prophets and priests combined for the centralisa- 
 tion of worship, without which they saw there could be no 
 purity of worship. It could not, on the hypothesis, have 
 been a codification of the praxis, for the whole drift of the 
 theory is, that up to the introduction of this Code, worship 
 at any place was the practice. Yet the men who brought 
 
400 The Three Codes, 
 
 about the introduction of this Code were the Mosaic party 
 — the party who strove to preserve what they regarded as 
 the true religion of Israel, — and they appealed to Mosaic 
 authority in ascribing the Code to him. Wellhausen gives 
 us to understand that the movement for centralisation 
 was connected with the growth of monotheistic concep- 
 tions. In all this there is a testimony to the fact that 
 Mosaism, in its essence, was monotheistic, and that the 
 Deuteronomic Code rested on Mosaism at its best, to such 
 an extent, that the authority of Moses had to be invoked 
 to secure its acceptance, i^gain, Ezekiel is said to have 
 put forth a legislative programme ; this, however, he did 
 not ascribe to Moses, and his Code was not adopted. Was 
 there any connection between the two things ? In all this 
 talk about programme, it seems to me the critical writers 
 are in an uncomfortable dilemma. Either the programme 
 is something new, and then their position that the law 
 did not suddenly come into force becomes untenable ; or 
 else it is a departure in the spirit of the Mosaic legislation, 
 which amounts to the Biblical view that what took place 
 was a reformation of the worship, not an innovation. 
 
 The same perplexing situation arises when resort is had 
 to praxis as an explanation of the origin of the Codes. 
 This is particularly the case with the Priestly Code. We 
 are told^ that when the Temple was in ruins, and there 
 was no longer a possibility of the worship being carried 
 on, a body of men in the captivity set themselves to a 
 careful study of the praxis as it had been carried on, 
 and drew up wliat their memory had fondly preserved 
 of the cultus, and that this assumed finally the form of 
 the Priestly Code. The question at once occurs, What 
 praxis ? Was the worship of the Temple, as Ezekiel 
 
 1 Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, pp. 59 f., 404 f. 
 
The Priestly Code and Praxis. 401 
 
 and others remembered it, of the pure Mosaic type pre- 
 scribed in the Code which men of his spirit elaborated ? 
 What then becomes of Wellhausen's assertion that the 
 observance of tlie Priestly Code was impossible in the 
 conditions prevailing before the exile ? What becomes 
 also of all the burden of denunciation, of which the pro- 
 phetic and historical books are full, of the corruptions 
 that prevailed ? But if the praxis was corrupt, what 
 guided Ezekiel and Ezra to produce a Code which was in 
 " the spirit of the Mosaic legislation " ? Again we fall 
 back upon the Mosaic legislation, which, unless we are 
 to give the lie to all history, was something better than 
 the corrupt practice. 
 
 Further, if the critics will have it that the Priestly 
 Code is a codification of the praxis, we may employ their 
 own argument, and ask them for historical proof of the 
 praxis of anything that can be supposed to have formed 
 the materials of the new Code. Wellhausen professes 
 indeed to give what he calls " a sort of history of the 
 ordinances of worship ; " but he is constrained to add) 
 " Eude and colourless that history must be confessed to 
 be — a fault due to the materials, which hardly allow us 
 to do more than mark the contrast between pre -exilic 
 and post -exilic, and, in a secondary measure, that be- 
 tween Deuteronomic and pre-Deuteronomic." ^ Let us, 
 for example, take the three great feasts of the Passover, 
 Shebuoth or Weeks, and Tabernacles. These, as agricul- 
 tural feasts, are admitted by the critics to date back to 
 the time of the settlement in Canaan, though the distinc- 
 tive religious or national character attributed to them 
 by Biblical writers is disputed. Things of such regular 
 recurrence could not be kept hid, and surely here the 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 13. 
 2 C 
 
402 . Tlie Hiree Codes. 
 
 critical canon of observance may be applied. Yet we 
 have already seen^ the difficulty Wellhansen has in prov- 
 ing their existence ; for in regard to the celebration of the 
 feasts in question before the exile, we have only very few 
 notices, and these mostly very slight. The observance of 
 all the three is only mentioned twice, once in the most 
 general terms in the book of Kings (1 Kings ix. 25), and 
 again in the parallel passage in Chronicles (a book on 
 which the critics are wont to place no confidence), where 
 they are mentioned by their usual names (2 Chron. viii. 
 13). The celebration of the Passover is mentioned at most 
 twice — viz., in a very general way, if it is this feast that 
 is referred to, in Isa. xxx. 29, and again at the reforma- 
 tion in Josiah's reign (2 Kings xxiii. 21 ff.) Of the Feast 
 of Tabernacles (Succoth) we have four notices — viz., two 
 very doubtful ones in Judges xxi. 19 and 1 Sam. i. 20, 21 
 and another two very general references in 1 Kings viii. 
 2, xii. 32. The observance of the Feast of Weeks is only 
 once mentioned, and that is in 2 Chron. viii, 13, where it 
 is mentioned with the other two. The critics are in the 
 habit of making light of the statement of the chronicler 
 and the author of the book of Kings,^ that such celebra- 
 tions as took place in the times of Hezekiah and Josiah 
 had not been seen since the times of the Judges, or in all 
 the reigns of the Kings. This, they say, amounts simply 
 to the fact that the Passover, as enjoined in the law, had 
 not been observed at all till the late period to which the 
 narrative refers.^ But in view of the paucity of refer* 
 ences, and the vagueness of the references which have 
 
 ^ See before, chap. xiv. p. 374. 
 
 - 2 Chron. xxx. 5, xxxv. 18, with 2 Kings xxiii. 22. Cf. Neh. viii. 17. 
 2 One would have expected of the chronicler, if he was such a stickler 
 for ceremonial, and so unscrupulous in his statements of their earlier ob- 
 
• The Place of Worship. 403 
 
 been pointed out, we may ask, What then was observed 
 at all ? What proof have we that even the nature feasts 
 were kept up, on which this new religious observance 
 miglit be grafted ? In the same way we could argue 
 against the whole " praxis " of which so much is said. 
 We have no more evidence of the existence of a praxis 
 which could be subsequently codified than we have of the 
 ordinances which are prescribed in the Codes ; and the 
 passages that may be supposed to refer to a cycle of 
 nature feasts may as well be taken to refer to the legally 
 sanctioned observances. 
 
 III. Modern critics, however, pronounce the Codes to be 
 so incompatible on vital points as to give indication that 
 they cannot have been all the production of one man, or 
 the product of one age. On one subject, in particular, it 
 is held they give clear evidence of a progress from the 
 simple to the complex, of a development which required 
 centuries to accomplish, and that subject is the legislation 
 relating to the place of worship. It is maintained that 
 the book of the Covenant permits sacrifice anywhere, or 
 what amounts to that ; that the Deuteronomic Code pre- 
 scribes one central sanctuary ; and that the Levitical Code 
 makes no formal prescription on the subject, taking for 
 granted that a central sanctuary exists, and that worship 
 is there observed. These three stages of legislation, it is 
 maintained, correspond to three periods in Israel's history. 
 Up to the time of Josiah the worship of the Bamoth or 
 high places, up and down the land, at the holy places con- 
 secrated by hallowed associations, was the rule and custom. 
 Then came the struggle which culminated in the victory 
 
 servance as the critics make him out to Le, that he would have rather 
 pointedly told us how faithfully the Passover had been observed all along, 
 than give this intimation that it had been persistently neglected. 
 
404 The Three Codes. • - 
 
 in Josiali's time, when the high places were abolished, and 
 the legitimate worship confined to the Temple. And 
 finally, after the Temple was no more, and the people in 
 exile had time to reflect on the privileges they had lost, 
 the work of gathering up the ritual praxis that had been 
 observed at Jerusalem was undertaken; and when the 
 restored community returned to their native land, they 
 came with a book in their hand regulating the service of 
 the new sanctuary, the book being the Levitical Code. 
 
 It will be observed that the great difference on this 
 view lies between the book of the Covenant and the 
 Deuteronomic Code; and as the primary object of our 
 inquiry is the earlier condition of things, the pre-prophetic 
 and early prophetic religion, this part of the subject de- 
 mands more attention. The difference between the two 
 Codes in question is not one that resolves itself easily into 
 a case of development, for the introduction of the Deu- 
 teronomic Code is represented as having been effected in 
 fact by a religious revolution. A true case of development 
 would be that centralisation of worship was the idea and 
 the ideal from the first, but that it gained realisation by 
 slow degrees. If this can be made out by a comparison of 
 the Codes, and can be shown to be borne out by the his- 
 tory, the objection of modern critics to the discrepancy of 
 the Codes will have comparatively little weight; and a 
 development of the proper kind, from germ to full mani- 
 festation, will be established. It will then not necessarily 
 follow that the Codes are far distant in time; or if, in 
 their final form, they belong to periods far apart, yet they 
 will be seen in the essential point to agree, and the stronger 
 emphasis laid by the Deuteronomic Code than by the book 
 of the Covenant on this requirement, will be explicable on 
 the greater fulness of the longer Code, on the special object 
 
The Prophets and Multiplicity of Sanctuaries. 405 
 
 which it aimed at, or even on the supposition of a later 
 editing or revision of it. I think good reasons can be 
 given for taking this position: — 
 
 (1.) No formal sanction is given by prophetic men be- 
 fore Josiah's time to a multiplicity of sanctuaries in the 
 sense in which the modern writers speak. When Amos 
 and Hosea speak of the worship performed at such places 
 as Bethel and Gilgal, there is nothing in their words to 
 lead us to suppose that these places were regarded by 
 them as set apart by any divine authority as places of 
 worship. They w^ere certainly invested with old sacred 
 associations (every country has such places); they were 
 certainly, in the time of these prophets, resorted to for 
 religious purposes by the people generally, but the pro- 
 phets mention them for the purpose of rebuking tlie 
 idolatrous or corrupt religious observances of which they 
 were the seat, and never are such expressions applied to 
 them as to Jerusalem and Zion. It is quite possible that, 
 in the northern kingdom after the schism, such places as 
 these, hallowed by patriarchal associations, were the only 
 places, or the special places, at which those who wished to 
 sacrifice to Jahaveh, debarred from attendance at Jeru- 
 salem, performed their worship. But as the prophets 
 recognised only the Davidic house as the legitimate de- 
 pository of the monarchy, so they regarded Jerusalem as 
 the seat of Jahaveh, and the place of His special manifes- 
 tation. The very first words which Amos utters to the 
 people of the northern kingdom are : " Jahaveh shall roar 
 from Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem ; " ^ words 
 which could only mean that from Zion and Jerusalem God's 
 authority was in a special way manifested ; that there, by 
 pre-eminence, His presence was to be sought and His law 
 
 1 See Note XXVII. 
 
406 The Three Codes. 
 
 to be found, just as the oracle said, " Out of Zion shall go 
 forth the law " (Isa. ii. 2 ; Micah iv. 2). Whatever may be 
 said of sanctuaries in the northern kingdom, there is no 
 sanction given to such places as of co-ordinate authority 
 with Jerusalem. Much less is there any trace of the 
 recognition of any number of places in the southern king- 
 dom, as some would have us suppose, which were regarded 
 as equally sacred with Jerusalem. 
 
 (2.) Nor does the history prove that a multiplicity of 
 sanctuaries, in the modern sense, was a recognised thing 
 in the nation. When it is said that in the stories of the 
 patriarchs the writers represent the fathers of the nation 
 as freely erecting an altar wherever they encamped, and 
 that therefore the writer of these stories saw nothinGj wroncj 
 in this proceeding, there is surely a confusion of thought, 
 or a false inference, when it is concluded that in the writers' 
 day a multiplicity of sanctuaries was recognised. Tor 
 how, indeed, could the patriarchs have sacrificed at all, 
 except in the manner indicated ? There was to them no 
 law of central sanctuary, and the writer of these accounts 
 simply represents the patriarchs as doing the only thing 
 that it was possible for them to do. If the writer knew 
 of the law of a central sanctuary, he could not have 
 blamed the patriarchs for ignoring it, simply because it 
 did not exist in their day. Of course the contention is 
 that the writer knew nothing at all about the worship of 
 Abraham and the other patriarchs, but simply projected 
 into the past the ideas and practices of his own time, and 
 made them do sacrifice at the various places which in the 
 writer's day were resorted to as sanctuaries. But all this 
 is mere assumption. The cases referred to of Samuel and 
 the Judges, who are described as offering sacrifices at 
 various places, are not more conclusive on the point iu 
 
Place of Worship in Boole of the Covenant. 407 
 
 hand. The places at which such sacrifices are offered are 
 not regarded by the writers as places sacred in them- 
 selves ; nay, they are mentioned generally only on the 
 special occasions on which sacrifice was performed at 
 them, and again disappear from the history. There is 
 always some special reason for the performance of the 
 sacrifice ; there is not one of them that is spoken of as 
 habitually the seat of worship, except Shiloli, which was 
 consecrated by the presence of the ark, and which was, 
 so long as it stood, the central sanctuary of Israel. That 
 it was so regarded as the predecessor of Jerusalem itself 
 is proved by the reference to it so late as the time of 
 Jeremiah (vii. 12), a reference which shows that the nation 
 had regarded it as, for its time, similar to the sanctuary at 
 Jerusalem in the days of its glory. 
 
 (3.) Moreover, the ideal even in the book of the Covenant 
 is that of a central sanctuary. Much has been made here 
 of the words, " In every place where I record my name, I 
 will come unto thee, and I will bless thee " (Exod. xx. 24), 
 which have been taken to mean a permission to worship 
 indifferently at any place. Wellhausen indeed makes a 
 sliow of meeting the limitation expressed in the words 
 " where I record my name " ; but all he can say ^ in ex- 
 planation of them is, "that the spots where intercourse 
 between earth and heaven took place were not willingly 
 regarded as arbitrarily chosen, but, on the contrary, were 
 considered as having been somehow or other selected by 
 the Deity Himself for His service," wliich is simply saying 
 nothing. The promise here given must be taken to mean 
 something of a positive kind, and coming after the direc- 
 tion how to make the altar, must be supposed to have 
 some reference to worship. If, after the manner oi 
 
 ^ Hist, of Israel, p. 30. 
 
408 ' The Three Codes. 
 
 modern critics, we were to ask the polemic the words 
 imply, it might ahnost seem, on their mode of reasoning, 
 that the writer of these words was protesting against such 
 a centralising of worship as took place in Josiah's days ! ^ 
 At all events, it seems strange that such a permission to 
 worship anywhere should be given in this formal way at 
 a time when, it is alleged, no one dreamed of doing any- 
 thing else, for the book of the Covenant dates (on the 
 hypothesis) from the earliest writing period, when the law 
 of a central sanctuary was unknown.^ If the words were 
 meant merely to sanction places which had been elevated 
 into sacredness by association with patriarchal theophanies 
 and the like, they might be urged as an argument for the 
 worship at a certain number of places ; but this is less 
 than what the words express, and less than the example 
 of the patriarchs would warrant, for they seem to have 
 erected an altar as a matter of course wherever they 
 went.^ And if the words are really intended to mean 
 that Jahaveh may be worshipped anywhere, in the sense 
 that "a multiplicity of altars was assumed as a matter of 
 course," * it may be objected that this is hardly consistent 
 with the materialistic conception of the national God 
 which is ascribed to Israel. One would have expected 
 
 ^ I see that Wellhausen notes that " Exod. xx. 24-26 looks almost like 
 a protest against the arrangements of the Temple of Solomon, especially 
 V. 26."— Hist, of Israel, p. 96, footnote. 
 
 2 So that we have here something very like "a positive statement of 
 the non-existence of what had not yet come into being," which Well- 
 hausen thinks it so unreasonable to ask. — Hist, of Israel, p. 365. 
 
 2 Wellhausen, however, says that they did not worship at indifferent 
 and casual localities, but at famous and immemorially holy places of wor- 
 ship ; which is just assuming his hypothesis. — Hist, of Israel, p. 30. 
 This is also the view Stade takes, connecting these sites with the worship 
 of ancestors. 
 
 ^ Wellhausen, Hist, of Israel, p. 29. 
 
Tlie Coverucnt hefore the Law. 409 
 
 that, at a period when Jahaveh was no more than a 
 national God, as the theory maintains, the tendency would 
 be to a narrow centralising of worship, or at least to a 
 worship in regularly authorised places; and that, when 
 once "ethic monotheism" was reached, a free and more 
 unrestricted worship would be permissible. But this is 
 another of the many perplexities of the modern theory, 
 that the development was quite the other way. 
 
 As it stands, the book of the Covenant is represented as 
 antecedent to the appointment of the tabernacle in the 
 wilderness, and may therefore be taken as meant to state 
 the fundamental idea of worship that was inculcated upon 
 Israel. As the Covenant precedes the law and is not 
 annulled by it (Gal. iii. 17), this more spiritual conception 
 of God, as ever near to the worshipper who seeks Him 
 in the right way, represents the idea that we find every- 
 where held by prophetic men. It was a protest, or 
 polemic, if we may so say, against the localising ten- 
 dencies of other religions, an assurance that the God of 
 Israel could and would come near to bless His people in 
 every place where He recorded His name. It thus formed 
 the guiding principle of prophetic men, to whom, as it 
 would seem, the ordinances of ritual worship were " a 
 figure for the time present," and who never allowed them- 
 selves to fall into the belief that their God was confined 
 to temples made with hands. Had there not been such 
 an assertion of this fundamental principle in the very 
 earliest legislation — the omnipresence of Jahaveh — we 
 should no doubt have been told by modern critics that 
 this is another proof that at this early stage of religious 
 belief He was conceived of as limited to some high moun- 
 tain, or accessible only in some special sanctuary. The 
 duty of united worship in a central place is not incom- 
 
410 The Three Codes. 
 
 patible with God's power to bless anywhere. The book 
 of Deuteronomy itself, which is said to restrict worship 
 to the Temple of Jerusalem, contains an injunction to set 
 up an altar and offer sacrifices between Ebal and Gerizim 
 (Deut. xi. 29 ; xxvii. 4, 13). Still the limitation stands, 
 "in every place where I record my name," which can- 
 not simply mean " in all places indifferently." There 
 was to be some indication of Jahaveli's name given by 
 Himself ; and after all, the old explanation that saw 
 a reference to the movements of the tribes throudi the 
 wilderness, under the direction of God, who appointed 
 their halting-places, and to a time before the tribes were 
 a settled people with fixed dwelling-place, though it 
 does not seem to exhaust the reference, is not inappro- 
 priate. At most the words may imply the acceptable 
 worship of Jahaveh at a number of successive places, 
 but they do not necessarily, nor perhaps possibly, imply 
 the recognition of simultaneous sanctuaries in different 
 places. With this idea tlie whole tone of the passage is 
 at variance. The people to whom the words are ad- 
 dressed are one people; it is not to individuals that tlie 
 permission or promise is given.^ Wherever Israel as a 
 whole is, and wherever Jahaveh, their one God, records 
 His name, there acceptable worship may be offered. The 
 
 ^ The ten commandments, says a very docile pupil of Wellhausen, 
 " are not addressed to individuals, but to a nation. The * thou ' to 
 whom they speak is the people of Israel, and they are prefaced by a 
 sentence in which Jehovah states how it is His right to give laws to 
 Israel" (Allan Menzies, National Keligion, p. 42). Wellhausen would 
 have us believe that the notion of the " congregation " as a sacred body 
 was " foreign to Hebrew antiquity, but runs through the Priestly Code 
 from beginning to end " (Hist, of Israel, p. 78). I think we have it here 
 clearly marked in the " thou " of the book of the Covenant in formal con- 
 nection with worship (comp. above, p. 303 f.) But indeed it was present 
 in essence in the first self-consciousness of Israel as Jahaveh's people. 
 
One God, one People, one Altar. 411 
 
 very idea of the unity of the national God, and the cor- 
 relative idea of the unity of His people, imply a unity of 
 worship and of sanctuary. The corporate reference is 
 confirmed by the fact that this same book of the Cov- 
 enant ordains that three times in the year all the males 
 should appear before Jahaveh. It is inconsistent witli 
 the fundamental ideas of the unity of the tribes at tliat 
 early time to suppose that such a command could mean 
 that three times in the year all males were to make a 
 pilgrimage to some shrine or other, some tomb or holy 
 place of a tribal ancestor, and thus fulfil the command 
 here given. The mere possession of a sacred ark, with 
 a tent for its habitation, and these as the common posses- 
 sion of all the tribes, was in itself a centralising of wor- 
 ship. Though the existence of a tabernacle such as is 
 described in the Pentateuch is denied by the modern 
 historians, it is not denied that an ark, and a tent for its 
 covering, were in the possession of Israel, and held in 
 general regard in connection with the Jahaveh religion. 
 Nor can it be denied that Shiloh was a sanctuary of a 
 quite special importance in the times of the Judges and 
 Samuel, and no one who believes that the Hebrew writ- 
 ers knew anything at all of their history will accept the 
 assumption that the Temple was merely the court sanctu- 
 ary of the kingdom of Judah, or even only one of many co- 
 ordinate holy places in that kingdom. Wellhausen says ^ 
 that the principle " one God, one sanctuary " is the idea 
 of the Priestly Code. It is, in point of fact, the idea of 
 the book of the Covenant also, though neither in the one 
 nor in the otlier is it held to mean that the one God was 
 only present, and could only manifest His power at one 
 particular spot. "An altar shalt thou make to me," the 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 34. 
 
412 The Three Codes. 
 
 command runs, not " altars." The altar of God is always 
 only one. It ceases to be an altar the moment His people 
 and His manifestation to them are at another place. It 
 is not the sanctity of the place that constitutes the sanc- 
 tity of the altar, but the presence of Him who makes His 
 name manifest. It is remarkable that we do not find in 
 all the Old Testament such a divine utterance as "my 
 altars " ; and only twice does the expression " Thy altars," 
 addressed to God, occur. It is found in Elijah's complaint, 
 which refers to northern Israel, at a time when the legit- 
 imate worship of Jerusalem was excluded ; and in Psalm 
 Ixxxiv., where it again occurs, no inference can be drawn 
 from it. On the other hand, Hosea says distinctly, 
 ''Ephraim hath multiplied altars to sin" (Hosea viii. 11). 
 
 I think, therefore, it is not proved that the book of the 
 Covenant allows worship at any indefinite number of 
 places as co-ordinate sanctuaries ; nor does the history 
 show that this was recognised by the religious leaders of 
 the nation. Previous to the building of the Temple at 
 Jerusalem, and especially when the ark was removed 
 from Shiloh, we find what may be called a freer or 
 less regulated practice; and this was the result of the 
 exigencies of the period. But from the erection of the 
 Temple, not only is there no proof that any other sanc- 
 tuary was allowed, but there are positive indications that 
 that was regarded as the one authoritative place of wor- 
 ship in the sense in which we here speak. The practice 
 in the northern kingdom proves nothing, for all the asser- 
 tions of modern writers to the effect that the history 
 mainly evolved itself there, and that the kingdom of 
 Judah counts for little, are opposed to the spirit and 
 distinct utterances of the earliest prophets. Not less are 
 tliey inconsistent with the earliest legislation. The book 
 
^TJ5IVB.r. 
 
 One Law for all Israel. 
 
 of the Covenant, at whatever time written, and whether 
 composed in the northern or the southern kingdom, makes 
 no distinction between the two, and lays down one law 
 for all Israel. The schism of the ten tribes was a break- 
 ing away from national unity and from the national God; 
 and no proof can be adduced that prophetic men looked 
 with anything but disfavour on the idolatrous worship 
 that was practised in the southern kingdom, whether at 
 Jerusalem or at local sanctuaries. 
 
4U 
 
 CHAPTEK XVI. 
 
 THE LAW-BOOKS. 
 
 Distinction of JOools and Codes — Wcllhausen's personal experience — The 
 hypotheses of Graf; not the result of criticism — The great objection to 
 it its assumption of the fictitious character of the history, thus leaving 
 no solid materials for a credible history — /. The book of Deuteronomy 
 is neither (1) pseudonymous nor (2) fictitious— II^ The dooks contain- 
 ing the Levitical Code — (1) The position that Ezekiel paved the way for 
 this Code — (2) The pious remnant and the reformation ideas — (3) Ficti- 
 tious history in an aggravated form — (4) The literary form of this Code 
 — Multiplicity of sources a proof of long -continued literary activity — 
 But the main course of the history rests on its own independent proofs. 
 
 In the preceding chapters we have seen reasons for con- 
 cluding that the modern theory does not sufficiently 
 account for the persistent ascription of law and religious 
 ordinance to Moses ; that it fails to exhibit the transition 
 from natural to religious observance, and from oral to 
 authoritative written law ; that its argument from silence 
 tells as much against its own assumption as against the 
 Biblical view ; and that its sharp distinction of the Codes 
 in essential matters is not well founded. With the liter- 
 ary fates of the various law-codes we are not much con- 
 cerned, because this is a subject on which the Biblical 
 theory, which it is our main purpose to test, leaves great 
 
Wcllhausens early Experience. 415 
 
 latitude for different views; and the same may be said 
 of the question of the composition of books. We must, 
 however, look somewhat particularly into the relation of 
 the law-books to the Codes and to the general history; 
 for in regard to this matter the Biblical theory and the 
 modern are radically at variance in important points. 
 
 Wellhausen in one passage ^ gives us an interesting 
 piece of his own personal experience. He tells us that 
 in his early student days he " was attracted by the stories 
 of Saul and David, Ahab and Elijah ; " that the discourses 
 of Amos and Isaiah laid strong hold on him, and that he 
 read himself well into the prophetic and historical books 
 of the Old Testament ; but that all the time he " was 
 troubled with a bad conscience, as if he were beQ^innins 
 with the roof instead of the foundation." At last he took 
 courage, and made his way through the books of Exodus, 
 Leviticus, and Numbers ; but looked in vain for the light 
 which he expected these would shed on the historical 
 and prophetical books. " At last," he says, " in the 
 course of a casual visit in Gottingen in the summer of 
 1867, 1 learned through Eitschl that Karl Heinrich Graf 
 placed the law later than the prophets, and, almost with- 
 out knowing his reasons for the hypothesis, I was pre- 
 pared to accept it ; I readily acknowledged to myself the 
 possibility of understanding Hebrew antiquity without 
 the book of the Torah." 
 
 So far as his experience in the reading of Scripture 
 goes, there is nothing very peculiar in it. I suppose that 
 few of those who have formed for themselves any defined 
 view of Bible history, have acquired this by reading 
 through the law-books before approaching those that are 
 historical. He tells us nothing of his experience in re- 
 
 Hist, of Israel, pp. 3, 4. 
 
416 The Law-Boohs. 
 
 gard to the book of Genesis, whose stories of the patri- 
 archs, one would have thought, would have as powerfully 
 attracted the young student as the history of Saul and 
 David ; and it is difficult to fancy what idea he could have 
 obtained of even the historical and prophetical books, 
 without accepting the underlying assumption of these 
 books that the history went back to the patriarchal 
 period. The whole history hangs in the air, if we begin 
 with Saul and David — implying, as it does, a great deal 
 for which we must turn to the writings which Wellhausen 
 must include in his expression, " the book of the Torah." 
 But in using this expression, and in his reference to the 
 theory of Graf which he says he found himself ready to 
 accept, he leads the unwary reader to confuse two things 
 which ought to be kept distinct, and to jump to a con- 
 clusion which is not warranted by the experience which 
 he relates. 
 
 Our examination of the early prophetical writings, and 
 of the histories which are said to be of about the same 
 date, always threw us back upon an antecedent history, 
 and gave at least a strong presumption of the truth of the 
 narrative contained in the books of the Pentateuch. Yet 
 for the fundamental facts and main course of the history 
 we did not require to refer to the Pentateuchal laws, al- 
 though we found a coherence and consistency between the 
 accounts contained in the two sets of books. The history, 
 in fact, does not turn upon laws and the observance of 
 ceremonies, and so far it is true, as Wellhausen says he 
 experienced it, that the history is intelligible without the 
 Torah. But in saying " the book of the Torah," if by that 
 he means the whole Pentateuch, and not merely the legal 
 part of it, it is not the case that the history is thus 
 intelligible. 
 
Narrative and Legislation in the Pentateuch. 417 
 
 The law-books of the Pentateuch, as is well known, 
 exhibit two component elements, — narrative and legisla- 
 tion ; and it has been found impossible by literary analysis 
 to separate them. Whether the two parts originally came 
 from different hands or not, in part or in whole, they are 
 so inextricably blended or woven together that it has to 
 be confessed they must go together. That is to say, the 
 narratives imply that the laws were given under historical 
 circumstances, and the laws imply the circumstances under 
 which they were given. If, then, we are satisfied with the 
 testimony given by later writers to the history ; if, in other 
 words, we take the references to earlier times contained in 
 the writings of the eighth and ninth centuries as confirm- 
 ing, in the main, the narrative of the Pentateuch, we might 
 conclude that the laws, which are by confession bound so 
 closely in the bundle of narrative as to be inseparable from 
 it, are also the laws and statutes to which the prophets ap- 
 peal. The laws would go with the narrative, in which they 
 are enclosed. And this is what the Old Testament writers 
 take for granted. The reverse process, however, since the 
 time of Graf, has been followed by those who advocate 
 his theory. They say the narratives must follow the laws. 
 How this conclusion was reached, and what it involves, 
 must now be considered. 
 
 Graf at first attempted to make a separation between 
 the legislation and the accompanying history contained in 
 the Pentateuch ; and having proved to his own satisfaction 
 that the narratives attached to the Levitical Code were 
 Implied in the book of Deuteronomy, and known to the 
 writer of the latter, he said that the narratives were early, 
 while the legislation was late. Being, however, afterwards 
 convinced that the two elements were inseparable, he was 
 clearly in a dilemma, from which he adopted a remarkable 
 
 2 D 
 
418 The Law-Boohs. 
 
 mode of escape. He simply said that as the laws had 
 been proved to be of late origin, the narratives must also 
 be of late composition — throwing over entirely the proofs 
 which he had before considered sufficient to show that the 
 narratives of the Levitical books were older than Deuter- 
 onomy, and introducing a fashion of regarding the contents 
 of these books which is at once novel and startling. For 
 if the laws of tlie Levitical Code are late in the literal 
 sense that they became laws at a period as late as Ezra, 
 the narratives which accompany them and describe in 
 detail in regard to many of them the manner in whicli 
 they were promulgated by Moses, cannot be true history 
 at all : the events related as the historical setting of the 
 laws must be nothing else than fictitious. The only thing 
 that can be said in their favour is, that they were invented 
 for the good purpose of confirming and sanctioning the 
 laws, by ascribing them to ]Moses, to whom the national 
 tradition looked back as the great originator of law in 
 Israel. 
 
 The first thing that strikes one here is that the theory is 
 not the result of a sustained and uniform line of criticism. 
 It was a volte-face. Graf had satisfied himself that the 
 narrative parts of the Pentateucli were early, and were 
 referred to or implied in pre-exilian writings. If he was 
 equally satisfied that the laws were exilic, or post-exilic, 
 and yet were inseparable from the narrative, the proper 
 conclusion was that his critical processes were incorrect 
 somewhere, and he ouglit to have searched for the error. 
 One would think that the national testimony to a series of 
 historical facts would be more clear than the recollection 
 of a body of laws, and that laws were more liable to change 
 by usage than the national testimony to vary in regard to 
 fundamental facts of history. At all events, to say bluntly 
 
Bewlutionary Hypothesis. 419 
 
 that the narratives must go with the laws is no more a 
 process of criticism than to say that the laws must go 
 with the history. It is therefore inaccurate to describe 
 the position of Graf as a conclusion of criticism. It was 
 simply a hypothesis to evade a difficulty in which criti- 
 cism had landed him. 
 
 And then, when it is considered what is implied in the 
 position that the narratives must go with the laws, it 
 cannot but be admitted that the hypothesis is so far-reach- 
 ing and i-evolutionary that it should be accepted only when 
 every other explanation of the phenomena fails. For it 
 amounts to a thorough discrediting of the historical value 
 of the narratives of these books with which the laws are 
 so closely interwoven ; and to an ascription of fiction, if not 
 fraud, to the writers, which will render it extremely diffi- 
 cult for sober criticism to rely upon any testimony which 
 is borne by the Hebrew writers to the facts of their 
 national history. So that here again, when pushed home 
 to its central position, we find that the modern view, claim- 
 ing to be strictly critical, in reality throws discredit on the 
 documents which it starts to criticise,^ and which are the 
 only sources available for obtaining information regarding 
 the history which is to be described. 
 
 But there is no necessity, except that imposed by an 
 unyielding hypothesis, for this last resource. If laws 
 were not given by Moses, then certainly any narratives 
 that describe them as so given must be false. But if 
 Moses did deliver a body of laws to his people, then 
 even if the laws, as they stand, indicate divergency, even 
 if they underwent modification, even if the codes or the 
 books, or both, are of much later composition, in their 
 existing forms, than the time of Moses, we may still respect 
 
 * Compare above, chap, vi, p. 149 f. 
 
420 The Law-Boohs, 
 
 the hona fides of the writers of the books, and maintain 
 them as substantially true history. 
 
 I. To begin with the book of Deuteronomy. Some 
 who believe that this book is of late date, written at 
 the time of Josiah in order to bring about a reformation, 
 and yet seek to maintain the hona fides of the writer, are 
 in the habit of saying that the book is an example of 
 pseudonymous composition. Briggs, for example,^ has 
 argued at length and ingeniously to show that there is 
 nothing unreasonable in the supposition of pseudonymous 
 literature in the Bible, and by reference to the book of 
 Ecclesiastes has tried to save this book of Deuteronomy 
 from the category of forgery or fiction. But in point of 
 fact, the book is not pseudonymous in the same way that 
 Ecclesiastes is. The latter book, except the heading at 
 the beginning and the epilogue (chap. xii. 9 ff.) at the 
 end, is all written in one person. " I, the preacher," 
 did so and so throughout ; and his personality, " son of 
 David," and magnificence, are so accentuated as to lead 
 to the conclusion that Solomon is meant. But the writer 
 by saying, " was king over Israel in Jerusalem," lets us 
 at the outset into his secret, which is simply this, that he 
 is writing in the name of Solomon, to represent what 
 might have been Solomon's reflections upon life. There 
 is not only no intent to deceive, but there is scarcely the 
 possibility of deception. The circumstances of a historical 
 
 * Biblical Study (1887), p. 223 ff. He appeals also, among others, to 
 Robertson Smith, " who uses the term legal fiction as a variety of literary 
 fiction" (see Old Testament in the Jewish Churcli, p. 385). What is 
 there described, however, as " found more convenient to present the new 
 law in a form which enables it to be treated as an integral part of the old 
 legislation," though probably applicable to the present form in which the 
 collections of laws appear, does not seem to cover the case of the hook of 
 Deuteronomy with which we are concerned. Compare Clieyne, Jeremiah, 
 His Life and Times, p. 77. 
 
Deuteronomy not Pseudonymous. 421 
 
 kind that are introduced are so few and so general that 
 we are not misled or misinformed as to matters of fact ; 
 all the rest is meditation, moralising, and the scheme of the 
 book is &o far transparent. But it is quite different with 
 the book of Deuteronomy. As a book, it does not profess 
 to be written by Moses ; it is, in fact, one of the many 
 anonymous books of the Old Testament. The writer, who- 
 ever he was, and at whatever time he lived, tells us cer- 
 tain things that Moses did, and especially produces long 
 addresses which Moses is said to have uttered. These long 
 speeches, however, are all set in a historical framework ; 
 and if the framework is not historical, the book is more 
 than pseudonymous — it is pseudo-historical. The speeches 
 by themselves might be taken to fall into the category of 
 the book of Ecclesiastes, where the preacher is made to 
 give the thoughts that passed through his mind. But if 
 the writer, who has set these speeches down at definite 
 times and under definite circumstances, is not correct as 
 to the time and circumstances, or if the events he weaves 
 into the speeches never occurred, he is manufacturing these, 
 not studying to reproduce them by historical imagination. 
 The book declares that at a certain time, and under certain 
 circumstances, Moses gathered the people and addressed 
 to them long speeches recalling certain facts. If Moses 
 never did such a thing, and if such facts never occurred, 
 the book must be simply described as unhistorical or fic- 
 titious. 
 
 And yet I do not think it is to be so regarded. Who- 
 ever was the author, and whatever time may be assigned 
 for its composition, this is what the book presents to us. 
 It declares that Moses at the close of the wilderness jour- 
 ney, when the people were ready to cross the Jordan, 
 made formal addresses to them, in which he recounted 
 
422 The Law-Books. 
 
 the events of their past history, recapitulated the laws 
 which he had laid down for their guidance, and warned 
 them against the temptations to which they would be 
 particularly exposed in Canaan ; threatening them, in 
 case of disobedience, with God's judgments, and promis- 
 ing them, in case of obedience, His blessing. N"ow, if 
 Moses sustained anything at all like the office which is 
 invariably ascribed to him in the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment; if he was the leader of the people to the borders 
 of Canaan, the founder of their national constitution, the 
 lawgiver in any positive and definite sense,— it was the 
 most natural thing in the world that he should, at the 
 close of his life, have given such parting counsels and 
 addresses to the people whose history was so closely 
 bound up with his own life's work. That is to say, the 
 situation which the book of Deuteronomy presents to us 
 is a situation not in itself improbable, but on every ground 
 exceedingly probable ; and the statement by the writer of 
 the book that this situation presented itself is such that 
 it would be accepted as matter of fact in any secular his- 
 torian. Further, if a writer, whether early or late, set 
 himself to tell all this, he could only do so in the form 
 in which the book of Deuteronomy comes before us. 
 
 Let us not be misled by the direct form in which these 
 speeches are expressed. Wellhausen, in one place,^ speaks 
 contemptuously of our being treated to long addresses in- 
 stead of historical details. It is somewhat remarkable 
 that he, and many like-minded, have not taken note 
 of the peculiarity of the Hebrew language, that it has 
 not developed what we call the indirect speech — a 
 peculiarity which necessitates the regular introduction 
 of speeches or addresses. Take such a passage as the 
 
 * History of Israel, p. 340. 
 
Indirect Speech. 423 
 
 following: When the children of Israel, after their long 
 wanderings in the desert, were on the point of cross- 
 ing the Jordan to take possession of the land to which 
 they ha.d looked forward as their inheritance, Moses, 
 who had been their constant guide and legislator for 
 forty years, seeing that the close of his life was near, 
 and solicitous for the welfare of the people whom he had 
 hitherto guided, assembled them about him, and in various 
 addresses recapitulated the striking events of their past 
 history, dwelling particularly on details that exhibited 
 most clearly the guiding hand of God and the fallibility 
 and frailty of Israel, restated the fundamental principles 
 on which the nation was constituted, and by warning 
 and promise directed them to the dangers that lay in 
 the future if they proved unfaithful, and to the bless- 
 ings in store for them if tliey adhered to allegiance to 
 their national God. Let any professor of Hebrew set 
 liimself to state in idiomatic Hebrew what all this implies 
 in detail, and he will be bound to state it just as it is put 
 down in this book. The absence of the indirect speech 
 in Hebrew can be made quite clear to the English reader 
 by a reference to any page of the historical books. If a 
 writer wishes to say that one person made a verbal com- 
 munication to another, he must say, "So-and-so spake 
 to So-and-so, saying," and must give the ipsissima verba. 
 And yet, strictly speaking, the writer is not to be taken 
 as vouching for the actual words spoken. He is simply 
 producing, in the only way that the laws of his language 
 allow him to produce, the substance of the thing said; 
 and from beginning to end of the Old Testament writings, 
 the language remained at that stage, only the faintest 
 attempts to pass beyond it being visible. It is part of 
 that direct, graphic style of Old Testament Scripture,. 
 
424 The Law- Books. 
 
 which is of wide extent, and is based on the intuitive, 
 presentative mode of thought of the sacred writers, who 
 must describe a scene by painting it and its actors, with 
 their words and gestures, and reproduce a communication 
 in the actual words supposed to have been uttered.^ 
 
 It is easy to see now how a writer, soon after or long 
 after Moses, recalling the events which we may suppose 
 tradition preserved in the nation's mind, and using we 
 know not what documents, produced a book like Deuteron- 
 omy. The situation was not one of active events, but of 
 reflective pause and consideration, preparatory to the ardu- 
 ous work of the contest, and hence the literary form of the 
 book is different from that of the other books of the Pen- 
 tateuch. Not by any fiction, not by inventing a story for 
 a purpose, but in perfect good faith, he represents the aged 
 lawgiver, surrounded by the people whose welfare lay so 
 much at his heart, giving them such counsel, warning, and 
 encouragement as were suited to their circumstances. It 
 was but natural that a writer, setting himself to such a 
 task, should mingle much of his own in the composition. 
 No writer can divest himself of his own personality, or 
 write entirely without reference to the time in which he 
 lives. And a wTiter succeeding Moses, at a greater or less 
 interval, could not but see the development of events 
 which were only in germ in Moses' time, and could not 
 help representing them more or less in their developed 
 form. In this sense, and to this extent, it is true that any 
 late writer writes under the influence of later ideas ; and 
 the objection taken by critical writers to such a course is 
 an objection that would apply to all writing of history. 
 
 1 I may be allowed in this connection to refer to a paper on the 
 "Graphic Element in the Old Testament" in the Expositor, second 
 scries, vol. vi. p. 241 £F. 
 
The Good Faith of the Writer. 425 
 
 But between this — which is done in absolute good faith 
 — and the wholesale manufacturing of incidents and sit- 
 uations, there is all the difference between history and 
 fiction. We cannot think of such a writer imagining 
 his events so as to represent Moses recapitulating a 
 series of occurrences that did not take place, or which 
 the writer did not firmly believe did take place, or 
 ascribing to him laws which he did not consider to 
 have been in their form or substance propounded to the 
 people whom Moses addressed. 
 
 Laws are indeed, as has been already said, subject to 
 change with changing circumstances, and observances are 
 liable to assume new phases to meet new emergencies. 
 A law, given at first with a general reference, may come 
 face to face with actual states of society which force it 
 to take a more definite shape to meet the cases that 
 have arisen. This is development of law, but it is not 
 change of the substance of the law. Now if, as is surely 
 most reasonable to assume, Moses did warn his people 
 against the idolatries of the nations of Canaan, and enjoin 
 them to maintain their own religious faith and observ- 
 ances, the force of such warnings and admonitions would 
 be accentuated when the actual dangers emerged ; the law 
 would be seen in its farther reference, and assume a more 
 specific and precise form in the minds of those who 
 looked at it. If, then, a later writer, believing in all good 
 faith that Moses gave such admonitions, had before his 
 eyes the actual dangers which the lawgiver had in a 
 general way foreseen, he could not help, in restating the 
 laws, giving them a sharper and more incisive point ; but 
 he was not thereby either changing or inventing a law 
 This would be to develop law in the spirit of the Mosaic 
 legislation, on the understanding, however, that there was 
 
426 The Law-Boohs, 
 
 a positive Mosaic legislation to be developed. And all 
 this again, it seems to me, is compatible with the good 
 faith of the writer and with the substantial historical 
 accuracy of his narrative. It is, however, quite a different 
 thing from the supposition that the writer, after he had 
 seen certain dangers and abuses emerge, set himself to 
 devise a law which was quite new, in order to meet these, 
 and deliberately contrived a whole set of historical occur- 
 rences, in which it was feigned that the laws were given 
 forth in Mosaic times. 
 
 It will be remembered that those who make the Code 
 of Deuteronomy late, usually say that the writer drew 
 up laws in the spirit of the Mosaic legislation ; and even 
 Wellhausen says that the book of " Deuteronomy presup- 
 poses earlier attempts of this kind, and borrows its mate- 
 rials largely from them."^ The Biblical account of the 
 matter is, that Moses actually wrote down the laws con- 
 tained in the book. There was, in other words, a Deuter- 
 onomic Code prior to the book of Deuteronomy ; this is 
 what the critics themselves say, and what the book itself 
 says. The question is, Did the Code, in a written form 
 and to an appreciable extent, come from Moses himself ? 
 On the one side we have these vague admissions as to the 
 *' spirit of the Mosaic legislation " (and how was a late 
 writer to know what that spirit was unless by positive 
 enactment ?), and the equally vague admission of " former 
 attempts," without positive specification of the time and 
 extent of the attempts that were made. On the other 
 hand, we have the positive statement that Moses, at his 
 death, left a body of laws such as are included in the 
 book of Deuteronomy. That we have the very words of 
 the laws as he penned them, the custom of literary com- 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 402. See above, p. 399 f. 
 
Books containing the Levitical Code, 427 
 
 position, and the ordinary fates of legislative codes, show 
 us we are not forced to suppose. What became of the 
 actual collection of laws, beyond the fact that it was de- 
 livered to the Levites, and deposited in the side of the ark,^ 
 we are not told. And moreover, at what time and by 
 whose hands the whole of the book of Deuteronomy, as 
 we now have it, was composed, is a matter which literary 
 criticism alone cannot decide. It is only by inferences, 
 not very clear in themselves, that the conclusion is reached 
 that the book belongs to the age of Josiah ; but even if, 
 as a book, it belongs to that age, or later, I think the 
 considerations advanced will show how it may be still 
 historical and trustworthy, exhibiting at once the work- 
 ing of a later development of old principles, and pre- 
 serving also — not inventing for the occasion — elements 
 which are ancient and Mosaic.^ 
 
 II. Of the other law-books, we have to deal particu- 
 larly with those that embody the Levitical Code. Here 
 the narrative and the legal elements are very closely 
 blended; but I think it is possible, even on the suppo- 
 sition that the Code underwent modification in course of 
 time, to accept the books as trustworthy historical records. 
 Let us, however, first of all, see how the critical writers 
 account for the introduction of the Code and its related 
 narratives. 
 
 It is said that Ezekiel 
 
 *' in the last part of his work made the first attempt to record the 
 ritual which had been customary in the Temple of Jerusalem. Other 
 priests attached themselves to him (Levit. xvii.-xxvi.), and thus there 
 grew up in the exile from among the members of this profession a 
 kind of school of people who reduced to writing and to a system 
 what they had formerly practised in the way of their calhng. After 
 
 1 Deut. xxxi. 26- 2 gee Note XXVIII. 
 
428 The Law-Boohs. 
 
 the Temple was restored tliis theoretical zeal still continued to worlr, 
 and the ritual when renewed was still further developed by the 
 action and reaction on each other of theory and practice." ^ " So 
 long as the sacrificial worship remained in actual use, it was zealously 
 carried on, but people did not concern themselves with it theoreti- 
 cally, and had not the least occasion for reducing it to a Code. But 
 once the Temple was in ruins, the cultus at an end, Mq 'personnel out 
 of employment, it is easy to understand how the sacred praxis should 
 have become a matter of theory and writing, so that it might not 
 altogether perish, and how an exiled priest should have begun to 
 paint the picture of it as he carried it in his memory, and to publish 
 it as a programme for the future restoration of the theocracy. Nor 
 is there any difficulty if arrangements, which as long as they were 
 actually in force were simply regarded as natural, were seen after 
 their abolition in a transfiguring light, and from the study devoted 
 to them gained artificially a still higher value." ^ 
 
 All this may not be so " easy to understand " to every- 
 body as it seems to be to Wellhausen. Indeed the things 
 that he finds " no difficulty " in accepting are very often 
 the very things for which proof is most desiderated. As 
 to codification being tlie deposit during the exile of an old, 
 fully developed praxis, we have already had something to 
 say (p. 400 f.) ; and Bredenkamp exclaims with justifiable 
 astonishment, "Clouds which are formed in the time of 
 grandsires are not in the habit of raining upon grandsons. 
 Could people not write in pre-exilic times ? Must they 
 not be allowed to write ? Why tear with violence the 
 pen from the hand of the ancient Israelitish priests ? " ^ 
 We are told indeed by Wellhausen, on his own authority, 
 that the praxis of the priests at the altar never formed 
 part of the written law in pre-exilic times.* But Dill- 
 mann, who has subjected these books to a most thorough 
 examination, not 'only sees nothing against the idea, but 
 
 1 Well., Hist, of Israel, p. 404 ; comp. 496. ^ Ibid., p. 59 f. 
 
 * Gesetz und Propheten, p. 118. * Hist, of Israel, p. 59. 
 
Effects of the Exile. 429 
 
 finds positive proof for it, that the priests at the Temple 
 of Jerusalem were in the habit of writing down the laws 
 and regulations for their ceremonial functions.^ Besides, 
 Wellhausen has to assume for the nonce that the praxis 
 which was "zealously carried on" anterior to the exile 
 was just what underwent codification after it; although 
 his general contention is that in the pre-exilic period " no 
 trace can be found of acquaintance with the Priestly Code, 
 but on the other hand, very clear indications of ignorance 
 of its contents." ^ If, however, such " ignorance of its 
 contents " prevailed, how was an exiled priest or a number 
 of priests to carry the whole thing in memory and reduce 
 it to writing ? Moreover, what he ascribes to the time 
 of the exile, seems ill to agree with the statement of the 
 matter which he gives in another place. The Babylonian 
 exile, he says, 
 
 "violently tore the nation away from its native soil and kept it 
 apart for half a century, — a breach of historical continuity than 
 which it is almost impossible to conceive a greater. The new 
 generation had no natural but only an artificial relation to the times 
 of old ; the firmly rooted growths of the old soil, regarded as tfiorns 
 by the pious, were extirpated, and the freshly ploughed fallows 
 ready for a new sowing." ^ 
 
 He then goes on to say that it is 
 
 " far from being the case that the whole people at that time 
 underwent a general conversion in the sense of the prophets. . . . 
 Only the pious ones, who with trembling followed Jehovah's word, 
 were left as a remnant ; they alone had the strength to maintain 
 the Jewish individuality amid the medley of nationalities into which 
 they had been thrown. From the exile there returned, not the 
 nation, but a religious sect — those, namely, who had given them- 
 
 ^ Die Biicher Exodus u. Leviticus, 2*^° Auflage, p. 386. He calls Well- 
 hausen 's position "an arbitrary assertion." 
 
 2 Hist, of Israel, p. 59. Comp. above, p. 394. ^ j^i^j^ p^ 28. 
 
430 The Law-Boohs. 
 
 selves up body and soul to the reformation ideas. It is no wonder 
 that to these people, who besides, on their return, all settled in the 
 immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem, the thought never once 
 occurred of restoring the local cults. It cost them no struggle to 
 allow the destro^'ed Banioth to continue lying in ruins ; the prin- 
 ciple had become part of their very being, that the one God had 
 also but one place of worship, and thenceforward for all time coming 
 this was regarded as a thing of course." 
 
 This aspect of the exile as a violent wrench from old 
 associations is hardly consistent with the view that a 
 priestly party from the very beginning of the captivity 
 took up the minute study and arrangement of the sacri- 
 ficial system which had just been broken up. Nor, al- 
 though it is " no wonder " to Wellhausen, is it very clear 
 that a people should so easily forget all that was bad in 
 the past worship (and how much of it was bad !) and so 
 readily begin life anew on an entirely new principle. 
 Indeed this whole account of the influence of the exile 
 on the codification of law does not by any means turn out 
 to be so easy as Wellhausen would make us believe. 
 
 (X,) In tlie first place, we are told that " the transition 
 from the pre-exilic to the post-exilic period is effected, not 
 by Deuteronomy, but by Ezekiel the priest in prophet's 
 mantle, who was one of the first to be carried into exile." ^ 
 Ezekiel's so-called programme is so confidently appealed 
 to as the precursor of the Levitical Code, that to assert 
 anything to the contrary at the present day is to expose 
 one's self to ridicule as incompetent to understand criti- 
 cal processes. Nay, so important are the chapters in 
 the book of Ezekiel which contain this programme, that 
 Wellhausen says they have been called, not incorrectly, 
 " the key of the Old Testament." ^ The chapters in 
 question are xl. to xlviii. They form a connected piece, 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 59. ' Ibid., p. 421. 
 
EzekieVs Vision. 431 
 
 and tell us how the prophet was, "in the visions of 
 God," brought into the land of Israel, and what he saw 
 and was told there. He dwells at great length on the 
 measurements and details of arrangement of the Temple, 
 and communicates directions for its dedication and for its 
 service. He also describes the waters issuing from under 
 the house and going to fertilise the desert ; and he lays 
 out minutely the measurements of the sacred territory 
 and the situation of the tribes in the land. Now 
 surely, by all honest criticism, whatever mode of inter- 
 pretation is applied to one part of this vision should be 
 made to apply to the whole. If one part is a cool, de- 
 liberate programme, so should the others. If the other 
 parts are clearly not to be taken in this sense, neither 
 should the ceremonial part. Ezekiel is just as precise 
 and matter-of-fact in the divisions which he makes of the 
 Holy Land as in the ordinances he puts forth for the wor- 
 ship of the sanctuary. Yet the critical school proceeds in 
 the most elaborate fashion to examine this code or pro- 
 gramme, and tells us that it is the first attempt to arrange 
 what afterwards became the Levitical Code. Why do they 
 not say also that his geographical sketch is to be under- 
 stood, say, as the starting-point for the tribal divisions of 
 the book of Joshua, or that his sketch of the Temple is 
 the groundwork of Solomon's ? I must confess simply that 
 I cannot understand the principle of a criticism that thus 
 tears one piece out of connection and seeks to make it a 
 serious historical programme, while not a word can be said 
 in favour of treating the other parts in the same way. If 
 two-thirds of the vision are clearly ideal, so must the other 
 third, in whatever way we are to understand the ideal 
 meaning which the prophet meant to convey. If it be 
 urged that Ezekiel did not need to give details for 
 
432 TJie Law- Boohs. 
 
 ritual if a ritual law existed, and that he makes no 
 reference to any law on the subject, it can be rejoined 
 that he speaks in the same way of Temple and land. 
 We cannot gather from his description that the Temple 
 of Solomon was ever built or the land ever divided 
 among the tribes before his day. " This," he says, " shall 
 be the border, whereby ye shall divide the land for in- 
 heritance according to the twelve tribes of Israel: . . . 
 concerning the which I lifted up mine hand to give it 
 unto your fathers ;" ^ and he gives all the measurements 
 of some house seen in vision without referring to a house 
 which he knew quite well as having stood for centuries. 
 We need not therefore wonder at his bringing in a de- 
 tailed ritual, as if this were the first time such a thing had 
 been heard or thought of. He is not for the first time in 
 history trying to fix a ritual for a people who had hitherto 
 nothing but custom to guide them. His sketch is too 
 brief altogether for such an attempt. No priesthood 
 could have carried on the service of the sanctuary and 
 regulated the worship of the nation with such a vague 
 and fragmentary manual. As to its being as a literary 
 work the foundation of the later Levitical Code, it is 
 not by any means certain that in language or matter 
 the Levitical Code is dependent upon it. A careful 
 examination has led competent judges to decide that the 
 reverse is the case,^ though I do not think it necessary to 
 go into this. 
 
 But it may be urged, if there was a detailed authori- 
 tative law in existence, why did Ezekiel, even in vision, 
 deviate from it ? Well, on the critical hypothesis the 
 
 1 Ezek. xlvii. 13, 14. 
 
 2 See, e.g., Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, p. 116 ff. ; Dillmann, 
 Die Biicher Exodus u. Leviticus, p. 524 ff. See also Note XXIX. 
 
Study of Cultus in the Exile, 433 
 
 Deuteronomic law at least existed as authoritative, and 
 yet Ezekiel deviates from it. If it is still asked, How 
 could he, prophet though he was, quietly set aside the 
 recognised law ? the question again arises. After he, a 
 prophet speaking in God's name by direct revelation, 
 sketched this law, how did priests in tlie exile pass by 
 Ezekiel's draft, and frame a divergent code ? In fact, 
 there are insuperable difficulties on every side when 
 this ritual of Ezekiel is taken as a cool, matter-of-fact 
 programme of legislation, put forth as a first attempt at 
 codification ; and no argument can be based upon it for 
 the modern theory. 
 
 (2.) And then, secondly, it is quite conceivable that the 
 people in the exile should have turned their attention to 
 matters of law. They would be compelled, in order to 
 keep themselves separate from the surrounding heathen, 
 to attend to those matters of personal, ceremonial, and 
 social order which were their national distinctions, and, 
 so far, their very existence as a separate people in the 
 exile is a proof of pre-existing law. But it is not so 
 clear, by any means, that they should for the first time 
 make a study of purely Levitical and sacrificial laws at 
 a time when they had no cultus. ISTor, in view of the 
 zeal for the law shown at a later time by the Jews in 
 Babylon, is it so clear that only a few underwent a 
 "conversion in the sense of the prophets." AVellhausen 
 has to suppose a school of people who gave themselves 
 ardently to this study of ritual law. It was a large 
 school, if the number of returning exiles is taken into 
 account. All these must have been in Ezra's secret on 
 this view, — all ardently devoted to the reformation ideas. 
 Now, in point of fact, Ezra's own account is that he had 
 a deficiency of Levites among his volunteers, and had to 
 
 2 E 
 
434 The Law-Boohs. 
 
 urge them to join him and to act as " ministers for the 
 house of oitr God " (Ezra viii. 15 ff.) Moreover, Haggai 
 sliows us that the people were very far indeed from 
 being devoted to the reformation ideas ; the sacrificial 
 system was slackly observed ; and even in Ezra's and 
 Nehemiah's time the picture of the people is anything 
 but that of a community that " had given themselves up 
 body and soul to the reformation ideas " of either morals 
 or worship.^ 
 
 (3.) But, further, difficult as it is to believe that the so- 
 called school for the first time put down in writing what 
 they treasured in their memories, this is not the whole of 
 the hypothesis. Again, and in a much more objectionable 
 form, comes in the supposition of fiction, whereby a false 
 historical setting was invented for the laws of the Le- 
 vitical Code, by carrying them back to Moses and the 
 desert, simply in order to give the law higher sanction. 
 Not only, for example, was there no tabernacle, such as is 
 described in the Pentateuch, prepared in the wilderness, 
 but even at the time when the story of its construction 
 was fabricated, there was no such tabernacle to have 
 given rise to the fable, nor had any such tabernacle 
 ever existed to give a start to the story.^ It was simply 
 the legend-spinning invention of men of late time that 
 cut down the dimensions of the Temple to half their size, 
 and feigned that a tabernacle of that size existed in a 
 portable form in the wilderness; and all this simply to 
 make it appear that the Temple worship was of older 
 institution than the time of the building of the Temple. 
 So also a fictitious origin is given for what the Code rep- 
 
 1 Ezra ix. 1 ff. ; Neh. v. 1 ff., xiii. 4 ff., 15 ff., 23 ff. ; Mai. i. 6 ff., ii. 
 8ff. 
 
 2 Wellhausen, p. 37 ff. 
 
Manufacture of History. 435 
 
 resents as other early institutions. In every case in 
 which a law is said to have been given in Mosaic times, 
 the circumstances, if stated, must be similarly explained 
 as invented or suggested in a late time. In this way, 
 all sorts of divergences of the narrative of the Priestly 
 Code from that of the Jehovist are accentuated, and it 
 is made to appear — at the expense, it must be admitted, of 
 wonderful ingenuity — that the former are of exilic time 
 — i.e.y of the date of or subsequent to the introduction of 
 the laws.^ 
 
 The question is whether the palm of ingenuity is to be 
 assigned to the writers of these books or to the modern 
 critics ; whether a school composed of men like Ezekiel and 
 Ezra were likely to have with boundless inventiveness 
 concocted all this history, or our modern critics are ran- 
 sacking the treasures of their wits to find an artificial 
 explanation of a thing that is much more simple than 
 they make it ? For what could have been the object in in- 
 venting history wholesale in this way ? To give sanction 
 to the laws, it is said : but on whom was the sanction to 
 bear ? If on the men of the priestly school themselves, 
 they were already, on the hypothesis, devoted to the refor- 
 mation ideas ; if on the people at large, the mere manufac- 
 ture of a history that was new to them was not likely to 
 rouse them from their lethargy and fire tliem with new 
 zeal ; and, so far as we can see, it did not. It is to be re- 
 membered — and the remark applies also to the production 
 of Deuteronomy — that this was not a case of a person in 
 secret devising an unheard-of scheme of history, and lay- 
 ing it away to be read by posterity. Nor was it, as I 
 understand the theory, a case of gathering up for a present 
 purpose the old and cherished traditions of a people. The 
 
 ^ See Note XXX. 
 
436 The Law-Books. 
 
 thing was done, so to speak, in open day for a special 
 purpose at the time, a consideraljle number of persons 
 being engaged in it, and among a people who already had 
 a definite tradition as to their history. Yet, though the 
 people, at least in Jeremiah's days, were critical enough 
 in matters of the national history (Jer. xxvi. 16 ff.), we 
 never hear, either then or at the time of the restoration, 
 of any suspicion being cast upon the account of the history 
 which these law-books contain. 
 
 (4.) But the form in which the Levitical Code appears 
 is not favourable to the modern theory of its origin. The 
 laws are in many cases, it will be observed, provided with 
 headings, which vary in a curious manner, as, e.g., " The 
 Lord spake unto Moses," "The Lord spake unto Moses 
 and Aaron," and even " the Lord spake unto Aaron " ; and 
 the persons to whom the laws are directed are various, as 
 " the children of Israel," " Aaron and his sons," " all the 
 congregation of the children of Israel," and " Aaron and 
 his sons and all the children of Israel." Such features 
 as these, as well as the manner in which the laws are 
 arranged, the same subject coming up more than once, 
 and the same law being repeated in different places, give 
 one the impression that the laws were collected together 
 from different sources. It looks as if there had been 
 smaller collections, regulating individual observances, and 
 perhaps intrusted to different persons for preservation and 
 execution. At all events, the collection does not present 
 the appearance of a systematic Code. This feature, I 
 should think, is more opposed to the idea of composi- 
 tion by Ezra and a school, who would surely, when the 
 whole system was for the first time to be set down in 
 writing, have proceeded in a more systematic manner, 
 than to the idea of Mosaic origin and gradual modification 
 
Latitude allowed hy Biblical Writers. 437 
 
 in course of time. I have already referred to the peculi- 
 arity of the Hebrew speech, whereby the direct words 
 must be put into the moutli of the speaker, when we 
 need only assume the substance of the thing delivered. 
 The headings of those laws, on this common-sense mode 
 of viewing the matter, mean no more than that the laws 
 originally came from Mosaic times ; the history is satis- 
 fied, and the hona fides of the writers is maintained. So 
 that even if the final codification took place as late as 
 Ezra, the Code, and still more the institutions, might with 
 propriety and substantial accuracy be described as Mosaic. 
 The Biblical writers do not fix for us the time or times 
 at which the laws as they lie before us were written 
 down ; and their statements, fairly interpreted, allow us 
 to suppose that the books passed through many literary 
 processes before they reached their final form. The mul- 
 tiplicity of the sources out of which the law-books are 
 composed is a proof of long-continued literary history. 
 The peculiar arrangement of the legal portions, nay, their 
 very divergence from one another, prove that law was 
 for long a living thing, and that the Codes are not re- 
 suscitated from the memories of priests or excogitated by 
 scribes. If, as seems quite reasonable, the laws for various 
 ceremonies were, in the hands of those who had charge of 
 them, copied and handed on from generation to genera- 
 tion of priests, it is quite probable that in the course of 
 time there might have liappened alterations of the rubric 
 with altered circumstances, and that the final transcript 
 or redaction would thus have a more modern cast than 
 the original. All this, however, does not disprove the 
 antiquity of the legislation nor the early writing of the 
 laws, and it is surely, though not so ingenious, yet a much 
 more ingenuous explanation than to say that the laws 
 
 0? TI^ 
 
 WTTrW 
 
438 The Law-Boohs. 
 
 were by a fiction ascribed to ancient time in order to give 
 them an authority to which they were not entitled. By 
 taking the statements of the Biblical writers as they 
 stand, and not burdening them with conclusions for which 
 they are not responsible, we get a more consistent and 
 natural view of the whole history of the law — a view that 
 certainly in itself is more credible to one who is not pre- 
 judiced against the Biblical writers, and set to watch for 
 their halting. For the rest, the order of the Codes as 
 Codes written, the relation of laws to one another, and 
 their modifications in detail with advancing time — these 
 are things that criticism may exercise its ingenuity upon, 
 and seek to exhibit in their true lights and proportions. 
 But they are more of archaeological than of practical in- 
 terest in reference to the great point which we wish to 
 ascertain, the origin and development of the religion ; and 
 it is mainly because they have been too much bound up 
 with that question that they have acquired so much im- 
 portance. There can be no harm in critical investigation 
 of this kind, so long as the main course of the history, 
 which rests on its own independent proofs, is taken as the 
 guiding principle of the criticism. It is, to say the least, 
 very doubtful whether at this distance of two or three 
 thousand years we are in a position to determine, with 
 any measure of success, the dates of the respective sources 
 of which the books of the Pentateuch are made up. The 
 extraordinary turns that modern criticism has taken on 
 the subject testify to the difficulty of the problem, if they 
 do not shake our confidence in its ability to solve it. 
 The curious blending of elements in the composite struc- 
 ture of these books, while it impresses on us the magnitude 
 of the task of criticism, suggests a gradual and repeated 
 process of editing, transcribing, and modification which is 
 
Natural Froductio7i of Boohs. 439 
 
 perfectly conceivable among a people well acquainted with 
 literary processes. The essential point to be remembered 
 — the point to which all our investigations have tended 
 — is, that the law and the writing of it are much older 
 than modern critics allow; and the phenomenon wliich 
 the books as books present to us is much more reason- 
 ably accounted for on the Biblical principle than on the 
 modern theory: they are a product, in a natural way, 
 of history, both religious and literary — not compositions, 
 framed according to a literary method altogether unpar- 
 alleled in order to manufacture a history which never 
 was. 
 
440 
 
 CHAPTEE XYII. 
 
 LAW AND PROPHECY. 
 
 The order of law and prophets reversed by modern theory, and this not 
 merely as an order of written documents but of history — (1) Position 
 examined that all the prophets denied the divine authority of sacrifice 
 and ritual laws — Passages from Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, Jeremiah con- 
 sidered — (2) The position that the Deuteronomic Code was introduced 
 through prophetic influence, and toith it the impulse given to legalism 
 — Inconsistent character in which the prophets are inade to appear in 
 Tnodern theory — The whole position of the prophets as religious guides 
 is to be taken into account — The Covenant, and what it implied — 
 The historical situation in Josiah''s time does not agree with modern 
 theory — Nor does the situation at and after the exile — Fundamental 
 harmony of law and prophecy — The history did not turn on a struggle 
 of parties — Law and Gospel, 
 
 AccOEDiXG to the modern theory the Biblical order of 
 law and prophets is reversed into the order of prophets 
 and law. Did this merely amount to the assertion that 
 some of the prophetical writings existed before the Penta- 
 teuch had assumed its present form, it might be a defen- 
 sible position on grounds of literary criticism.^ It is, how- 
 ever, maintained in tlie sense that prophetic activity comes 
 historically before the acceptance of authoritative law, 
 and that, in fact, by a course of development, the prophets 
 
 1 Cf. Wellhausen, p. 409. 
 
Attitude of Prophets to Law, 441 
 
 brought about the introduction of the law. The position 
 which, on this theory, the prophets are made to assume 
 from first to last, and the relation in which they are 
 made to stand towards the whole movement of legisla- 
 tion, are so peculiar that the subject requires some special 
 treatment. 
 
 (1.) We have already considered the contention that 
 in all those passages in the earlier writing prophets in 
 which law or laws are mentioned, the reference is only 
 to oral and not to written law. The priests, we are 
 told, like the prophets, gave forth their toroth or in- 
 structions orally to the people; and the substance of 
 the priestly Torah was chiefly moral, but partly also 
 ceremonial, relating to things clean and unclean. "What- 
 ever became of the concrete toroth on those subjects, we 
 are assured that the practice of the priests at the altar 
 was never matter of instruction to the laity, and was 
 not written down in a codified shape.^ It is not made 
 very clear in all this wherein the Torah of the priests 
 differed from tliat of the prophets; nor is it made clear 
 to w^hat extent, if any, the priests wrote down their moral 
 and ceremonial Torah. What we have particularly to do 
 with here, however, is the attitude of the prophets to the 
 law. It cannot be denied that, in the expressions of a 
 general kind which they employ, they show a high re- 
 spect for the Torah of the priests. This, however, say 
 the critical historians, was the moral part of the priestly 
 instruction, and it is strenuously maintained that the 
 prophets, down to the time of Jeremiah, denied the divine 
 authority of sacrifice and ritual laws. The situation, as 
 I understand the contention, was this : In pre-exilic an- 
 tiquity, when the worship of the Bamoth was the rule, 
 
 ^ Wellhauscn, p. 59. 
 
442 Law and Prophecy. 
 
 the main thing in the service was not the rite, but the 
 deity to whom the service was rendered. The historical 
 books that date from pre-exilic time — the books of Judges, 
 Samuel, and Kings — exhibit great varieties in the modes 
 of sacrifice, some of which may correspond to tlie law of 
 the Pentateuch, while others certainly deviate widely from 
 it, proving that there was no fixed rule.^ The prophetical 
 books also, " in their polemic against confounding worsliip 
 with religion," while they " reveal the fact tliat in their 
 day the cultus was carried on with the utmost zeal and 
 splendour," show that this high estimation rested, not on 
 the opinion that the cultus came from Moses, but simply 
 on the belief that Jahaveh must be honoured by His de- 
 pendants, just like other gods, by means of offerings and 
 gifts.^ "According to the universal opinion of the pre- 
 exilic period, the cultus is indeed of very old and (to the 
 people) very sacred usage, but not a Mosaic institution ; 
 the ritual is not the main thing in it, and is in no sense 
 the subject with which the Torah deals." ^ So that, 
 in a word, as far as regards the ceremonies of worship, 
 *' the distinction between legitimate and heretical is alto- 
 gether wanting ; " * the theory of an illegal praxis is im- 
 possible, and the legitimacy of the actually existing is 
 indisputable.^ The prophets, therefore, when they rebuke 
 the people for their sacrifices and offerings, are not to be 
 understood as reproving them for the corruption of a pure 
 law of worship that existed, but as expressing disapproval 
 of the whole sacrificial system, as a thing of mere human 
 device, and destitute of divine sanction. Not only do 
 they show, by thus speaking, that there was no law such 
 as the Levitical Code in their day ; but even the prophets, 
 
 i Wellhausen, p. 55. 2 i^id., p. 5(5. » Ibid., p. 59. 
 
 4 Ibid., p. 65. 5 Ibid., p. 60. 
 
Isaiah and Ritual. 443 
 
 before the time of Josiah, have nothing to say against the 
 local sanctuaries (so long as they are devoted to the wor- 
 ship of the national God), a proof that the Deuteronomic 
 Code did not come into existence till that period, and 
 much more a proof that it had no divine sanction. The 
 prophets, in a word, appear as the exponents of a tendency 
 tlie very opposite of the legalising tendency which brought 
 legal Codes into existence. 
 
 Great stress, in this argument, is laid upon the declara- 
 tion of Isaiah. His antipathy to the whole ritual system 
 finds expression, it is said, in the well-known passage in 
 the first chapter of his book : " To what purpose is the 
 multitude of your sacrifices unto me ? saith Jahaveh : I 
 am weary with the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of 
 fed beasts ; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, and 
 of lambs, and of he-goats. When ye come to look upon 
 my face, who hath required this at your hands, to trample 
 my courts ? " This expression, Wellhausen asserts with 
 confidence, " the prophet could not possibly have uttered 
 if the sacrificial worship had, according to any tradition 
 whatever, passed for being specifically Mosaic."^ But 
 what then becomes of the book of the Covenant, which 
 was surely at this time accepted as an authoritative Code, 
 and is expressly ascribed to Moses ? It says, in the law 
 of worship which the critics appeal to as existing up to 
 Josiah's time, and therefore prevailing in Isaiah's days: 
 "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt 
 sacrifice tliereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offer- 
 ings, thy sheep, and thine oxen." ^ Or if it is maintained 
 that Isaiah condemned even that early piece of legislation, 
 surely the argument here employed proves too much. For 
 it would make the prophet condemn also the Sabbath 
 1 Wellhausen, p. 58. 2 Exod. xx. 24. 
 
444 Law and Propliecy. 
 
 as a piece of will-worship, and even reject prayer as a 
 thing displeasing to God, since, in the same connection, 
 he says: "The new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of 
 assemblies, I cannot away with ; . . . and when ye spread 
 forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you ; yea, 
 when ye make many prayers, I will not hear."^ 
 
 If we allow to Isaiah the perception of a difference 
 between sacrifice as an oims opeixitum, and sacrifice as the 
 expression of a true and obedient heart — and surely the 
 prince of the prophets was capable of drawing such a 
 distinction — his words have a definite and precise mean- 
 ing, eminently suited to the times and circumstances in 
 which he lived. If we take them as a statement in this 
 bald form, of the history of religious observances in Israel, 
 they are emptied of their ethical as well as their rhetori- 
 cal force, and land us in a position which is incomprehen- 
 sible in the circumstances. For what, is it conceived 
 or conceivable, was the worship of a true Israelite in 
 Isaiah's days ? Is there any outward worship left that 
 a man like Isaiah himself could take part in ? Is 
 this prophet to be refined away into a kind of free- 
 thinker who stood aloof from all outward observances 
 of religion, who " never went to church," as the modern 
 phrase goes, because the whole of the ordinary service 
 of worship was a mere human device ? Or if a prophet 
 might thus attain to a position independent of the out- 
 
 ^ Isa. i. 13, 15. Konig (Hauptprobleme, p. 90) endeavours to make a 
 distinction between "I cannot away with" (v. 13) as applied to the 
 Sabbath, and " who hath required?" (v. 12) as applied to offerings ; and 
 Bays that a "cautious exegesis" shows that the things enumerated in vv. 
 11-16 were looked upon as matters of worship, coming in different senses 
 and degrees from God. " Cautious " is scarcely the term that I should 
 apply to such exegesis ; for I doubt very much whether such fine distinc- 
 tions ever occurred to the minds of the prophets. 
 
Micah and Sacrifice. 445 
 
 ward aids of devotion, what of the common people ? What 
 worship is to be allowed to them at all, if all that went 
 on at the Temple is condemned, and if the condemnation 
 means what the critics say ? For, be it observed, Isaiah 
 is not indifferent to these things, as things that might be 
 good enough for the vulgar, but were too gross for him. 
 Whatever the things are to which he is referring, he 
 refers to them with displeasure ; and if there is a possi- 
 bility of legitimate worship at all, we must regard his 
 words not as a condemnation of that, but of the spirit in 
 which it was performed, or of the abuses with which it 
 was surrounded. A mere historical, unimpassioned state- 
 ment as to the origin of sacrificial worship is out of the 
 question. 
 
 Again, it has been said that the words of Micah, the 
 contemporary of Isaiah, prove the same thing : " He hath 
 showed thee, man, what is good ; and what doth the 
 Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and love mercy, 
 and to walk humbly with thy God ? " (Micah vi. 8), Says 
 Wellhausen, "Although the blunt statement of the con- 
 trast between cultus and religion is peculiarly prophetic, 
 Micah can still take his stand upon this : ' It hatli been 
 told thee, man, what Jehovah requires.' It is no new 
 matter, but a thing well known, that sacrifices are not 
 what the Torah of the Lord contains," ^ which is not a 
 lair interpretation of the prophet's words, for the com- 
 mand to do justly and love mercy does not exclude a 
 command to offer sacrifice. But this is the very prophet 
 who, in almost identical terms with Isaiah, anticipates 
 the time when the mountain of the Lord's house shall be 
 exalted, and all nations shall flow into it. So that the 
 argument, if pushed to its conclusion, would prove that 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 58. 
 
446 Law and Prophecy. 
 
 these two prophets denied the divine authority of all out- 
 ward observances of religion ; and yet would ascribe to 
 them the absurdity of maintaining great sanctity for a 
 Temple and an altar, whose service was otiose or alto- 
 gether improper. 
 
 In the same way appeal is made to the well-known dec- 
 laration of Hosea, " I desired mercy and not sacrifice " 
 (Hosea vi. 6). One would have thought that the prophet's 
 meaning was made quite clear by the words that follow, 
 "and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings." 
 I confess I am astonished that a passage like this should 
 be insisted upon by professional students of Hebrew ; but 
 it would almost seem that, in their anxiety to establish a 
 hypothesis, some can not only ignore poetry and senti- 
 ment in the Hebrew writings, but even shut their eyes 
 to plain matters of grammar and rhetoric. The slightest 
 reference to the usage of the language will suffice to 
 show how little worth is the argument based on the 
 text before us. "When we read in Prov. viii. 10, "Ee- 
 ceive my instruction and not silver, and knowledge rather 
 than choice gold," we perceive that the two forms of 
 expression explain one another. Who would conclude 
 from the phrase " and not silver " that it was absolutely 
 forbidden in all circumstances to take silver? Or again, 
 when we read, "Let a bear robbed of her whelps meet 
 a man in the way, and not a fool in his folly" (Prov. 
 xvii. 12), does any one conclude that it was of no con- 
 sequence what became of a man exposed to the attack 
 of a wild beast, so long as he kept out of tlie way of a 
 fool ? The prophet, in brief, says only what Samuel said 
 long before him, " To obey is better than sacrifice, and to 
 hearken than the fat of rams," though the seer of Eamah 
 himself offered sacrifices as a regular religious observance. 
 
The Worship at the Temple. 447 
 
 What he did, no doubt his successors in the prophetic 
 office countenanced ; and there is absolutely no proof that, 
 up to the time of Josiah, the Temple at Jerusalem was a 
 place at which no purer service was known than that 
 practised at the high places. The writer of the books of 
 the Kings, though his testimony cannot be pressed here, 
 had some good reason for singling out certain kings who 
 introduced heathen corruptions into the Temple service, 
 and instancing the attempts, successful or otherwise, to 
 abolish them by others. To suppose that he acted ar- 
 bitrarily in this matter is to criticise away his accounts 
 altogether, and would leave us no assurance of the truth 
 of even the account of Josiah's reformation. There is no 
 reason to doubt that at certain times, and under the more 
 faithful of the kings, the worship of the central sanctuary 
 at Jerusalem was observed with something of the purity 
 and regularity which were maintained after the time at 
 which the critics allow the reform took place. To take 
 the case of Isaiah, can any of the modern school tell us 
 what led that prophet to clothe the vision of his inaugu- 
 ration to the prophetic work (Isa. vi ) in the dress which 
 he gives to it, and why, if the Temple service was full of 
 abominations, its furniture and arrangements should have 
 been chosen for the imagery of one of his highest flights 
 of prophetic inspiration ? What was the altar from which 
 a live coal was taken, the touching of his lips by wliicli 
 was to purge his iniquity ? One would have thought 
 there was more need — if the modern position is correct — 
 for the purifying influence to proceed in the opposite direc- 
 tion, from the prophet to the altar, and that the message 
 delivered to the prophet should have been like that of 
 the prophet against the altar of Bethel (1 Kings xiii. 2). 
 But we are told confidently that Jeremiah gives con- 
 
448 Law and Prophecy. 
 
 elusive proof of the modern theory when he says (vii. 22) : 
 " For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them 
 in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt 
 concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices : but this thing I 
 commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I 
 will be your God, and ye shall be my people." Well, if 
 we are bound at all hazards to take words literally, the 
 words are literally true ; for, according to tlie account of 
 Exodus itself, the command in the day of the deliverance 
 from Egypt was not a command in regard to burnt-offer- 
 ings and sacrifices. The people at that crisis had to make 
 the grand venture of faith and obedience ; and not till 
 they were delivered and safe in the desert was there any 
 " command concerning " a system of sacrifices. It is this 
 idea that is working in the prophet's mind, though I do 
 not believe he imagined for a moment that his words 
 would be taken as a historical statement of the late origin 
 of sacrifices, or of the time of its introduction at all. The 
 polemic was not as to the date of introduction of sacrifice, 
 but as to its rightful place and meaning. Jeremiah was 
 not opposed to all ritual service, as Graf himself admitted. 
 His words are just an expansion of the fundamental 
 prophetic dictum of Samuel that to obey is better than 
 sacrifice. The thing he is insisting on, as all the prophets 
 do, is the utter worthlessness of sacrifices and offerings 
 without the obedience of tlie life and the fidelity of the 
 heart. And to make the words mean more is to make 
 Jeremiah declare that up to liis time there was no law for 
 worship whatever, and yet worship at that period without 
 authorised ceremonial and sacrifice is inconceivable. 
 
 (2.) On the other hand, we are told by the advocates of 
 the modern theory that it was through proj)hetic influence 
 that the Code of Deuteronomy was brought into existence 
 
The Prophets and Legalism. 449 
 
 and recognition, and that tlie movement, once set agoing, 
 resulted also in the codification of the Levitical law ; that, 
 in fact, the prophets seeking to give permanent form and 
 authoritative sanction to their teaching, embodied it in 
 the form of a code ; that thus prophecy had its final de- 
 velopment, but in reaching this development destroyed 
 itself. Speaking of the manner in which the Deuter- 
 onomic Code was brought in, Wellhausen says: "Witli 
 the tone of repudiation in which the earlier prophets, in 
 the zeal of their opposition, had occasionally spoken of 
 practices of worship at large, there was nothing to be 
 achieved ; the thing to be aimed at was not abolition but 
 reformation, and the end, it was believed, would be helped 
 by concentration of all ritual in the capital" (p. 26). He 
 admits, indeed, that merely to abolish the holy places, and 
 only to limit to one locality the cultus, which was still to 
 be the main concern, was by no means the wish of the 
 prophets — though it came about as an incidental result of 
 their teaching (p. 23). This, however, seems to be hardly 
 consistent with the preceding position ; nor do I think it 
 is reconcilable witli a fair interpretation of the declara- 
 tions of the prophets on the subject. The influence of the 
 prophets cannot be said to have been at any time in the 
 direction of the enforcement of external observances, ex- 
 cept in so far as they urged the people to that change of 
 heart which would result in such observances ; and there 
 is no proof from their own writings that they knew of any 
 way of curing the people's godlessness but the exercise of 
 repentance and the return to heart religion. 
 
 If there is any one class in the Old Testament liistory 
 to whom we must accord the title of earnestness and 
 sincerity of purpose, it is the prophets. The most super- 
 ficial reader must perceive their deep religious devotion, 
 
 2 F 
 
450 Laiu and Prophecy. 
 
 their freedom from self-seeking and time-serving. It is 
 difficult, however, to reconcile the admission of these 
 qualities with the characters they exhibit and the parts 
 they are made to play on the modern theory. "Well- 
 hausen, for example, attempts to prove that Isaiah never 
 laboured for the removal of tlie Bamoth, but only for their 
 purification ; ^ although he himself tells us that all writers 
 of the Chaldean period associate monotheism in the closest 
 way with unity of worship (p. 27), and admits that Isaiali 
 himself gave a special pre-eminence in his estimation to 
 Jerusalem, and that " even as early as the time of Mieah 
 the temple must have been reckoned a house of God of an 
 altogether peculiar order, so as to make it a paradox to 
 put it on a level with the Bamoth of Judah." ^ And yet 
 these two prophets are relied upon as leading witnesses to 
 prove that the whole ritual system was not only without 
 authority, but positively displeasing to God. The ques- 
 
 ^ The reason given for this statement should not he passed over ; it ia 
 characteristic of Wellhausen's method of proof : " In one of his latest 
 discourses his anticipation for that time of righteousness, and the fear of 
 God which is to dawn after the Assyrian crisis, is : ' Then shall ye defile the 
 silver covering of your graven images, and the golden plating of your molten 
 images ; ye shall cast them away as a thing polluted : Begone ! shall ye say 
 unto them ' (xxx. 22). If he thus hopes for a purification from supersti- 
 tious accretions of the places where Jehovah is worshipped, it is clear that 
 lie is not thinking of their total abolition" (p. 25 f.) We will leave the 
 circles in which " appreciation of scientific results can be looked for at 
 all" (p. 9), to determine here whether the "accretions" are merely the 
 plating of the images — as those who believe image worship was the autho- 
 rised religion would no doubt say — or the images themselves, as Well- 
 hausen himself seems to imply (p. 46), in which case one would suppose 
 there would be little use of these places of worship at all. Pyramids 
 of "scientific results" are poised upon such precarious points, but I 
 take it that Isaiah was not one to concern himself, like the scribes and 
 Pharisees, with such distinctions (Matt. xxiv. 16-18). See before, chap. 
 ix. p, 228 ; comp. p. 235 f. 
 
 2 Wellhausen, p. 25. 
 
Inconsiste7icy of Jeremiah. 451 
 
 tion is whether the inconsistency is to be attributed to the 
 prophets or to be charged against a vicious theory ; for 
 other prophets fare no better at the hands of the critics. 
 For, let us come down to Jeremiah, who was contem- 
 porary with the Deuteronomic reformation, and who has 
 even been supposed to have had a hand in the composi- 
 tion of the book or the Code. We find that prophet, so 
 far from trusting to the mere acceptance of a written code 
 for reformation, going beyond any of his predecessors in 
 the inwardness of his teaching.^ He has reached, finally, 
 the conception of personal heart religion as a thing far 
 before a mere national adoption of a national God, and 
 speaks of the law written in the heart. How a person 
 with such views — not to speak of his conviction that law 
 had no divine sanction — should labour to elaborate a book 
 like Deuteronomy, and trust to its reception to bring 
 about the state of things he desired, it is very hard to 
 understand. Or if Jeremiah did indeed help the intro- 
 duction of Deuteronomy, he at the same time went far 
 beyond it in the unfolding of its teaching ; and what then 
 becomes of the assertion, that the codifying of the law put 
 an end to the free activity of the prophets ? ISTo wonder 
 that prophecy, in reaching this position, destroyed itself, 
 for the prophets had stultified themselves. There is here 
 an exhibition of inconsistency which requires explanation, 
 and the explanation that is given is peculiar. "In his 
 early years," we are told,^ " Jeremiah had a share in the 
 introduction of the law ; but in later times he shows him- 
 self little edified by the effects it produced ; the lying pen 
 of the scribes, he says, has written for a lie (Jer. viii. 7-9)." 
 To say nothing of the very doubtful determination of early 
 and late in Jeremiah's utterances on this subject, we are 
 
 1 Jer. in. 16; xxxi. 31 ff. ^ Wellhauscn, Hist, of Israel, p. 403. 
 
452 Law and Pro;phecy, 
 
 asked to believe not only that the prophet had a share in 
 the introduction of a code which pronounces a curse on 
 those who shall not observe it, and afterwards turned his 
 back upon all ritual law, but also that he allowed the book 
 of his prophecies to go forth (Jer. xxxvi. 4, 5, 32) with 
 the record of his inconsistency on its face. Had not the 
 prophet of Anathoth trouble enough in his lifetime that 
 he must be thus tortured in modern days ? Or are we to 
 say that a character so vacillating deserved all that he 
 suffered? Yet Vatke would build him a sepulchre, by 
 claiming him as the earliest witness for the late origin and 
 unhistorical character of the Mosaic law.^ It will hardly 
 be denied that the prototype of modern critics is made to 
 appear in rather a sorry character ; for, if all this is true, 
 he utters his own condemnation (Jer. xiv. 14). Again, it is 
 not easy to comprehend how Ezekiel, pining over the low 
 condition of his countrymen in exile, and reaching those 
 spiritual intuitions expressed in his vision of the dry 
 bones, and the waters issuing from the sanctuary, should 
 at the same time believe that the remedy for his people's 
 misfortunes was to be found in a minute observance of 
 ceremonial ordinances, and occupy himself with a codifi- 
 cation — on a limited scale — of Temple ritual, as if the 
 putting down of Levites and the putting up of priests was 
 to bring about a national revival. Nor does he, in point of 
 fact, represent things in that order. All these things are 
 good enough when the people are of one mind in serving 
 their Lord, and desire to give expression to their active 
 religious life: they are absolutely powerless to produce 
 such a life, as all the prophets well knew. 
 
 In order to perceive how the prophets stood to the law, 
 we must take into account their whole position as religious 
 
 1 Bibl. Theol., p. 220 f.; Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, p. 106. 
 
National Standing of Prophets. 453 
 
 teachers, and their relation to the religious movement of 
 the nation. Kuenen, as we have seen in another connec- 
 tion,^ insists upon the common ground on which people 
 and prophets stood — viz., that Jahaveh was Israel's God, 
 and Israel Jahaveh's people. This, he says, can be traced 
 back to Moses himself, whose " great work and enduring 
 merit " it was " not that he introduced into Israel any par- 
 ticular religious forms and practices, but that he estab- 
 lished the service of Jahveh among his people upon a 
 moral footing. * I will be to you a God, and ye shall be 
 to me a people.' So speaks Jahveh, through Moses, to the 
 Israelitish tribes.^ This reciprocal covenant between Jah- 
 veh and His people, sealed by the deliverance from Egyp- 
 tian bondage, is guaranteed by the fact that the ark, 
 Jahveh's dwelling-place, accompanies the Israelites on 
 the journey in the desert, and afterwards remains estab- 
 lished in their midst." ^ Kuenen thus admits that there 
 was a "reciprocal covenant between Jahveh and His 
 people," sealed by a historical occurrence, and vouched 
 for by the existence of a religious symbol. "We have 
 already argued (p. 338 f.) that such a covenant is incon- 
 ceivable without some attendant ceremonial institutions; 
 and at this initial point, it seems, we may find the ex- 
 planation of the real attitude of the prophets to the law. 
 Kuenen himself hints at it when he says, " On their part 
 the people must remain faithful to the conditions of the 
 pact concluded with Jahveh. These conditions are prin- 
 cipally moral ones. This is the great thing. Jahveh is 
 distinguished from the rest of the gods in this, that he 
 will be served, not merely by sacrifices and feasts, but also, 
 
 ^ See chap. xii. p. 307. 
 
 2 Exod. vi. 7 ; Levit. xxvi. 45 ; Deut. xxix. 13. 
 
 3 Relig. of Israel, vol. i. pp. 292, 293. 
 
454 Law and Proj)liccy^ 
 
 nay, in the first place, by the observance of the moral 
 commandments which form the chief contents of the ten 
 words." ^ Quite so; and this is just what all the Biblical 
 writers say. But why slip in this, " not merelyby sacri- 
 fices and feasts," if these are not only not commanded, but 
 actually wrong? There can be no doubt whatever that 
 the people regarded sacrifices and ceremonies as obser- 
 vances well-pleasing to God, and signs of their adherence 
 to the Covenant. It is doubtful how a people, situated as 
 they were, could have kept up their recollection of the 
 Covenant relation without outward service and ceremony. 
 Have we, in this nineteenth century, got so far that we 
 can dispense with outward observances which we regard 
 as divinely appointed or divinely approved ? Or if the 
 prophets disagreed with this deeply rooted feeling in the 
 popular mind, inseparably linked with that conviction 
 which Kuenen says prophets and people held in common, 
 they not only fail to give us clear indications of the fact, 
 but they are in opposition to the writers of prophetic spirit 
 and to the prophetic men who guided the nation in early 
 times. For from the very beginning sacrifice appears as 
 a regular and acceptable expression of devotion. The 
 earliest of all the codes, the book of the Covenant, occur- 
 ring in a prophetic writing, and containing prescriptions 
 of a ceremonial as well as of a moral kind, proves the 
 close union of morality and observance from the first, and 
 shows that, in the constitution of Israel, and in the con- 
 ception of the nation, the two are inseparable. And if, 
 according to Kuenen, the people were right in the matter 
 of fact as to a covenant dating from the time of Moses, 
 and had, from that time onwards, practised sacrifices and 
 other observances as marks of their allegiance to their 
 
 1 Relig. of Israel, vol. i. p. 293. Cf. Allan Menzies, p. 24. 
 
The Times of JosiaJi. 455 
 
 covenant God, it will require more than the citation of a 
 few rhetorical passages to prove that the prophets regarded 
 sacrifice and observance in themselves as wrong, or of mere 
 human device. Kuenen himself, in the passage quoted from 
 him, gives the key to the true exegesis of such passages ; 
 " Not merely by sacrifices and feasts, but also, nay, in the 
 first place, by the observance of the moral command- 
 ments." The prophets are, in fact, in all such polemic, 
 combating the germ of wliat became the monstrous doc- 
 trine of Eabbinism, that Israel was created in order to 
 observe the law. 
 
 This attitude of the prophets to the law is exhibited in 
 the circumstances of the time of Josiah which culminated in 
 his reformation. When it is said that the worship of the 
 high places had become so corrupt that a reformation was 
 felt to be necessary, let us be careful to understand what 
 tliat means. It was not that at many high places there was 
 rendered to Jahaveli a worship which should have been 
 rendered to Him at one central sanctuary. The worship 
 of the Bamoth was part of a great national defection. The 
 needed reformation had much more to do, as Wellhausen 
 admits, than to gather into one central place all the abuses 
 of many high places ; and it is altogetlier a weak under- 
 statement of the case to say that " even Jerusalem and 
 the house of Jehovah there might need some cleansing, 
 but it was clearly entitled to a preference over the obscure 
 local altars." ^ There was required above all things a 
 reformation of religion, not merely of worship; and the 
 prophets were not the men — Jeremiah certainly was not 
 the man — to rest satisfied with anything else. The mes- 
 sage of Huldah the prophetess, on the occasion of the 
 discovery of the law-book, foretold " evil upon this place," 
 
 1 Wellhausen, p. 27. 
 
456 Law and Prophecy. 
 
 " because they have forsaken me and have burned incense 
 unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger 
 with all the work of their hands" (2 Kings xxii. 17). 
 And so we see that the work done by Josiah was of a 
 thorough kind ; the co-operation of priests, prophets, and 
 people was indicative of a movement of the national con- 
 science; and the evils put away are of a much more 
 serious kind than merely the worshipping of Jahaveh 
 at various high places. " The king commanded Hilkiah 
 the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and 
 the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple 
 of Jahaveh all the vessels that were made for Baal, and 
 for the Asherah, and for all the host of heaven," &c., &c. 
 (2 Kings xxiii. 4 ff.), beginning with a cleansing of the 
 central sanctuary itself. And let it not be supposed that 
 these were recognised up till this time as elements of the 
 national worship. The book of the Covenant itself — 
 which is supposed to have been in existence for two 
 hundred years — had said, immediately before the words 
 relied on as allowing the multiplicity of sanctuaries : " Ye 
 shall not make other gods with me ; gods of silver or gods 
 of gold, ye shall not make unto you " (Exod. xx. 23) ; and 
 had reiterated the warning against making "mention of 
 the name of other gods " (Exod. xxiii. 13), and bowing 
 down to the gods of the nations, or serving them, or doing 
 after their works, but " thou shalt utterly overthrow them, 
 and break in pieces their pillars " (Exod. xxiii. 24). These 
 things were indeed thoroughly inconsistent with the whole 
 position which — by the confession of the nation as implied 
 in the prophetic utterances^Israel sustained to Jahaveh ; 
 and if the sin of them did not come home to them through 
 prophetic rebukes or through their knowledge of the book 
 of the Covenant, the discovery of a hundred other codes 
 
Time of the Restoration. 457 
 
 could not have convinced them. The truth is that the 
 evils had pressed upon the hearts of good men for long 
 before : Hezekiah had partially done what Josiah now 
 did more thoroughly ; and the powerful upheaval of pub- 
 lic sentiment that was produced cannot have an adequate 
 cause in a mere, or in a primary, desire to centralise the 
 worship. In a word, the idea of worship in one place 
 cannot be taken by itself and apart from the nature of 
 the worship which Jahaveh claimed. The tendency to- 
 wards reform was there before the alleged contrivance of 
 producing a code was resorted to. The book did not pro- 
 duce what was the essential part of the reform ; and the 
 reform is quite conceivable on the supposition of the dis- 
 covery of any code, and had already proceeded a great way 
 before tlie book of the law was brought to light. 
 
 Nor were the circumstances materially different when 
 the later reformation took place after the exile. The 
 little community under Joshua and Zerubbabel had re- 
 turned to Jerusalem, and held a struggling existence for 
 more than half a century ^ before Ezra made his appear- 
 ance with his book, which is said to have been the Pen- 
 tateuch law now first come into existence. It was the 
 sense of their national position and national calling that 
 had brought them thither ; they did not come for the pur- 
 pose of observing a ritual law, but for the purpose of 
 keeping alive a nationality and exhibiting their faith in 
 the divine promises. This much the teaching of the 
 prophets had effected, though the fruits of prophetic 
 teaching were tardy, and brought to maturity by the 
 
 1 Edict of Cyrus, 538. The return of exiles under Zerubbabel and 
 Joshua was in B.C. 536, and twenty years later (Haggai and Zechariah) 
 the Temple was consecrated. The arrival of Ezra was in 458. Law 
 promulgated, 444. Cf. Wellhausen, p. 492 ff. 
 
458 Law and Prophecy. 
 
 sufferings of the exile. I am willing to admit that the 
 influence of Ezekiel was a powerful factor in leading to 
 the restoration, but I see another direction of his influence 
 tlian that of codification of law. As in a former chapter 
 I maintained that the doubtful or figurative language of 
 a writer should be interpreted by his clearer and more 
 unequivocal utterances, so I should say here that we are 
 to look not to the programme of legislation which Ezekiel 
 saw in vision, but to the reviving Spirit, breathing upon 
 the dry bones, as the motive power which was uppermost 
 in the mind of the prophet of the exile. 
 
 The more closely the matter is looked at, the more 
 clearly will it appear that it is impossible to dissever the 
 moral from the ceremonial part of the law of Israel. 
 Moses himself is represented as a prophet ; ^ and prophecy 
 has its legal, just as the law has its prophetical, side. 
 The idea of holiness is common to both. The law links 
 even the meanest ceremonial observance with this moral 
 attribute : " Ye shall be holy men unto me, neither shall ye 
 eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field ; " ^ and pro- 
 phecy recognises a clean and an unclean land and offer- 
 ings.^ Even the prophet who speaks most exclusively of 
 the Holy One of Israel (Isa. Iv. 5) expresses abhorrence 
 of the eating of swine's flesh and so forth (Isa. Ixv. 4 ; 
 Ixvi. 17). The rules for purifications and sacrifices in- 
 dicate clearly, not only that these observances were of an 
 educative character, but also that they did not come in 
 the place of moral requirements, as if they were ends in 
 themselves. The sacrifices and offerings do not effect 
 atonement for moral offences, nor do they constitute the 
 
 1 Deut. xviii. 15 ; Hosea xii. 13. 
 
 2 Exod. xxii. 31. Comp. Levit. xi. 44-47; xix. 2, 15-19. 
 ' Amos vii, 17 : Hosea ix. 3-5. 
 
The Sign and its Significance. 459 
 
 whole religious service of Israel. The sins atoned for are 
 those that affect the theocratic relation of the people, the 
 offerings are the outward signs of the inward homage due 
 to Jahaveh. We need not, indeed, wonder that the pro- 
 phets, in the situation in which they found themselves 
 before the exile, laid so little stress on the ritual wor- 
 ship, for it was powerless to cure the evils which they 
 deplored. To what purpose indeed would it have been 
 for a preacher of righteousness like Amos, addressing a 
 people who trampled on the most fundamental laws of 
 humanity, to urge to the more sedulous performance of 
 outward acts of worship; or for a prophet with insight 
 into God's love such as Hosea enjoyed, to direct a people 
 openly apostate and idolatrous in heart to begin with a 
 mere reformation of cultus ? Isaiah again and his fellow- 
 prophets of the south had before them a people — such as 
 all ages and all countries have produced — who thought to 
 make up for wickedness of life and hollowness of heart 
 by loud-sounding devotion and ostentatious worship ; and 
 it is no wonder that such men contemptuously scouted 
 the whole system of outward observance, which was that 
 and nothing more. It was needless to insist upon the 
 sign when the thing signified was wanting — for the out- 
 ward form was then a gross lie; and just because the 
 mission of the prophets was to insist upon the underlying 
 moral requirements of the law, for that reason they made 
 light of its ceremonial elements, which had no basis nor 
 reason for existence apart from these moral requirements. 
 On the other hand, we find the prophet Haggai, when 
 his contemporaries in the coldness of their devotion com- 
 mitted the opposite mistake from pre -exilic Israel, re- 
 proving them for the scantiness of their offerings ; althougli 
 both he and Zechariah, who laboured for the restoration 
 
4 60 law and Prophecy. 
 
 of the Temple and its service, are quite clear as to the 
 supreme duty of heart religion and the inutility of a 
 mere opics operatum} The position of Malachi is to be 
 particularly noted, because in him we find a distinctly 
 ceremonial tone (chap, i.), and because he belongs to the 
 time of the alleged introduction of the Priestly Code. It 
 is very hard to believe that a priesthood such as he 
 chides (in chap, ii.) was fit to be trusted with the task 
 of elaborating an authoritative code.^ It is much more 
 likely that the prophet reproves them for deviation from 
 a standard that was far older and much higher. In any 
 case it is to be observed that this prophet, though tech- 
 nical as any priest could be, is at one with all the prophets 
 as to the essentials of religion. 
 
 It is inaccurate, therefore, to represent the prophetic and 
 priestly classes as opposed, and to make the history turn 
 upon the preponderance of the one over the other. There 
 was no greater antagonism than that which in a normal 
 condition of things exists between the inner truth and 
 its outward manifestation — which, however, becomes 
 pronounced when the outward expression is made the 
 whole, or is represented as having the vitality and the 
 importance of the inner truth. Such times there were 
 in the history of Israel, as in the religious history of all 
 nations, when the priesthood, peculiarly liable to settle 
 down to formality and routine, and peculiarly liable to 
 the temptations besetting any privileged order, encouraged 
 the people to boast, saying, " The temple of the Lord are 
 we," or even exercised their office for their own gain. At 
 such times the prophetic voice was raised in scathing 
 rebukes, whose terms almost lead one to conclude that 
 in the prophetic estimation the whole priestly order, 
 
 1 Haggai ii. 12 f. ; Zech. vii. 6, 9, 10. 
 
 2 Bredcnkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, p. 120. 
 
Comhmahon of Priests and Propliets^i^^^j^29X^'2'' 
 
 and all the ceremonies over wLicli they presided, were in 
 their essence wrong. Yet even in the midst of such 
 rebukes there is a tone of respect for the law, and a 
 recognition of the sacred function of the priest. So also 
 when we come to any crisis in the history in which a 
 positive advance is made, we perceive that it is not by 
 a conquest of one party over the other, but by the hearty 
 co-operation of both, that the movement of reform or 
 advance succeeds. Moses, the forerunner of the prophets, 
 has Aaron the priest beside him; and Joshua is still 
 surrounded by priests in the carrying out of his work. 
 Samuel is both priest and prophet; David and Solomon 
 in the same way are served or admonished by both. In 
 Josiah's time we see the priest Hilkiah as eager for the 
 introduction of reform as the prophet or prophets who 
 prepared — as is alleged — the Code which was to be re- 
 cognised;^ although the Code was not to be to the ad- 
 vantage of the Jerusalem priesthood, according to the 
 modern view of it, for it was to bring to the capital all 
 the priests of the high places who should so desire, and 
 thus reduce the emoluments and lower the prestige of 
 the ministers of the central sanctuary. Jeremiah was of 
 the priests of Anathoth, and Ezekiel, too, was a priest- 
 prophet. So that at every turning-point in the nation's 
 life, when an advance was made, or a return to a better 
 mind, the two classes are seen working in harmony. 
 Which is just saying in other words that the better mind 
 
 ^ And so some would have it that the Code is a composite work. " The 
 Deuteronomic torah," says Cheyne, "is in fact the joint work of at least 
 two of the noblest members of the prophetic and the priestly orders." 
 — Jeremiah, His Life and Times, p. 63 f. One may obtain, from this, 
 some idea of the critical principles on which the separation of sources is 
 effected, and may be inclined to ask, if two writers of different tendencies 
 could work so harmoniously here, why similar tendencies should be put so 
 far apart elsewhere. 
 
462 Law and Pro]phecy. 
 
 resulted in a better life, and that faithfulness of heart was 
 expressed in the better observance of the authoritative 
 forms of religion. 
 
 On this subject, as on many others connected with the 
 history of Israel, we must beware of concluding that 
 distinctions which we can abstractly draw, and of which 
 the history shows the possibility, were actually drawn at 
 the time. "The passion of the human mind," says 
 Dr A. B. Davidson, " is for distinctions and classification. 
 Broad distinctions are rare in the Old Testament. The 
 course of revelation is like a river, which cannot be cut 
 up into sections. The springs at least of all prophecy can 
 be seen in the two prophets of northern Israel ; but the 
 rain which fed those fountains fell in the often unrecorded 
 past." ^ On reviewing the history we may perceiA^e the 
 two currents of influence, the priestly and the prophetic, 
 and in analysing the combined stream of national life we 
 may be able to separate them in thought and assign 
 different effects to them respectively. But we are not for 
 all that to jump to the conclusion that priests and prophets 
 were arrayed in hostile camps, and existed like two parties 
 in a modern state. The prophets are as free in their 
 denunciations of prophets when these are unfaithful, as 
 they are in their rebukes of the excesses of the priests. 
 The truth is, that on this low view of a struggle of parties, 
 the history of Israel is as devoid of interest, as it is inca- 
 pable of explanation. When it did come to a struggle of 
 parties in Israel, in the later stages of the history, when 
 some leaned to Egypt and some to Assyria, the days of 
 Israel's independence were numbered. The thing that 
 made two parties in ancient Israel was not the question of 
 ritual or no ritual, not the question of written Torah or 
 oral Torah, but the question of fidelity to their national 
 
 ^ Expositor, third series, vol. vi. p. 163. 
 
* Legalism not caused hy Prophets. 463 
 
 God, and purity from heathen contamination. The daily 
 observances of the Temple might go on unrecorded for 
 years — as I believe they went on far more regularly than 
 is now supposed — and call for no remark. But as soon 
 as these were rested in as the essentials of religion, or 
 improved and adorned by a tampering with heathen ways 
 and an aping of idolatrous rites, then the prophetic voice 
 was raised, and in such terms that we perceive how all 
 the time these men knew wherein the essentials of true 
 religious worship consisted. 
 
 Though, therefore, the legalistic tendency set in after the 
 great prophets had done their work, the two things were 
 not cause and effect. It was not the " prophets that were 
 the destroyers of old Israel," but it was Israel that de- 
 stroyed itself. A mistake may be very readily commit- 
 ted from taking too narrow a view of development, and 
 assuming that what is immediately subsequent to some- 
 thing else results naturally from it. There are rc-actions 
 and recoils as well as direct influences in the same line. 
 The true succession of Old Testament prophets is found 
 in the Gospel, not in the scribes. Though Jesus Christ 
 followed the scribes, He did not develop their teaching. 
 He did not, however, deny its historical basis. He was 
 the direct successor of the prophets, but He assumed and 
 took for granted that law preceded prophecy, and that 
 law was also of divine authority. From His polemic 
 with the scribes and Pharisees of His day, one might 
 hastily claim Him as maintaining the human origin of 
 the Codes, and the natural basis of sacrifice. Yet, though 
 He rejected the traditions and commandments of men, He 
 attended even to the ceremonial of the law, and in His 
 life and teaching treated the law as given through Moses 
 by divine authority. 
 
464 
 
 CHAPTER XVIIL 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The modern theory is "thorough-going," hut docs not do justice to the fads 
 of the case — Its arbitrary treatment of the writers and books of the Old 
 Testament — Its weakness "as a whole," when great crises and turning- 
 points are to be explained — Does not go to the core of the religion, but 
 dwells on external details— Rejecting the supernatural, it is itself un- 
 natural— Even on its literary side, not so strong as it seems — Objection 
 to the Biblical theory that it docs not make room for development — Ob- 
 jection answered : true development exhibited — The appeal to religions 
 of "primitive peoples" considered — The Semitic disposition to religion 
 — Reference to early chapters of Genesis — Comparative religion — Bear- 
 ing of the whole subject on Inspiration. 
 
 I We have thus endeavoured to estimate fairly the two 
 [theories of Israel's earlier religious history. N'o attempt 
 has been made to present all the details in which the 
 theories are opposed ; but consideration has been fixed on 
 the fundamental lines and underlying principles. Our 
 conclusion has been, that the Biblical theory, when not 
 burdened with assumptions with which it has been often 
 " traditionally " encumbered, will stand the test of a sober 
 and common-sense criticism, as an account of the exis- 
 tence in Israel, in early or so-called pre-prophetic times, 
 of very distinctive religious conceptions and religious 
 ordinances, obtained in connection with well-marked 
 
A tliorougli-going Hypothesis. 465 
 
 historical events and under well - determined historical 
 conditions. 
 
 The modern critical theory, if it has been able to point 
 out difficulties connected with the Biblical theory, espe- 
 cially as it has been traditionally maintained, raises diffi- 
 culties of a much more serious kind in the way of its own 
 acceptance. At first sight, it has all the attractions of a 
 "good-going" hypothesis; for it promises to exhibit the 
 growth of religious conceptions and religious observances 
 from the lowest stage to their finally developed phases ; 
 and, considering the long course which Israel's history ran, 
 and the broad field available for observation, this is what 
 we should expect to find practicable. But the theory is 
 too thorough-going, for it goes in the teeth of evident 
 obstacles, and refuses to bend its way to embrace plain 
 facts; and what we want is a theory that will give the 
 best explanation of things that cannot be disputed. Were 
 it the case that we knew practically nothing of the de- 
 velopment of Israel's religion in Palestine, it might be 
 very well for a theory to sketch a scheme which would 
 be another contribution to the histories of religious 
 thought. But there are books, there are men, there are 
 abiding effects to be accounted for ; and in face of these 
 the modern theory shows its weakness. We have con- 
 ducted our inquiry on the narrowest possible grounds, 
 by restricting ourselves to compositions whose dates are 
 assigned by the critics themselves ;^ and on that narrow 
 ground I am prepared to rest my objections to the two 
 cardinal points of tl ie theory. On the one hand, I main- 
 tain that the earliest writing prophets, Amos and Hosea, 
 give clear evidence that the ethic and spiritual nature 
 of the religion was apprehended and firmly possessed in 
 
 1 See Note XXXI. 
 2 G 
 
466. Conclusion. 
 
 their day, and long before it — evidence which can only 
 be set aside by a forced interpretation of some passages 
 and an excision of others. On the other hand, I maintain 
 that the existence, at what is called the earliest literary 
 age, of these same books and likewise of the book of the 
 Covenant in the heart of a Jehovistic writing, ascribing to 
 Moses authoritative and specifically religious institutions, 
 relating to sacrifice and ritual as well as idolatry and 
 morals, is irreconcilable with the fundamental positions 
 of the modern theory on the subject of law. 
 
 Wellhausen, in one place, says it would not be surpris- 
 ing, considering the whole character of the polemic against 
 Graf's hypothesis, if the next objection should be that it 
 is not able to construct the history.^ My great objection 
 to the theory is, not that it cannot construct a history, for 
 the ingenuity of critical writers is equal to that, but that 
 it does not leave sound materials out of which a cred- 
 ible history can be constructed. The hypothesis of Graf 
 carries with it the assumption that the narratives accom- 
 panying the laws of the Pentateuch are not history in the 
 proper sense of the word at all, but the product of late 
 imaginative writers, and, in short, fictitious. And not 
 only are the narratives of the Pentateuch so treated; 
 the historical and prophetical books are in a similar 
 manner discredited, so as to be admissible as testimony 
 only after they have been expurgated or adjusted on 
 the principles of the underlying theory. The historical 
 books, we are told, were written long after the events 
 they relate ; and even when they contain the records 
 of historical facts, these records are overlaid with later 
 interpretations of the facts, or even glossed over to 
 obliterate them. Even the prophetical books are not 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 367, footnote. 
 
Treatment of the Documents. 467 
 
 to be relied upon to determine the religious history ; 
 for the books, in the first place, have undergone great 
 alterations in the process of canonisation — and in the 
 second place, even where there is an unambiguous de- 
 claration of a prophet as to a certain sequence of events, 
 it is open to us to accept or reject his statement on 
 "critical" grounds. Modern critical writers, in fact, can 
 scarcely lay their hands on a single book and say. Here 
 is a document to be relied upon to give a fair, un- 
 biassed, untarnished account of things as they were. The 
 blemishes that criticism seeks to remove are not such as 
 may be contracted by ordinary ancient documents in the 
 course of their literary transmission. They have come 
 into the documents in the interests of a theory (and 
 indeed they have a wonderful coherence in tenor), and 
 by another theo ry they are to be eliminated. The literary 
 task of critical writers, therefore, is not so much to dis- 
 cover and account for facts of a history long past, as to 
 Recount for the account which later writers give of them. 
 The history which Wellhausen constructs is in fact a " his- 
 tory of the tradition"; and in many cases it seems a labori- 
 ous endeavour to show how something very definite grew 
 out of nothing very appreciable. The further one follows 
 the processes, the more apparent it becomes that the en- 
 deavour is not so much to find out by fair interpretation 
 what the writer says, as to discover his motive for saying 
 it, or what he wishes to conceal. He belongs to some 
 class, or has some political expediency to serve; or he 
 lives in a circle of certain ideas, and these tendencies are 
 made to give birth to the facts, instead of being, as is 
 more likely, the result of the facts. "The idea as idea 
 is older than the idea in history," says Wellhausen ; ^ and 
 
 1 Hist, of Israel, p. 36. 
 
468 Conclusion. 
 
 he is continually applying this maxim in the sense that 
 when an idea takes possession of the leading men of a 
 certain time, they straightway proceed to invest it with 
 a historical character, by placing its exemplification or 
 embodiment back at some remote period of the history. 
 I think the maxim is better illustrated in the processes of 
 Wellhausen and his school, who first find an " idea," and 
 then seek by main force to read it into the unwilling 
 documents. In this way a history is no doubt con- 
 structed, but the supporting beams of it are subjective 
 prepossessions, and the materials are only got by dis- 
 crediting the sources from which they are drawn. 
 
 I say this is a very serious attitude to assume towards 
 the writers of the Old Testament books, if it can in any 
 degree be justified ; and if it is not well justified, it is a 
 very serious objection to any theory tliat requires it. The 
 men who moulded the history of Israel were the men who 
 had most to do with the production and preservation of 
 the national literature. We know what sort of men they 
 were. But, on the modern theory, the greatest characters 
 in Israel's history, instead of being spontaneous actors in 
 a great life-drama, are merely posturing and acting a part 
 on a stage. "What they give us as history is merely their 
 fond idea of what history should have been ; in many 
 cases it is not even so much, but pure invention to give 
 a show of antiquity to what had to be accounted for and 
 magnified in their own day. History was never made in 
 this way. Men that make history such as Israel's his-) 
 tory was, are intent on great purposes, moved by noble-; 
 ends ; but what we are asked to contemplate at the great 
 crises and turning-points is a set of men thinking how 
 they will elaborate a scheme of history. Fictions become 
 the greatest facts, and tlie French critic has carried out 
 
Imaginative Writers. 469 
 
 the theory to its true conclusion when he ascribes the 
 great bulk of the Hebrew literature to the free creation 
 of a school of theologians after the exile. " The theo- 
 logians and writers of that time," he says, "have been 
 able to give such a character of life to the creations of 
 their genius that posterity has been thereby deceived, and 
 has believed in a Moses living 1500 years before our era, 
 whereas this Moses was only created in the fourth cen- 
 tury, and had no more reality than an incomparable 
 fiction." ^ And thus the great merit of the Hebrew race, 
 the great quality for which they have distinguished 
 themselves in the world, is their power of imagination ! 
 Such a mode of viewing the Old Testament writings, as 
 the conduct of the critics shows, leaves individual critics 
 to construct each his own scheme of the history. To 
 most people it will appear that, if such a mode of treat- 
 ment is once introduced, the inquiry into the true course 
 of Israel's history is a matter of the utmost uncertainty ; 
 to many the inquiry would probably cease to have much 
 practical interest. 
 
 It is to be lamented, I think, that now at the very close 
 of the nineteenth century a tone of criticism should 
 reassert itself which is out of harmony with the liberal 
 views with which we have been priding ourselves we had 
 learned to regard all nations. So much has our knowledge 
 of the religions of the world extended, and our sympathy 
 for the struggles of the religious instinct been stirred, 
 that we might expect from leaders of investigation in these 
 subjects a disposition to look for the best side of all 
 
 ^ Maurice Vemes, Rdsultats de I'Ex^ese Biblique, p. 227. Of course 
 the conclusions of Vernes are disowned by the prevailing school, but the 
 'principle of his criticism, the imagination of writers of the exilian age, ia 
 frankly avowed by Wellhausen, p. 419. See Note XXXII. 
 
470 Conclusion^ 
 
 religions, and to put the most favourable construction on 
 the efforts of their founders. It is not so long ago that it 
 used to be the orthodox thing to characterise the prophet 
 of Arabia as a designer, a schemer, an impostor ; but it had 
 come to be generally admitted that, in his early struggles 
 at least, Mohammed was a sincere inquirer, following out 
 lines of thought and belief that existed in a somewhat 
 narrow circle before him. Kuenen, however, has practi- 
 cally come back to the old position. According to this 
 view, Mohammed had an eye to Christians and Jews, and 
 counted upon the latter particularly for recognition of his 
 teaching. And so he framed his device of that milla of 
 Ibrahim, of which at first he never thought, for "the 
 opinion that Mohammed came to awaken and to restore 
 what already existed amongst his people, if only as a 
 faint reminiscence of a distant past, finds no support in 
 the Qoran when read in the light of criticism." ^ Great 
 is criticism of the modern critics ! It has discovered 
 another scheme, like the schemes and programmes and 
 fictions of the Hebrew writers. And so the boasted en- 
 lightenment and toleration of the nineteenth century 
 comes round again to explain the origin of religions 
 by the fanaticism of prophets and the frauds of priests.^ 
 But, it is said, the theory must be taken as a whole, 
 and apart from varieties of opinion that may be held on 
 details. It is just when thus taken that I find the great- 
 est difficulty in accepting it, because there is so marked 
 a disagreement between the whole and its component 
 parts. There are certain great outstanding facts whose 
 
 ^ National Religions, p. 19. 
 
 2 A melancholy example is furnished in Lippert's 'Allgemeine Ge- 
 Bchichte des Priesterthums,' published as recently as 1884. Konig, Falsche 
 Extreme, p. 2. 
 
Development not made out, 471 
 
 existence cannot be ignored, — such as the prophetic activ- 
 ity in Israel, the belief in one national or one sole Deity, 
 the national testimony to an early history of great mo- 
 ment, the ascription of legislation to Moses ; and the 
 incompetence of the modern theory to set these in their 
 true perspective is very striking. On the one hand, 
 the Biblical theory gives definite connections for events, 
 and historical occasions for transitions and advances. On 
 the other hand, the modern theory is strong in minute 
 analysis, but weak in face of great controlling facts. It 
 will laboriously strain out a gnat in the critical process 
 of determining the respective authors of a complex passage, 
 but when it comes to a real difficulty in history it boldly 
 swallows the camel and wipes its mouth, saying, " I have 
 eaten nothing." Nabiism, or the prophetic activity, even 
 Jahavism itself, are borrowed from the Canaanites or 
 Kenites; and when it is asked why the Canaanites or 
 Kenites did not reach the same truth that Israel attained, 
 i^a^ get n o answer. And when we ask what then had 
 Israel to distinguish it, the feeble answer is returned that 
 when Israel (for no reason stated) assumed Jahaveh as 
 their national deity, they also resolved and were told that 
 He only (for no reason assigned) was to be their only 
 God. And when the undoubtedly pure and high concep- 
 tions entertained by the prophets are pointed out, and an 
 explanation demanded of their origin, we are told that a 
 " conception " was " absorbed " by the prophets and came 
 out in this purified form ; but we get no sufficient account 
 of the faculty that enabled the prophets to absorb this and 
 that, and give forth a product which is entirely unlike the 
 thing absorbed. In the same way no satisfactory account 
 is given of the ascription of law to Moses, and no firm 
 basis for the various Codes. The theory is, again, strong in 
 
472 Conclusion. 
 
 details of analysis, but weak in face of a historical event. 
 No explanation is given of the origin of what is declared 
 to be the first of all the Codes. "When a great reform of 
 religion such as took place in Josiah's days has to be ex- 
 plained, instead of historical criticism reconstructing an 
 intelligible historical situation, we are shown how a book 
 was constructed which brought it about. Though all the 
 scathing rebukes and denunciations of the prophets up 
 to this time had been powerless to wean the people from 
 their idolatries, the production in some secret conclave 
 of this book, telling unheard-of stories about Moses, and 
 laying down on his authority laws which were then partly 
 impracticable, rouses a whole nation. And again, in the 
 captivity, after the Temple had been destroyed and the 
 people scattered for their sins, the main thing the best 
 of them think about is the gathering together of the 
 ritual practices of the priests, and, instead of being 
 humbled for their transgressions, imagining ever so many 
 great things their nation had been and done in the early 
 ages. Upon the strength of this a colony braves the 
 liardships of a long journey from Babylon to Jerusalem 
 to set up the worship which they had agreed was the right 
 ritual to practise. This falling back at every stage upon 
 the introduction of some new factor, which does not 
 grow out of the history itself, but is made to give a turn 
 to the whole history, is artificial. Jahaveh, introduced 
 from the Kenites, becomes the distinctive deity of Israel. 
 Prophetism imitated from the raving of Canaanites be- 
 comes the glory of Israel. Codes of laws, gathered up 
 from a haphazard praxis or devised as reforming schemes, 
 become so sacred that the nation will battle for them as 
 for existence. In short, we are promised the exhibition 
 of a course of development, and at decisive turning- 
 
The Root of the Matter. 473 
 
 points tlie theory of development fails. It may seem 
 at first siglit remarkable that there should be so mucli 
 consensus of critical opinion in regard to these out- 
 standing and testing points of the history. But if we 
 look more closely we shall observe that, after all, the 
 consensus is confined to the underlying postulate, which 
 of course controls all the details. The theory itself is 
 clear and thorough enough, and of course it hangs to- 
 gether as a whole. But it does not hold the parts to- 
 gether, because it does not supply the proper nexus that 
 unites them in an orderly historical development. There 
 must be a bond of a more vital fibre, a force more deeply 
 inherent, which the modern theory has not penetrated to 
 nor unfolded, to account for a religious and spiritual 
 movement, which, looking to the broad field on which it 
 is displayed and the diversified circumstances under which 
 it took place, is nothing short of majestic. The self- 
 styled " higher " criticism is indeed not high enough, or, 
 we should perhaps more appropriately say, not deep 
 enough for the problem before it. 
 
 The strongest objection, in fact, to the theory "as a 
 whole " is, that it hardly at all touches the religion round 
 which the whole history properly turns. Superstition 
 tliere has always been among all peoples, and no doubt 
 there was much superstition mixed up with the popular 
 religion of ancient Israel. But religion is not necessarily 
 superstition, nor does it necessarily flow from it in natural 
 development. Unquestionably there was among the best 
 souls of the nation of Israel in early times — and these 
 may have been a larger proportion of the people than we 
 generally suppose, as the answer to Elijah (1 Kings xix. 
 18) in his day indicated — a strong current of true re- 
 ligious life, to the fountains of which we must reach, if 
 
474 Conclusion. 
 
 we would understand this wonderful history. To this 
 aspect of the subject, however, the modern theory pays 
 far too little regard. Take, for example, the treatment of 
 the book of Psalms now in vogue in the higher circles 
 of criticism. One would have thought that if anywhere 
 the inquirer into the history of religious thought and life 
 would find valuable " sources," it would be in this col- 
 lection of the sacred and national songs of Israel. But 
 Wellhausen, for example, who boasts that he could under- 
 stand the history of Israel without the book of the Law, 
 can also dispense with the book of the Psalms. In the 
 " index of passages discussed " appended to his ' History of 
 Israel,' there is only one reference to one psalm (Ps. Ixxiii.), 
 which too, of course, is placed very late in date, I think 
 it a positive objection to the theory, not so much that 
 it brings down the bulk of the psalms to post-exilian 
 times, but that it is able to dispense with them as 
 materials for a history of the older religion of Israel, and 
 to relegate them to a time at which, according to its own 
 showing, the religion had taken a more mechanical and 
 formal phase. It is now the fashion to speak of the 
 Psalter as the psalm-book of the second Temple, in the 
 sense, not that it is a collection of older religious com- 
 positions brought together by the piety of a later gener- 
 ation, but that they were composed purposely for use in 
 public worship. Thus, by one stroke, the tongue of ancient 
 Israel is struck dumb, as the pen is dashed from its hand, 
 these artless lyrics are deprived of their spontaneousness, 
 and a great gulf is fixed between the few which a niggardly 
 criticism admits to be of early date, and the full volume 
 of devotional song which in many tones was called forth 
 by the shifting situations of olden times. Of course 
 tlie hypothesis of a low religious stage in pre - exilic 
 
Beligion in Olden Times. 475 
 
 times demands this, but it is an additional difficulty 
 which the theory raises in the way of its own acceptance ; 
 for even if the psalms are late, the influence that started 
 and produced them must lie early and must lie deeper 
 than in legal ordinances and formal ceremonies. So far 
 as concerns their higher tone, which is supposed to mark 
 a late date, it is not higher than what we meet with 
 in the very earliest writing prophets. In the glowing pe- 
 riods of these prophets we have unmistakable evidence of 
 the deep religiousness that suffused the minds of those 
 who from the first guided the religious life of the nation. 
 But all that side of the early religious history — and how 
 much is that all ! — might almost as well never have 
 existed, for all that the modern historians make of it. The 
 deep spirituality of Hosea, who stands, like the Saviour 
 of mankind weeping over Jerusalem, full of the very 
 love of God; the strong ethical tone of Amos and his 
 enthusiasm for God; the lofty aspirations of Isaiah for 
 righteousness, and his rapt visions of future glory, — these 
 surely are not isolated phenomena in the centuries that 
 rolled over Israel when all that is best in the history was 
 being achieved, but indicate a strong under - current of 
 perennial religious life. Yet for all these, even taken in 
 their isolation, how little sympathy do our modern critical 
 historians exhibit ! Whereas ]gwald^in a past generation, 
 came to the Old Testament books with a sympathetic 
 spirit, and pftlitzscL. in our own generation, with a piety 
 pardonable in the circumstances, heard in these prophetic 
 voices the echo, thrown backward over the centuries, of the 
 Gospel of Christ, we get nowadays some dry analysis of 
 the " idea " and the " conception " of each prophet, and a 
 grudging doling out of the attributes of might and holiness 
 in the character of God, and reluctant admissions of nascent 
 
 0» TIV 
 
476 Conclusion. 
 
 monotheism here and there, but we catch no fire from the 
 prophetic words as they are weighed and measured out in 
 t he scales of tlie critics.^ Thesejmen, _whose words are the 
 fittest found even yet to express all that we can think 
 loftiest of God, are represented as groping after the idea 
 of one God, contending for the honour of a deity that is 
 little better than a Chemosh or a Moloch ; and when they 
 cease to write and become men of action, they are set 
 before us as moved by paltry motives of expediency, 
 upholding the dignity of their order against the priest- 
 hood, or conspiring with them to bring about a masterly 
 movement for the concentration of religious worship 
 directly under their own supervision. Feasts, sacrifices, 
 incomes of the clergy, in such things, and in the central- 
 isation of tlie worship at Jerusalem, the history of re- 
 ligion is made to consist ; ^ but the heart of the religion 
 is hardly looked at, or rudely torn out of it. 
 
 So that, when all is said and done, the impression on 
 the mind of an unprejudiced reader certainly is that there 
 is more in the religion of Israel tl>an the modern his- 
 torians are able to see or willing to acknowledge. Let 
 their literary analysis be ever so thorough, one who will 
 read the Old Testament books as he would read any other 
 ancient documents, must remain convinced that justice is 
 not done to them by a criticism which ignores their most 
 
 1 Wellhausen must needs even belittle the impression of sublimity- 
 produced by the account of the Creation m the first chapter of Genesis. 
 He is generous enough to admit that " the beginning especially is incom- 
 parable." But " chaos being given, all the rest is spun out of it : all that 
 follows is reflection, systematic construction ; we can easily follow the 
 calculation from point to point" (Hist, of Israel, p. 298). He could have ' 
 done it himself in short. Instead of the artless gestures of a child we , 
 have the stiff movements of a Dutch doll. But is it the Hebrew writer j 
 or the modern critic that is wooden-headed ? 
 
 2 See Wellhausen, pp. 13, 27. 
 
Literary Analysis. 477 
 
 characteristic element. The critics object to the Biblical 
 theory that it relies so much on the supernatural: the 
 characteristic feature of their own is the unnatural. The 
 Biblical theory says there was a course of history quite 
 unprecedented, or certainly most extraordinary; the 
 modern theory says that the history was nothing re- 
 markable, but there was quite an unprecedented mode 
 of imagining and writing it. There have to be postu-\ 
 lated miracles of a literary and psychological kind, which 
 contradict sound reason and experience as much as any 
 of the physical miracles of the Old Testament transcend, 
 them. 
 
 Even in what is its strong point, literary analysis, I 
 do not know that the modern theory is very formidable 
 if the underlying historical postulates are not granted. 
 Let us suppose for a moment that it is possible on purely 
 literary grounds to separate different portions of the Pen- 
 tateuch books, and pronounce them to be from different 
 hands. It is still confessed ^ that the relative positions 
 and dates of these portions cannot be determined from 
 themselves. Only when the theory of the historical 
 development is introduced do the original sources or 
 diverse components fall into the places assigned to them 
 in the scheme. But if the theory of the development 
 can be shown to be so far untenable that what is pro- 
 nounced by it late may well have been much earlier, 
 then the arrangement and dating of the parts are open to 
 revision. As to the critical process of separating the 
 sources as literary products, I regard it as a matter of 
 secondary importance, so long as we are able, by the help 
 of the prophetic writers, to determine in a general way 
 that the books in their combined form are trustworthy 
 
 1 Wellhausen, History, p. 10. 
 
478 Conclusion. 
 
 documents, and that the views they set forth are not 
 unhistorical. It may be open to question, however, 
 whether the separation has not been carried too far, and 
 in a manner somewhat arbitrary and artificial. When we 
 find a real character in flesh and blood in Hebrew history, 
 we find him capable of entertaining more than one idea 
 in his mind, and even sustaining apparently incompatible 
 relations, as Samuel, who offered sacrifice, and yet seems 
 to scout it as useless. I think it is most probable that 
 the men who wrote the component parts of these books 
 were representative and public men, not mere " priests " 
 here or "prophetic men" there. I do not know, in- 
 deed, that the main " sources " of the Hexateuch differ 
 more in style or substance among themselves than do the 
 synoptic Gospels. And most certainly there is an over- 
 driving of critical processes in the historical books when 
 narratives are cut up into contradictory parts, because 
 some character in the story is represented as actuated 
 by different motives at different times, or playing parts 
 which either are or seem to be inconsistent. 
 
 But let it be granted that the " sources " of the Penta- 
 teuch books have been pretty accurately determined, or 
 let the very highest value be given to the results of 
 critical analysis, there is one remark that occurs in re- 
 gard to them. We have seen good reason for believing 
 that the art of literary composition does not begin about 
 the time of the first writing prophets, but was then well 
 advanced. It seems to me that the existence of these 
 " sources " of the critics proves the same thing and proves 
 more. Tliere they are, combined, at a very early period 
 of literary composition — J and E at least — so inextri- 
 cably that they cannot be separated, to say nothing of 
 the redaction, whether by the Deuteronomist or another. 
 
Literary Copyright, 479 
 
 Now we are continually being told that in ancient 
 times there was no literary copyright, and that the pos- 
 sessor of a book considered himself entitled to treat it 
 as his own, by adding to it or incorporating his own 
 materials with it; and that in this way we might get 
 such combinations as these books exhibit. It is said 
 also that the earliest writings must have been of a 
 private or personal character — i.e., not stamped with 
 such authority as canonical writings came to possess. 
 Now, when we look at the component parts of the Old 
 Testament writings, as the analysis of criticism exhibits 
 them, there is nothing that strikes us more forcibly than 
 the care that was evidently bestowed in preserving even 
 minute parts of separate documents. It may be, as is 
 generally supposed, that when, e.g., J and E had a passage 
 in common, the redactor who combined them adopted the 
 one and excluded the other ; but the obstinate way in 
 which minute fragments, even single words, of the one 
 intrude into the other, where presumably there was some 
 slight divergence or additional detail, and this in the case 
 of all the sources or redactions, leads us to the conclusion 
 that even at that early time when these sources were 
 combined, there was a regard for literary copyright.^ 
 Whether this is consistent with the idea that these 
 sources were private documents is not very certain. 
 One would think that the writing of the history of the 
 nation on the broad scheme (comparatively) on which 
 these writers proceed, was not left to private and irre- 
 sponsible men — at least was not undertaken by any or 
 
 1 Horton, in speaking of one so late as the author of the books of 
 Chronicles, says, when he had different authorities before him, he " pre- 
 ferred leaving them unharmonised to tampering in any way with the 
 facts." — Inspiration and the Bible, third edition, p. 160. 
 
480 Conclusion. 
 
 every one who cared to do it. We should most natu- 
 rally look for the authors of such writings, when great 
 writers were rare, among outstanding and responsible 
 men. This whole aspect of the matter would almost 
 lead to the conclusion that the germ of a canon existed 
 much earlier than is generally asserted. Especially if, 
 for J. and E. and the like, we substitute the names of 
 prophets or theocratic men, who guided the nation's re- 
 ligious life and interpreted its history, it will not be 
 so evident that our earlier Scriptures were left to the 
 haphazard emendation of every private hand into which 
 they came. 
 
 But now, if the knowledge of God in a pure form is to 
 be placed so far back in history, and made to start with 
 a simple revelation to Abraham, what becomes of de- 
 velopment ? Well, in the first place, the modern theory 
 also has to postulate a starting-point ; and, we have seen, 
 its difficulty is marked when it seeks to place the absolute 
 commencement of a spiritual religion at a late period. 
 But, in the second place, the Biblical theory is more con- 
 spicuously a theory of development than the modern one. 
 It makes the advance of the religious idea really an un- 
 folding of a germinal conception, not an advance from one 
 attribute to another, as from might to holiness, but an 
 expansion of one fundamental conception into wider refer- 
 ences and application. And it is a development marked 
 by historical stadia. From the Being who made Himself 
 known to the soul of Abraham, and from that time 
 onward was the covenant God of one nation, faithful to 
 Ilis word, even though His people should be unfaithful 
 on their part, we can trace an unbroken development to 
 the God of all the families of mankind. For if He de- 
 fends His own people from their enemies, and is at tlie 
 
Biblical View of Development. 481 
 
 same time a merciful God to His own, the idea follows, 
 and we see it early, that His enemies, by submitting to 
 Him and casting in their lot with His people, will share 
 in His people's blessings, and thus the God of Israel 
 will become, in fact as well as of right, the God of 
 all. Strictly speaking, the Old Testament writers never 
 got beyond the idea of national religion. Though they 
 perceived that Jahaveh ruled all nations, and acted on 
 strictly moral and just principles towards all, they never 
 conceived that there was no difference between His rela- 
 tion to Israel and His relation to the nations. In point 
 of fact there was a difference, as history has proved. 
 Even in New Testament times, we see how hard it was 
 for the apostle Peter to perceive that God was "no re- 
 specter of persons, but that in every nation he that 
 feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted with 
 Him" (Acts X. 34, 35). St Paul also had to fight hard 
 for the position that "circumcision is nothing, and un- 
 circumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the command- 
 ments of God" (1 Cor. vii. 19), and to the last had to 
 contend for the truth that the God whom he preached 
 was not the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. 
 The highest that the Old Testament prophets attained to 
 was an anticipation of a condition of things under which, 
 through Israel, blessing would come to the whole world ; 
 it was again an expansion of this when, in the New 
 Testament, the middle wall of partition was broken down, 
 and all who have the faith of Abraham, whether they be 
 his seed or not, shall share in his blessing. The develop- 
 ment here is unbroken ; and though the history shows, as 
 all history does, action and reaction, yet there is an on- 
 ward advance from beginning to end. 
 
 Thus from Abraham on to the close of national inde- 
 
 2 H 
 
482 Conchmon. 
 
 pendence there was a regular and steady development, 
 the idea of Jahaveh and the conception of what His re- 
 ligion implied undergoing a steady expansion in the pro- 
 phetic teaching, aided by the political events through 
 which the nation passed. The revival of the time of Ezra 
 was a new starting-point, or, as we may better express it, 
 the course of development had come round by a wide 
 cycle to a new starting-point ; for all historical movement 
 is of this kind, in cycles which come back again upon 
 themselves and follow apparently the same path, though 
 on a higher plane. What happened in Ezra's time was 
 this: An attempt was made, on the basis of the expe- 
 rience of the past, to live the national life over again 
 under new conditions. What had been already achieved 
 was gathered up ; the national life, instead of having 
 primarily a promise of a future, fed itself on the re- 
 collections of the past ; it closed around the results of 
 the former prophetic activity, and sought to conserve 
 what had been attained, as the starting-point for a new 
 round of experience. There is in the plant a similar 
 cycle of life : the flower blossoms and then decays ; but 
 before it has fallen, it has developed the seed which is 
 to be the life of a coming season ; and though we may 
 think that the plant has completed its period of life, 
 this is not so if it has matured the seed which has 
 vitality in itself for future growth. The hard and dry 
 seed-pod is not so attractive an object as the fair blossom- 
 ing flower, but it not only is the result of the past, but 
 has also promise for the future. And if, to preserve the 
 figure, the period of the Talmud exhibits men amusing 
 themselves at play with dry peas, yet these seeds were 
 not dead, and many even in the Talmudic period recog- 
 nised their vitality. And when, finally, the fulness of the 
 
Rudimentary Ideas of Primitive Peoples. 483 
 
 time was come, the seeds which had fallen on dry ground 
 shot forth with new and more beautiful life : the truths 
 reached by men of old time, which had been treated as 
 so many dogmas or formulae, were seen to be truths en- 
 dowed with perennial life. The teaching of the prophets, 
 and the fond beliefs of the people, that Jahaveh would 
 ever be Israel's God, were illustrated in a new and strik- 
 ing manner in Him who was raised up an horn of salva- 
 tion in the house of David, and the anticipations of the 
 time when Gentiles should come to the light of Israel, 
 were fulfilled when the wall of partition was broken 
 down, and it was shown, in the light of the Gospel, that 
 Abraham was father of all that believe, whether they be 
 Jews or Gentiles. 
 
 But M. Renan objects : This makes the religion of 
 Israel a thing that has no beginning — a thing as old as 
 the world — a supposition which, from his point of view, 
 is not for a moment to be entertained. And from him 
 and from others we hear the reiterated appeal to " primi- 
 tive peoples," " rudimentary ideas," and so forth, with the 
 implication that the progress of Israel's religious life must 
 be made to square with the progress found in other na- 
 tions. To all which our simple reply is — In point of fact 
 it was not the same ; the modern theorists themselves are 
 bound to admit as much within the sphere of which they 
 say we have authentic information. And there is the 
 other fact, patent in history, that other primitive peoples, 
 and even peoples of the same Semitic race, never got to 
 the stage, or anything approaching the stage, that the 
 Hebrews reached. In view of these plain facts in the 
 world's history, it is simply trifling to insist upon making 
 Israel's history square with that of all other peoples. The 
 Oriental of the present day has a very expressive answer 
 
484 Conclusion. 
 
 to all such arguments. He simply extends liis hand, and 
 says, " See ; are the fingers of the hand all of one length ? " 
 In the matter of religion we are not to be guided by the 
 degree of " culture " to which a nation has attained, or 
 justified in speaking of early and late at all. The Egyp- 
 tians and Assyrians were far in advance of the Israel- 
 ites in civilisation and outward culture, but they are not 
 to be compared with them in the sphere of religion. 
 Eenan himself has pointed out how the simple nomad is 
 far in advance of the settled inhabitant of the city in 
 religious experience. The history of the world would 
 seem in a striking manner to confirm the Biblical state- 
 ments that man cannot by searching find out God; that 
 the world by wisdom knew not God. While the most 
 acute philosophers and thinkers of Greece were reasoning 
 about these things, the simple-minded Hebrews had reached 
 a firm position from which they never receded, and from 
 which the whole thinking world, as from a starting-point, 
 has had to advance.^ It is all very well for us now — 
 when the light shines — to formulate our arguments for the 
 existence and character of God; for we know what we 
 want to prove. But the fact that reasoners by reason 
 did not succeed in proving it till the Hebrew race had 
 made it known to the world, and the other fact that they 
 did not reach it by a process of reasoning or reflection, or 
 adding on of one attribute to another — these facts show 
 that such a knowledge is given with more direct force, 
 and in a more complete form. What seems, in fact, hard 
 and laborious to us with our logical categories and sub- 
 jective processes, seems to have come instinctively to the 
 Abrahamic race ; and even Stade has admitted that if 
 there was not precisely an instinct of monotheism in the 
 
 ^ Bredenkatnp, Gesetz u. Propheten, p. 13. 
 
Newmans Uxperience. 485 
 
 Hebrews, they, above all others, showed a predisposition 
 to it. 
 
 In this connection it is interesting to recall an incident 
 mentioned by F. W. Newman,^ from his own experience as 
 a missionary. " While we were at Aleppo," he says, " I 
 one day got into religious discourse with a Mohammedan 
 carpenter, which left on me a lasting impression. Among 
 other matters, I was peculiarly desirous of disabusing him 
 of the current notion of his people, that our Gospels are 
 spurious narratives of late date. I found great difficulty 
 of expression ; but the man listened to me with great at- 
 tention, and I was encouraged to exert myself. He waited 
 patiently till I had done, and then spoke to the following 
 effect : ' I tell you, sir, how the case stands. God has 
 given to you English a great many good gifts. You make 
 fine ships, and sharp penknives, and good cloth and cottons ; 
 and you have rich nobles and brave soldiers; and you 
 write and print many learned books (dictionaries and 
 grammars): all this is of God. But there is one thing 
 that God has withheld from you and has revealed to us ; 
 and that is, the knowledge of the true religion, by which 
 one may be saved.' " Newman adds : " When he had thus 
 ignored my argument (which was probably quite unintelli- 
 gible to him) and delivered his simple protest, I was silent 
 and at the same time amused. But the more I thought it 
 over, the more instruction I saw in the case." For my own 
 part, I have much sympathy with the opinion expressed 
 by the Moslem carpenter. He is a type of many that are 
 to be found in the humbler ranks of society in the East 
 at the present day, who are little qualified to follow a con- 
 nected argument, but to whom religious conceptions of a V 
 high order come as a matter of course. Such men, doubt- 
 
 1 Phases of Faith, second edition, 1853, p. 32 f. 
 
486 Conclusion, 
 
 less, were those who wrote and who read many of the 
 books of the Old Testament ; and hence the books them- 
 selves, though subjected to the most harassing criticism, 
 and characterised as " spurious narratives of late date," 
 smile at all such criticism, and give forth with confidence 
 their testimony to a faith, which is independent of time, 
 and indifferent to modes of literary composition. 
 
 Our investigations have been confined to the history 
 of Israel as a nation, and the conclusion I have come to is 
 that the history, as told by the Bible historians, is credible 
 in all the essential points at which we have the means of 
 testing it. The Biblical view carries back the national 
 life and the national religion to Abraham, and so far as 
 we are able to check the accounts, we have found that 
 without this assumption the history cannot be explained. 
 In other words, from the 12th chapter of Genesis onwards, 
 we conclude that we have a credible and trustworthy ac- 
 count of the leading events and crises of the history of 
 Israel. As to the antecedent eleven chapters of Genesis, 
 the matters therein treated do not fall properly within 
 the scope of our present inquiry. They do not constitute 
 part of the history of Israel, strictly speaking, though in 
 the Biblical writings they are made to lead up to it and 
 give a basis for it. These accounts of primitive and 
 primeval times, if we place them, simply as ancient docu- 
 ments, side by side with the early traditions and cos- 
 mogonies of other nations, are, as has been univer- 
 sally admitted, characterised by a sobriety, purity, and 
 loftiness of conception which render them altogether 
 unique. If we should set them down as merely the 
 attempts on the part of the Hebrew writers to give an 
 account of origins of which no historical record was in 
 their hands, merely the consolidated form of legends and 
 
Traditions of Earliest Times. 487 
 
 myths handed on from prehistoric times, we cannot but 
 recognise the singular line that myth-making took in this 
 particular case, as distinguished from the cases of poly- 
 theistic Semitic and non- Semitic races. Such myths, if 
 they are to be so described, are not born in a day ; even 
 if the writer of the earliest of them is set down as late as 
 the eiglith or ninth century before Christ, the folk-lore, 
 if you will, of his people was of quite a unique character 
 before it could furnish such materials ; and the writer of 
 them must already have formulated to himself, to say the 
 least, a very definite philosophy of history, and had a 
 much broader conception of the world and of its relation 
 to God, than we should expect from one in the primitive 
 stage of religion. As compared with the earliest formu- 
 lated accounts of creation and primeval times contained 
 in Assyrian literature, they are pervaded by an entirely 
 different spirit, emancipated from bonds of polytheistic 
 notions, and moving altogether on a higher plane. If we 
 find, as have been found, correspondences of a remarkable 
 kind in the Hebrew and other early accounts of the 
 creation, and so forth, we must not, as has too often 
 been the practice, jump to the conclusion that everything 
 which Hebrew literature and tradition have in common 
 with those of other nations must be borrowed by the 
 Hebrews. Why should the Hebrews borrow from every 
 side, and yet retain something so clearly distinguishing 
 them from each and all of the others ? Why should we 
 not admit a common primeval tradition, when it is thus 
 attested by independent witnesses ? Nay, seeing that 
 the Hebrew tradition, at the very earliest point at which 
 we can seize it, is purer and loftier than any other, why 
 should it be at all incredible tliat in that race, from pre- 
 Abrahamic times and in the lands from which the faith 
 
488 CoTwUision. 
 
 of Abraham was disseminated, there were found purer 
 conceptions of God and deeper intuitions into His char- 
 acter and operations than we find elsewhere — glimmerings 
 of a purer faith which had elsewhere become obscured by 
 polytheistic notions and practices ? Do not the results of 
 the study of comparative religion tend to show that even 
 polytheism is an aberration from a simpler conception, 
 and that the lowest forms of nature-religion point to a 
 belief in a Being whose character always transcends the 
 forms in which the untutored mind tries to represent 
 Him, and is not summed up in all their attempts to 
 give it expression ? That being so, why should it be a 
 thing incredible that in one quarter, a quarter which in 
 the clear light of history is found to stand sharply de- 
 fined from its surroundings, the souls of the best should 
 have kept themselves above these degradations, and 
 nursed within themselves the higher, purer, more primary 
 conception ; and that this should have taken shape in 
 the faith of Abraham, or, if we state it otherwise, formed 
 the basis on which the purer faith of Abraham was 
 reared ? This will not seem incredible to any who believe 
 that there is but one God, and that He has been the same 
 from the beginning. It is only a statement in another 
 form of St Paul's words, that God has never left Himself 
 without witness ; and it is quite in keeping, I believe, with 
 the best results of the comparative study of religions. 
 
 In the foregoing chapters, I have carefully abstained 
 from making any appeal to the authority of New Testa- 
 ment Scriptures. The first and fundamental question is, 
 not whether the modern theory agrees with our Christian 
 religion and our Confession, but whether it agrees with 
 sound sense and sober reason. If the theory is to be 
 held as proved on these solid grounds, our views must be 
 
Ultimate Issues of the Controversy, 489 
 
 adjusted in regard to it. I cannot help adding, however, 
 that if the postulates and methods of this kind of criticism 
 are to be admitted, a good many other things besides our 
 views of Old Testament history will require to be re- 
 adjusted. The question may be put to a good many who 
 seem disposed to accept the modern critical treatment of 
 the Old Testament, whether they are prepared to allow the 
 same processes to be applied to the New. I would seri- 
 ously ask those Christians who regard Stade's ' Geschichte * 
 as a successful exhibition of the religious history of Israel, 
 to ponder the application of the same principles of criticism 
 to the life of Jesus Christ in the second volume of that 
 work. So far as I can see, the arguments used in the one 
 field may be employed equally well in the other, and the 
 Gospel history be critically reconstructed out of the ten- 
 dencies and views of the second century, just as the ac- 
 count of the pre-prophetic religion given by the Hebrew 
 writers is made the result of the projection backward of 
 later ideas. 
 
 Just because the issues in this controversy are so far- 
 reaching, is it necessary to meet the critical view on its 
 own ground, anti to examine the foundation on which it 
 rests. Questions are involved that lie much deeper than 
 those of the verbal inspiration or the so-called "inerr- 
 ancy " of Scripture. It seems to me vain to talk of the 
 inspiration and authority of books till we are sure that 
 they are credible and honest compositions, giving us a 
 firm historical basis on which to rest. My whole argu- 
 ment has been to show that, examined by the light which 
 they themselves furnish, these books are trustworthy docu- 
 ments ; that the compositions which are undoubted and 
 accepted give their testimony to those that are questioned 
 or rejected; that the books as they lie before us, so far 
 
490 Conclusion. 
 
 as they can be tested by the only tests in our possession, 
 and making all allowance for the ordinary conditions of 
 human composition and transmission of books, give us a 
 fair and credible account of what took place in the his- 
 tory and religious development of Israel. If that point 
 is allowed to be in a fair way established, I leave the 
 argument for inspiration and authority to take care of 
 itself. The picture which the books present, if it is 
 admitted to be in any sense an adequate representation 
 of fact, will probably be sufficient to convince ordinary 
 Christian people that in ancient Israel there was a divine 
 control of events, a divine guidance of the best spirits of 
 the nation, a divine plan in the unfolding of the history, 
 which we may sum up by saying there was a divinely 
 guided development, or, as it has been expressed,^ that the 
 history itself is inspired. How far such a description, in 
 any specific sense, may be given of the history as it is 
 represented by the theory I have been combating, I leave 
 its advocates to determine. I should think, however, that 
 that is the very minimum of any theory of inspiration 
 worthy of the name. I should think, moreover, that 
 those who do regard the history of Israel as divinely 
 guided and inspired in a sense altogether different from 
 other ancient history, instead of underrating as a vague 
 or negative result such a conclusion as it has been my 
 endeavour to establish on the bare ground of historical 
 criticism, ought to rejoice if, with even a degree of prob- 
 ability, it can be made out. M. Eenan would indeed have 
 us believe that the idea which animated ancient Israel, 
 and was carried over into Christianity, is played out, 
 having received its death-blow at the French Eevolu- 
 tion, when certain thinkers came to the conclusion that 
 
 ^ Horton, Inspiration and the Bible, p. 171. 
 
The New Religion. " 491 
 
 there was no Providence controlling the events of man's 
 world, no God who is to be the judge of man's actions.^ 
 Instead of hailing with pleasure such an emancipation 
 of the human spirit, we ought gladly to welcome any 
 help that comes to the aid of faith in such a God as 
 the patriarchs and prophets are represented as making 
 known — a God whose revelation of Himself has been 
 advancing with brighter radiance, till it culminated in 
 the manifestation of His Son Jesus Christ, who was 
 the " light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of His 
 people Israel." Such a faith as Old Testament prophets 
 'possessed has been the blessing and the guide of the best 
 of mankind in their achievement of the best up till this 
 hour ; such a faith is more than ever needed just at 
 I the present moment, to save the human race from losing 
 respect for itself, and to rekindle hope and aspiration for 
 the future. The choice has to be made, in the last resort, 
 between such a faith and "the divine pride of man in 
 himself," which, we are told, is to be " the radical foun- 
 dation of the new religion." ^ And even the volatile 
 Frenchman himself has said : " It is not impossible that, 
 wearied with the repeated bankruptcies of liberalism, the 
 world may yet again become Jewish and Christian." ^ 
 
 ^ Souvenirs d'Enfance et de Jeunesse, p. 337 ; Histoire du Peuple 
 d'Israel, tome i. pp. 27, 40, 41. 
 
 2 Walt Whitman, Democratic Vistas (Camelot Series), p. 6.5. 
 
 3 Histoire du Peuple d'Israel, tome i. p. vii. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 Note I. p. 7. — English readers naturally expect that scholars 
 should be able, by mere linguistic features, to arrange the 01c 
 Testament books in chronological order ; and find it difficult to 
 understand how, in the matters of language and style, there should 
 be so little appreciable distinction between books dating centuries 
 apart. That the fact is so, is sufficiently proved by the various 
 dates assigned by diiferent critical scholars to the same compositions. 
 What used to be regarded as the earliest of the (large) components 
 of the Pentateuch, is now by the prevailing school made the latest, 
 and the linguistic features have not been considered a bar to either 
 view (see p. 42). The uniformity of the language of the Old Tes- 
 tament is partly explained by the fact that the ancient mode of 
 writing only the consonants did not provide for the preservation 
 of those variations in vowel-sounds which usually mark the history 
 of languages ; and when, at a late period, a system of vowel-points 
 was adopted, a uniformity in this respect would be the result. The 
 English reader must not, however, conclude that there is no differ- 
 ence observable between early and late productions. The books of 
 Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah betray their later date by the presence 
 of the so-called Chaldee portions ; and the book of Ecclesiastes, as 
 Delitzsch has said, must be placed late, else there is no history of 
 the Hebrew language at all. The books of Chronicles indicate their 
 lateness even by the matter. Still, in the great mass of the Hebrew 
 literature there are no sure linguistic landmarks denoting definite 
 literary periods. It must be admitted that in this, as in other re- 
 
494 Notes, 
 
 spects, the East is more stationary than the West ; and it is there- 
 fore somewhat misleading to compare long periods of our own history 
 with the same number of years in Hebrew history (as is done, e.g.^ 
 by Hoiton, in ' Inspiration and the Bible,' third edition, p. 143). 
 A modern Arabic author will write in the style of an ancient classic, 
 without subjecting himself to the charge of pedantry ; and the uni- 
 formity of the style of Assyrian documents is remarkable. When 
 once a certain style for a certain subject is fixed, it tends to stereo- 
 type itself ; and one author may be master of more than one style. 
 At all events, the determination of separate authorship does not, as a 
 rule, go far to the determination of date. Cf. below. Note XXVI. 
 
 Note II. p. 21. — M. Kenan's estimate of the historical sciences, to 
 which his life has been devoted, is not very high : " Little conjec- 
 tural sciences, which are unmade as fast as they are made, and which 
 will be neglected a hundred years hence." With his sneer at the 
 " ugly little Jew " (St Paul) who was unable to understand the god- 
 dess whom Eenan on the Acropolis addressed, may be contrasted 
 the declaration of Heine in his ' Confessions ' : " Formerly I had no 
 special admiration for Moses, probably because the spirit of Hellen- 
 ism was dominant within me, and I could not pardon in the law- 
 giver of the Jews his intolerance of all types and plastic representa- 
 tions. ... I see now that the Greeks were only handsome youths, 
 while the Jews were always men, powerful, indomitable men." See 
 ' Wit, Wisdom, and Pathos from the Prose of Heinrich Heine,' by 
 Snodgrass, second edition, p. 256 f. 
 
 Note III. p. 23. — Tiele in his ' Kompendium der Religions- 
 geschichte,' § 3, thus lays down the fundamental lines of the whole 
 subject : It is probable for various reasons that 'primitive religion, 
 which has left but few traces, was followed by a prevailing period 
 of animism, which is still found in the so-called nature-religions 
 (or, as he prefers to call them, " polydemonistic-magical tribal re- 
 ligions"), and which, at a still early period among civilised peoples, 
 was developed into loolytheistic national religions, resting on tradi- 
 tional teaching. At a later time there arose out of polytheism, here 
 and there, nomistic religions, or religious communities based on a 
 law or sacred writing. In these polytheism was more or less over- 
 come by pantheism or monotheism,, in the last of which are found the 
 roots of the world-religions. All this, as is pointed out by Tiele's 
 French translator (Maurice Vernes, L'histoire des Religions, p. 42), is 
 
Notes. - 495 
 
 very much a repetition of AngusteComte's famous trilogy, fetishirimj 
 polytheism, monotheism ; with this difference, that Tiele and his 
 followers regard monotheism as a permanent religion, while Comte 
 and his school regard it as destined to give place to positive philo- 
 sophy. It is plain, moreover, that, starting with a determination 
 of what is to be found, the inquirer will be strongly tempted to find 
 it, at the expense, it may be, of sober interpretation of facts. 
 
 Note IV. pp. 28, 43. — Writers of the critical school are in the habit 
 of attacking what they call the " traditional theory." With thip, 
 however, we need not concern ourselves, except in so far as it is 
 found in the Biblical writers. The 0. T. writers have a theory, and / 
 it is enough that we examine it, especially as the advanced critics/ 
 tell us plainly that it is erroneous. (See Kuenen, National Re-S 
 ligions, p. 69 f.) Whether Robertson Smith gives an exact state- 
 ment of the traditional theory (0. T. in Jewish Church, p. 208 ff.) 
 I am not prepared to say. I agree with him, however, that the 
 position assigned to the prophets, in the theory as he sketches it, is 
 not consistent with the declarations of the prophets themselves (p. 
 216). My whole contention is, that the Biblical writers do not bind 
 us to any theory or view of the mode of composition of books, what- 
 ever may have been " traditionally " inferred or taken for granted in 
 the matter ; but as to the sequence of events, and the religious signi- 
 ficance of events, their language is plain and emphatic. It is with 
 that language, and the view it expresses, not with traditional inter- 
 pretations of it, that we have to dt al. 
 
 Note V. p. 35. — Vatke, from whom Wellhausen "gratefully ac- 
 knowledges himself to have learned best and most" (Hist, of Israel, 
 p. 13), says that Moses must be measured by his time, and that it 
 is impossible that an individual should rise suddenly from a lower 
 to a higher stage and raise a whole people with him ; so, though an 
 individual may out of weakness fall back to a lower level (as to idol ,, ^ 
 and image worship), yet this is impossible in the case of a whol e i<^-^ ^ 
 ,^e2plg, if the consciousness of the unity of God was actually alive. 'T^^^^^j^ x 
 As to the age of Moses, according to whose standard the lawgiver ^ <, Oi 
 is to be measured, Yatke denied to it even the knowledge of writing ^vH'j^ 
 (Bibl. Theo]., 179-183). Ewald, on the other hand, speaking of the yuJPt <h 
 time of Moses, says : " A new power was in that distant age set in ""lb f^i 
 motion in the world, whose pulsations vibrated through the whole 
 of antiquity," &c. (Hist, of Isnel, Eng. transL, vol. ii. p. 169); and 
 
496 Notes, 
 
 F. C. Baur says that Mosaism must ever be regarded as a great 
 religious reform, a renewing and restoration of a purer religion, 
 periodically obscured and threatened with a still deeper obscuration 
 (in Studien und Kritiken for 1832). 
 
 Note VL p. 44. — The classical passage in the Talmud (Baba 
 Bathra, 14 b.) contains really all that the rabbins had of tradition on 
 the subject of the authorship of the Old Testament books ; and it 
 is so obscurely expressed that it is evident the tradition, whatever 
 it was, was mixed up with crude guesses of their own. The passage 
 is given by Strack in the Herzog-Plitt Encyklopadie, vol. vii., 
 art. " Kanon des Alten Testaments." It is also given in English, 
 and discussed by Briggs, Bibl. Study, p. 175 ff. 
 
 Note VII. p. 47. — During the Egyptian war of 1882 there was a 
 newspaper edited by an intimate associate of Arabi, and circulated 
 widely among the fellahtn and those favourable to Arabi's cause. 
 It gave most circumstantial and minute details of his operations and 
 glowing accounts of his victories. The readers of this paper be- 
 lieved, for example, that a midshipman who lost his way on the 
 sands somewhere near Kefr Dawar, and was taken prisoner, was the 
 admiral of the British fleet ; and their belief was encouraged by the 
 attention bestowed on the prisoner, and the state in which he was 
 made to live in one of the palaces. They also believed that Arabi's 
 troops had many successful engagements with the British ; and, as 
 a native writer says, had the sum of the British reported as killed 
 been added up, it would have amounted to ten times their whole 
 actual number (Scottish Keview, April 1887, p. 386). A copy of 
 this paper, dated a day or so before the battle of Tel-ei-Kebir, was 
 picked up in the trenches by a British soldier, and used as letter- 
 paper to write to his friends at home. 1 had the good fortune to see 
 it, and I found it full of the most extravagant accounts of the doings 
 of the rebel army on the very eve of its discomfiture. What would 
 a future historian make of a complete file of this paper ? 
 
 Note VIII. p. 53. — It is not necessary for us to enter into critical 
 questions as to the composition and the original " sources " oi 
 the various books ; but a brief statement of the chief critical con- 
 clusions and designations is here desirable. The oldest of all the 
 historical authorities recognised by critics are those songs, or poetical 
 pieces, which presumably had their rise in connection with stirring 
 
Kotes. 49? 
 
 events, and were, in the first instance, handed down orally. The 
 song of Deborah, says Stade, bears traces of having been composed 
 under the immediate impression of the victory it celebrates, and 
 it is usually appealed to as one of the oldest sources of historical 
 information. The Hexateuch {i.e., the six books Genesis to Joshua) 
 Is regarded as one great composite work, within which several large 
 component parts (to say nothing of redactional matter) of different 
 dates are distinguishable. The book of Deuteronomy may be set 
 aside as a part by itself with well-marked features. There remain 
 two larger sources, capable again of minor subdivision. The first 
 of these in historical order is a story-book, now usually designated 
 (after Wellhausen) J E, having been originally two books, one (J) 
 characterised by the use of the name Jahaveh, the other (E) by the 
 use of the name Elohim, the former belonging probably to the 
 southern kingdom, the latter to the northern. They are both of 
 prophetical or popular character. Wellhausen's school makes J the 
 earlier, placing it in the middle of the ninth century B.C., while E 
 would fall not later than 750 B.C. Both of these may have incor- 
 porated older sources, and may both have been originally of larger 
 compass ; they are now so closely joined together that a separation 
 of them in their original entireness may be considered impossible. 
 This combined source J E is often designated the Jehovist, to dis- 
 tinguish it from J, the simple Jahvist. The other great component 
 part of the Hexateuch used to be called the Grundschrift or Funda- 
 mental Writing, because it was regarded as the earliest main source, 
 a sort of backbone about which the other parts were grouped. Its 
 first portion is the opening chapter of Genesis, and in the remainder 
 of that book those portions that are headed " these are the genera- 
 tions," &c., belong to it, and hence Ewald called it the " Book of 
 Origins." It was also called the " Older Elohist," to distinguish it 
 from the Elohistic story-book, now called E. The main portion of 
 it lies in the middle books, particularly in Leviticus, and from this 
 part, which is its most striking feature, this source is now usually 
 denoted by P. — i. e.,- Priestly source. Wellhausen thinks that the ker- 
 nel of this work was, what he designates Q { = quatuor, four), a work 
 containing the four covenants (Gen. i. 28-30, ix. 1-17, xvii. ; Exod. 
 vi. 2, ff.) This great source is now regarded, not as the underlying 
 fundamental document, but, so to speak, the final encircling frame- 
 work, which held all the others together in a systematic scheme, 
 and in date it is declared to be exilic. Some critics recognise more, 
 some less, pre-existing material within its own proper domain ; 
 
 2 I 
 
498 Notes. 
 
 and it need not be said, the views as to tlie processes by which the 
 whole composite Hexateuch grew to its present form, vary con- 
 siderably (see chap. vi. p. 139 ff.) As to the other historical books, 
 the books of Kings bear on their face that they were composed in 
 the time of the exile (whatever earlier materials they may embody). 
 In 1 Kings vi.-viii., Wellhausen recognises marks of the influence of 
 the (still later) Priestly Code (Hist, of Israel, p. 280). The book of 
 Judges, besides an introduction (i. 1-ii. 5) and an appendix (xvii.- 
 xxi.), is made up of a number of stories, recounting the exploits 
 of local heroes. These stories, however, are set in a framework, 
 said to be from a different hand, explaining in stereotyped phrase 
 how the various oppressions came about, how the deliverer was 
 raised up, and how long the effects of the deliverance lasted. The 
 chapters at the end (xix.-xxi.) Stade calls a "tendency romance," 
 fully in accord with the Priestly source (Gesch., i. p. 71). Well- 
 hausen, however (Hist., p. 237), does not make this portion so late 
 as P. C, with the exception of one reference to the " congregation," 
 and the mention of Phinehas. So he says (Hist., p. 256) that 1 Sam. 
 vii., viii., x. 17 f., xii., betray a close relationship with those chapters 
 of the book of Judges. 
 
 Note IX. p. 77. — The hieroglyphic system is found in perfection 
 on the monuments of the 18th and 19th dynasties — i.e., earlier than 
 the exodus. But by that time it was a venerable system ; for 
 remains of monuments from even the 4th dynasty exhibit a 
 character essentially identical with that found in the inscriptions of 
 Thothmes and Eameses. Budge, in speaking of the cover of the sar- 
 cophagus of Menkau Ra (or Mycerinus), of the 4th dynasty (dated 
 by Brugsch, 3633 B.C.), says : There is little difference between the 
 shape of the hieroglyphics of those days and those of a much later 
 date ; and however far we may go back, we never come to an in- 
 scription belonging to a period in which we can see that the Egyp- 
 tians were learning to write (Dwellers on the Nile, p. 63). In 1847 
 was published by Prisse a facsimile of a papyrus found in a tomb of 
 the 11th dynasty {i.e., some centuries earlier than Moses). Old as 
 it is, it is a copy of an original work composed by a writer of the 
 5th dynasty ; and, to crown all, the original author, who is an old 
 man, laments over the good old times that are gone. A translation 
 of Pentaur's poem by Professor Lushington is contained in Records 
 of the Past, first ser., vol. ii. p. 65 ff. Comp. Budge, Dwellers on 
 the Nile, chap, v. It is interesting to note that it exhibits the 
 
Notes. 499 
 
 system of parallelism which is so chaiucteristic of Hebrew poetry, 
 and has other resemblances to the lyrical and prophetical style of 
 the Old Testament. 
 
 Note X. p. 116. — How very early the Messianic expectation had 
 taken a precise form may be gathered from the way Amos speaks of 
 the "day of Jahaveh" (v. 18-20). This expression, which appears 
 so prominently throughout prophetic literature, was evidently by 
 his time in common use to denote "a good time coming." The 
 polemic of the propliet implies this, as it also teaches the funda- 
 mental conception of the "cycle" of history to which reference is 
 made above, p. 117. 
 
 Note XI. p. 124. — Robertson Smith says : *' That the division of 
 Israel into twelve tribes did not assume its present shape till after 
 the conquest of Canaan, is recognised by most recent inquirers " 
 (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 219). Stade tells us 
 that no historical recollection goes back to the time of the entrance 
 of the Israelites into Western Palestine (Geschichte, i. p. 147) ; that 
 there were never twelve tribes at one and the same time, but some- 
 times more, sometimes fewer, and that only by artificial means was 
 the number twelve made out (a number found in the similar 
 legends of other peoples), either by leaving out Levi, or by making 
 Ephraim and Manasseh one. The system, he says, is due to the 
 priests, and grew up at the sanctuaries to confirm the general system 
 of patriarchal legends (p. 145). We may conjecture, he says, that a 
 system once prevailed, according to which the tribes were repre- 
 sented as the wives of Jacob, for the names Leah, Each el, Zilpah, 
 Bilhah, are to be taken as names of Hebrew tribes. Independent of 
 this there must have been a genealogy representing the tribes as 
 sons^ as is apparent from the fact that Leah is just another form of 
 Levi ; but the legendary cycle which knew the tribe of Levi in the 
 form of Leah, wife of Jacob, knew nothing of the legend which repre- 
 sented it as Levi, the son of Jacob, and vice versa (p. 146). Moreover, 
 the principle of genealogy must have crossed other systems of divi- 
 sion, particularly the geographical system, by which tribes contiguous 
 in situation were represented as consanguineous. Yet, after allowing 
 himself all this latitude and choice of explanations, Stade cannot, 
 e,g,^ account for the fact that Reuben, an insignificant tribe, was 
 made the firstborn (unless, perhaps, as he suggests, it was just 
 because this was an insignificant tribe, put forth, so to speak, as a 
 
500 , Notes. 
 
 neutral-coloured figure-head to allay the jealousies of the two great 
 rival tribes, Judah and Ephraim), Nor can he explain why Zebulon 
 and Issachar (northern tribes) are grouped with Judah under Leah, 
 and Asher (west) with Gad (east) under Zilpah. It seems also 
 an extraordinary statement to make, that the circles which knew of 
 Levi and Leah as the son and wife respectively of Jacob, knew 
 nothing of the legendary beliefs of one another ; for one would 
 suppose that if the tribal genealogies were preserved anywhere, it 
 would be in the tribe concerned ; and yet one part of the tribe, on 
 this supposition, would not know what the other part thought of 
 themselves. It seems to me, that to place the formation of all this 
 legendary matter, as Stade does, in the time of the divided monarchy 
 (p. 147), is not justifi.able in the face of the song of Deborah, nor 
 consistent with his own position stated elsewhere (p. 396), that the 
 monarchical system, by concentrating power, struck at the religious 
 system on which tribal formation rests, not to speak of the opposi- 
 tion of the Jahaveh religion to the same ideas. In other words, the 
 system requires longer time to grow, and presupposes a much more 
 primitive condition of society than his assumption implies. Much 
 more may this be said of the explanation, favoured by Robertson 
 Smith, of the tribal system by the belief and practice of totemism, 
 on the ground of the animal names of some of the tribes (Kinship, 
 &c., I. c.) The last-named writer claims to have pointed out that the 
 name Sarah or Sarai corresponds as closely with Israel as Leah 
 does with Levi ; and argues hence that, as Abraham was originally a 
 Judsean hero, we have an explanation how Sarah ( = Israel) was 
 Abraham's sister before she came to be called his wife and the 
 mother of Israel and Judah alike (ibid., Note XI. to chap, i., p. 257). 
 The great difficulty is to find room for the development that all this 
 implies within the firm historical limits prescribed by our written 
 documents. The personality of the patriarchs, as tribal heads, is 
 not inconsistent with a growth of tribes by accretion, as modern 
 Arab practice shows. The Biblical theory, placing a long period 
 between the patriarchs and the exodus, allows room for this ; but 
 Stade does not, by ascribing the tribal formation and the growth of 
 the legends to the times succeeding the invasion of Canaan. As to 
 a tribe not knowing its father, as he asserts, see an article by Curtiss 
 in Expositor, third series, vol. vi. p. 328 f. Stade's assertion that 
 no historical recollection goes back to the time of the entrance into 
 Canaan, is met by the concurrent testimony of all the sources, and 
 
Notes. 601 
 
 the clear voice of the earliest writing prophets, to the ellect that 
 Israel came out of Egypt. 
 
 Note XII, p. 127. — Yet the only passage in which Abraham appears 
 as a warrior (Gen. xiv., in which the rescue of Lot is described) is 
 relegated by Wellhausen and Kuenen to post-exilic times, and de- 
 clared to be quite unhistorical. The chapter is a veritable crux for 
 modern criticism ; it will not allow itself to be classed with any of 
 the main sources, and so Kautzsch and Socin print it in a type by it- 
 self (Die Genesis, mit aussererUnterscheidung der Quellenschriften). 
 Wellhausen declares that it may be described, like Melchizedec, as 
 "without father, without mother, without genealogy." Critics of 
 a more moderate type (as Schrader, Dillmann, and Kittel) regard it 
 as an old independent piece (perhaps borrowed from a native Pales- 
 tinian source) taken up by E. To which Wellhausen replies that 
 this is the last document to which it should be assigned, since in E 
 Abraham is represented as a " Muslim " and a prophet, but never a 
 warrior. Neither, says he, does the glorification of Jerusalem (the 
 southern sanctuary) suit E, a northern story-teller. Most probably, 
 he concludes, the final redactor who united J E with Q, took up 
 this recital, which had no connection with the antecedent and sub- 
 sequent context (Composition des Hexateuchs, pp. 26, 310). So 
 Kuenen calls it a post-exilic version of Abram's life, a Midrash 
 (Hexateuch, sect. 16). 
 
 Note XIII. p. 133. — H. G. Tomkins, in his * Studies on the Times 
 of Abraham' (Bagster, 1878), has brought together much interesting 
 matter, drawn from recent archaeological research. Reference may 
 be made also to Deane's ' Abraham ; His Life and Times,' in the 
 " Men of the Bible " Series. It is time that an extreme criticism, 
 which will persist in representing Israel as groping its way out of 
 the most primitive ideas, while civilisation prevailed around them, 
 should bend to the force of facts which are multiplying every day. 
 What has been done in the field of Homeric studies should not be 
 without its lesson to Biblical students. 
 
 Note XIV. p. 171. — Eobertson Smith (Religion of Semites, first 
 series, p. 92 ff.) has an ingenious discussion of the original significa- 
 tion of haal, in which he relies much on the Arabic expression 
 (baal land), which denotes land nourished b}* subterranean waters. 
 
502 Notes. 
 
 Whether his conclusion be right or not, it is evident that a good 
 deal must have happened before a god under the earth beneath be- 
 came the chief god in the heaven above ; and also that by the time 
 we reach the stage of conception of the earliest Hebrew writing (not 
 to say language), in which " baal means the master of a house, the 
 owner of a field, cattle, or the like," we are very far indeed from the 
 original Semitic conception, if, indeed, that order of development 
 took place at all. In this very learned work there are too many 
 sudden leaps from primitive notions of Semitic peoples to such an ad- 
 vanced stage of thought as is represented by the prophets. In my 
 opinion, the work would have been as valuable a contribution to our 
 knowledge of the common Semitic religion, and much less confusing 
 and inconsequent, had the author not proceeded on the assumption 
 that the theory of the history of Israel set forth by Wellhausen and 
 Kuenen is established, or, as he states the matter, that the researches 
 of writers of that school have " carried this inquiry to a point where 
 nothing of vital importance for the historical study of the Old Testa- 
 ment religion still remains uncertain" (Pref., p. vii.) The pre- 
 cariousness of the philological argument, so much employed by him, 
 is seen in the fact that expressions illustrating what are claimed as 
 primitive beliefs are found as frequently in undoubtedly late as in 
 early writers. In the Archaeological Review (vol. iii.. No. 3, 1889) 
 there is an article on Totemism by Jos. Jacobs, who comes to the 
 conclusion that, although not only certain names of Edomite and even 
 Israelite tribes, and also prohibitions of food, family feasts, and so 
 forth, possibly allow the inference of pre-existing totemism, there 
 cannot be a thought of " its actual existence in historic times." And 
 it is with historic times that we are concerned. 
 
 Note XV. p. 172. — The name Elohim, which is a plural form, 
 has been taken by many to prove that polytheism was the original 
 belief of the Hebrews. Baudissin (Studien zur Semit. Religion s- 
 gesch.. Heft I. p. 55 ff.) says that the plural designation of God 
 can only have arisen through the ascription to One of all the powers 
 that resided in different deities. To which Baethgen (Beitrage zur 
 Semitischen Religionsgeschichte, p. 132 ff. and p. 297) objects that 
 this is to give to the word an origin in pantheism, of which we have 
 no trace in any Old Testament writer ; and that if the God of the 
 Israelites were only the sum of all other gods, he could not be set 
 over against them nor over them. As to the idea that the plural 
 form may have been a summing up of all the gods or divine powers 
 
Notes. 503 
 
 which Israel acknowledged, he objects that, in that case, we should 
 have expected to find traces of the names of such other supposed 
 gods, and also to find a singular noun to denote one of the Elohim. 
 The singular word Eloah, which at all events is poetical and rare, 
 he supposes to be a later formation from the plural which was in 
 common use. Max Miiller tells us (Selected Essays, vol. ii. p. 
 414) that no language forms a plural before a singular ; but it 
 cannot be denied that in this instance the singular form is little 
 used, and the plural word is used not only to denote the " gods " 
 collectively of the nations, but even to denote any one of these (see 
 Judges xi. 24 ; 1 Sam. v. 7 ; 1 Kings xi. 5 ; 2 Kings i. 2, 3, 6, 16 ; 
 Isa. xxxvii. 38) as well as the one God of Israel. Baethgen empha- 
 sises the striking fact that Israel, from whom in any case monothe- 
 ism came, is the only Semitic people which employs this plural form 
 of the divine name, whereas all the other Semitic nations have a 
 singular name for deity, even though they were polytheists (ib., p. 
 139). If the name did not indicate from the beginning a plurality 
 of majesty or of attributes, it can at most only be taken as a proof 
 of primeval or primitive polytheism ; but it cannot be taken as a 
 proof of polytheism after the time of Abraham. Eobertson Smith 
 is inclined to believe that the idea underlying the plural Elohim is 
 that of " vague plurality in the conception of the Godhead as associ- 
 ated with special spots, . . . and that not in the sense of a definite 
 number of clearly individualised deities, but with the same indefi- 
 niteness as characterises the conception of the jimi " (Religion of the 
 Semites, first series, p. 426). This seems to be the sense attached 
 to the word by M. Renan, who describes the Elohim as " myriads 
 of active beings very analogous to the ' spirits ' of savages, living, 
 translucid, inseparable in some sort the one from the other, not 
 having distinct proper names like the Aryan gods" (Histoire du 
 Peuple d'Israel, i. p. 30). If this be the original sense attached to 
 the name, it is not the sense as given by the Biblical writers to their 
 national deity within the times of which w^e speak ; or if the Israel- 
 ites at the time of the prophets or from the time of Moses believed 
 in the existence of such beings as are here described, they evidently 
 ranked them as very inferior to the national God. 
 
 Note XVI. p. 182. — The expression "the Lord of hosts" (Jahaveh 
 Cebaoth) is found in a double sense in the Old Testament writings. 
 The "hosts," in the one case, are the armies of Israel (Exod. vii. 4, 
 xii. 41, 51 ; compare 1 Sam. xvii. 45) whom Jahaveh leads to 
 
504 Notes, 
 
 victory ; and this use is found in the early historical books, having 
 apparently arisen or been stimulated by the military experiences of 
 the early history. In the prophets, however (see, e.g.^ Hos. xii. 
 5), we see that the expression was no longer, or no longer simply, 
 limited in reference to armies, but included the heavenly host, the 
 stars and angels. So the lxx. often render by the word iravTOKpaTwp. 
 (See art. Zebaoth in Herzog-Plitt, Eealencykl., vol. xvii. p. 427.) 
 Sayce's remark might give the impression that the latter use is the 
 more original, and some have concluded that this reference is primi- 
 tive. Against this view, however, has to be set the fact that the 
 expression seems to have come into use in connection with military 
 exploits. Kautzsch has pointed out (in Stade's Zeitschrift fiir Alttest, 
 Wissenschaft, 1886, p. 17) that in the connections in which it occurs 
 in the early historical books, it either is closely associated with the 
 ark, the symbol of Jahaveh's leadership, or otherwise has a warlike 
 reference. Konig has also pointed out (Hauptprobleme, p. 50) that 
 the host of heaven is denoted by the singular word, not by the 
 plural ^ebaoth. In the prophetic (and as he concludes later) use, 
 this plural designation embraces both the earthly and the heavenly 
 hosts. 
 
 Note XVII. p. 186. — For a thorough-going treatment of the Old 
 Testament on the mythological method, nothing can surpass the 
 work of Goldziher (Mythology among the Hebrews, translated by 
 Russell Martineau), who explains the characters in Genesis and 
 Judges almost uniformly as sky-myths. I do not think that the 
 myth of the dawn is now taken so seriously as it used to be. The 
 temptation, however, seems to be strong with some minds to look 
 for an ancient mythology underlying the primeval or even the 
 patriarchal history. It is well known that old heathen deities 
 survive under the guise of heroes and mythical ancestors, and it is 
 therefore quite legitimate to examine the names and records relating 
 to those earliest times, to see whether they rest on such a mythical 
 basis. We can only here refer to attempts that have been made in 
 this direction. A summary statement will be found in Baethgen's 
 Beitrage zur Semitischen Heligionsgeschichte, p. 147 ff. The con- 
 clusion to which he comes is, that any speciousness which at first 
 sight appears in the identification of antediluvian or patriarchal 
 names with faded deities disappears on closer inspection, either 
 because the supposed deities are not otherwise traceable in Semitic 
 religion, or because the names are susceptible of a much simpler 
 
G 
 
 Notes. xf-^ " ' ^05 
 
 explanation, or because the explanations given break down at the 
 decisive point. As to the story of Samson, which affords such ample 
 scope to the advocates of the sun-myth (Steinthal, Zeitschrift fur 
 Volkerpsychologie, 1862, ii. p. 129 ff,, translated in Goldziher's 
 work), it has always seemed to me that the mythological features are 
 too strongly marked for the period at which Samson is placed — i.e., 
 he is surrounded, in the period of the Judges, by characters so 
 thoroughly human, that he would be a glaring literary anachronism 
 as a pure sun-myth. It may be that some traits of the story are 
 coloured by folk-lore (though, on the other hand, there are others 
 that will not be constrained into mythology by even the most violent 
 methods), but that is very different from saying that he was not a 
 hero such as the story paints him. Any traces of mythology to be 
 found in the Old Testament are far less elaborate. They may be 
 said to be mere traces, either remains of an extinct system or rudi- 
 ments that were never developed, — such as the references to the 
 " sons of God and the daughters of men," Rahab, Leviathan, Tannin, 
 and suchlike. These, it should be observed, as they lie before us in 
 the books, are handled with perfect candour and simplicity, as if to 
 the writers they had become divested of all dangerous or misleading 
 associations, or were even nothing more than figures of speech. They 
 may, in part, as Flockner and Baethgen suggest, have been adopted 
 from non-Hebraic sources, just as classical allusions are found in 
 modern poets. I cannot in a brief note go as fully into the question 
 as I should like, but I have a very strong impression that in the 
 particular of the "Dawn," which Cheyne seems to think points to a 
 whole system of early mythology, we have a crucial instance of the 
 different mental attitudes of the Hebrew and Aryan races. I believe 
 there is no Semitic heathen god of the dawn, nor in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures any hint of the contest of light with darkness. The name 
 of the dawn in Hebrew is indubitably based on the idea of darhiess, 
 so that the dawn is primarily the Morgendcimmerung, not the 
 Morgenrothe. I should say that we have an undoubted instance of 
 its use in this sense in Joel ii. 2, "dawn spread upon the mountains" 
 — an exact picture of the gloom caused by the cloud of locusts. And 
 I venture to suggest to scholars the possibility of giving the same 
 sense to the word in the much-discussed passage Isaiah viii. 20, 
 which, without the supplying of a single word or any violence to 
 grammar, might read, " To the law and to the testimony : should 
 they not speak according to this word, which has no dimness 1 " The 
 standing phrase the "dawn went up" may thus primarily mean the 
 
506 Notes. 
 
 rising up of the black cover of night, so that the sun, the only source 
 of light, may appear ; and if so, the passage in Job (xxxviii. 12 f.) 
 would be all the more striking. The subject is worth more study 
 than it seems to have received. Cheyne in his last commentary 
 (The Book of Psalms) shows a growing tendency to notice myths 
 or supposed myths alluded to or lying under Biblical expressions. 
 When attention is at every turn drawn in this way to the eyelids of 
 the dawn, the sides of the north, the sun as a bridegroom or strong 
 man, the speech of the day, the gates of death, and so forth, and the 
 mythological beliefs of other (even non-Semitic) peoples are adduced 
 in connection, the ordinary reader can hardly be blamed for con- 
 cluding that the Hebrew writers employing such expressions were 
 on the level of heathen mythologisers. No doubt, the qualifica- 
 tion is sometimes added that the myth is old or faded or primitive. 
 But if so, how old is it ? And what proof is there that it was ever 
 more developed than we find it 1 And then, on this mode of inter- 
 pretation, how much poetry will be left us ? Religious language is 
 always metaphorical ; the crisis in the religious life of a people 
 comes when either the metaphor is to run away with the thought, 
 or the mind control the metaphor ; and I maintain that the Hebrew 
 writers, from the earliest point we can reach them, though saturated 
 with poetry, are free from mythology in the ordinary sense. At all 
 events, I would submit that these references are singularly out of 
 place in a commentary, unless they are historically attested at the 
 time of the writer. If it is the main object of a commentator to 
 exhibit the mind of the writer commented on, nothing but confusion 
 can arise from suggesting to the reader thoughts which could hardly 
 have been in the writer's mind. It is all the more out of place when 
 the literature under consideration is post-prophetic. Whatever may 
 be said of the low level from which religious ideas among the 
 Hebrews started, it will scarcely be maintained that they had a 
 conscious belief in these nature-myths by the time of the exilic or 
 post-exilic literature. 
 
 Note XVIII. p. 195. — David occupies so distinguished a position in 
 the Biblical theory of the history that heroic measures have to be 
 taken on the modern theory to explain his true standing. His 
 personal character and tlie religion of his time are described by 
 Renan in terms which it is not worth while to transcribe (Histoire 
 du Peuple d'Israel, torn. ii. chap, i., v.) A word may here be said 
 as to the ascription to him by the Biblical tradition of the gift of 
 
Notes. 507 
 
 song. (See above, p. 93.) Vatke, relying on Amos vi. 5, 6, says that 
 the Davidic muse had scarcely the predominant religious tendency 
 which a later age presupposed. And Robertson Smith goes the length 
 of saying : " It is very curious that the book of Amos represents 
 David as the chosen model of the dilettanti nobles of Ephraim, who 
 lay stretched on beds of ivory, anointed with the choicest perfumes, 
 and mingling music with their cups in the familiar manner of ori- 
 ental luxury " (0. T. in the Jewish Church, p. 205). It is " very 
 curious," certainly, that a learned professor should make such an 
 assertion, for Amos does no such thing. All that the prophet says 
 about David in this connection is, that the nobles in question " de- 
 vise for themselves instruments of music like David." To make the 
 comparison extend to the whole passage is monstrous. The prophet 
 tells the luxurious nobles that they are enjoying everything that is 
 best themselves, but " are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph " ; 
 and if there is any inference to be drawn as to David's musical 
 attainments, it is this, that his instruments had the fame of being 
 the ne plus ultra of their kind. There may be — probably there is — 
 irony in the prophet's words, as one might describe as a Solomon a 
 person who made great pretence to wisdom. When Isaiah utters a 
 woe upon those who "are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength 
 to mingle strong drink" (Isa. v. 22), he does not mean that all ath- 
 letes are drunkards. The view of Amos in regard to the position 
 of David in history is found in chap. ix. 11. 
 
 Note XIX. p. 259. — From the form of the question in Amos 
 V. 25, and the emphatic position of the word "sacrifices" in the 
 original, it may be concluded that the prophet expected a negative 
 answer to the question, " Did ye offer sacrifices to me in the wilder- 
 ness forty years, house of Israel 1" But this being admitted, the 
 difficulties of the passage only begin. Did he mean to refer to the 
 desert period as a good time, and imply — It was not sacrifice that 
 constituted the good feature of Israel's behaviour then ? Or did he 
 mean to say that even in the desert they were a rebellious corrupt 
 people, or a people under displeasure to such an extent that sacrifice 
 would not have been accepted from them ? Both Amos (ii. 10) and 
 Hosea (ix. 10, xi. 1 ff.) refer to the time of the desert as one of 
 favour shown by Jahaveh ; but this is not inconsistent with the 
 view that they were even then a rebellious and backsliding people, 
 as even these prophets, as well as the historical writers, indicate. 
 It may be, as Bredenkamp maintains, that the forty years is given 
 
508 Notes. 
 
 as a round number to indicate the greater part of the period — viz., 
 thirty-eight years — when the people were under chastisement (see 
 Deut. ix. 7 fF. ; Josh. v. 6), and excluding the two years spent about 
 Sinai, when the legal system is represented as having been organised. 
 Apart from this, however, the difficulties of the passage in the present 
 connection begin at v. 26. For whereas some writers (as Daumer 
 and Kuenen) see a reference to the past, and make the prophet 
 declare that this idolatrous worship was practised in the desert, 
 others (as Robertson Smith, Konig, Schrader, &c.) take the reference 
 to be to the future, " So shall ye take up (viz., on the road to exile) 
 the stake (or column) of your king, and the pedestal of your images," 
 &c. (see Queen's Printer's Bible). Bredenkamp (Gesetz u. Pro- 
 pheten, p. 83 ff., who takes v. 26 to refer to the loasf) discusses the 
 passage at some length. See also Robertson Smith, Prophets, pp. 
 140, 399 ; Wellhausen, Hist., p. 56 ; Konig, Hauptprobleme, p. 9. 
 As to the idolatrous objects named, see Schrader, Cuneiform 
 Inscriptions, Eng. tr., vol, ii. p. 141 f. Why is it, by the way, 
 that Amos should be considered such an authority on the stars in 
 this passage, and yet not be allowed to be the author of passages 
 that speak of them in connection with Jahaveh's greatness 1 (Amos 
 V. 8). 
 
 Note XX. p. 262. — Daumer, of course, makes a great deal of all 
 these cases (pp. 26 ff.), arguing that the expression " before the 
 Lord" denotes a formal religious act or ceremony of worship. It 
 may be conceded that the expression has a religious reference — ^.e., 
 that it was under a strong religious impulse that Samuel slew 
 Agag, and that David thought he was performing a " religious duty," 
 as we say, in giving up Saul's descendants to what was no doubt a 
 cruel and unmerited late. All this, however, is far from proving 
 that human sacrifice was part of the recognised worship. That the 
 sacredness of human life was not so great in the age of David and 
 Samuel as to outweigh what was regarded as a sacred obligation or 
 blood claim on the other side, need not surprise any one who believes 
 in a progressive education in morality. When (not so long ago) men 
 were hanged in this country for sheep-stealing, it was done in obe- 
 dience to what were regarded as the sacred demands of justice. See 
 Mozley's * Ruling Ideas in Early Ages.' 
 
 Note XXI. p. 302. — The distinction between monotheism and nion- 
 olatry is one that it is easy for us to draw. At the same time, the 
 
Notes. 609 
 
 important point in this discussion is whether the Israelites wor- 
 shipped only one God, and what was the character they assigned to 
 Him. It is quite probable that it never occurred to them to ask 
 themselves what precisely were the gods of the nations around them ; 
 and, as is shown in the text, had they put such a question, they 
 would very probably have been at a loss for an answer. We must 
 not look in the Old Testament for what it does not profess to give. 
 Max Miiller speaks of a primitive intuition of God which he calls 
 henotheism ; which in itself is neither monotheistic nor polytheistic, 
 though, it might become either, according to the expression which it 
 took in the languages of men (Selected Essays, vol. ii. p. 412 f.) 
 His well-known explanation of the monotheistic turn of the Semitic 
 races is that their languages enabled those using them to keep in 
 memory the predicative or appellative sense of words, so that they 
 did not run into nomina, which were confounded with numina. 
 But the question always recurs, Whence this peculiar build of lan- 
 guage, if not from the mind of those forming and employing it ? So 
 that the problem why the Semitic race (or a part of them) thought 
 in this peculiar way, is no nearer solution on a merely philological 
 basis. (Compare above, p. 189.) 
 
 Note XXII. pp. 313 and 338.— Sfade also, though he speaks of an 
 intimate relation between Jahaveh and Israel as subsisting from 
 Mosaic times, yet maintains that the designation of this relation 
 as a covenant cannot be proved anterior to the seventh century 
 (Gesch., i. p. 507). The Hebrew word for covenant ( yi; ) is no 
 doubt etymologically connected with a verb ( '-) ) to cut, and in its 
 derivation, and in the usual connection with the verb n 2 (to cut), 
 there is clear reference to sacrificial rites in connection with its rati- 
 fication. (See Gen. xv. and Delitzsch's Comment.) Eobertson Smith 
 has pointed out the old Arab usages in this matter (Kinship and 
 Marriage, p. 47 ff. ; Eeligion of the Semites, 296 fi^.) He says, how- 
 ever, very appositely, that " a nation like Israel is not a natural unity 
 like a clan, and Jehovah, as the national God, was, from the time of 
 Moses downward, no mere natural clan god, but the god of a con- 
 federation, so that here the idea of a covenant religion is entirely 
 justified." He thus seems to take the original sense of the word as 
 <rvvd'f}K'n, with a reciprocal sense. Others, less properly, give it the 
 sense of ZiaQ-qK-t], from the idea of decision, determination, and then 
 institution. Though this is not to be maintained, and though the 
 obligations resting upon God, as one party to the covenant, may not 
 
510 Notes. 
 
 be brought into the foreground, as being understood, yet we cannot 
 conceive of a covenant without obligations, in the form of commands, 
 resting on man. Even Jeremiah's new covenant implies a law (Jer. 
 xxxi. 33). See Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, p. 22, and his 
 reff. 
 
 Note XXIII. p. 316. — It seems to be generally taken for granted, 
 without proof, that the early Israelites knew little of the great 
 outside world. Robertson Smith, e.g., says of the times of Amos, 
 "We are led to suppose that the very name of Assyria was un- 
 known to the mass of the Hebrews" (Prophets, p. 91). He 
 admits, however, that Amos himself knew with surprising exact- 
 ness the history and geography of all the nations with whom the 
 Hebrews had any converse ; but instead of taking one man as 
 the type of many, as he does in the case of Micah the image-maker 
 in the book of Judges, he supposes that Amos had been a great 
 traveller (ibid., p. 128 f.) For my part, I do not see any reason 
 to think that Amos, who tells us plainly what his manner of life 
 was, differed in this particular from the average man of his time. 
 When the Franco-Prussian war was raging in Europe, there were 
 numbers of Druze peasants in Lebanon, who had never been on a 
 boat, inquiring eagerly day by day for news of the campaign, and 
 following closely the fortunes of the combatants. Palestine was 
 not so large a country, nor its people in those times so dull, that the 
 great Phoenician trade could, be carried on about their borders 
 without their having some knowledge of the great world. Jero- 
 boam was not the only adventurer that went from Palestine to 
 Egypt, nor was Jonah the only Jewish youth that ran away to sea. 
 It has generally been taken for granted that it was only after the 
 advance westward of the Assyrian power about the eighth century 
 that Israel came to know of the great Eastern world (Knobel, Die 
 Bticher Numeri, &c., p. 579) ; but are we to believe that a people 
 who traced the origin of Abraham to the East supposed that all that 
 region had disappeared, or ceased to talk about it ? The tenacity 
 with which old traditions cling to the oriental mind is illustrated 
 by the fact that the inhabitants of Syria at the present day speak 
 of the Russians as Muskdhi or Muscovites, a recollection of the 
 period when Moscow was the capital (although the name Russia is 
 known to old writers). And I would offer the conjecture for what- 
 ever it may be worth, that the name of Babel (for Babylon) retained 
 similarly its hold on the Israelite memory as a designation of the 
 
Notes. 611 
 
 great Eastern country, in which the supremacy oscillated between 
 Babylon and Assyria. Schrader tells us (Cuneiform Inscriptions, 
 on Genesis xxxvi. 31) that the name Israel does not occur in the 
 Inscriptions as a general name for the Israelites, nor does it appear, 
 as a rule, as the name of the northern kingdom, the designation ol 
 which is usually "land of the house of Omri." This fact is full 
 of suggestiveness as to the way in which "sources" may be used. 
 
 Note XXIV. pp. 336, 369. — One of those general statements made 
 without reflection on its foundation or significance, is that the 
 Israelites who left Egypt at the exodus were a horde of slaves. 
 We must, no doubt, accept it as the best evidence of their servitude 
 there that the national consciousness of a people otherwise proud 
 of their freedom, retained so vivid a recollection of their hard 
 bondage and of the " high hand " by which they were delivered. 
 Stade's off-hand dictum that if any Hebrew clan ever sojourned in 
 Egypt no one knows its name, is (not to speak of the difficulty of 
 finding traces of the Hyksos themselves in Egypt) opposed to the 
 whole testimony of the nation, and, besides, leaves no room for the 
 development of the pre-prophetic ideas which he himself is so fond 
 of tracing. But if we admit that the sojourn of the people in Egypt 
 was a historical fact, we must consider what it implies. The things 
 that make the deepest impression on the memory are not necessarily 
 those that make the most lasting impression on character. Al- 
 though their life was at one time made " bitter in mortar and in 
 bricks, and in all manner of service in the field," we are not to 
 suppose that this went on from generation to generation. Even 
 during the time of this hard service it is probable, judging by the 
 customs of forced labour in the East, and hints in the Hebrew 
 narrative, that they were far from being, as perhaps the popular 
 conception represents them, an unorganised gang of slaves. They 
 would be arranged and drawn for labour by their families and under 
 their own chief or heads (Exod. v. 14 ff.) And we know not what 
 amount of organisation they had reached, or what experience of 
 ordinary life they had gained during a residence of several genera- 
 tions in a country like Egypt. The Egyptian fellaMn in the time 
 of Mehemet Ali were probably as much oppressed as the ancient 
 Israelites. Yet, with an army of such men, forced into the ranks, 
 and fed on black bread and onions, Ibrahim Pasha drove the Turks 
 from Syria, " The History of Israel," says Delitzsch (Introd. to his 
 Commentary on Genesis), "does nut begin with the condition of 
 
512 Notes. 
 
 an ignorant, rude, and undisciplined, horde, but with the transition 
 to a nation of a race which had come to maturity amidst the most 
 abundant means and. examples «f culture." He points out also the 
 influence of the legalism and multiformity of Egyptian national and 
 private life as seen in the laws of the Pentateuch ; and dates from 
 the sojourn in Egypt the first impulse to literary activity among 
 the Hebrews. I do not know that there is anything incredible in 
 the supposition that the book of the Covenant may be the codifica- 
 tion of law and custom that prevailed even in Egypt (The King- 
 dom of all Israel, by James Sime, 1883, chap. v. This is a book 
 that no doubt will be considered wild by critics, but is deserving 
 of attention for the intelligent and honest effort to treat the Old 
 Testament by the same rules of historical research as have " been 
 applied in verifying the literature of Greece and Rome "). 
 
 Note XXV. p. 344. — There is another passage in Hosea which may 
 be referred to in this connection, not so much because of the positive 
 evidence which it furnishes, as because it has been explained away 
 by those who maintain that at the time of that prophet the Levitical 
 aspect of the law is scarcely perceivable. In Hosea iv. 4 we read, 
 "Thy people are as they that strive with the priest ;" and advocates 
 of the early existence of the Deuterononiic Code see in it a reference 
 to Deut. xvii. 12, where it is said, "The man that doeth presumptu- 
 ously is not hearkening unto the priest, . . . even that man shall 
 die." On the other hand, the advocates of the late production of 
 the Levitical Code, and of the lateness of the priestly authority gen- 
 erally, seek to explain the passage as if it contained a false or cor- 
 rupt reading. I think that the explanation given by them of the 
 expression, '*As they that strive with the priest," is very frigid and 
 weak ; and I am prepared to defend the reading on purely gram- 
 matical and literary grounds. The construction of the particle 
 'ka'ph (meaning like) with a participle is found in Hosea in so 
 marked a manner that it may be said to be an usus loquendi of that 
 prophet. Thus in one passage (v. 10) he says, "The princes of 
 Judah are like them that remove the landmark ; " and in another 
 place (xi. 4), " I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their 
 jaws ; " and in another passage (vi. 9), " Like the waylayers of men." 
 Cf. also the expression, " Like the dew that early goeth away " 
 (vi, 4). Such a usage as this, I think, guarantees the reading when 
 there is no external evidence against it, and the expression, more- 
 over, read as it stands, fits the context better than the reading pro- 
 
Notes. 513 
 
 posed. See Robertson Smith's discussion of the passage, Prophets, 
 p. 405 f. 
 
 Note XXVI. p. 383.— Not only is it the case that the dates of the 
 "sources" are variously given by various critics, and that two at 
 least of the sources (J and E) present a hitherto insoluble problem, 
 but it is plain that critics like Dillmann and Noldeke have come to 
 very different conclusions as to the development of the history from 
 the school of AVellhausen and Kucnen. Quite recently, too, we have 
 liad Klostermann putting forward a revolutionary view as to the 
 original documents (Neue Kirkl. Zeitschr., i. 618 ff., 693 ff. Com- 
 pare Presbyterian and Reformed Review, April 1891). And not 
 to speak of the small school represented by M. Vernes, the articles 
 of Halevy appearing in the ' Revue des Etudes Juives ' show that he 
 is far from accepting the current conclusions of criticism. If it should 
 come to be accepted — as the discoveries of archaeology and the fail- 
 ures of criticism seem to indicate that it will — that literary activity 
 was much older and more common in Israel than is now admitted, 
 we shall probably the better understand how, side by side with the 
 growth and modification of religious observances, there went on a 
 rewTiting and modification of books ; which is, on all points of view, 
 a more likely thing than the supposition of literature produced in 
 the mass for certain specific temporary purposes. As to the dating 
 very far apart of documents that now lie side by side, the critics 
 themselves see no incongruity in two contemporaneous prophets, 
 Amos and Hosea, the one saying nothing against the calves, and the 
 other making them the very root of Israel's sin (R. Smith, Prophets, 
 p. 175). Nay, they find in the person of Jeremiah two tendencies on 
 this subject of law that are quite contradictory (see chap. xvii. p. 451). 
 I will venture to add that the mode of composition, and transition 
 from one style to another seen frequently in oriental authors, should 
 be a warning not to push the " separation of sources " too far. Lane 
 incidentally (Modern Egyptians, 5th ed., vol. i. p. 271 f.) furnishes 
 an example, which could be paralleled by quotations from almost 
 any Arabic author. He gives a long passage taken down to the dicta- 
 tion of his informant, and relating a vision of the prophet which was 
 given to one Mohammed el-Bahaee to settle a difficult matter of 
 tradition. The narrator first relates his vision, apparently in full- 
 est detail, till he " awoke from sleep joyful and happy." He then 
 goes on to tell how he visited his teacher to report the occurrence, 
 and in this relation brings in quite a new set of details that were not 
 
 2 K 
 
514 Notes. 
 
 hinted at in the first narrative. The two accounts show so much 
 variety that they could easily be ascribed to different writers, and it 
 would be very easy to make out that the latter is very much later 
 than the former. But, indeed, the Koran itself, uniform as it is 
 above most Arab works, exhibits quite a number of styles and not a 
 few divergent tendencies. 
 
 Note XXVII. p. 405. — A few words may here be said on the view 
 of Wellhausen and his school that "the kingdom which bore the 
 name of Israel was actually in point of fact in the olden time the 
 proper Israel, and Judah was merely a kind of appendage to it" 
 (Hist, of Israel, p. 188). Kobertson Smith of course repeats the 
 statement, even to the corroborative proof of the cedar of Lebanon 
 overshadowing the thistle that grows at its foot (2 Kings xiv. 9 ; 
 Prophets, pp. 93, 137). The remark might be allowed to pass if it 
 referred merely to political importance, for the northern kingdom 
 was larger and nearer to the great powers that moulded history in 
 those days. Yet happy is the people that has no history. The 
 dynastic changes and internal troubles of the northern kingdom are 
 in strange contrast with the long quiet reigns of the southern king- 
 dom ; and from this point of view the sweeping statement of Well- 
 hausen is a iniori improbable— viz., that " religiously the relative 
 importance of the two corresponded pretty nearly to what it was 
 politically and historically." Israel, he says, " was the cradle of 
 prophecy ; Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha exercised their activity there. 
 What contemporary figure from Judah is there to place alongside of 
 these?" Why, Samuel belongs to the undivided kingdom, a proof, 
 even if we had not stronger ones, that the cradle of prophecy is not 
 to be located on geographical considerations. And who were Nathan 
 and Gad ; and where did Amos come from ? Isaiah himself cannot 
 be a sudden apparition in Judah. The quiet of the little southern 
 state, the prestige of Jerusalem, the disposition to rest on the past, 
 all speak for Jerusalem as the centre of religious life, and for the 
 Davidic house as, in religious regard, something quite different from 
 the northern kingdom. Palestine is not so large, nor were the 
 boundaries of the two kingdoms so firmly set by nature, that the 
 mere distance of a few miles could make much dillerence in the 
 social and religious condition of the people. Yet the tone of the 
 northern prophets, who seem to have had before them a w^orship full 
 of idolatry, differs so much from that of the prophets of the south, 
 who reprove the people for too much attention to forms, that we 
 
Notes. 515 
 
 must recognise a difference in the religious associations and standing 
 of the two kingdoms. 
 
 Note XXVIII., p. 427. — In Cheyne's Jeremiah, His Life and 
 Times, pp. 69-86, the English reader will find in an accessible and 
 comprehensive form a statement of the main critical positions in 
 regard to the date and authorship of Deuteronomy. It does not 
 fall within the scope of the present work to enter into critical ques- 
 tions as to the composition of hooks, and I have stated my reasons 
 for believing that the Biblical theory of the history is not inconsis- 
 tent with the supposition of a late date for the book of Deuter- 
 onomy. A good many of the statements of Professor Cheyne are, 
 I think, quite controvertible ; but I can only refer briefly to one or 
 two points bearing on the theory of the history. For instance, he 
 does not seem to take any account of the possibility of one in Moses' 
 position foreseeing (in the ordinary and literal sense of the word) 
 what was most likely to happen alter the occupation of Canaan. 
 And when he tells us that the author of Deuteronomy "is full of 
 allusions to circumstances which did not exist till long after Moses " 
 (p. 71), and, guided by such allusions, brings the date later and later 
 down till he reaches the age of Manasseh or Josiah, he somewhat 
 invalidates his own argument by adding that, after the promulgation 
 of Deuteronomy, "even very near Jerusalem the reformation was 
 but slight" (p. 73). For it is always open to the objector to argue 
 that, if breaches of the law are found after the solemn national 
 adoption of it, the earlier "circumstances" alluded to are no proof 
 that, at the time of their occurrence, such a law had not been 
 promulgated. What I particularly dispute, however, is the state- 
 ment that the fundamental idea of the holy people is Isaiah's, and 
 that " it was that great prophet's function to transfer the conception 
 of holiness from the physical to the moral sphere" (p. 73). Such 
 a statement, even with the qualification added to it that "others 
 had laboured in the same direction," is to my mind altogether in- 
 adequate, in view of the writings of Amos and Hosea, the book of 
 the Covenant, and anything that can at all be ascribed to Moses 
 himself. Whether the word be there or not, the idea of a people 
 separated from other nations in belief and practice, and constituted 
 as a people on an ethical basis, is fundamental and Mosaic ; and it 
 is only on such a supposition that it can be asserted with any proper 
 significance that Deuteronomy is in spirit Mosaic. But, indeed, is 
 it not conceivable that this Deuteronomic spirit was a thing of 
 
516 Notes. 
 
 development and growth, having its germ in the Mosaic religion, 
 and, instead of appearing for the first time in one late age, coming 
 to maturity in the course of the history ? In other words, instead 
 of saying that Deuteronomy speaks as its authors supposed Moses 
 would have spoken had he been alive, and that it abolished things 
 which Moses might have tolerated in his own day, but would have 
 condemned had he lived later (p. 78 f.), I think we get a more 
 reasonable view of the matter if we suppose that it is the final 
 expression, in the light of history, of views that had been germinat- 
 ing in the minds of good men from the days of Moses, the exposi- 
 tion of principles so firmly rooted in their minds that the writers 
 in all sincerity regarded them as Mosaic. It is one thing to ascribe 
 to early times an institution which exists and has long existed, or 
 an idea or tone of thought which is well defined and deeply rooted ; 
 it is not so easy to conceive of this being done with institutions 
 newly set up, or ideas for the first time formulated. This distinc- 
 tion would, I think, help materially to explain the success of 
 Josiah's reformation, as it would also remove the necessity for the 
 ascription of any fraud or delusion, or even illusion, to those who 
 were its prominent agents. I believe it would also explain the 
 Deuteronomic colouring, as it is called, which is found in other 
 books. Cheyne speaks of "the school of writers formed upon the 
 book of Deuteronomy — a school which includes historians, poets, 
 and prophets, and without which the Old Testament would be 
 deprived of some of its most valued pages" (p. 68). It is not so 
 very obvious how a school could be formed upon a book. A book 
 issuing from a school is at least as conceivable ; and the fact that 
 the school embraced " historians, poets, and prophets," would lead 
 us to suppose that it was of more gradual growth, under influences 
 wider and more fundamental than a book. Even if we explain the 
 school by the existence of the book, the book itself has to be ac- 
 counted for, wiih characteristics sufficient to give rise to a school. 
 
 Note XXIX. p. 432.— The linguistic comparison of the various 
 books or sources lies quite beyond the subject which I set before 
 myself ; and I have already indicated my doubts whether this kind 
 of argument goes very far to determine the actual dates of the com- 
 positions, much less to determine the order of historical events. The 
 student will find the linguistic peculiarities of the Hexateuch fully 
 stated in Dillmann's Commentaries on those books, and in his sum- 
 mary statement, ' Ueber die Composition des Hexateuch ' at the close 
 
Notes. 517 
 
 of tlie series. Delitzsch's new Commentary on Genesis also takes 
 note of them ; and of course, in Kuenen's Hexateuch, they are pro- 
 duced in detaiL A special work on the subject is Ryssel's ' De Elo- 
 histse Pentateuchici Sermone' (1878), which is criticised by Kayser 
 in ' Jahrb. fiir Prot. Tlieol.,' 1881. Riehm treated the subject also in 
 * Stud. u. Krit.,' 1872, and is criticised by Wellhausen in Bleek's 
 ' Einleitung,' 4te Aufl., p. 173 ff. There is a discussion by Kloster- 
 mann of the relation of Ezekiel to the law of holiness (Levit. xviii.- 
 xxvi.) in 'Zeitschr. fiir luth. Theol.,' 1877. Strack gives a brief 
 statement of a conservative view in Zockler's 'Handbuch' (1883), 
 vol. i. p. 138 ff. ; and Giesebrecht has an important discussion of the 
 subject (Die Sprachgebrauch des hexat. Elohisten) in Stack's 'Zeitschr. 
 fiir Alttest. Wissensch.,' 1881. Ryssel, who has been much criticised, 
 concludes that it cannot be asserted that the Elohist is later in date 
 than the exile. Bredenkamp, while laying less stress on the linguis- 
 tic argument, comes also to the conclusion that no part of the Elo- 
 histic Torah was produced in the period of the language succeeding 
 ^lalachi ; and he points out, in particular, the contrasts it presents 
 to the language of Ezekiel (Gesetz. u. Proph., p. 17). F. E. Konig, 
 to whom I have acknowledged my indebtedness in these pnges, has a 
 special treatise, ' De criticse sacrse argumento e linguce legibus repe- 
 tito' (1879) ; and he gives also a very comprehensive statement of the 
 whole question as to the order and relation of the various documents 
 in his ' Offenbarungsbegriff des Alten Testaments' (1882), vol.ii. p. 
 321 ff. He declares himself an adherent of the view of Reuss and 
 Graf that the Priestly Code is later than Ezekiel ; yet he strenuously 
 asserts that the historical order, law and prophets, is to be main- 
 tained, and says that the Grafian hypothesis does not involve a denial 
 of this order. His own position is that Moses received a veritably 
 supernatural revelation, that through him God brought Israel in a 
 miraculous manner out of Egypt, and concluded a covenant with 
 Israel at Sinai, where the foundations were laid of Israel's ordinances 
 for religion, morals, worship, and daily life (p. 333). As to the ex- 
 tent to which Konig differs from the prevailing school, it may be 
 mentioned that he defends the Mosaic origin of the tabernacle (ibid.), 
 and holds that the absence of mention of the Great Day of Atone- 
 ment in Nehemiah is no proof that the law relating to that institu- 
 tion was not then known (p. 331). The laws relating to worship 
 which he regards as belonging to the original Mosaic legislation are, 
 besides the prohibition of images and the Sabbath law (which are in 
 the Decalogue itself) : the erection of altars wherever God recorded 
 
518 Notes. 
 
 His name, along witli which, however, the tent or tabernacle as 
 chief sanctuary ; a priestly tribe of Levi, with high priest at its 
 head ; offerings of animals and fruits, as burnt-offerings and thank- 
 offerings ; the Sabbath ; new moon ; three collective festivals, &c. 
 (p. 347). It is but just to a careful worker like Konig to present 
 this enumeration (and the "&c. " is added by himself) ; for the con- 
 clusion involved in regard to the history and the credibility of the 
 documents differs widely from that of most of the critical writers 
 whose views we have considered. It might be suggested that if 
 Konig is willing to believe in the antiquity of some institutions in 
 regard to which the history is silent, he might have been content to 
 accept the statements of tlie priestly writers as to others. At all 
 events, if all the institutions he mentions are Mosaic, it is evident 
 that an equally ancient terminology and diction must have existed 
 (in priestly circles at least) in regard to them. But, as I have 
 already indicated, I cannot profess to have arrived at any certainty 
 on such matters, and therefore do not hazard conjecture on the 
 subject. 
 
 Note XXX. p. 435. — One or two instances of this style of proof 
 may be given — it is evident that it may be carried to any length : 
 (a) The cities of refuge are not of early institution, but the law in 
 regard to them arose out of the old Banioth. That is to say, an altar 
 used to be a place of asylum, but when a multiplicity of altars was 
 abolished something had to come in their place. (See Well., Hist , 
 pp. 161-163.) Places thus set apart formed the germ of the idea of 
 Levitical cities, and the compilers of the Priestly Code went on in 
 their usual way to trace them back to Moses, imagining a condition 
 of things neither known nor workable in their own days. (6) In 
 Deut. there are references to the monarchy, but none in the Priestly 
 Code. The conclusion that used to be drawn was that the Priestly 
 Code was older than the monarchy. On Wellhausen's theory, how- 
 ever, that the historical sphere of the Priestly Code is one " created by 
 itself out of its own legal premises" (p. 39), the silence as to a king 
 is explicable by the fact that it belongs to a time when the monarchy 
 had disappeared, and the high priest was the chief magistrate. 
 The so-called theocracy of the pre-monarchical period is just, in short, 
 a reading backward into history of the hierocracy of post-exilian 
 times — p. 148 ff. (c) According to Exod. xxx. the expenses of the 
 Temple worship are met directly out of the poll-tax levied from the 
 community, which can only be explained by the fact that at that 
 
Notes. 519 
 
 time there had ceased to 1)6 any sovereign — p. 80. {d) " One might 
 perhaps hazard the conjecture that if in the wilderness legislation of 
 the [Levitical] Code there is no trace of agriculture being regarded 
 as the basis of life, which it still is in Deut. and even in the kernel 
 of Levit. xvii.-xxvi., this also is a proof that the Code belongs to a 
 very recent rather than to a very early period, when agriculture was no 
 longer rather than not yet. With the Babylonian captivity the Jews 
 lost their fixed seats, and so became a trading people " — p. 108. 
 
 Note XXXI. p. 465. — T have purposely avoided making any refer- 
 ence to the book of Joel, although much might be said in favour of 
 its pre-exilic and early date. I will not say that it is on account of 
 their theory of the late origin of the Priestly Code that most of the 
 modern critics relegate this book to post-exilic times, or even that the 
 theory in question, taken strictly, requires this. Yet, seeing that the 
 date of the book is so much disputed, and that so much, if anything 
 at all, would have to be said on the subject, I prefer to leave it alto- 
 gether out of account, as I have practically done in regard to the 
 Psalter. 
 
 Note XXXII. p. 469. — It may be thought that I have given more 
 importance than their views demand to the small school represented 
 by M. Vernes, and also that the extreme positions of Daumer and 
 Ghillany are not worthy of consideration at the present time. It is, 
 however, to be noted that many of the views of these older writers 
 are put forth by modern critics, and on the same grounds ; and it is 
 but fair to M. Vernes to say that his chief objection to the prevailing 
 school is that their method is insufficient. He professes to carry out 
 to their legitimate conclusion the principles on which they proceed ; 
 and if, as it seems to me, the critical "circles" to which Wellhausen 
 refers (Hist., p. 9) are concentric, we are entitled to look at the oper- 
 ation of central principles. It may not be agreeable to the prevail- 
 ing school to be called traditionalists ; yet M. Vernes has some right 
 to ask, if the recollection of the period immediately preceding Saul 
 and David has almost completely disappeared, how any one can be 
 justified in going back centuries beyond that dim period, and talking 
 of migrations of pre-Abrahamic peoples and suchlike matters which 
 are shrouded in impenetrable darkness (Resultats, &c., p. 42 f.) So 
 it seems to me he is only carrying out the principles of the prevail- 
 ing school when he points out that the (so-called) pre-exilic prophets 
 have the exile, the restoration, and the spread of religion among 
 
520 Notes. 
 
 the heathen so clearly in their view, that the books must have been 
 written after these events had happened or become possible (p. 213 ff.) 
 Scepticism must always be prepared to meet scepticism ; and when 
 critics triumphantly tell us that Amos declares that the Israelites 
 did not sacrifice in the wilderness, and Jeremiah informs us dis- 
 tinctly that God never commanded sacrifice, and therefore the con- 
 troversy as to the early legislation on that subject is ended, it is 
 always open to the objector to ask what information Amos or Jere- 
 miah had about times so remote that was not possessed by their con- 
 temporaries. Again, Daumer claims to be consistent and thorough ; 
 for he not only proves the original fire and Moloch worship of Israel 
 from the same texts that Kuenen relies upon, but concludes, from a 
 passage of similar tenor in Jeremiah (xlvi. 10 ; comp. Isa. xxxiv. 
 6 ff.)) that this was to the last a recognised legal service (Feuer und 
 Molochdienst, p. 25). Not without reason M. Vernes says (Pref., p. 
 iii), "If erudition is an excellent and indispensable thing, it can- 
 not take the place of method." Prof. Briggs tells us that "higher 
 criticism is exact and thorough in its methods" (Bib. Study, p. 194). 
 I can perceive the thoroughness ; the exactness is not so apparent. 
 
INDEX, 
 
 Abir, AhUr, 188, 220. 
 
 Abraham, 25, 480— a "free creation," 
 
 125, 501 — liis offering of Isaac, 253 
 
 — intercession for Sodom, 254. 
 Adoii, 172, 187, 2i3. 
 Agag, 262. 
 Agriculture learned from Canaanites, 
 
 363— basis of feasts, 3J6 If., 372 ff., 
 
 401. 
 Allah, 174, 305. 
 
 Alluvial deposit on tradition, 142. 
 Alphabet, 78. 
 Altar, horns of, 228— in Egypt, 237— 
 
 one, 411 tf. 
 Amos, 53, 56 f.— style, 58, 61, 67— 
 
 and the prophets, 86, 90, 154 — and 
 
 local cult, 213— and the calves, 228 
 
 — and the, wilderness period, 258 f. , 
 
 507 f. — geographical knowledge, 
 
 510. 
 Ancestors, mythical,. 128 — national, 
 
 130— worship, 202. 
 Animism, 199, 211 ff. 
 Anthropomorphisms, 294, 
 Apis, 188, 217 f. 
 
 Apostasy of Israel, 29, 113, 148, 161. 
 Appellative names, 171, 181, 183, 509. 
 Ark, sacred, 203 — abode of deity, 222 
 
 — its place, 224 — in time of Judges, 
 
 346 f. 
 Asherim, 235. 
 Assyrian polytheism, 181 — bulls, 219 
 
 —period, 316 ft". 
 Astarte, 176, 241, 299. 
 Astuads, 270. 
 Atonement, Day of, 397. 
 
 Baal, Baalim, 170 ff., 226, 282, 305, 
 
 501 f. 
 Babylonian deities, 176 ff., 181 ff.— 
 
 influence on Palestine, 182. 
 
 Bamoth. See High places. 
 Bannockburn, 119, 134. 
 Basket of fruits, 368. 
 Bedawin songs, 79 — tribes, 207. 
 Belief and practice, 160, 328. 
 Bona fides, 48, 425, 437. 
 Books of Old Testament, 39, 43 ff., 
 107 f., 138, 142 f., 332 f. 
 
 Calf-worship, 215 ff. 
 
 Canaanite numina, 199. 
 
 Canonical writings, 139. 
 
 Caricature, 87, 89, 
 
 Carlyle and St Edmund, 104, 132. 
 
 Centralisation of worship, 327, 364, 
 
 369 ff., 449. 
 Character of Jahaveh, 299, 306, 310, 
 
 318, 321 ff-. 
 Chemosh, 153, 213, 300, 303. 
 Cherubim, 222. 
 Chronicles, book of, 28, 93, 141, 
 
 402. 
 Circumcision, 249, 335. 
 Clean and unclean, 348. 
 Codes, Coditication, 383 ff., 388, 391, 
 
 394. 
 Commandment, First, 303. 
 " Congregation," 410. 
 Contemporary writings, 46, 51 f. 
 Copyright, 479. 
 Covenant, the, 25, 29, 114, 313, 338 f., 
 
 409, 453 f., 509 f. 
 Covenant, book of, 54, 62, 332, 350, 
 
 358, 369, 373, 378, 383, 387, 389 ft", 
 
 443, 454, 456 — and place of worship, 
 
 407 ff. 
 Crusaders and topography, 98. 
 Cumulative evidence, 263. 
 
 Dada, Dodo, &c., 177 ff., 181. 
 Dan worship, 233, 347. 
 
522 
 
 Ijidex. 
 
 David, his times, 81 — serving other 
 
 gods, 195— and music, 93, 506 f.— 
 
 ephod, 231— his house, HI f., 146. 
 Dawn myth, 504 fF. 
 Deborah's song, 62, 118 f., 133, 193, 
 
 212. 
 Decalogue, 70, 221 f., 336, 410. 
 Dervishes, 89. 
 Deuteronomic Code, 140, 332, 383, 
 
 387, 393, 399, 426, 461. 
 Deuteronomy, 195 if., 417, 420 flf., 
 
 515 f. 
 Development, 34 f., 158, 264, 294, 
 
 301 f., 325, 334, 404, 425 f., 471, 
 
 480 If.— prophetic, 144, 319. 
 Discipline, Book of, 337 f. 
 Discolouring of history, 31, 33, 39, 
 
 92, 116 f., 147, 157. See Alluvial, 
 
 Redaction. 
 Discredited testimony, 149, 302, 319, 
 
 347, 467. 
 Documents, private, 479. See Sources. 
 Dreams, 210. 
 
 " Earlier prophets," books so named, 
 
 96. 
 Ebal and Gerizim, 410. 
 Ecclesiastes, 420 f 
 Education in Israel, 75. 
 Egypt, altar in, 237 — civilisation and 
 
 ritual, 336 -Israel in, 287, 511 f. 
 El, 187, 243, 278, 282 — Elim, 203, 
 
 284, 289. 
 Elegy, 62. 
 Elijah, 53, 61— and prophets, 84, 154 
 
 — and calves, 225 f. — at Sarepta, 
 
 291— at Carmel, 100, 305. 
 Elisha, 53, 61— and prophets, 84 f.— 
 
 and calves, 225. 
 Elohim, 172, 243, 284, 502. 
 Elyon, 243. 
 Ephod, 229 ff., 238 flf. 
 Eshmun, 176, 186. 
 Ethic monotheism, 155, 302 if., 314, 
 
 409. See Character. 
 Evil ascribed to God, 293. 
 Exile, the, 429, 433. 
 Exodus, the, 77, HO f., 194, 217, 288, 
 
 376 f., 379. 
 Ezekiel, 200, 208, 217, 335, 384, 397 f., 
 
 427, 430 ff., 452. 
 Ezra, 382, 385, 398, 433, 457, 482. 
 
 Feasts, cycle, 372 AT., 401— historical 
 reference, 375. See Agriculture. 
 
 Fetishism, 169, 199, 210 ff. 
 
 Fiction, legal. 420 — historical, 424, 
 434 ff., 468 f. 
 
 Fire-worship, 241 ff. 
 First-born, 249 ff. 
 Fountains, sacred, 202. 
 
 Genealogies, 80, 123 ff., 499. 
 
 Gibeonites, 262. 
 
 Gideon's ephod, 230 f. 
 
 Grace as a divine attribute, 323. 
 
 Graf, 395, 415 f., 417 ff., 466. 
 
 Hadad, 177. 
 
 Haggai, 361, 434, 459. 
 
 Heine and Renan, 494. 
 
 Hezekiah's reform, 235 f., 370, 457. 
 
 High places, 201, 248, 403 ff., 450. 
 
 History not annals, 36 — in guise of 
 legend, 123 — study of, 92 — writing 
 of, 61 f. — periods of, 131 — and 
 archaeology, 133. See Discolouring, 
 Manufacture. 
 
 Holiness in Jahaveh's character, 309 
 f. — law of, 383 — in the law, 
 458. 
 
 Homer and writing, 64. 
 
 Hosea, 53, 57— style, 58, 61, &7, 512 
 — and the calves, 227 — and written 
 law, 342 ff., 392— and sacrifices, 344, 
 446— and history, 148 f. 
 
 Hosts, Lord of, 182, 503 f. 
 
 Image-worship, 223 f., 308. 
 Indirect speech, 422 ff. 
 Inspiration, 4b9 f. 
 Interpolations in Amos and Hosea, 
 
 147. 
 Isaac, legend of, 125. 
 Isaiah and God's dwelling-place, 213 
 
 f. — and ritual, 443 f. — and Bamoth, 
 
 450. 
 Israel and Judah, 514. 
 
 Jacob, the name, 180 — at Bethel, 198. 
 
 Jashar, book of, 61 f., 67, 81. 
 
 Jau, Babylonian deity, 271. 
 
 Jealousy, divine, 298. 
 
 Jehovah, pronunciation of, 32— signi- 
 fication, 281 ff. 
 
 Jephthah, 255 f.— and Chemosh, 303. 
 
 Jeremiah and sacrifice, 448 — incon- 
 sistency, 451 f. 
 
 Jeroboam's calves, 219. 
 
 Joel, book of, 519. 
 
 Joh, moon-god, 272 f. 
 
 Joseph, the name, 180 f. 
 
 Josiah, 371, 408, 427, 447, 455. 
 
 Joyousness of worship, 366, 371 f. 
 
 Judges, book of, 54, 116, 346 — period, 
 133 f., 233, 346. 
 
Index. 
 
 523 
 
 Kenites. 274. 
 
 Kings, books of, 5'?, 116. 
 
 Konig, F. E., his critical position, 517. 
 
 Lang, Andrew, 3, 189, 
 
 Language, imperfection of, 304 f. — 
 
 and the dates of documents, 493 f., 
 
 516 f. 
 Law, codes and Looks, 331 — moral 
 
 and ceremonial, 458 — and Gospel, 
 
 463. See Modification, Torah. 
 Legalism. See ProjDhets. 
 Legend, 123, 129 f. 
 Levites, 349 f., 360, 452. 
 Levitical Code, 346, 361, 383, 386 f., 
 
 393, 417, 427 tf., 436. See Priestly. 
 Literary age,, 61, 63 f. 
 Literature, early, 16 — specified, 53 — 
 
 characterised, 57 fi". — of India, 80. 
 Localising of Deity, 206, 209. 
 Love, divine, 323. 
 
 Ma?9ebas, 203, 235. 
 
 Malachi, 361, 460. 
 
 Manufacture of history, 435, 518 f. 
 
 Mazzoth, 378 f. 
 
 Memory, feats of, 80. 
 
 Messianic idea, 116, 499. 
 
 Metaphorical language, 188 fl'., 207 f., 
 
 213, 246, 264. 
 Micah and images, 236 — and off'erings, 
 
 260 f., 445. 
 Micah's ephod, 231 f. 
 Might, divine, 306. 
 Missions, modern, 65 f. 
 Moabite king, 256 f., 300— stone, 178. 
 Modification of laws and institutions, 
 
 384 if., 425, 437 ff. 
 Mohammedanism, 18 f., 35, 329, 470, 
 
 485. 
 Moloch, 153, 178, 187, 241 ff., 282, 
 
 300. 
 Monolatry and Monotheism, 302, 
 
 508 f. 
 Monotheism, nascent, 320 f. — and 
 
 unity of worship, 327. See Ethic. 
 Montenegrin songs, 79. 
 Mosaism, 159, 220, 495 f. 
 Moses, the name, 179 — and Jahaveh's 
 
 character, 299 f., 325 — laws ascribed 
 
 to, 335 If.— his times, 337, 495— 
 
 little mentioned, 350 f. — deciding 
 
 cases, 359— his grandson, 233, 347. 
 Mythology, 187, 299, 504 ff. See 
 
 Legend. 
 
 Nature feasts, 329, 363— God, 210. 
 Nazirites, 71, 113. 
 
 Nebiim, 87, 90, 154, 363. 
 
 Nebo, 177, 179. 
 
 Nebular hypothesis of history, 131. 
 
 Newman, F. W., 485. 
 
 Nomad life, 1-26. 
 
 Nuk pu oiu/c, 273, 
 
 Numina, 199, 243, 304. 
 
 Observances, religious, 107 f. — signifi- 
 cance, 329, 459. 
 
 Omnipotence and onmipresence, 292, 
 409. 
 
 Omri, house of, 82, 511. 
 
 Oral transmission, 80. See Torah. 
 
 Oratory and literary activity, 63. 
 
 Palestine, 12— exploration, 98, 102— 
 Jahaveh's house, 195, 367. 
 
 Passover, 377 ff., 385, 401. 
 
 Patriarchal stories, 53, 61, 104 f., 120 
 ff., 205 f. — religion, 287 — worship, 
 406. 
 
 Paul, St, and law, 340. 
 
 Pentateuch, traditional authorship, 
 43 ff., 382 — anonymous, 332— legis- 
 lation, 381 ff.— criticism, 386 f.— 
 narratives, 417 ff. 
 
 Pentaur, poem, 77. 
 
 Pesach, 378 f. 
 
 Philistine wars, 94, 204, 315. 
 
 Philosophy of history, 115. 
 
 Phraseology, religious, 65, 68 f. 
 
 Political events, 315 f. 
 
 Polytheism in Israel, 16^, 302. 
 
 Popular religion, 161, 311. See Pro- 
 phetic. 
 
 Praxis, 361, 399 ff , 428, 442. 
 
 Priestly Code, 141, 332, 371, 375, 400 
 ff., 411, 429. See Levitical. 
 
 Priests as educators, 105 — acting 
 with prophets, 461. 
 
 Primitive ])eoples and conceptions, 
 207, 214, 247, 483, 487. 
 
 Programme, 337, 399 f. 
 
 Prophetic and pre-prophetic, 52, 72, 
 165, 169, 297— and popular, 154, 
 158, 307 ff., 314 ff., 323, 454— devel- 
 opment, 163. 
 
 Prophets referred to by Amos and 
 Hosea, 71 — background of, 73 — 
 false, 144 f.— ".schools" of, 83 ff.— 
 literary activity, 94— guardians of 
 tradition, 96 — destroyers of old re- 
 ligion, 310— and legalism, 448 ff., 
 463 — acting with priests, 461. 
 
 Psalms and law, 345— and criticism, 
 474. 
 
 Pseudonymous literature, 420 ff. 
 
524 
 
 Index. 
 
 Quotations. See References. 
 
 Redaction, 139-142. 
 
 References and quotations, 108, 339 f. 
 
 Reformers or originators, 68, 71, 156 
 — before Josiali, 4J7. 
 
 Religion of Israel, 15, 16 f., 21 f., 24, 
 28— pre- Mosaic, 206, 284— ideal and 
 actual, 160, 308 -missionary, 19— 
 universal, 311 — heart of, 473— in 
 old Israel, 475. See Patriarchal, 
 Popular, Prophetic, Prophets. 
 
 Remnant, the, 115 f. 
 
 Renau, 1.53, 189, 197, 243, 483, 490 f., 
 494. 
 
 Restoration, the, 457. See Exile. 
 
 Revelation, 462. 
 
 Review^s or summaries, 54, 116 f., 149. 
 
 Rinimon, 177. 
 
 Roeh, 88, 90. See Nebiim. 
 
 Romance, 126 f. 
 
 Sabbath, 335, 396. 
 
 Sacrifice, ancient, 335 — human, see 
 
 First-boru. 
 Salmsezab, 197, 300. 
 Samuel, 81, 83, 91, 446 f.— book of, 
 
 54, 346, 367. 
 Sanctuaries, local, 199, 201, 409— 
 
 many, 405 ff. 
 Saturn worship, 258. 
 Saul, name of, 179. 
 Schleiermacher, 35. 
 Shaddai, 243, 282. 
 Shiloh, 346, 407, 411 f. 
 Sifting of tradition, 143, 467. See 
 
 Discolouring. 
 Silence, argument from, 395. 
 Sinai, name, 177, 179— God's dwelling, 
 
 193. 
 Socin and exploration, 102 f. 
 Solomon, time of, 81 f.— the name, 
 
 179, 181. 
 Songs, transmission of, 60 f., 79. 
 "Sources," 53, 496, 513— free hand- 
 ling of, 205, 467. 
 Speeches, 422. See Indirect. 
 Statutes, 341 f., 359, 362. 
 Style of O.T. narrative, 424. 
 Stones, sacred, 203. 
 Summaries. See Reviews. 
 
 Sun myth, 186 -god, 245. 
 
 Symbols to denote writers, 56, 478 ff., 
 
 497. 
 Syncretism, 173 f. 
 
 Tabernacle, 217, 409, 411 f., 517. 
 Tabernacles, feast of 401. 
 Talmud, 24, 482, 496. 
 Tell-el-Amarna, 77, 79, 133. 
 Temple, the, 393, 400, 406,412, 428, 447. 
 Teraphim, 219, 238 f. 
 Testimony of a nation, 72 f., 109, 135, 
 
 279. 
 Theophanies, 200, 408. 
 Theopneust, 156, 314. 
 Thoreau on history, 37, 132. 
 Thunder, Thunderer, 209, 281 f., 286 
 
 f., 314. 
 Topogra]thical accuracy, 97 ff. 
 Torah, 341— oral, 354— priestly and 
 
 prophetic, 354 ff., 441 ff.— Ijook of, 
 
 415 ff.— Toroth, 343, 392, 441. 
 "Traditional" view, 35, 43 f., 382, 
 
 465, 495. 
 Trees, sacred, 202. 
 Tribes, formation, 202, 499 f.— Greek, 
 
 &c., 207— tribal god, 290. 
 Tutelary gods, 196. 
 
 Underground criticism, 4, 103, 127. 
 Urim and Thummim, 218, 355. 
 
 Vassalage, 367 f. 
 
 Vernes, Maurice, 101, 122, 127, 151, 
 193, 397, 469, 519 f. 
 
 Wars of Jahaveh, book of, 61 f., 67, 
 81 298. 
 
 Weeks, feast of, 401. 
 
 Wilderness period, 377. See Amos, 
 Exodus. 
 
 World, popular and prophetic con- 
 ception of, 293, 310, 316 f. 
 
 Worship and daily life, 365 — place of, 
 403 ff. 
 
 Writer and his age, 52, 152. 
 
 Writing on stone, 64 — in Israel, 75 — 
 in Egypt and East, 77, 498 — in 
 Moses' time, 77, 81. 
 
 Zechariah, 459. 
 
UNIVEBSITY OP CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY "«ARY, 
 
 
 m: 
 
 TO 5 1968 49 
 
 In stacks feb|20'68 
 
 RECDLD Ft822B8 -llAM 
 
 20?rt-l,'22 
 
He 'V^'^'^H 
 
 / 
 
 f^ 
 
 257n-4,'15