■:i^MM.:i^: 
 
 UaUdMUnSSaiMW 
 
fyxmll ^mmii^ Jihat^g 
 
 A.1H7MX 
 
 7673-3 
 
 FRAGILE DOES NOT 
 CIRCULATE 
 
 MM CASE 
 
^P l f g o - y Tjsr 
 
 The tiate s howa when this volume was taken. 
 
 HOME USE RULE^. 
 
 MjLBotks subject to Recall. 
 
 Books not used for 
 instruction ororesearch 
 are rsturnable within 
 4 weeks. 
 
 > Volumes of periodi- 
 cals and of pamphlets 
 are held in the library 
 as much as possible. 
 For special purposes 
 they are given out for 
 a limited time. 
 
 Borrowers should 
 not use tlieir libra^ 
 privileges for thebeneS 
 fit of other per? ons. 
 
 Books not needed 
 during recess periods 
 should be returned to 
 the library, or arrange- 
 ments made for tiheir 
 return during borrow- 
 er's absence, if wanted. 
 
 Books needed by 
 more than one person 
 are held on the reserve 
 list. 
 
 Books of special 
 valuQ and gift books, 
 when the giver wishes 
 it, are not allpwed to 
 circulate. ' 
 
 Readers are asked 
 to report all cases of 
 books marked or muti- 
 lated. 
 
 % 
 
 + 
 
 FRAGILE PAPER 
 Please handle this book 
 with care, as the paper 
 is brittle. 
 
 [p,^m 
 
 mm. dC)Es mot 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924092316870 
 
THE 
 
 RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 By DE. a. KUENEISr. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
THE 
 
 RELIGION OF ISRAEL 
 
 TO 
 
 THE FALL OF THE JEWISH STATE. 
 
 BY 
 
 DE. A. KUENEN, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LEYDEN. 
 
 CransIateH from ttie Jiutc^ 
 
 BY 
 
 ALFEED HEATH MAY. 
 VOL. II. 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NOEGATE, 
 
 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN; LONDON; 
 
 And 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 
 
 1882. 
 
^--^^76£. 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 ^s,^ LIBRARY 
 
 LDMBON : 
 
 PRINTED Br 0. GEBEN AND SON, 
 
 178, SIRAND. 
 
TEANSLATOE'S PEEFACE TO VOL. II. 
 
 In rendering this volume into English, the translator has to 
 acknowledge the assistance of the author, who has continued 
 to read the proofs, and of Mr. Milroy, who has read the transla- 
 tion in manuscript. 
 
 The valuable table of contents given in the original will be 
 published at the end of the third volume. 
 
CONTENTS OF VOL. II. 
 
 Chapter VI. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Eeligion of Israel to the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 b. o. . 1 
 
 Notes on Chapter VI. . . . . .77 
 
 Chapter VII. 
 
 The Israelitish Exiles in Babylonia . . . .98 
 
 Notes on Chapter VII. . ... 174 
 
 Chapter VIII. 
 
 The Establishment of the Hierarchy and the Introduction of 
 
 the Law ....... 202 
 
 Notes on Chapter VIII. . . . . .286 
 
THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 The Eeligion of Israel to the Fall of Jerusalem 
 IN 586 B.C. 
 
 Towards the end of the 8th century before our era, Hezekiah 
 had attempted to effect a complete revolution in the religious 
 practices of his subjects. From the very brief account by the 
 author of 2 Kings* — which is enlarged and embellished, but 
 not really supplemented, by the Chroniclerf — we should scarcely 
 infer that his measures had so wide an aim. Yet we do not go 
 too far when we say " a complete revolution." We already know 
 that the " high places" which Hezekiah abolished had existed 
 for centuries all over the kingdom, and that the use of pillars, 
 asheras and images of Jaljveh, according to Isaiah and Micah,| 
 was general. It is very improbable, therefore, that the king 
 met with no opposition of any sort and gained his end entirely 
 and at once. The historian, it is true, makes no mention of the 
 obstacles which were put in his way, but this fact could possess 
 value as evidence only if he had shown himself to be accurately 
 informed and had entered into details. Nevertheless the possi- 
 bility remains, that Hezekiah was powerful enough to deter his 
 subjects from any attempt at resistance, or to nip their opposition 
 in the bud. But no one can well think it likely that he alto- 
 gether changed the persuasions and ideas of his people during 
 his reign of thirty years. The means which he employed — the 
 " removing," " cutting down" and " breaking to pieces" — however 
 
 * 2 Kings xviii. 4, comp. 22. t 2 Chr. xxix, — xxxi. J Vol. I, pp. 79 sqq. 
 VOL II. B 
 
2 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 suitable they may have been for altering the outward appearance 
 of things in a short time, did not reach the root of the evil. In 
 a word, but little penetration was required to foresee that these 
 violent measures would necessarily be followed by an equally 
 violent reaction. And this is what actually occurred. 
 
 In the year 696 B.C. Hezekiah died. His son Manasseh, a 
 boy of twelve, became king in his stead; his reign lasted 55 
 years, untd 641 B.C. Amon his son and successor trod in his 
 father's footsteps until 639 e.g. For 57 years, then, the king- 
 dom was governed in one spirit, in the spirit of the party whose 
 tenderest feelings had been wounded by Hezekiah's reformation. 
 
 We should indeed remember that Manasseh and Amon, just 
 as much as their predecessor, represented a conviction. In read- 
 ing the accounts concerning them,* our first impression is that 
 they were crowned miscreants, and Manasseh especially. The 
 author can find no words strong enough to express the abhor- 
 rence with which Manasseh's deeds inspire him. He twice 
 compares him to Ahab.-f One of his atrocities, the placing of 
 the Ashera-pillar in the temple, is a desecration of that building, 
 and is diametrically opposed to Jahveh's promises and commands 
 to David and Solomon. J It is with evident approbation that 
 the author mentions the prediction of Manasseh's contemporaries 
 among the prophets, that, on account of his transgressions and 
 of the readiness of the people to take part in them, Jerusalem 
 shall be laid waste and its inhabitants scattered among the 
 nations. § Over and above all this, he accuses him of having 
 "shed very much innocent blood, tiU he had filled Jerusalem 
 with it from one end to the other." || The painful impression 
 made by these accusations would certainly be considerably less- 
 ened, if we might assume, with the Chronicler,ir that Manasseh 
 subsequently repented of his sins, and, after his return from a 
 temporary captivity in Assyria, hastened to repair as much as 
 
 * 2 Kings xxi. ; 2 Ohr. xxxiii. t 2 Kings xxi. 3, 13. 
 
 t 2 Kings xxi. 7, 8. § 2 Kings xxi. 10—15. 
 
 II 2 Kings xxi. 16. TI 2 Clir. xxxiii, 11 seq. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 3 
 
 possible the evil lie had done. But for various reasons this 
 account is unworthy of credit. So long, therefore, as we con- 
 tinue to occupy the standpoint of the Israelitish historians, we 
 shall judge most unfavourably of Manasseh — and of Amon. 
 But it is precisely this standpoint which we must attack. It is 
 that of Manasseh's antagonists, who afterwards regained and kept 
 the upper hand. They judge him by the standard of their own 
 ideas, which he, however, did not embrace, or, rather, would have 
 condemned as revolutionary and dangerous. 
 
 Of course, this makes it none the less necessary to give the 
 verdict of the Israelitish historian its share of our attention, if 
 we wish to form a true idea of Mansisseh's character and designs. 
 This we do the more readily, now it appears that it is the echo 
 of the warnings uttered by the king's contemporaries respecting 
 the punishment which was to come.* We remember, too, that 
 Jeremiah -f- also attributes the fall of the kingdom to that which 
 Manasseh the son of Hezekiah did at Jerusalem. What, then, 
 had he done ? 
 
 In the first place, Manasseh restored the worship of Jahveh 
 as it had been before Hezekiah's reformation. He built up again 
 -^we are toldj — that is, he allowed to be built up again, the 
 high places which his father had destroyed. He also worshipped 
 other gods besides Jahveh, and he placed in the temple at 
 Jerusalem the symbol of Ashera, the tree-stem stripped of its 
 branches, which was frequently erected next to the altars of 
 Jahveh. § Like his grandfather Ahaz, he encouraged the service 
 of Molech, and following his example, he — we do not know 
 under what circumstances — dedicated one of his sons to this 
 deity by fire. |1 It is told of him further, that he " bowed down 
 to all the host of heaven and served them (the stars)," and built 
 altars in honour of these deified celestial bodies in the two courts 
 of the temple at Jerusalem. IT Did he adopt this latter worship 
 
 * 2 Kings xxi. 10—15. t Jer. xv. i. J 2 Kings xxi. 3. 
 
 § 2 Kings xxi. 3, 7; comp. Deut. xvi. 21. || 2 Kings xxi. 6, comp. xvi. 3. 
 
 If 2 Kings xxi. 3, 5, corap. xxiii. 4, 5 ; Zeph. i. 5. 
 
 b2 
 
4 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO TEE 
 
 from abroad, from the AssATians or tlie Babylonians ? He saw 
 nothing reprehensible in the service of their gods, no more than 
 in the time-honoured worship of the Canaanitish deities. But 
 we are not surprised that this imitation of the foreigner was 
 a new and inexcusable grievance to those who served Jahveh 
 alone. Manasseh's conduct was the more abominable, in their 
 estimation, in that he established the worship of false gods — 
 both that known of old and that introduced by him — in the 
 place that was the very centre of the service of Jahveh. It is 
 true that, even under his rule, the temple of Solomon did not 
 cease to be a sanctuary of Jahveh; but besides the principal 
 deity, many other gods were also worshipped there, each after 
 its own fashion. This was in harmony with the heathen custom. 
 As we remarked before,* it cannot be considered absolutely 
 antagonistic to the intentions of the founder of the temple. There 
 is no doubt either, that Manasseh was not the first who had 
 done this.-f- ISTay, we must even regard it as improbable that 
 Hezekiah had succeeded in banishing all traces of the worship 
 of the other gods from the temple, j Yet Manasseh went further 
 than any king before him. And — what cannot but have increased 
 the dissatisfaction which he caused — his acts led, either in his 
 reign or subsequently, to the solemnization of still other religious 
 rites, and among them Egyptian rites, in the temple itself, or in 
 its immediate vicinity. § In short, it was as though he was bent 
 upon thwarting, or was trying to introduce the opposite of, the 
 ideal cherished by the worshippers of Jahveh, the realization of 
 which had seemed to them so near at hand in Hezekiah's reism. 
 Is it to be wondered at that they abhorred him as an enemy to 
 Jahveh ? 
 
 The descendants and successors of the prophets of the 8th 
 
 * Vol. I. pp. 335 seq. 
 
 + Comp. what is said of "the kings of Judah" in 2 Kinga xxiii. 5, 11, 12. 
 
 J Had that been the case, in all probability Manasseh alone would have been named 
 in the verses just quoted. 
 
 § Ezek. viii. ; comp. Note I. at the end of this Chapter. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 E.G. 5 
 
 century B.C. must have altogether degenerated, if they could 
 look upon all this in silence. The writer of the books of Kings 
 relates — and we have no hesitation in believing him — that 
 Jahveh raised his voice, " by the mouth of his servants the pro- 
 phets," against Manasseh's abominations. Here and there their 
 words were echoed. Were there, perchance, some men who, 
 inflamed by these words, offered resistance to the king's mea- 
 sures ? The statement that he " shed very much innocent blood 
 in Jerusalem" would lead one to suppose so. Free from all 
 exclusivism, Manasseh cannot well have become a persecutor of 
 his own accord. If he took this part upon him, he was driven 
 to it by the reception accorded to his measures. In judging of 
 his conduct, we must not forget both how intimately religion 
 was linked to politics in Israel, and how the Jahvistic party 
 bore themselves when they were in authority. The connection 
 between religion and politics fully explains why the prophets 
 and their adherents were looked upon as dangerous to the good 
 order of the state. And when we call Hezekiah and Josiah to 
 mind, we lack the heart to castigate Manasseh severely for his 
 persecutions. 
 
 At the same time, we should not forget that in order to form 
 a well-grounded judgment of Manasseh and Amon, our informa- 
 tion ought to be more precise. It is indeed to be deplored that 
 we cannot throw light from contemporaneous records upon so 
 remarkable a period of nearly half a century. Perhaps a few of 
 the Psalms were composed during that time.* But nothing 
 certain is known of their age. When we assign them to the 
 reign of Manasseh, it is because they express what we suppose 
 to have been the feelings of his pious contemporaries, judging 
 from what we already know. They do not extend our know- 
 ledge. We have no alternative but to rest content with this 
 ignorance. Fortunately it does not prevent us from compre- 
 hending the period which dawned after Amon's death. In fact, 
 
 * Comp. my Eh. 0. III. 294 seq. 
 
6 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 this period lies before us so clearly that it dissipates in some 
 degree the mist which hangs over Manasseh's reign. 
 
 Nothing can be more natural than that the upholders of the 
 exclusive worship of Jahveh — for the sake of brevity we can call 
 them the Mosaic party — not only looked forward longingly to 
 better times, but also did their best to prepare the way for them. 
 They neither could nor would submit to their defeat. They 
 could not well do otherwise than exert all their strength to wiq 
 back the days of Hezekiah. In connection with this, we invo- 
 luntarily ask, whether Amon's violent death* was not, perchance, 
 their work? They certainly had grounds enough for being 
 exasperated agaiast him ; and they reaped substantial benefit 
 from the change. But we believe we may acquit them of this 
 crime. It is expressly said that the conspirators against Amon 
 were "his servants," and that the "people of the land" slew 
 them all, and then made the son of Amon king. Probably the 
 unfortunate prince fell a victim to some court intrigue, and the 
 people came forward for the rightful successor, and also for the 
 race of their beloved David. 
 
 But whoever may have caused it, Amon's death was a bless- 
 ing for the Mosaic party. They had nothing to hope and 
 everything to fear from him. Josiah, his successor, was a boy of 
 eight :-f- what might not be effected if they could only acquire 
 influence over him, and make him embrace their views! A 
 king's power is absolute in the East, and so it was in the king- 
 dom of Judah. " When there was yet no king in Israel, every 
 man did that which was right in his own eyes ;" j afterwards — 
 we can add to the historian's remark — afterwards all or most of 
 them bowed, at all events outwardly, to the will and orders of 
 the prince. No wonder that the Mosaic party first conceived 
 the hope, and then formed the plan, of winning Josiah, and, 
 through him, of carrying out what, in their eyes, was the duty 
 and also the interest of the state. 
 
 * 2 Kings xxi. 23, 24. + 2 Kings xxii. 1. % Judges xvii. 6. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 7 
 
 But before they could succeed ia this, it was necessary that 
 they should speak out their wishes plainly, and lay them before 
 the king in such a manner that there could remain no doubt as 
 to their meaning and the way in which they were to be realized. 
 It sounds strange, and yet it is a fact, that hitherto they had 
 had no accurately defined programme. They knew very well 
 what they thought needful, but they had failed to commit their 
 demands to writing with the necessary fulness. Probably it 
 was partly to this that the failure of their plans after the tem- 
 porary triumph imder Hezekiah was to be attributed. In any 
 case, a collection of legal precepts was deemed indispensable in 
 order to obtain any permanent result. But to understand this 
 thoroughly, it will be necessary for us again to glance back for 
 a moment. 
 
 It need not be repeated here that Moses bequeathed no book 
 of the law to the tribes of Israel.* Certainly nothing more 
 was committed to writing by him or in his time than " the ten 
 words" in their original form. We do not know with certainty 
 where these fundamental laws were kept. Probably, however, 
 it was in the temple ;•(■ perhaps even, as subsequent tradition 
 says, in " the ark of Jahveh," which may then have borrowed 
 from this circumstance its later name of " ark of the covenant of 
 Jahveh."! ^^ Manasseh's reign " the ten words" were no doubt 
 formulated and enlarged nearly as we now read them in the 
 Pentateuch. But for the end which the Mosaic party were 
 struggling to gain, they were altogether inadequate. In the first 
 place, they were absolutely silent upon many most important 
 points. In the second, they were wanting in what one might 
 call legal validity. Jahveh's temple at Jerusalem, where they 
 had been deposited, was by no means the only sanctuary, merely 
 the first or chief one. That which was acknowledged and pro- 
 
 * Comp. Vol. I. pp. 272 seq. 
 
 t According to the ordinary translation of 2 Kings xi. 12, the "testimony," i.e. the 
 Decalogue, was used at the coronation of Jehoash (878 b.o.). But this rendering is 
 rejected by many, who consider that a royal ornament is referred to. 
 
 J Comp. Vol. I. pp. 257 seq. 
 
8 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 claimed there as the will of Jahveh was not binding upon the 
 other sanctuaries, on "the high places," and upon those who 
 regularly frequented them. 
 
 But surely other written laws existed? Undoubtedly, but 
 they were of a private nature, so to speak. At all events 
 nothing certain is known of their promidgation and introduc- 
 tion by the competent authority, i. e. the Mng. The prophetic 
 historians included them in their narratives concerning the 
 Mosaic time, and no doubt made use of the opportunity to add 
 to and extend them. In so far as these laws did not simply 
 reproduce that which had long been legalized by custom, and 
 was therefore also followed in the administration of justice, they 
 had as much — or as little — effect as the exhortations of the pro- 
 phets, i.e. they were observed by those who saw in them the 
 expression of Jahveh's will, and by no one else. This is evident 
 from the very character of these laws. The oldest collection 
 which we know, the so-called Book of the Covenant,* contains 
 a number of precepts concerning the civil Hfe, of which the 
 majority are obviously taken from existing customs.i" But side 
 by side with these we find purely moral commandments and admo- 
 nitions for which express motives are alleged, i.e. which are made 
 dependent upon the assent of the reader. J The Book concludes 
 with a thoroughly prophetic discourse, setting forth the blessing 
 attached to the observance of Jahveh's laws and the curse to 
 their neglect.§ Collections such as these were by no means 
 official. In that case surely men would not have dared to alter 
 them, and would have considered themselves bound to accept 
 them in their integrity. The contrary occurred. The author 
 of Exodus xxxiv. borrows || from the Book of the Covenant and 
 from a few other laws IT the rules which seem to him to be the 
 
 * Exod. xxi.— xxiii. ; oomp. Vol. I. p. 128. 
 
 + Exod. xxi. 12—14, 15, 17, 16, 18—21, 22, &e. 
 
 J Exod. xxii. 21, 22—24, 25—27, xxiii. 9, &0. 
 
 § Exod. xxiii. 20—33. 1| Vers. 10—26. 
 
 ir Exod. xiii. 1—10, 11—16. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 9 
 
 most important, and makes of tliem a whole after his own 
 fashion. We shall see presently how the writer of Deuteronomy 
 treats in exactly the same way the laws written before his time. 
 Such freedom is conclusive proof that the codes of various ages 
 which were extant at the heginning of Josiah's reign, had no 
 validity in law. 
 
 But granting even that it was otherwise, still the Mosaic 
 party in Josiah's reign would not have thought themselves 
 released from the duty of committing their demands to writing. 
 If they found much in the more ancient collections with which 
 they could agree with all their hearts, they missed also in them 
 things which were absolutely necessary in their eyes, nay, they 
 met in them with that which by no means harmonized with 
 their opinions. Thus the Book of the Covenant* insisted upon 
 the celebration of the three high festivals, but in such a way 
 that the manner in which this was to be done was left to each 
 man's own discretion or to custom, and the pilgrimages to " the 
 high places" were decidedly not prohibited. Nay, in this very 
 Book of the Covenant — or, at all events, in an old law which 
 now immediately precedes it — express permission is given to 
 sacrifice to Jahveh at more than one place-f- — a liberty which 
 is also understood in other regulations. J We already know 
 enough of the ideas and wishes of the Mosaic party of those 
 days to perceive that they could not rest content with such a 
 code. 
 
 What we asserted above, therefore, remains true: a double 
 duty devolved upon the Mosaic party; they had to set forth 
 their views plainly and definitely, and to prevail upon the king 
 to carry them out. They understood their mission, and fully 
 acted up to it. We have their programme in the book of 
 Deuteronomy; Josiah's reformation proved that they had won 
 the king. Let us begin by examining this reformation. 
 
 It occurred when Josiah had reached his twenty-sixth year, 
 
 * Exod. xxiii. 14—17. t Exod. xx. 24. 
 
 J Bxod. xxi. 6, &c. ; comp. Note II. at the end of this Chapter. 
 
10 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 and in the ISth year of his reign (621 B.C.).* It is true, the 
 Chronicler tells us that in the 8th year of his reign the king 
 already " began to seek after the God of David his father/' and 
 four years afterwards " began to purge Judah and Jerusalem. "-f- 
 But his account is irreconcilable with that of the older historian, 
 and deserves no credit. It is founded on fact to this extent, 
 however, that before the 18th year of his reign, Josiah's policy 
 towards the Mosaic party already differed from that of his 
 predecessors. At all events, we find no trace of persecutions 
 instituted by him. Zephaniah — ^probably a relation of the kingj 
 — ^and Jeremiah laboured actively as prophets, from the year 
 626 B.c.,§ without molestation. Huldah, a prophetess of Jahveh, 
 lived in Jerusalem and enjoyed great distinction. || The very 
 cause of the event which we shall presently relate, shows that 
 Josiah gave substantial proof of his interest in the temple. 1 It 
 would not be unimportant now to know the exact political 
 condition of the kingdom in the above-mentioned year of 
 Josiah's reign. Our information respecting this condition is 
 not quite positive.** But it may be accepted as probable that 
 the kingdom not long before had happily escaped from an 
 imminent danger. Scythian hordes had penetrated into Media, 
 and had forced king Cyaxares to raise the siege of Nineveh. 
 They had then turned westwards, and subsequently had taken 
 the road to Egypt. In their course thither they would neces- 
 sarily touch Palestine, and it seemed far from improbable that 
 they would commit ravages in Judsea also. The prophets Jere- 
 miah and Zephaniah actually announced this. Their opinion of 
 the religious-moral condition of the kingdom was so unfavour- 
 able, that a divine chastisement seemed to them to be at hand. 
 They thus took advantage of the approach of the Scythians to 
 
 * 2 Kings xxii. 3. +2 Chr. xxxiv. S. 
 
 t Zeph. i. 1 ; comp. my Bh. 0. II. 369 sq. § Jer. i. 2, xxv. 3. 
 
 II 2 Kings xxii. 14 seq. % 2 Kings xxii. 3 seq. 
 
 ** Comp. Oort, Jeremia in dt lijst ra» zijn tijd, pp. 42 seq., with my Ek, 0. II. 
 177, 371 sq. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 686 B.C. 11 
 
 exhort the people to repentance.* It is quite possible that then, 
 as so often happens, the fear of a great calamity brought about 
 a certain revival of religious feeling. In the meantime the 
 danger was averted. The Scythians hardly entered Judaea, if at 
 all. They marched to Egypt by the sea-coast ; this forced Psam- 
 metichus, who was then king of that country, to raise the siege 
 of Gaza ; but subsequently they allowed themselves to be per- 
 suaded by him to give up their plans and turn back. This 
 occurred, according to the most probable calculation, in or about 
 the year 625 B.C. Four years afterwards the remembrance of 
 those anxious days had not faded, nor the fear that perhaps they 
 would soon return. The Scythians were stUl roving about in 
 Asia. Did the thought of them add weight, in the estimation 
 of Josiah and his counsellors, to the threats which they heard in 
 the year we have mentioned ? This is not impossible. But let 
 us see what took place at this time. 
 
 Some repairs were to be made in the temple at Jerusalem. 
 Josiah sends his scribe, Shaphan the son of Azaliah, to Hilkiah 
 the high-priest, to order the latter to make up the amount of 
 the voluntary gifts which the doorkeepers had received from the 
 people, and to hand this money to the men charged with the 
 superintendence of the work."!" When Shaphan had delivered 
 these injunctions, Hilkiah made an important communication to 
 him : " I have found," he said, " the book of the law in the house 
 of Jahveh.'' Shaphan immediately read the book, went back to 
 Josiah and hastened to inform him of the discovery and to read 
 it to him. It made the deepest impression upon the king. Did 
 it not contain precepts which had been broken by the fathers 
 and by the generation then living, and also terrible threats of 
 punishment which there was every reason to fear would conse- 
 quently be fulfilled? J Josiah wishes at once to ascertain for 
 certain what he and his people have to expect. He sends five 
 
 * Jer. ii. — vi. ; comp. my Hk. 0. II. 174 seq. 
 
 t 2 Kings xxii. 3—7. t Vers. 8—11. 
 
12 TBE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 men of high rank, among whom are HHkiah and Shaphan, to 
 consult Jahveh for him. They go to the prophetess Huldah and 
 lay before her the king's wishes * Her reply does not seem to 
 have been reported by the historian with literal exactness.-}- It 
 is not probable, at all events, that on this occasion she would 
 have represented the fall of Jerusalem and the ruin of the king- 
 dom as irrevocably decreed. But the main point was that she 
 recognized " all the words of the book which Hilkiah had found" 
 as the expression of Jahveh's will and counsel. Now Josiah 
 could hesitate no longer as to what he had to do. He called the 
 people — probably represented by their elders and great men — 
 together in the temple at Jerusalem and read to them " the book 
 of the covenant.'' Whether it be that this reading made the 
 same impression upon all of them as it had previously done upon 
 the king, or that no one dared oppose the monarch, " the whole 
 people" solemnly bound themselves " to walk after Jahveh and 
 to keep his commandments, his testimonies and his statutes, 
 with all their heart, and to perform the words of the covenant 
 written in the book" which had been read to them. J Not a 
 moment was lost in carrying out this engagement. At the king's 
 command, Hilkiah and the rest of the priests remove out of the 
 temple everything that is connected with the worship of false 
 gods. The following are specified : the holy vessels which were 
 used in the service of Baal, Ashera and the host of heaven ;§ 
 the Ashera -symbols themselves, which had been erected by 
 Manasseh, as we have seen;|| the chapels in (or adjoining) the 
 temple, in which the priestesses of Ashera sold themselves to 
 the worshippers of that goddess ;ir the horses and chariots of the 
 sun, which the kings of Judah had placed at the entrance of the 
 temple, in the chamber of Nathan-melech ;** and the altars 
 which had been built by the kings of Judah on the roof of the 
 
 -22. X 2 Kings xxiii. 1- 
 
 TF Ver. 7. 
 
 * Vers. 12—14. 
 
 t Vers. 15 
 
 § Ver. i. 
 
 II Ver. 6. 
 
 *' Ver. 11. 
 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 58& JB.O. 13 
 
 upper chamber of Ahaz, and by Manasseh in the two courts.* 
 This return of the things in or adjoining the temple that required 
 reform, can give us some idea of all that there was to be done 
 beyond it, in order fully to carry out the decrees of Hilkiah's 
 book. In the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, in the valley of 
 Ben-Hinnom, there was the Topheth, the holy place where the 
 worshippers of Molech burned their children in honour of that 
 god; it was defiled.-f- On the right hand of the "mount of 
 corruption," i.e. on the south-western slope of the mount of 
 Olives, there stood the sanctuaries of Ashtoreth, Chemosh and 
 Milcom, founded by Solomon; they were laid waste. | The 
 " pillars " and Ashera-symbols were everywhere broken in pieces 
 and hewn down. § The priests of the false gods, the chemarim 
 appointed by the kings of Judah, were prevented from pursuing 
 their calling. || From Geba to Beersheba, i.e. from the northern 
 to the southern limits of the kingdom, "the high places" (dedi- 
 cated to Jahveh) were defiled; their (Levitical) priests, thus 
 deprived of their only means of support, were brought to Jeru- 
 salem, and "ate" from that time forward "unleavened bread 
 among their brethren," who served in the temple; they were 
 not permitted, however, " to sacrifice upon the altar of Jahveh ;" 
 probably they performed other, subordinate functions. IT Josiah 
 was not content with these measures. He worked zealously in 
 the same spirit, even beyond the borders of his kingdom. At 
 Beth-el and in " the cities of Samaria" in general, the high places 
 were destroyed and their priests slain by his command.** And 
 finally, the work of purification was crowned by the splendid 
 celebration of the passover, in accordance with the regulations 
 of the " book of the covenant." " There was not holden such a 
 passover" — says the historian — "from the days of the judges 
 that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor 
 of the kings of Judah." -f-f- 
 
 * Ter. 12. + Ver. 10. % Ver. 13 ; oomp. Vol. I. p. 331. 
 
 § Ver. 14. II Ver. 6. IT Vers. 8, 9. ** Vers. 15—20. 
 
 ++ Vers. 21^23; comp. Note III. at the end of this Chapter. 
 
14 THE RELIOION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 So runs the oldest and thorougMy credible account of Josiah's 
 reformation. It will now no longer be asked why we expressed 
 above* some doubt of the complete success of Hezekiah's mea- 
 sures. If he had already worked as vigorously as Josiah did 
 after him, how was it that the latter found so much idolatry and 
 illegal Jahveh- worship to reform at Jerusalem and elsewhere ? 
 We can make Manasseh and Amon account for much, it is true, 
 but not for all. That which the historian indicates as the work 
 of the "kings of Judah" or definitely ascribes to Solomon,-^ was 
 not introduced by Manasseh, but was not abolished by Hezekiah. 
 Our conception of the religious condition of the kingdom of 
 Judah during the centuries which preceded Josiah's reign, must 
 of course adapt itself to the accounts given of what he found in 
 exist-ence. What a difference there was, then, between the pro- 
 phets' demands and the reality! How lofty was the ideal of 
 the Mosaic party compared with what they saw around them ! 
 Their conception of Jahvism differed so much from what their 
 predecessors and the multitude knew by this name, that its 
 introduction may, without the least exaggeration, be called a 
 revolution. 
 
 There can hardly be any difference of opinion with regard to 
 Josiah's intention. No other gods but Jahveh ; no other Jahveh- 
 worship than in the temple at Jerusalem : these two demands 
 show the drift of his reformation. We have already pointed out 
 more than once J that the one is intimately connected with tha 
 other ; that the centralization of the public worship in the one 
 sanctuary at Jerusalem was deemed necessary, in order to put 
 an end to the serving of false gods and of Jahveh with idola- 
 trous practices. But we cannot possibly remain content with 
 the knowledge of this outline of the tendency which now predo- 
 minated. We desire to know more of the ideas, the spirit and 
 the wishes of the party which received Josiah's powerful aid to 
 realize their plans. This desire is legitimate, and need not remain 
 
 * P. 1 seq. + 2 Kings xxiii. 5, 11, 12, 13. 
 
 t Vol. I. pp. 80—82. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 15 
 
 unsatisfied. Josiah's reformation was the result of the enforce- 
 ment of the code found by Hilkiah. If we consult this code, we 
 are almost certain to find what we seek. 
 
 As we have already said, Hilkiah's book of the law has not 
 been lost; we possess in Deuteronomy the programme of the 
 Mosaic party of that day. It will be necessary for us, however, 
 to explain more fully, and at the same time to prove, this asser- 
 tion, before we make ourselves acquainted with the contents of 
 the book itself. As every one will at once perceive, it is of such 
 vital importance to Israel's religious history, that it is less than 
 any other assertion to be taken upon trust. 
 
 The book of Deuteronomy is now a part of a whole, the Pen- 
 tateuch. Not merely in the sense that it is reckoned among the 
 "books of Moses," but also because it is interwoven in many 
 respects with the four preceding books, from Genesis to Numbers. 
 To name a few instances : when we have finished reading Num- 
 bers, we have not yet arrived at the end of the history of Moses : 
 the narrative of his death — already referred to in Num. xxvii. 
 12 — 14 — is wanting ; we find it in Deut. xxxiv. In the begin- 
 ning of the book* there occurs a date which fits on to the chro- 
 nology of Numbers.-|- The first discourse:}: delivered by Moses 
 is a free recapitulation of what has already been said in the 
 previous books about the Israelites' wanderings through the 
 desert, and especially the events of the fortieth year. Now let 
 it be taken into consideration, that part of the narratives and 
 laws which we possess in the first four books of the Pentateuch, 
 are more recent than the seventh century before our era, and 
 therefore cannot have been linked to Deuteronomy before Josiah's 
 reformation. Let it be further remembered, that the writing 
 found by Hilkiah is called the " hooh of the law" and the " look 
 of tlu covenant," § and that it cannot have been of any great 
 length, if we may believe the statement that it was read by 
 Shaphan, and then read before Josiah, in one day, and was 
 
 * Deut. i. 3. + Num. xx. 22—29 (xxxiii. 37—39), xxi. 1 seq. 
 
 t Deut. i. 6— iv. 40. S 2 Kings xxii. 8, 11, xxiii. 2, 3, 21, 24, 25. 
 
16 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 subsequently read out from beginning to end to the people in 
 the temple.* We thus arrive at the supposition, that to find 
 Hilkiah's book we must detach Deuteronomy from its present 
 connections, and strip it of its historical accessories, which only 
 belong to it inasmuch as it forms part of the present Pentateuch. 
 We now discover to our astonishment that this can be done 
 without difficulty. In Deut. iv. 44 — 49, we find a title which 
 is somewhat superfluous after all that precedes it,-f- but which 
 becomes quite intelligible if we take it as an introduction to the 
 discourse which begins with chapter v. This discourse continues 
 without interruption to the end of Deut. xxvi. The following 
 chapter gives one the impression that it is parenthetical. At all 
 events, Deut. xxviii. appears to be the continuation of chap, xxvi., 
 and — what is especially worthy of attention — concludes with a 
 note which corresponds to chap. iv. 44 — 49, and intimates that 
 the laws and ordinances there set forth are now ended. J The 
 chapters which follow Deut. xxviii. are, indeed, but loosely 
 connected with that which precedes them. This is especially 
 true of Deut. xxxi. — xxxiv., which embrace the conclusion of 
 the history of Moses' life. In short, the analysis of Deuteronomy 
 authorizes us to extract from it chap. iv. 44 — xxvi. and xxviii., 
 and to believe in the separate, independent existence of this 
 discourse — for a discourse it remains, in spite of all the laws and 
 precepts which it includes. Now this, at the same time, is the 
 book of the law which was found by Hilkiah. 
 
 To those who deny or doubt our right to look for Hilkiah's 
 book of the law in Deuteronomy, this operation wiU, of course, 
 seem only shocking caprice. But this right is well established. 
 All that we are told of that code corresponds, point for point, 
 with Deuteronomy, i.e. with the chapters which we have just 
 selected. Let us consider the names which Hilkiah's book 
 
 * 2 Kings xxii. 8, 10 (also 2 Chr. xxxiv. 18), xxiii. 3. 
 + Deut. i. 1 — iv. 40. 
 
 X Deut. xxix. 1 — which verse ought to have been added to chap, xxviii., as is 
 actually the case in the Hebrew text. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN b9,% B.C. 17 
 
 bears ;* the statements respecting its length ;-f- the severe threats 
 which it is said to contain ;;[: the law concerning the feast of the 
 passover, which occurs in it;§ and finally and especially the 
 tendency of its precepts, which comes to light most plainly in 
 the reformation which was founded on them. We shall return 
 shortly to this last point in particular. Here I may confine 
 myself to the remark, that Deuteronomy especially insists upon 
 one sole place of worship ;|| the same spirit of centralization 
 pervades, as we have seen, Josiah's measures also ; the similarity 
 is so striking that we can only explain it by the king's depend- 
 ence upon Deuteronomy. 
 
 We continue fearlessly to build, therefore, upon the supposi- 
 tion that Hilkiah's book of the law contained everything that 
 we now read in Deut. iv. 44 — xxvi. and xxviii. We must not 
 feign greater certainty, however, than we really possess. Before 
 we go further, therefore, I will admit that the possibility 
 remains that only a portion of this whole was handed by the 
 high-priest to Shaphan. In fact, it cannot be denied that the 
 accounts respecting Hilkiah's book, taken by themselves, give 
 us the impression that it was even shorter than the twenty- 
 three chapters we have mentioned. But, in any case, nothing 
 essential of that which we now find in these chapters was 
 omitted from it. It may have been filled in and expanded 
 afterwards, but this enlargement made no change in its spirit 
 and tendency. To become acquainted with these, we consult 
 Deut. V. and the foUowiug chapters without the least hesita- 
 tion. 
 
 But the question is not merely whether this portion of 
 Deuteronomy agrees with Hilkiah's book of the law, but also 
 whether we may regard it as the programme of the Mosaic 
 party at that time. At first sight this seems to be open to 
 
 * See p. 15, note §, and oomp. Deut. iv. 44, xxix. 1, &o. 
 t See p. 16, n. *. 
 
 X 2 Kings xxii. 13 seq. ; comp. Deut. xxviii. and elsewhere. 
 § 2 Eiugs xxii. 21 seq. ; Deut. xvi. 1 — 8. || See below, p. 25. 
 
 VOL. II. C 
 
18 THE BELiaiON OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 doubt. On the one hand, Moses himself appears as the speaker 
 in Deuteronomy : we read this not only in the titles,* but also 
 again and again in the addresses themselves.f On the other 
 hand, Hilkiah declares that he "has found i)iie book of the 
 law." J Does it not follow, that this book came to light, indeed, 
 in Josiah's eighteenth year, but was written long before, nay, by 
 Moses himself, or at least in his time and under his eye ? Are 
 we authorized simply to reject the evidence of Deuteronomy as 
 to its origin, and that of Hilkiah as to his discovery ? 
 
 It may now be accepted as proved, that the discourses and 
 laws of Deuteronomy were put in the mouth of Moses, and 
 that this was done about the time at which we see this book 
 make its appearance. Immediately after Josiah's reformation it 
 is frequently used by the prophet Jeremiah ;§ the prophets of 
 the eighth century B.C., on the contrary, are not yet acquainted 
 with it — undoubtedly because it did not yet exist in their time. 
 From the contents of the book also we infer that it is a product 
 of the seventh century B. c. In every respect — by its teaching 
 concerning faith and morals, by its relation to the older laws 
 and narratives, by its very tendency — it shows itself a produc- 
 tion of that time. What I wish to say directly as to its contents 
 will confirm this. It is thus certain that an author of the seventh 
 century B.C. — following in the footsteps of others, e.g. of the 
 writer of the Book of the Covenant — has made Moses himself 
 proclaim that which, in his opinion, it was expedient in the real 
 interests of the Mosaic party to announce and introduce. At a 
 time when notions about literary property were yet in their 
 infancy, an action of this kind was not regarded as at all unlaw- 
 
 * Deut. i. 1 seq., iv. 44 seq., &c. 
 
 + Let it be noticed, among other tilings, how tlie passage of the Jordan is throngh- 
 ont represented as yet to come, e.g. Deut. vi. 1, vii. 1, xi. 8, 10, 11, 29, xxiii. 20, 
 xxviii. 21, 63. But it is unnecessary to quote more passages which show this : from 
 one end to the other Moses is indicated as the person who speaks, 
 
 X 2 Kings xxii. 8. 
 
 § The similarity is so great that some have held Jeremiah to be the author of 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 19 
 
 ful. Men used to perpetrate such fictions as these without any 
 qualms of conscience. — If we are to judge thus of the Mosaic 
 origin of Deuteronomy, it is certainly still possible in the 
 abstract that the work of the Deuteronomist was by some acci- 
 dent mislaid in the temple, and, by another accident, was found 
 there by Hilkiah. But this is not probable. Deuteronomy 
 was written, not for the mere sake of writing, but to change the 
 whole condition of the kingdom. The author and his party 
 cannot have made the execution of their programme depend 
 upon a lucky accident. If Hilkiah foimd the book in the 
 temple, it was put there by the adherents of the Mosaic ten- 
 dency. Or else Hilkiah himself was of their number, and in 
 that case he pretended that he had found the book of the law. 
 This provision for the delivery of the programme to the king 
 was of a piece with the composition of the programme itself It 
 is true, this deception is much more unjustifiable still than the 
 introduction of Moses as speaking. But we must reflect here 
 also, that the ideas of those days were not the same as ours, 
 but considerably less strict. "Now or never" the Mosaic party 
 had to gain their end. If they made no use of Josiah's disposi- 
 tion in their favour and of the awakened interest in religion, 
 when were they to act ? Nor must we forget that at all times 
 and in all countries faction and intestine quarrels have stifled 
 delicacy in the choice of means. And finally we must not 
 overlook the fact that the victory of the Mosaic party, although 
 gained by cunning, must not be attributed to the stratagem of 
 which they made use, but to the good cause which they upheld, 
 and to the weapons with which they defended it. 
 
 Yea, even to the weapons with which they defended it. For 
 in truth Hilkiah's book of the law rises, both in form and con- 
 tents, far above mediocrity, and tends to the imperishable 
 honour of those who prepared it and of the party whose convic- 
 tions it expressed. It will need no apology if I attempt to 
 describe it somewhat more minutely. Scarcely anything can be 
 more welcome to the historian of Israel's religion than such a 
 
 c2 
 
20 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 writing. It is more valuable to him than, e.g., a collection of 
 prophecies or an historical book of the same period. The law- 
 giver must pay much more attention to the state of affairs which 
 he sees around him than the prophet or the historian. He too 
 expresses his conviction, but he does it with a view to its prac- 
 tical adoption. Thus the reality is reflected in his laws and 
 regulations much more plainly than in the discourse of the 
 prophet and the narrative of the historian. And there is another 
 thing to be considered. The lawgiver occupies a different stand- 
 point from the seer, and by so doing undertakes peculiar duties. 
 While another can allow his individuality tolerably free scope, 
 he must attempt as much as possible to be nothing more than 
 the organ of his party: the whole of his undertaking depends 
 upon the success of this endeavour. He is thus led involuntarily 
 to take count, as it were, of the times in which he lives. How 
 far have we got ? in what direction must we proceed ? what have 
 we to do at this moment ? These are questions which he must 
 always keep before him, if he understands his vocation. What 
 precious contributions to our knowledge of the development of 
 Jahvism, therefore, does a writing such as Hilkiah's book of the 
 law promise us ! Let the whole of the sketch which I am about 
 to give be studied from this point of view : I will myself draw 
 special attention to a few particulars which are important above 
 others. 
 
 The opinion expressed above in favour of Deuteronomy ap- 
 plies first of all to the plan which the author adopts. It is very 
 happily chosen. In the 40th year of the wanderings in the 
 desert, shortly after the great victories gained over Sihon and 
 Og, whilst the Israelites stand ready to cross the Jordan and 
 take possession of Canaan — Moses speaks to the whole people. 
 The days of the great leader are numbered ; his words claim the 
 respect with which one hears and obeys the last directions of a 
 dying man. Not to a chosen few, to priests or elders, but to his 
 whole people does he address himself, with all the earnestness 
 and all the authority with which the venerable Envoy of God 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 58& B.C. 21 
 
 could speak to those who knew him and who owed him so much. 
 It is also worthy of notice, that the comparative completeness of 
 the law which Moses delivers is fully justified by the plan which 
 has been selected. The author expressly distinguishes "the 
 covenant which Jahveh commanded Moses to make with Israel 
 in the land of Moab," from " the covenant which he had made 
 with them on Horeb!'* But the latter covenant is founded, 
 according to the author's representation, exclusively upon " the 
 ten words," which are given, superfluously, once more.-f It is 
 true, Moses, after the promulgation of these " words," had received 
 from Jahveh other "commandments, statutes and judgments" 
 besides, J: but as they were only intended to be observed in 
 Canaan, he had waited until the boundary of the land, the 
 Jordan, was about to be crossed, before he announced them to 
 the people. This is how the author represents the case, although 
 he is acquainted with and uses the Book of the Covenant. But, 
 as we have already observed, § that book had not yet any force 
 as law in Judah about 620 years B.C. It could therefore be 
 regarded as non-existent. And by so doing, the author acquires 
 the right to include in his own legislation the matters which 
 have already been handled there. 
 
 We are even more struck by the tone which the Deuterono- 
 mist adopts, than by the fitness of the plan. It is true he has 
 been accused, not without reason, of diflfuseness and monotony. 
 If, however, as justice demands, we leave out of consideration 
 Deut. i. — iv. and xxix. xxx., which are later additions, even 
 though they be from his own hand, there are but few repeti- 
 tions left, and those few are decidedly not prejudicial. On the 
 contrary, they testify to the zeal and conscientiousness with 
 which the author writes. It is as if he were afraid of saying 
 too little, and again and again resumes the thread of the ex- 
 hortation, in order, if possible, still to win some. His exhorta- 
 tions breathe a spirit of fervour and love which is very affecting. 
 
 * Deut. rsxix. 1 (see above, p. 16, n. J). t Deut. v. 6—21. 
 
 t Deut. V. 31. § Page 8. 
 
22 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO TEE 
 
 His pathos is the natural expression of a warm heart. We read 
 of Josiah, that upon hearing the threats in Hilkiah's book of 
 the law, he rent his clothes.* And, indeed, when we read Deut. 
 xxviii. we are not surprised that it made so deep an impres- 
 sion upon him. But the tenderness, the unction, with which 
 the Deuteronomist adjures his readers to choose Jahveh's blessing 
 and not his curse, touches us more than these expatiations upon 
 God's anger and judgments. 
 
 In the meantime, we cannot be edified by the tone which the 
 author adopts, unless we perceive that it is genuine and har- 
 monizes with the conviction which it expresses. What are the 
 ideas which the Deuteronomist both entertains himself and 
 wishes to impress upon others ? 
 
 He is a servant of Jahveh. Jahveh is " the God of gods and 
 Lord of lords." + To him belong the heaven and the heaven of 
 heavens, the earth and all that is thereon. J He is the only 
 God : "Hear, Israel, Jahveh our God, Jahveh is one !"§ This 
 Jahveh has chosen Israel. He has given the other nations the 
 sun, moon and stars to adore ;|1 he has reserved Israel to him- 
 self For this privilege the Israelites have to thank, not their 
 numbers^ — on the contrary, they are one of the least of nations ;^ 
 nor their righteousness — for they are a stiff-necked and stubborn 
 people ;** but Jahveh's love-f-f- and the faithfulness with which, 
 in spite of the people's errors, he has kept the promise sworn to 
 their fathers. j+ Jahveh has delivered the children of Israel 
 out of Egypt, the house of bondage ; during the 40 years of the 
 journey in the desert he has provided for all their wants with 
 tender care ; if he has withheld aught from them or subjected 
 
 * 2 Kings xxii. 11. + Deut. x. 17. 
 
 X Deut. X. 14. § Deut. yi. 4, comp. iv. 35, 39, xxxli. 39. 
 
 II Deut. iv. 19, xxix. 16, comp. xxxii. 8, and also de Goeje, in Theol. Tijdschrift, 
 ii. 179 seq. 
 
 IT Deut. vii. 6, 7, comp. vii. 1, ix. 1, xi. 23, iv. 38. 
 
 ** Deut. ix. 4 seq. tt Deut. vii. 8, 13, x. 16, xxiii. 6. 
 
 $J See Deut. vi. 10, 18, 23, and the other numerous passages where the covenant 
 with the fathers is mentioned. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 23 
 
 them to privations, even in this his wisdom and love have been 
 revealed : " As a man chasteneth his son, so Jahveh thy God 
 chasteneth thee." * It speaks for itself, that the Israelite may 
 not and cannot be indifferent to such great love ; he must " love 
 Jahveh with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his 
 might," -f- and cleave to him.j The observance of Jahveh's com- 
 mandments is inseparable from this love and adherence, yet it is 
 not coincident with it, but results from it naturally and of itself 
 as it were. All depends upon the state of the heart : the inward, 
 and not the outward, circumcision is the main thing. § In a 
 word, religion, to the Deuteronomist, is above aU a matter of the 
 heart. 
 
 The author's conviction as to the false gods and their service 
 is the reverse side of these ideas concerning Jahveh and his 
 relation to Israel. We have already remarked that he regards 
 the worship of the heavenly bodies by the heathen as an arrange- 
 ment of Jahveh himself, and therefore is not hard upon them for 
 it, although he more than once lays special stress upon the use- 
 lessness of image-worship, the adoration of "wood and stone." || 
 So much the more exacting is he in his demand that the Israelite 
 may have no sort of intercourse with idolatry. IT He founds two 
 series of precepts upon this principle. In the first place, he 
 requires that every Israelite who follows after other gods than 
 Jahveh shall be stoned.** He considers him or her especially 
 guilty of death who, in whatever way it may have been, has 
 tempted others into idolatry.-f~f- Even though it be a whole 
 city that has sinned by serving strange gods, it may not be 
 spared. "Thou shalt smite the inhabitants of that city" — he 
 saysJI — " with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying it, and 
 
 * Deut. viii. 3—5. 
 
 t Dent. vi. 5, x. 12, xi. 1, 13, 22, xiii. 4, xix. 9, comp. xxx. 6, 16, 20. 
 
 J Deut. i. 20, xi. 22, xiii. 5, comp. iv. i, xxx. 20. 
 
 § Deut. X. 16, comp. xxx. 6. 
 
 II Deut. iv. 28, xxviii. 36, 64, xxix. 17. 
 
 IT Deut. iv. 23 seq., and elsewhere. ** Deut. xvii. 2 — 7. 
 
 +t Deut. xiii. 1—6, 7—12, xvui. 20—22. K Deut. xiii. 12—18. 
 
24 TSE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 all that therein is, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the 
 sword. All the goods of it shalt thou gather together in the 
 midst of the market-place thereof, and thou shalt burn with fire 
 the city and all the goods thereof as a bumt-ofifering to Jahveh 
 thy god ; and it shall be a sepulchral mound for ever and shall 
 not be built up again." In the second place, he insists that the 
 inhabitants of the land of Canaan shall be utterly destroyed 
 (made chm-em). This inhuman precept, which the Deuteronomist 
 repeats again and again,* has no other motive than the fear of 
 the seductive influence of the Canaanitish worship. He says 
 this himself in so many words : when Israel summons a city in 
 a foreign land and it surrenders, all its citizens shall be made 
 slaves ; if it offers resistance and is conquered, then all its male 
 inhabitants must be killed, and the women, children and pro- 
 perty fall into the hands of the conqueror ; but " of the cities of 
 the people which Jahveh thy god doth give thee for an inherit- 
 ance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, for thou shalt 
 surely make them cherem, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, 
 the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as Jahveh thy God 
 hath commanded thee ; that they teach thee not to do after all 
 their abominations, which they have done for their gods, and 
 thou sin against Jahveh thy god."-f- As if to show that this 
 commandment is not prompted by bloodthirstiness or cruelty, 
 the author immediately adds, that if a foreign city is besieged a 
 long time, the fruit trees are not to be cut down ! | This is truly 
 a proof that it is only the fear of Israel's pollution by idolatry 
 that leads him to pen such inhuman rules. Let it not be for- 
 gotten, moreover, that the Canaanitish tribes had no longer any 
 substantive existence in the 7th century B.C., and that it was no 
 longer possible to exterminate them ; in reality, therefore, it is 
 merely by the supposition of the ban to be enforced against 
 them, that the author attempts to deter the Israelites from 
 idolatry. 
 
 * Dent. vii. 2, 16, and elsewhere. t Dent. xx. 10 — 18. 
 
 t Dent. XX. 19, 20. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN oB& B.C. 25 
 
 Prom the avoidance of idolatry and of all that resemhles it, 
 it naturally follows that nothing which belongs to the service 
 of false gods may be included in the worship of Jahveh. " Ye 
 shall not do so" — after the manner of the Canaanites — "in 
 honour of Jahveh your god :" this prohibition the Deuteronomist 
 places in the foreground,* and he lays down his precepts con- 
 cerning the service of Jahveh in conformity with it. I will give 
 here a cursory review of his principal rules. I need scarcely 
 say that he does not allow any similitude of Jahveh. The " ten 
 words," as he gives them, expressly forbid the making of a 
 graven image of any form whatever.-f- If we remember when 
 and for whom he wrote, we are not surprised that he attaches 
 great significance to this prohibition, and does all he can to 
 promote its observance. \ But still more emphasis is laid upon 
 the limitation of the worship of Jahveh, with sacrifices, feasts, 
 &c., to the temple at Jerusalem, " the place which Jahveh shall 
 choose to cause his name to dwell there." It is the custom of 
 the Canaanites to biiild altars to their gods everywhere, " upon 
 the high mountains and upon the hills and under every green 
 tree :" this the Israelites are not to do ; they are to bring their 
 offerings to that one spot. § It is also worthy of notice, that the 
 author, in laying down this commandment for the first time, 
 clearly intimates that it is a new one, and, while he seems to be 
 describing the Mosaic times, is really sketching his own. " Ye 
 shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every 
 man whatsoever is right in his own eyes ; for ye are not as yet 
 come to the rest and to the inheritance which Jahveh your god 
 giveth you." II It is unnecessary here to analyze any more of 
 the constantly recurring exhortations to be faithful to the one 
 sanctuary IT — admonitions against "the high places" one might 
 call them : nothing can be more obvious than that in them the 
 Deuteronomist gives utterance to one of his principal ideas. To 
 
 *Deut. xu. 4, 30, 31. + Deut. v. 8. t Deut. iv. 12, 15—18, &c. 
 
 § Dent. xii. 2—7. || Deut. xii. 8, 9. 
 
 ir Deut. xii. 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26, xiv. 23—25, xv. 20, xvi. 2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 
 xvii. 8, 10, xviii. 6, xxvi. 2, comp. xxxi. 11. 
 
26 THE HELIOION of ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 the one temple corresponds in his estimation the one tribe of 
 priests. The priests of the tribe of Levi are the only ones whom 
 he recognizes as lawful and as chosen by Jahveh.* Every 
 Le^ite is not a priest, but he is qualified by birth to become one. 
 If, therefore, he leaves the city where he sojourns as a stranger, 
 and goes to Jerusalem and presents himself at the temple, "he 
 shall minister in the name of Jahveh his god, as all his brethren 
 the Levites do, which stand there before the face of Jahveh." i" 
 Before they have presented themselves, the position of the 
 Levites, who are not connected with the temple, is far from 
 enviable. Their tribe has no inheritance of its own, as have aU 
 the rest of the tribes : " Jahveh is its inheritance ;" the Levite 
 lives upon the offerings made to Jahveh. Consequently, the 
 Levites, scattered throughout the cities of Judah, are in very 
 needy circumstances, and receive their share of the tithes in the 
 third year, and of the sacrificial feasts, together with the widows 
 and orphans, or are recommended generally to the charity of the 
 Israelites.! The ministering Levitical priests, on the contrary, 
 have their fixed dues, which are probably given by the Deutero- 
 nomist as they existed in his time.§ Compared with what was 
 claimed at a later period, after the exile, the Deuteronomist's 
 demands are very moderate : whereas at that time the tithes of 
 fruits and cattle were assigned to the Levites, he speaks of the 
 former as destined for another purpose, and is altogether silent 
 regarding the latter. || Other discrepancies also occur, upon which 
 we shall fix our attention in a subsequent chapter.H Yet in 
 spite of all this, the priests stand very high in his estimation — 
 not only as servants of Jahveh, competent to bless in his name,** 
 
 * Dent. X. 8, 9, iviii. 1 seq. + Bent, xviii. 6, 7. 
 
 t Deut. xii. 19, xiy. 27, 29, xvi. 11, 14, xxvi. 11 et seq. 
 
 § Deut. xviii. 3, 4. 
 
 II With regard to the tithes of the fruits of the field, see Deut. xii. 6, 17 19, 
 
 xiv. 22 — 27, XV. 19 — 23 : they are used at Jerusalem by the Israelite in sacrificial 
 feasts. With regard to the same tithes in every third year, see Deut. xiv. 28 29 
 xxvi. 12, 15 : they are given to the needy and the Levites. No mention is made in 
 Deut. of the tithes of cattle. Comp. on the contrary, Num. xviii. 21 — 32. 
 
 H Viz. in treating of the more recent sacerdotal laws. ** Deut. x. 8. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 27 
 
 but also as members of the supreme court of justice at Jerusalem, 
 whose decisions every Israelite was bound to respect and obey.* 
 It was not part of the Deuteronomist's plan to regulate the 
 duties and occupations of the priests more minutely. He enters 
 upon the holy rites and seasons only so far as is necessary to 
 instruct every Israelite in what he has to do. He especially 
 insists that every one shall offer up his sacrifices in the temple 
 at Jerusalem, and that the sacrificial meals shall be held there.-j- 
 This applies also to the annual feasts held in honour of Jahveh. 
 He knows of three such : the feast of unleavened bread {mazzotli), 
 that of weeks, and that of tabernacles ;+ he gives his directions 
 for each one in particular. § The first-mentioned feast begins 
 with the killing and eating of the passover; sheep and oxen, 
 presumably the unpolluted male first-born of these animals, 
 which were put aside for or dedicated to Jahveh,|| were used for 
 this purpose ; the meal of the passover, like the eating of unlea- 
 vened bread for seven consecutive days, served as a memorial of 
 the exodus from Egypt. 1" The feast of weeks, at which, no 
 doubt, the first-fruits of the grain-harvest were given to the 
 priests,** was also kept by free-will offerings, which were used 
 in social repasts in the sanctuary. -f-f- And finally the feast of 
 tabernacles — no further explanation is given of the meaning of 
 this name — after the conclusion of the vintage, is the great 
 joyous festival at which the people thank Jahveh for the bless- 
 ing received from him.J| It will be observed that the Deutero- 
 nomist enters into some detaU only with respect to the feast of 
 unleavened bread ; his regulations concerning it may be partly 
 new ; he evidently leaves the two other feasts as they were — 
 always with this one exception, that the "appearing before 
 Jahveh's face"§§ is always synonymous in his writings with 
 
 * Deut. xvii. 8—13. t Deut. xii. 26, 27, xiv. 22 eeq., xv. 19 seq. 
 
 % Deut. xvi. 16, 17. § Dent. xti. 1—15. 
 
 II Deut. XV. 19—21. H Deut. xvi. 1—8. 
 
 ** Deut. xviii. 4, xxvi. 1 — 11. ++ Deut. xvi. 9 — 12. 
 
 Xt Deut. xvi. 13—15. §§ Exod. xxili. 17, xxxiv. 23. 
 
28 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 " the going up unto the place which Jahveh shall choose."* Of 
 the great day of atonement, and of the new moon, and especially 
 that of the seventh month, the Deuteronomist makes no men- 
 tion at all : the significance of this silence, however, cannot be 
 shown just yet. 
 
 Before we review the rest of our author's regulations, let us 
 pause a moment to make a general observation suggested by his 
 laws relating to the public worship of Jahveh. We can compare 
 some of them with the practices of earlier times. An unmistak- 
 able difference is then brought to light. But we are still more 
 struck with the close connection between his precepts and those 
 already existing, with the regular development of the older laws 
 or customs in conformity with the principles upon which they 
 were founded. He simply goes a few steps further in the direc- 
 tion which had already been taken before his time. Thus, e.g., 
 in his regulations as to the priests : it may be asserted without 
 exaggeration, that the exclusive competency of the Levites to 
 minister at sacrifices had been in preparation ever since the 
 days of Solomon,-)- and that the Deuteronomist, ia annouucing 
 it, followed the logic of facts, j The same is true of the limita- 
 tion of public worship to the temple at Jerusalem, for it had 
 already been attempted by Hezekiah, before the Deuteronomist 
 made it a law. Thus it may be said to be probable that the 
 feast-legislation of Deuteronomy also stands in the same relation 
 to the practices and rules of that day, which we can gather, in 
 some measure, from the Book of the Covenant§ and a few other 
 laws, II but yet do not know accurately enough to speak of them 
 with absolute certainty. The three high -priests, already pre- 
 scribed in the Book of the Covenant, had become so thoroughly 
 ratified by custom about 620 B.C., that the Deuteronomist could 
 retain them, and could consider himself absolved from the duty 
 of giving express reasons for their celebration. Hence it follows 
 
 * Deut. xvi. 16. + y„l i. p 333 ^^^ 
 
 t Comp. Vol. I. p. 386 seq. § Exod. xxiii. 14-17. 
 
 II Exod. xiii. (1, 2) 3—10 (11—16), xxxiv. 18—23. 
 
FALL OF JERVSALEM IN 586 E.G. 29 
 
 that Jahveh was regarded at that time as the Lord of nature, 
 the giver of harvest, and the source of fertility, not only by 
 the prophets — we knew that before — but also by the priests 
 and by the people who visited the temple, or the high places. 
 But our attention is particularly attracted by the deuteronomic 
 law concerning the feast of unleavened bread* This feast — 
 probably at variance with its original meaning-f — had already 
 been connected in earlier times with Israel's exodus from Egypt, 
 in the same month of Abib, in which the feast was celebrated. J 
 This explanation is quite in the spirit of Deuteronomy, where 
 an attempt is even made to attach an historical association also 
 to "the feast of weeks," or "of the first-fruits." § Therefore the 
 author adopts it, and even gives it prominenee.|l But, at the 
 same time, he goes further in the same direction than any of his 
 predecessors. While they had already connected the dedication 
 of the first-born of man and beast to Jahveh — not with Jahveh's 
 being, but — with the death of the first-born of the Egyptians, IT 
 the Deuteronomist unites the passover with the feast of unlea- 
 vened bread, i.e. he orders that the male first-born of oxen and 
 sheep shall be slaughtered and eaten at that feast as a thank- 
 offering.** By this combination he promotes, as forcibly as 
 possible, the historical interpretation of the two practices, which, 
 indeed, was quite in harmony with the direction in which the 
 idea of Jahveh had long been developing itself: the more 
 spiritually it was conceived, the more natural did it become to 
 connect incidents in the history of Israel with the ceremonies 
 which ill reality were connected with Jahveh's attributes as a 
 nature-god. But another remarkable phenomenon presents itself 
 
 * Dent. xvi. 1—8. 
 
 t Comp. on this point, and on tie whole of this subject, Note III. at the end of 
 this Chapter. 
 
 + Exod. xiii. 3 — 10, xxiii. 15, xxxiv. 18. 
 
 § Deut. xvi. 12 : "And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondsman in Egypt, 
 and thou shalt observe and do these statutes." 
 
 II Deut. xvi. 1, 3, 6. In v. 3, the unleavened bread is called " bread of affliction." 
 t Exod. xiii. 11—16. ** See above, p. 27. u. || and H. 
 
30 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 here. WMle the Deuteronomist, in the first place, makes no 
 mention at all of the dedication of the first-bom sotis* (and the 
 first-born oi unclean animals) f to Jahveh, he speaks somewhat 
 ambiguously, iq the second place, of the sacrifice of the passover. 
 He cannot conceal the fact that this sacrifice was killed and 
 eaten on the evening of the first day of unleavened bread 4 this 
 must have long been customary in his day. But, at the same 
 time, he transfers the name of passover to all the sacrifices of 
 oxen and sheep which were offered up during the seven days of 
 the feast. § It is as if he made a point of rendering the sacrifice 
 of the first day a subordinate part of a larger whole, and thus 
 of diminishing in some measure its significance. May not the 
 one be connected with the other ? The Deuteronomist lived at 
 a time when the sacrifice of the first-bom to ]Molech was very 
 common: II does he, perhaps, think it safer for this reason to 
 say nothing about the dedication of the first-born to Jahveh, 
 and to place in the shade this point of resemblance between 
 the service of Molech and the worship of Jahveh ? Did he see 
 no opportunity as yet of explaining the sacrifice on the first day 
 of the unleavened bread so as to make it agree entirely with the 
 spiritual interpretation of Jahveh's being, as the author of the 
 law in Exod. xii. did after him ? It is not in our power to 
 answer these questions with complete certainty. But it seems 
 to me that the obscurity which remains here, confirms and 
 recommends the hypotheses already advanced as to the original 
 meaning of these practices. IT 
 
 We will return to the precepts of the Deuteronomist. Par- 
 ticipation in the public worship of Jahveh, according to him, is 
 only one of the characteristics of the servant of Jahveh. As 
 one of Jahveh's people he is called to purity. That which the 
 author prescribes in this respect is evidently borrowed largely 
 
 * Comp. Exod. xxii. 29 b, xiii. 2, 11 — 16, xxxIt. 20 b. 
 
 + Comp. Exod. xiii. 13, xxxiv. 20 a. J Exod. x-ri. 4, 6, 7. 
 
 § Deut. xvi. 1-3. II Vol. I. pp. 251, 377; Vol. II. p. 3. 
 
 TI See, further, Note III. at the end of this Chapter. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.O. 31 
 
 from custom. He expresses the principle in these words : " Ye 
 
 are the children of Jahveh your God ; ye are a people 
 
 sacred unto Jahveh your God ; for Jahveh hath chosen you to 
 be a peculiar people unto himself out of all the nations that are 
 upon the earth."* For these reasons, then, Israel must abstain 
 from " every abomination ;" first of all from eating the flesh of 
 animals which are looked upon as unclean,"!- o"^ ^^ ^^ animal 
 that has died a natural death. | That this prohibition has a 
 religious foundation is evident from what is added : " thou shalt 
 give the thing that dieth of itself to the stranger that is in thy 
 gates (has settled among you), that he may eat it; or thou 
 mayest sell it to an alien, for thou art an holy people unto 
 Jahveh thy God."§ Unless I be mistaken, the Deuteronomist 
 gives us a piece of priestly thorah\\ in this regulation. It has 
 been remarked that his law concerning clean and unclean is 
 incomplete compared with that in the book of Leviticus, IT and 
 yet agrees with it in language and manner; it is therefore 
 inferred that he had this law in Leviticus before him, and bor- 
 rowed from it what seemed to him most important. Another 
 view, however, is more probable. It was not the intention of 
 the Deuteronomist to include the priestly thorah in his book ; 
 those who wish to know more of it he refers to the priests 
 themselves.** But with regard to the clean and unclean 
 animals he makes an exception, because his law, intended for 
 the people, would have been too incomplete, had it embraced no 
 rules on this subject, which constantly presented itself in daily 
 life. Now it is most natural that he should give these precepts 
 relating to clean and unclean in the language of the priests, who 
 had established them, and that the younger sacerdotal law 
 should be more copious than his and yet should resemble his in 
 form. This intepretation, at the same time, throws some light 
 upon the peculiar character of these regulations as to cleanness. 
 
 t Deut. xiv. 1, 2, comp. vii. 6. + Deut. xiv. 3 — 20. 
 
 J Deut. xiv. 21 a. § Deut. xiv. 21 b. 
 
 II Comp. Vol. I. pp. 340 seq. t Chap. xi. 
 ** Deut. xxiv. 8. 
 
32 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 The reason why men abstained from some sorts of food, was 
 originally no other than this, that they excited repugnance or 
 disgust and suggested the idea of uncleanness. The customs 
 born of this naturally became connected with religion, and in 
 such a manner that abstinence from all that was unclean came 
 to be regarded as the characteristic of the people of Jahveh, as 
 a sign of its "holiness'' or dedication to Jahveh. But these 
 customs would have lacked all stability, and would not have 
 developed into a perfect system, if the people had been left to 
 themselves in this particular. The priests took this matter into 
 their own hands, and charged themselves with its regulation. 
 We can gather from Deut. xiv. 1 — 21, how far they had com- 
 pleted this their task in the second half of the 7th century b. c* 
 There are other precepts also in Deuteronomy which must be 
 regarded from this point of view of "holiness." This is the 
 case with the prohibition to disfigure the face while mourning 
 for the dead ;-|- the regulation that men may not put on women's 
 clothes, and vice versd,;X the prohibition to unite things of 
 different sorts in clothing or in agriculture. § The customs con- 
 demned here existed among other nations and probably belonged 
 to their religious practices : the people of Jahveh must avoid 
 them and thus distinguish itself from the rest of the nations. 
 The Israelites must also take care of the cleanness of the land : 
 when the land has been defiled by the blood of a man who has 
 been slain, it is to be purified ;|| the corpse suspended upon a 
 cross is to be taken down and buried before the evenins. IT 
 
 But the Israelitish lawgiver does not confine himself to sub- 
 jects of this nature. He also regulates the political, civil and 
 domestic life and the moral life in general. The Israelite 
 knows as little of what we call the separation of chui-ch and 
 state as of a separation between religion and daily life. It 
 does not surprise us, therefore, that the Deuteronomist also in- 
 
 ' Comp. also Note IV. at the end of this Chapter. + Deut. xiv. 1 b. 
 
 X Deut. xxii. 5. § Deut. xxii. 9—11. || Deut. xxi. 1—9. 
 
 U Deut. xxi. 22, 23. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 33 
 
 eludes in his writing a number of regulations that have nothing 
 to do with religious duties in their stricter sense. We must 
 pay attention here to these regulations as well. In the mean- 
 time we can confine ourselves to the main points more than we 
 could before, even were it for the simple reason that the Deu- 
 teronomist is less original in this portion of his work than in 
 the laws concerning religious worship. Some commandments 
 he takes unaltered from former collections of laws and especially 
 from the Book of the Covenant, and perhaps also from another 
 collection which he has before him, especially in chapters xxi. — 
 XXV. ; others he merely enlarges to a certain extent, either work- 
 ing them out in fuller detail or assigning reasons for them ; * 
 others again simply confirm existing customs and practices. 
 The following are those which seem to me to be most note- 
 worthy. 
 
 In the seventh century B.C. the kingly office had already 
 existed for a long time. The Deuteronomist does not allow 
 himself to be hindered by the plan which he has chosen from 
 stating his ideas on this subject. -f The king — he says — must 
 be an Israelite ; he is to guard against the trade in horses with 
 Egypt, for fear that too intimate an intercourse with that land 
 may result in Israel's return thither ; he is not to take many 
 wives, lest his heart turn away ; he is not to multiply his gold 
 and silver too much ; he is to cause the priests to give him a 
 copy of "this law" (Hilkiah's book of the law), and is to read 
 in it constantly, in order thus to know and accomplish Jahveh's 
 win. More than one feature in this law is most remarkable. 
 The author shows here, at once, that he either belongs himself 
 to " the priests the sons of Levi," or intends to trust his book of 
 the law to their custody. | But no less striking is the author's 
 aversion from Solomon, which is plainly visible here. The warn- 
 
 * Comp. e.g. Exod. xxi. 2 — 11 with Deut. xy. 12 — 18; Exod. xxiii. 6, 8, with 
 Deut. xvi. 18 — 20. In Deut. xxi. — xxv. the enlarging hand of the Deuteronomist 
 himself is clearly visible, chap. xxi. 21, 22 sq., xxii. 3, 6 b, 21b, 22 b, 24 b, xxiii. 
 i, 5, 17, 21, xxiv. 7, 8, 9, 22, xxv. 12. 
 
 + Deut. xvii. 14 — 20. t Comp. Deut. xxxL 9 and 10 — 13. 
 
 VOL. II. D 
 
34 TBE RELiaiON OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 ings against trade with Egypt, polygamy and great riches, are 
 borrowed from the tradition concerning the wise king, and are 
 directed against the errors into which he fell The isolation 
 which Israel would have to endure in order to realize the ideal 
 of the Deuteronomist, was indeed diametrically and irreconcil- 
 ably opposed to the principles of Solomon's government.* 
 
 Another power in the IsraeUtish state was prophecy. The 
 Deuteronomist's observations and directions regarding it are 
 worthy of attention. How highly he estimates the prophets, 
 is plainly evident from the weU-known chapter in which he 
 compares them with the soothsayers of the heathen, and shows 
 their superiority.-f- He insists strongly upon Israel's obligation 
 to listen to the prophets whom Jahveh shall send. Should a 
 prophet dare to utter in Jahveh's name words which the latter 
 has not put in his mouth, or to prophesy in the name of other 
 gods, he forfeits his life. But — the Deuteronomist makes his 
 readers ask — how can we teU that the prophet's words are not 
 inspired by Jahveh ? If — runs the answer — ^they are not con- 
 firmed by the result, they are not the words of Jahveh. But it 
 by no means escapes his notice, that this rule cannot be applied 
 conversely. It is on this account that it is said elsewhere, J 
 that the prophet or dreamer whose sign comes to pass, must be 
 regarded as a false prophet and put to death, if he attempts 
 to lead his fellow-citizens into idolatry. Fidelity to Jahveh 
 and his service is thus the positive characteristic of Jahveh's 
 envoy. 
 
 More than one precept refers to the administration of justice. 
 In imitation of earlier lawgivers, the Deuteronomist urges impar- 
 tiality in judgment.§ He desires that there shall be judges in 
 every city,|| and proceeds elsewhere from the supposition that 
 the " elders of the city" discharge that officalT A high court of 
 
 * Comp. atove, Vol. I. pp. 841 seq. 
 
 t Deut. xviii. 9 — 22 ; comp. Vol. I. pp. 211 seq. J Dent. xiii. 2 — 9. 
 
 § Deut. xvi. 19, 20 (i. 17, a. 17); comp. Exod. xxiii. 6—8. || Deut. xvi. 18. 
 H Dent. xix. 12, xxi. 2, 3, 6, 20, 21, xxii. 16, 16, 18, xxv. 7—9. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 35 
 
 justice sits at Jerusalem, composed chiefly of priests ; it was, as 
 we learn from another source,* instituted by Jehoshaphat ; the 
 Deuteronomist earnestly exhorts the people to submit to the 
 decisions of this court, f We need not consider here his special 
 precepts with respect to the punishment of this or that crime. 
 But our attention is strongly attracted by the general rule 
 which he lays down: "the fathers shall not be put to death 
 with the children, nor the children with the fathers : every man 
 shall be put to death for his own sins.":]: It is historically 
 certain that originally other principles were in force in Israel. 
 We read more than once of a punishment executed upon the 
 children for the evil committed by their father. § Compared 
 with this earlier practice, the precept of the Deuteronomist is a 
 sign of great progress. Does it originate from him ? Was he 
 the first who endeavoured to bring the administration of justice 
 into harmony with the more humane principles which had 
 gradually penetrated into the life of the nation ? We think this 
 probable, when we observe that his conception of Jahveh's puni- 
 tive justice also differs from that of his predecessors. It is true 
 that he lets stand in "the ten words" the threat: " Jahveh thy 
 God is a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon 
 the children, and upon the third and fourth generation of them 
 that hate him." || But when he gives his own ideas on this subject, 
 he says : " Jahveh repayeth them that hate him to their face, 
 destroying them : he giveth him that hateth him no respite ; he 
 repayeth him to his face"ir — without mentioning any judgment 
 against the children. There is an indubitable connection between 
 this modified interpretation of Jahveh's justice and the prohibition 
 to punish the innocent with the guilty. We are the more ready 
 to ascribe them both to the Deuteronomist, or, at all events, to 
 the time in which he lived,** since it also appears from other 
 
 * 2 Ohr. xix. 8—11. t Deut. xvii. 8—13. J Deut. xxiir. 16. 
 
 § Num. xvi. 26 seq. ; Josh. vii. 1i, 25; 2 Sam. xxi. 1 — 14. 
 II Deut. V. 9. IT Deut. vii. 10. 
 
 ** Amaziah confined himself to punishing his father's murderers, and spared their 
 
 D 2 
 
36 TEE EELIOION OF ISRAEL TO TEE 
 
 sources,* that then and shortly afterwards many began to oppose 
 the common conception of Jahveh's justice. It is evident that 
 men first of all mitigated the human administration of justice, 
 and then pictured to themselves Jahveh in their own like- 
 ness.-)- 
 
 The spirit of equity and clemency which marks the precept 
 of the Deuteronomist of which we have just treated, is also 
 visible in some of his other regulations. Observe, e.g., how he 
 modifies and extends | the older law concerning the release of 
 the Hebrew male and female slaves after six years of service. § 
 Eead also his commandments and exhortations in reference to 
 "tbe year of release." || It was decreed in the Book of the 
 Covenant, that the land should not be cultivated in the seventh 
 year, and that all that grew in that year, as well as the fruit of 
 the vine and olive-tree, should be left for the poor. IT The 
 Pentateuch itself testifies that this precept was not observed 
 before the exile.** The Deuteronomist, too, does not repeat it, 
 probably because he despairs of its performance. But he pre- 
 scribes that in the seventh year debts shall not be demanded, 
 and at the same time exhorts the people, in spite of this, to lend 
 the needy all that he requires, even upon the approach of " the 
 year of release." His legislation bears witness, in general, to 
 concern for the lot of the poor, the fatherless and the widow, 
 whom he recommends as urgently as possible to the charity of 
 those of larger means.f •)- The way in which he excites the 
 Israelites to humanity towards their male and female slaves, by 
 
 children (2 Kings xir. 5, 6), but that he acted thus upon the strength of the law, is 
 an opinion which is only guaranteed by the historian who utters it. 
 
 * Jer. xxxi. 29, 30 ; Ezek. xviii. 1 seq. ; oomp. below, in reference to the book 
 of Job. 
 
 t Comp. Deut. x. 17 with xvi. 19, 20, i. 17. + Deut xv. 12—18. 
 
 § Exod. xxi. 2—6. || Deut. xv. 1—6, 7—11, comp. xxxi. 10—12. 
 
 H Exod. xxiii. 10, 11. ** Lev. xxTi. 34, 35, 43; comp. 2 Chr. xxxvi. 21. 
 
 +t Deut. xiv. 29, xvi. 11, 14. Comp. also Deut. xxiii. 15, 16 (the runaway slave 
 not to be given up), 19, 20 (comp. Exod. xxii. 25, usury forbidden), xxIt. 6, 10—13 
 (comp. Exod. xxii. 26, 27, concerning taking in pledge), 14, 15 (care for the day- 
 labourer), 17, 1? (justice to the lowly), 19—22 (liberality towards them). 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 37 
 
 reminding them of the bondage in Egypt,* is truly touching.' 
 His solicitude extends even to dumb animals."^ 
 
 It will be observed that in these precepts the Deuteronomist 
 gradually passes from the domain of legislation to that of ethics. 
 He gives some further commandments which are really exhorta^ 
 tions, and the breaking of which certainly was not punished. 
 Some of his regulations seem to be even impracticable, J so that 
 one involuntarily asks whether they are not merely intended 
 either to deter the reader from this or that sin, or to present an 
 idea in a conspicuous form. We have already remarked that 
 the proscription of the Canaanites§ must be considered from 
 this point of view, so that it cannot surprise us if we meet with 
 other precepts of the same nature. The origin, too, of the 
 Deuteronomic legislation readily explains this somewhat double 
 character. As we pointed out before, || it was compiled with a 
 view to its practical adoption. But yet it was not the work of 
 a practical statesman, who in drawing up his laws always makes 
 the question of their practicability the main point. Their 
 author was a prophet or a priest, perhaps both. His first aim 
 was to express his notions of Jahveh and the Jahveh- worship in 
 such a way that they would meet with acceptance. Therefore 
 we should form a wrong idea of his writing if we went on 
 enumerating his particular ordinances, and thus received the 
 impression that these were his principal object. No, the very 
 arrangement of his book reminds us that by so doing we should 
 mistake his intention. As he begins with earnest and pressing 
 exhortations,ir so he ends with promises and threats. Even 
 the formularies that he recommends** — for it is nothing more 
 than a recommendation, and not really a commandment — for 
 the use of the Israelites who have dedicated their first-fruits 
 
 * Deut. T. It (oomp. Exod. xxiii. 12); also v. 15, xv. 15, xvi. 12, xxiv. 18, 22. 
 t Deut. xxii. 6, 7, xxv. 4. 
 
 X See the law of war, Deut. xx. ; also the precepts, Deut. xxi. 18 — 21, xxii. 13' — 21, 
 xxiii. 10 — 15, xxiv. 5. 
 
 § P. 24. II P. 19 seq. 
 
 IT Deut. v.— xi. ** Deut. xxvi. 1—11, 12—15. 
 
38 TBE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 and tithes to Jahveh, have no other tendency than to cnltivate 
 in them sentiments becoming the pious servant of Jahveh, the 
 true Israelite. The exhaustive discourse which closed the book 
 in its original form,* is purely parenetic. The author himself 
 announces that his aim is not so much to retain or alter this or 
 that custom, as to win over his contemporaries to his interpre- 
 tation of Jahveh's relation to Israel, and of the duties which 
 result from it. It is true, when they have been moved by his 
 exhortations and warnings to adopt that interpretation, he 
 requires and expects them to maintain it, if need be with rigour 
 and by force, and not to allow apostasy to escape unpunished. 
 This results, naturally, from the identification of state and 
 church which we have already observed in him,"!- or in other 
 words from the theocratic character of his convictions. But as 
 Josiah begins his violent revolution by making the people 
 accept " the covenant" between Jahveh and Israel, so the com- 
 mand that the Israelite shall " love Jahveh his god with all his 
 heart, with all his soul, and with all his might,"J lies at the 
 basis of the deuteronomic legislation, and therefore the stimida- 
 tion of that love is the beginning and the end of the book in 
 which this legislation is contained. 
 
 Were history to teach us that with Josiah's reformation began 
 the period of subjection to the written law — the legal period — 
 we could not be surprised. The reformation started from the 
 book of the law found by HUkiah, and that book of the law 
 itself laid claim to unqualified authority and to Israel's uncon- 
 ditional submission to its precepts. "What thing soever I 
 command you, observe to do it : thou shalt not add thereto nor 
 diminish from it," are the words M'hich the Deuteronomist puts 
 into Moses' mouth. § If this command had been carried out, 
 men would have confined themselves thenceforward to the study 
 and the explication of the law, and would have considered its 
 
 * Deut. xxviii. + Pp. 32 seq. 
 
 + Deut. vi. 6. § Deut. xii. 32, comp. iv. 2. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 E.G. 89 
 
 further development superfluous, or even illegal. But this was 
 not the case. Nearly two centuries were yet to pass before the 
 legal period in the history of Israel's religion could commence. 
 Quite other matters than the calm exposition and application of 
 the book of the law found by Hilkiah were to occupy men's 
 minds. The sequel of this history will show us what they were. 
 First, however, we will once more glance at the book of the 
 law and its author. It has not been preserved to us in its 
 original form, as we have already remarked,* but has been 
 included in the Pentateuch. A not unimportant part of that 
 Pentateuch is of much later date than the Deuteronomic law, 
 and cannot have been united with it into one whole until after 
 the Babylonish exile. But the prophetic narratives concerning 
 the first men and their descendants and the patriarchal and 
 Mosaic times were in existence, and probably, as we have 
 seen, included "the ten words" and the Book of the Covenant. 
 The same prophetic narrators had also compiled the history of 
 Joshua. The new book of the law had not followed all these 
 accounts blindly, it is true, but yet it had adhered to them so 
 closely, that an attempt could be made to blend it with them. 
 Of course, we could not be sure that this took place .shortly 
 after Josiah's reformation, if the chapters that join the real book 
 of the law to the older narratives f did not so greatly resemble 
 that book itself, that we must actually ascribe them to one and 
 the same author. | We believe, therefore, that before long the 
 Deuteronomist again took his book in hand, and incorporated it 
 with the prophetic historical narratives of that day. He then 
 wrote the address which we now read in Deut. i. 1 — iv. 40, in 
 which the history of the journey in the desert is recapitulated 
 and made the ground of an exhortation to the people. For our 
 purpose, the conclusion of that discourse, Deut. iv. 1 seq., is of 
 special importance. All stress is there laid upon the superiority 
 
 * Pp. 15 seq. + Dent. i. — iv., xxxi. seq. 
 
 X Corap. W. H. Kosters, de Mstorie-lescJiouwvng van den Deuteronomist, met de 
 T^erichten in Qenesis-Nwmeri veryeleien, pp. 16 — 30. 
 
40. THE RELiaiON OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 of Jahveh's law to the practices of the heathen.* So earnest a 
 warning is given against likenesses of Jahveh,+ that we invo- 
 luntarily ask, whether the circumstances of the time did not 
 give rise to the renewed inculcation of the law that forbade 
 them. The final chapters of Deuteronomy were written upon 
 the same occasion, almost in their present form. Some things 
 occur in it that belong to the older prophetic narrative ;| the 
 two poems also, "the song" and "the blessing of Moses," § were 
 already in existence. But the Deuteronomist included all this 
 and added to it much from his own hand. Thus, among other 
 things, the hortatory discourse in Deut. xxix. xxx. was written 
 then, a counterpart to Deut. xxviii., but — perhaps, under the 
 influence of the disasters that befell Israel after the year 620 
 B.C. — of more sombre colouring. Most probably the Deutero- 
 nomist went still further and compiled the history of Joshua. 
 The narratives relating to the conquest || and the final address of 
 the aged leader IT are indeed founded on older documents, but 
 here and there show very plainly the hand of the Deuterono- 
 mist. Thus, among other things, the account of Joshua " utterly 
 destroying" the Canaanites,** according to Jahveh's command 
 to Moses, comes from him. The repeated assurance that the 
 Israelites, like their leader, faithfully kept Jahveh's command- 
 ments and were consequently blessed by him in all that they 
 undertook, -f-f- is also undoubtedly from his pen. Thus he kept 
 steadily in view the great end for which he had laboured, and 
 made the history of the previous centuries, as described by his 
 predecessors, also serviceable for the preaching of the great 
 truth that Israel's prosperity entirely depended upon its fidelity 
 to Jahveh. 
 
 But however important it may be to trace out the way in 
 
 * Deut. iv. 6 seq. + Deut. iv. 15 seq. 
 
 J Especially in Deut. xxxi. 14 seq. 
 
 § Deut. xxxii. 1 — 43, xxxiii. ; comp. Vol. I. pp. 378 seq. 
 II Josh. i. — xii. 1[ Josh, xxiii. xxiv. ■ 
 
 ** Josh. X. 28 seq., xi. 12 seq. 
 tt Josh. i. 3 seq., 6 seq., 17, 18, iii. 7, 10, iv. 14, v. 2 seq., ix, 14 b, xi. 15—20, &c. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 41 
 
 which the Mosaic party endeavoured to make use of literature 
 to promote the realization of their plans, we must now fix our 
 attention upon the wider and turbulent scene of political events. 
 For 13 years more Josiah occupied the throne of David (621 — 
 608 B. c). Scarcely a single fact has been handed down to us 
 from these years. But we venture to assert that it was a time 
 of excitement and strained expectation. Josiah had been able 
 to accomplish successfully his great undertaking, the purification 
 of Judah and Jerusalem. The joyous feast of the passover 
 with which it concluded, was followed by other festivals in 
 honour of Jahveh; the temple, which was now served by a 
 much more numerous priesthood than before, was faithfully 
 attended; the altars and shrines of the false gods had been 
 laid waste and remained so. Is it a wonder that the king and 
 those of his opinion felt sure of Jahveh's blessing, nay, looked 
 forward to fresh and unknown signs of his favour ? The pro- 
 mises of the book of the law were surely no less positive than 
 its threats ? Political circumstances seemed to encourage in 
 every way the expectation that Israel would again become 
 mighty and great. During the reign of Sennacherib, Hezekiah's 
 contemporary, the Assyrian empire had sustained some heavy 
 blows ; then the Modes, among others, had revolted, about the 
 year 710 B.C., and the great king at Nineveh had no.t succeeded 
 in subduing them again. On the contrary, about the middle 
 of the 7th century B.C., the Medes became dangerous to their 
 former masters. Shortly after Josiah had ascended the throne, 
 their king Cyaxares laid siege to Nineveh (634 B.C.). It is 
 true, he was obliged by the invasion of the Scythian hordes 
 to raise this siege,* but it was easy to foresee that he or his 
 successor would renew the attack. However that might be, the 
 Assyrian empire was much weakened, and the king could not 
 think of maintaining his power in the more distant provinces, 
 to which the former kingdom of the ten tribes also belonged. 
 It does not surprise us, therefore, to find Josiah appearing as 
 
 * See above, pp. 10 seq. 
 
42 THE RELiaiON OF ISRAEL TO TEE 
 
 a reformer in "the cities of Samaria" as well,* whether it 
 were as early as his 18th year, or — which is quite as probable — 
 subsequently. There was no one to prevent him from acting 
 there as lord and master, and, if he could rely upon the pro- 
 mises of Hilkiah's book of the law, it was Jahveh's intention, 
 now that Israel hearkened to his voice, to bring back the 
 glorious days of David. -f- 
 
 Let it not be imagined that we infer too much from the mere 
 account of Josiah's operations in Ephraim, and ascribe to him 
 designs which perhaps he never entertained. The last act of 
 his reign proves incontestably that we judge him rightly. In 
 the year 610 B.C. Mneveh was again besieged, this time by the 
 Medes and Babylonians in league together. In the same year 
 Psammetichus, king of Egypt, died and was succeeded by his 
 son Necho. If Psammetichus had already tried to enlarge his 
 kingdom at the expense of Assyria, Necho was not the man 
 to miss the golden opportunity that now presented itself: he 
 proposed to seize Syria and Palestine, the Assyrian provinces 
 that bordered on his own kingdom, and thus to obtain his 
 share of the spoU, even if he did not help to bring down the 
 giant. By the second year after his accession to the throne he 
 was on the march to Syria with a large army. Probably it 
 was transported by sea and landed at Acco, on the Mediterra- 
 nean, whence it was to proceed overland. But in carrying out 
 this plan he encountered an unexpected obstacle : Josiah went 
 to meet him with an army and attempted to prevent his march 
 to Syria. J 
 
 Josiah's motive for opposing Necho is obvious enough. He 
 could not look on with unconcern while the Egyptian king 
 extended his authority over Syria and northern Palestine. He 
 had everything to fear from such a neighbour. It could not be 
 long before he would also attempt to incorporate little Judah 
 
 * 2 Kings xxiii. 15 — 20; above, p. 13. 
 
 t Comp. also my paper, De dood van Josia, in Kieuw en Oud, New Series, 1866, 
 pp. 257—273. 
 
 i 2 Kings xxiii. 29 ; 2 Chr. xxxv. 20. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 E.G. 43 
 
 into his kingdom. In spite of this, Josiah's war against Necho 
 remains an iU-advised, nay, a senseless undertaking. He was 
 no match for mighty Egypt. Had he but endeavoured to form 
 an alliance with the kings of Syria ! But no, without any one's 
 help he tries to keep back Necho's army. We can only account 
 for this imprudent act by connecting it with the expectations 
 which had been raised by the new book of the law. Josiah 
 must have firmly believed that Jahveh would fight for his people 
 and defeat the Egyptian ruler. From what Jeremiah tells us of 
 the attitude of the prophets in the reigns of Jehoiakim and 
 Zedekiah, we must infer that many of them strengthened the 
 king in his intention not to endure an encroachment such as 
 that of the Pharaoh.* The Chronicler relates that N"echo him- 
 self endeavoured to dissuade Josiah from the unequal contest.-f- 
 But it was no good. The decisive battle was fought in the 
 valley of Megiddo : Judah was defeated ; Josiah perished. J 
 
 Josiah's death fiUed his subjects with bitter sorrow, which 
 showed itself in loud lamentations. § No wonder, indeed; for 
 those who were like-minded with Josiah could bear witness of 
 him: "like unto him was there no kiag before him, that had 
 turned to Jahveh with aU his heart, and with all his soul, and 
 with all his might, according to aU the law of Moses : neither 
 after him arose there any like him."|| Nor could his opponents 
 deny him the praise, that, true to his principles, he had acted 
 with vigour, had strengthened the kingdom, and had extended 
 Israel's power as far as in him lay. His death was therefore a 
 great, an irreparable loss. Besides this, the fact could not be 
 concealed, that after the defeat at Megiddo, a new Egyptian 
 slavery was imminent. But with many of the Israelites grief 
 at the loss of such a king and at the lot that awaited the father- 
 
 * See below on this subject. + 2 Chr. xxxt. 21. 
 
 X 2 Kings xxiii. 29, 30 ; 2 Chr. xxxv. 22—24. 
 § 2 Chr. xxxv. 24, 25 ; Zech. xii. 10 ; comp. Jer. xxii. 10, 11, 18. 
 II 2 Kings xxiii. 25. 
 
44 TBE BELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 land, was mingled with a still more bitter feeling of disappoint- 
 ment. How utterly different had been their ideal of the result 
 of Josiah's undertaking ! How suddenly and rudely were they 
 awoke, as from a fair dream ! Had Jahveh's arm been shortened, 
 then; or could his promises no longer be relied upon? Thus 
 doubt went hand in hand with sorrow, and Judah's dismay was 
 as deep as it was general. 
 
 It was in truth a difficult problem that the pious servant of 
 Jahveh had to solve in those days. His conception of Jahveh's 
 justice — we noticed it above* — required a perfect accord between 
 lot and life: prosperity was connected with the observance of 
 Jahveh's commandments, misfortune with resistance to him; 
 this indissoluble union revealed itself in the fate of the nation 
 as well as in that of the individual Israelite. "Whenever that 
 rule was departed from, or, as in this case, altogether subverted, 
 belief in Jahveh's justice was imperilled. But it was much too 
 deeply rooted to yield to one blow. By all sorts of ways men 
 sought to decide the dispute th^t arose, and so to interpret the 
 undeniable truth, that it should no longer contradict their faith. 
 During the years which elapsed between Josiah's death and the 
 fall of Jerusalem (608 to 586 B.C.), parties, or varieties of one 
 and the same party, actually formed themselves, which differed 
 from each other especially in the interpretation of Jahveh's 
 justice in connection with Israel's fortunes. We shall pay 
 attention to this shortly. But soon after Josiah's death, unless 
 I be mistaken, the same problem was seriously considered in its 
 application to the individual, and handled in the writings of the 
 Israelitish " wise" men. At first their reflections had no influ- 
 ence worth mentioning upon the course of religious develop- 
 ment. Yet they are remarkable enough to make us take 
 cognizance of their results. By doing this we shall prepare 
 ourselves for the better comprehension of the battle which was 
 fought in the domain of politics and religion. 
 
 * Vol. I. pp. 60 aeq. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 E.G. 45 
 
 As early as the eighth century B.C. many of the "wise" had 
 joined the prophets, and had brought the lessons derived from 
 experience into harmony with the higher religious truth pro- 
 claimed by those intrepid champions of Jahvism.* It cannot 
 surprise us, therefore, that the Chokmah-literature of the seventh 
 century B.C. shows evident traces of this prophetic influence. It 
 will be worth our while, however, to dwell for a few moments 
 upon this phenomenon : the independence evinced by some of 
 the wise acquires greater significance, when we find that the 
 Chokmah usually followed the paths in which prophecy had 
 preceded it. We remarked before, that the Deuteronomist 
 clearly distinguishes himself from his predecessors among the 
 prophets by the tone which he adopts : he is as much in earnest 
 as they, but he is characterized besides by a certain fervour and 
 conscientiousness, that makes him press and persist, repeating, 
 if need be, what he has already said once. Now in the seventh 
 century B.C. proverbial poetry also had its Deuteronomist, the 
 author of Proverbs, chap. i. 7 — ix. It cannot be said that, com- 
 pared with the wise who were before him, he brought new 
 truths to light. Jahvism is his basis, as it was theirs. " The 
 fear of Jahveh is the beginning of wisdom :"■}- this is the theme 
 of his exhortations, and he does not disown it for a single 
 moment. His belief in Jahveh's justice, in the reward of those 
 who fear God, and in the punishment of the ungodly, is unwaver- 
 ing, and is expressed as strongly as possible.]: For provident 
 and selfish reasons, it is true, but yet with emphasis, he exhorts 
 men to honour Jahveh with gifts to the temple and to the 
 priests. § If in this alone he goes further than his predecessors, 
 he also distinguishes himself from them by his doctrine of 
 wisdom. He represents it as a person and introduces it acting 
 and speaking. II In itself this personification is by no means 
 strange. After the wise had delivered their lessons and proverbs 
 
 * Vol. I. pp. 387 seq. t PrOT. i. 7 a. 
 
 J Prov. ii. 21, 22, iii. 31—35, iv. 18, 19, v. 21—23. § Prov. iii. 9, 10. 
 
 II Prov. i. 20 aeq., viii. ix. 
 
46 THE EELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 in "the gate" for centuries together, men may easily have come 
 to derive their doctrine from one source and to reduce it to one 
 principle. But the form in which this is done deserves all our 
 attention. Wisdom is regarded as an attribute of Jahveh, or 
 rather, in accordance with the personification, as his companion 
 and helper at the very creation of the world.* Hence it is that 
 she reveals herself in all creation and can be perceived by man.-f- 
 But at the same time it follows from this, that it is " Jahveh 
 who giveth wisdom, and that knowledge and understanding 
 come out of his mouth."J This divine wisdom can testify of 
 herself : 
 
 " Counsel is mine and sound wisdom ; 
 
 I am understanding ; I have strength ; 
 
 By me kings reign 
 
 And princes decree justice ; 
 
 By me princes rule 
 
 And nobles, even all the judges of the earth." § 
 
 The idea that true wisdom can only come from Jahveh is so 
 firmly impressed upon the poet, that he considers wisdom of 
 small account, so soon as it is regarded as the work of man. 
 Hence the antithesis : 
 
 " Trust in Jahveh with all thine heart, 
 And lean not on thine own understanding. 
 Know him in all thy ways 
 And he shall smooth thy paths. 
 Be not wise in thine own eyes ; 
 Fear Jahveh and depart from evil."|| 
 
 But if so, we can understand how it is that wisdom appears 
 here purely in a prophetic form, and that exliortations and 
 warnings are put into her mouth which have the greatest 
 resemblance to what Jahveh himself utters through the pro- 
 phets, and especially in Deuteronomy. To seek her and to 
 
 * Prov. viii. 22 eeq. t Prov. iii. 19, 20. J ProT. ii. 6. 
 
 § Prov. viii. 14—16. || Prov. iii. 5—7. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM: IN 586 B.O. 47 
 
 follow her, is, indeed, the same as to become a worshipper of 
 Jahveh ; the blessings which she confers upon her friends, the 
 misfortunes which befall those who despise her, are the blessings 
 and misfortunes which elsewhere are connected with fidelity to 
 Jahveh and with apostasy from him* To all this let there be 
 added the conformity with Deuteronomy in tone and style.^f Is 
 it not very evident that the wise man by whom the first part of 
 the book of Proverbs was written, joins hands with the priest- 
 prophet whom we have learnt to know as the author of Deute- 
 ronomy, and works in his own sphere so entirely in the spirit of 
 the latter, that the boundary between Chokmah and prophecy is 
 more than once crossed ? 
 
 Yet the individuality of the Chokmah was not lost. About 
 the year of Josiah's death, an unknown author wrote, perhaps 
 in the desert of Judah, near Thekoa, the birthplace of the 
 prophet Amos, that wonderfully beautiful poem, the book of 
 Job. This is not the place to discuss it thoroughly. We can 
 only consider it from the point of view of religious development. 
 There is indeed no. lack of guides to a true perception of the 
 drift of the whole and of its details, and to a right estimation of 
 the aesthetic value of the book. J Eeferring the reader to those 
 guides, I confine myself here to that which faUs within the 
 limits of our subject. 
 
 When we attribute to the poet of the book of Job an indi- 
 viduality distinct from prophecy, it must not be understood that 
 this "wise"' man remained true to Solomon's example, and, con- 
 sequently, a stranger to the later and more spiritual develop- 
 ment of Jahvism. The contrary is the case. He is a monotheist 
 in the most absolute sense of the word. This appears not only 
 
 * Prov. i. 20—33, viii. 32—36, ix. 5, 6, 11. 
 
 t Corap. my Hk. 0. III. 95, 96. 
 
 J Comp., in addition to my Hk. 0. III. 110 — 172, the article Job in the Bijb. 
 Woordenboeh, II. 147 — 160 (by Veth) ; J. C Matthes, ?i.et boeh Job vertaald en verk- 
 laard (2 vols., Utrecht, 1865); the papers by Hoekstra and H. Oort, in the Gids, 
 1856, I. 585—642, 1867, 1. 219—236, and the poetical rendering of the book of Job 
 by ten Kate. 
 
48 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 from what lie says in direct reference to Jahveh, but also from 
 the remarkable fact that he puts these sublime ideas into the 
 mouths of men who are not Israelites, and makes Jahveh reveal 
 himself to them* Moreover, the persons who are introduced 
 here as speaking, use throughout — one single place excepted — 
 not the name Jahveh, but the older and more general designa- 
 tions, El, Shaddai, Eloak. War between Jahveh and the other 
 gods exists no longer for the poet, it lies far behind him. This 
 is so true, that men have been able to point, not without some 
 show of justice, to the calm of his monotheism as a proof that 
 he cannot have been a contemporary of Jeremiah, who all his 
 life long had to contend against the worshippers of false gods ; 
 nay, we should admit this argument, had we to regard the poet 
 as a representative of the sentiments of his day, in which case 
 we should have to place him after the exile. His monotheism 
 of course involves a very pure conception of Jahveh's being and 
 the perfect recognition of his majesty and virtues. He is pre- 
 eminently the pure one : 
 
 " Shall mortal man be more just than God, 
 A man more pure than his Maker ? 
 Even in his servants he putteth no trust, 
 And he findeth folly in his angels !"-f- 
 
 the all-seeing and all-knowing one : 
 
 " The kingdom of the dead is naked before God, 
 And the gulf is without veil;" J 
 
 and the all-mighty one : 
 
 "Who doeth great things, wholly, unsearchable, 
 Wonders without number ; 
 Who poureth out rain upon the earth 
 And sendeth out waters upon the fields ; 
 
 * Job. xxxviii. seq. 
 
 + Job iv. 17, 18. Here and in the following quotations the author generally fol- 
 lowed the translation of Dr. Matthes. 
 + Job xxvi. 6. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 49 
 
 Who will set up on high those that be low, 
 And make happy those that mourn ; 
 Who disappointeth the devices of the crafty, 
 So that their hands perform nothing real ; 
 Who taketh the wise in their own craftiness, 
 And causeth the counsel of the cunning to fail."* 
 
 But it is unnecessary to go on in this strain. Let us simply 
 remark, in addition, that the morality advanced by the poet is 
 proportionate to the sublimity of his notion of God. As one 
 proof out of many, I will name the beautiful chapter in which 
 Job protests his innocence and enumerates various sins from 
 which he is conscious that he is free :-f- even desire he would 
 have imputed to himself as a sin ;| and, no less, want of pity 
 towards the poor, the fatherless and the widow,§ and the unjust 
 treatment of his male or female slaves, for have not both he and 
 tliey one Creator and Maker ?|1 All the rest agrees with these 
 few instances. 
 
 No, the difference between the poet of Job and the prophets 
 lies elsewhere, in the attitude of each with regard to the doctrine 
 of recompense. How the prophets interpreted this doctrine, 
 need not be repeated here ; besides, we shall soon witness the 
 conflict that they waged over it, although they agreed on the 
 main point. The author of the Jobeid denies that God's retri- 
 butive justice clearly manifests itself in the unequal fortunes of 
 mankind, and above all that we are at liberty to decide upon a 
 man's religious and moral character from his lot, whether it be 
 prosperity or adversity. This is done by the three friends of 
 the unhappy Job, wlio appear in the poem as the representatives 
 of the popular belief. Their endless arguments amount to this, 
 that the justice of God's dispositions cannot be doubted, that a 
 man's life and his lot in life must correspond. If this connection 
 be not at once apparent, it is because the sin of which the 
 
 * Job V, 9 — 13, comp. xii. 7 seq., &o. t Job xxxi. 
 
 t Ver. 1. § Vers. 16 seq. , || Vers. 13—15. 
 
 VOL. II. E 
 
50 THE nSLiaiON OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 calamity is the punishment has remained unnoticed by or hidden 
 from others. Or else the punishment has been deferred for a 
 time, and will be accomplished afterwards upon the sinner himself 
 or upon his children. Against these dogmas, which sometimes 
 are also recommended by their similarity to the tradition of 
 centuries. Job, in the depth of his abasement and misery, 
 advances this one argument alone : the testimony of his con- 
 science, which does not reproach him for any sin of which his 
 great sufferings could be the penalty. Appealing repeatedly to 
 this internal judge and to God, of whose cruelty he bitterly 
 complains, Job repulses his friends' attacks, and at last silences 
 them. They retire ; he remains master of the field, and, no 
 longer disturbed by their contradictions, can now reflect aloud, 
 as it were, first upon the relative truth of their assertions and 
 upon the inscrutableness of God's wisdom,* and then upon his 
 fair past, his present adversity, and the testimony of his con- 
 science.-f- But although he somewhat limits in the course of 
 these reflections one or two things that he has said before, he 
 does not arrive at a solution of the problem, nor at an insight 
 into the wherefore of God's enigmatical dispensations. On the 
 contrary, at the very end of that soliloquy he assumes a tone of 
 deep grievance against God : 
 
 " that one heard me ! 
 Lo ! here is my signature : 
 Let the Almighty give me an answer to it ! 
 And the accusation-roll which my enemies wrote. 
 Verily, I wiU carry it upon my shoulder. 
 And bind it on me as a crown ! 
 The number of my steps I will declare unto him. 
 Bold as a prince, I will approach him."J 
 
 But now — for Elihu's arguments § do not belong to the ori- 
 ginal book — Jahveh himself appears upon the scene to answer 
 
 * Job xxvii. xxviii. 1- Job xxix. — xxxi. 
 
 X Job xxxi. 35—37. § Job xxxii, — xxxTii. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.O. 51 
 
 Job. Will he dispel the obscurity and vindicate his govern- 
 ment of the world ? By no means. Both his addresses* are 
 intended to show that Jahveh's might and wisdom manifest 
 themselves in nature, and vain man is incapable of compre- 
 hending what God does, much less of altering it or improving 
 upon it. Proof upon proof is furnished of God's supremacy. 
 The first address, which concludes with the question : 
 
 " Shall the fault-finder contend with the Almighty ? 
 Let him that accuseth God give answer to this !"f 
 
 is enough to humble Job, who says : 
 
 " Behold, I am too vile : what shall I answer thee ? 
 I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. 
 Once have I spoken — but never again, 
 And twice — I will do so no more !"J 
 
 Once again Jahveh speaks, now more particularly to make 
 him observe God's might, and his own nothingness, in the won- 
 derful structure of the hippopotamus and the crocodile. Deeply 
 ashamed, Job asks forgiveness for his presumption : 
 
 " I know that thou canst do everything. 
 
 And that for thee no plan is infeasible 
 
 I have spoken without searching, 
 
 Things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. . . . 
 
 I had heard speak of thee, 
 
 But now mine eye hath seen thee : 
 
 Therefore I retract and I repent 
 
 In dust and ashes." § 
 
 The designs of the Almighty and All-wise are inscrutable to vile 
 mortals : this is the result of the Jobeid. There is nothing left 
 but faith, or, rather, blind submission to God's dispensation. 
 
 What a remarkable confession ! By the mouth of this pious 
 man, Israelitish Jahvism declares itself powerless to account 
 
 * Job xxxviii. — xl. 2, and xl. 6 — xli. t Job xl. 2. 
 
 t Job xl. i, 5. § Job xlii. 2—6. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO TEE 
 
 for the truth which it cannot deny. On the one hand, its 
 doctrine of recompense is gainsaid by experience time after time. 
 Yet, on the other hand, it cannot be abandoned, for this, to the 
 Israelite, would have been equal to denying God's justice, i.e. 
 God's very existence. Nothing remains, therefore, but to hold 
 fast to both hypotheses, in spite of their mutual antagonism. 
 This dilemma is far from satisfactory. But there is no way of 
 getting out of it. The epilogue of the poem* is a striking 
 emblem of the difficulty in which the poet, and with him many 
 a pious man of thought, was placed. He would have hurt the 
 feelings of his readers, if he had allowed Job to die in his 
 misery. He has no choice, therefore, but to describe his restora- 
 tion to his former prosperity. That is to say : he must apply to 
 the life of his hero that very doctrine of recompense which he 
 does not entirely reject in his poem, it is true, but the universal 
 applicability of which he has denied, nay, attacked as vigorously 
 as possible. And let us not forget that it is by no means any 
 flaw in his argument that reduces him to this necessity. On 
 the contrary, it is just because he has grasped and rendered the 
 facts as experience presented them to him, that he is forced to 
 end with this concession. Therefore we repeat the observation 
 with which we began : it was a difficult problem that the pious 
 servant of Jahveh had to solve in those days. We ought to 
 bear this in mind in the sequel of our investigations, which now 
 return to political events and their influence upon religious 
 development. 
 
 After the victory in the valley of Megiddo and the death of 
 Josiah, Necho was master of the kingdom of Judah. Before he 
 arrived there, "the people of the land" made Jehoahaz, a 
 younger son of Josiah, king, presumably because he was more 
 attached than his elder brother to his father's policy. At all 
 events, Necho hastened to depose him and send him to Egypt. 
 He was superseded by Eliakim, henceforward called Jehoiakim.f 
 * Job xlii. 7—1 7. +2 Kings xxiii. 31—35 ; 2 Chr. x.xxTi. 1—4. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 53 
 
 At first Jelioiakim was a vassal of Egypt, and it does not appear 
 that he made any attempt to escape from this servitude. But it 
 was not long before events occurred elsewhere in Asia that 
 entirely changed his position. Nineveh had fallen ; the Medes 
 and the Chaldeans or Babylonians now ruled over the former 
 territory of the Assyrians ; Syria and Palestine fell to the share 
 of the Babylonians. Of course, the Egyptians were not inclined 
 to let them have undisputed possession. A battle was fought at 
 Carchemish (Circesium), on the Euphrates, between the armies 
 of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar, who then commanded in the 
 name of his father, Nabopolassar, but very shortly afterwards 
 succeeded him. The Egyptians sustained a crushing defeat 
 (604 B. c.).* This decided the fate of Western Asia, including 
 Judaea. A year or two after the victory at Carchemish, Je- 
 hoiakim had to submit to the Chaldeans (602 B.C.).-f- From 
 that period all thoughts in Judaea were centred upon the possi- 
 bility of deliverance. It does not appear that Jehoiakim himself 
 and his successors took the initiative in the repeated attempts to 
 shake off the yoke of the foreigner. The impression we receive 
 is rather that they were pushed forward by the national desire 
 for independence which showed itself strongly among the chief 
 men and the courtiers, as well as among the populace of Jeru- 
 salem, led by the priests and by the much greater portion of the 
 prophets. Three years after his submission, Jehoiakim declared 
 his independence (599 or 598 B.C.).]: Probably Nebuchadnezzar 
 had his hands too full at this moment to march against him at 
 once. He confined himself to ordering ravaging incursions into 
 Judah's territory. § Before he could proceed to more decisive 
 measures, Jehoiakim had died and had been succeeded by his 
 son Jehoiachin (Jechonia, 597 B.C.). Upon the latter descended 
 the punishment for his father's revolt. After a. reign of three 
 months, he had to surrender with his capital to Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 * Jer. xW. 2. +2 Kings xxiv. 1. 
 
 J 2 Kings xxiv. 1. § 2 Kings xxiv. 2. 
 
54 * THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 The latter deemed a severe chastisement necessary to keep the 
 turbulent people under restraint : Jehoiachin himself and a 
 number of the chief citizens of Jerusalem, the kernel of the 
 nation, were carried prisoners to Babylon ; the temple was plun- 
 dered of part of its treasures; Mattaniah, a son of Josiah, 
 ascended the throne as Zedekiah* But even these violent 
 measures turned out to be inadequate for the object in view. 
 The great majority of the people and its leaders could not 
 accommodate themselves to the subjection to the Babylonish 
 conqueror. As early as the fourth year of Zedekiah's reign, an 
 alUance with the neighbouring peoples (Edomites, Moabites, 
 Ammonites, Phoenicians), the first step toward a rebellion against 
 the Chaldeans, was prepared (594 B.C.).-f- For reasons unknown 
 to us, this plan was not then carried out, but the feeling re- 
 mained the same. The friends of liberty naturally turned their 
 eyes to Egypt : without help from that quarter they could not 
 possibly succeed. It may be that Necho was disinclined to 
 involve himself in another war with the Chaldeans. At all 
 events, it is worthy of notice that Zedekiah's revolt coiucides 
 with the accession of Necho's successor, Hophra (589 B.c.).J: 
 Nebuchadnezzar was not the man to be deterred by the pros- 
 pect of a rupture with Egypt from punishing the rebels. On 
 the 10th day of the 10th month of Zedekiah's ninth year his 
 army appeared before Jerusalem (588 b.c.).§ Hophra, true to 
 his promise, made an attempt to relieve the city, and compelled 
 Nebuchadnezzar to raise the siege for a time. But his army 
 must have been beaten. At all events, Jerusalem was soon 
 surrounded again. At length, a year and a half after the first 
 appearance of the Chaldeans under the walls — on the 9th day 
 of the 4th month of Zedekiah's eleventh year (586 B.C.) — the 
 city was captured. Severe judgment was dealt to the king, 
 
 * 2 Kings xxiv. 8—17; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 9, 10. 
 
 t Jer. xxvii., cump. li. 59 — 64. J Comp. my Hh. 0. II. 168, u. 10. 
 
 § See ihid. p. 200 sq., where the passages of which use is made in the sequel of 
 this sketch are quoted. Compare generally 2 Kings xxv. 1 — 21 ; Jer. lii. 1 — 30. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 55 
 
 who had tried in vain to save himself by flight. When the city 
 and the temple had been plundered, they were given up to the 
 flames. Again a number of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and of 
 the rural districts were carried away into exile. Gedaliah the 
 son of Ahikam was appointed governor over those that remained, 
 and established himself at Mizpah. At first he seemed to meet 
 with some success in his attempts to re -unite the scattered 
 Judaeans. But the jealousy of the Ammonitish king, Baalis, 
 worked the destruction of even this small remnant of the king- 
 dom of Judah. Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, instigated by 
 Baalis, killed Gedaliah, and although the intervention of other 
 captains prevented him from making the Judaeans migrate to 
 Ammon, in accordance with his plan, yet, after this atrocity, 
 further residence in Judaea was not to be thought of Such, at 
 least, was the opinion of most men. They were afraid of being 
 charged with and punished for the murder of Gedaliah, and 
 resolved to migrate to Egypt.* The aged prophet Jeremiah was 
 obliged to accompany them against his will, and died there. A 
 comparatively few scattered inhabitants in the rural districts 
 were all that were now left in Judaea. The IsraeUtish nation 
 had ceased to exist in its native land.+ 
 
 These were momentous times in the history of the kingdom 
 of Judah. The spectacle they present to us is interesting in 
 itself. A small nation, warmly attached to its independence, 
 struggling to preserve it, and to win it back when lost, but suc- 
 cumbing in that struggle : who could witness this scene with 
 indifference ? But this period becomes doubly interesting to us, 
 when we notice the commotions and mutual strife of the reli- 
 gious parties. Our information in this regard is tolerably com- 
 plete. The historians can tell us nothing more of the last four 
 kings of Judah than the monotonous, " he did that which was 
 evil in the sight of Jahveh, according to all that his fathers had 
 
 * In 581 B.C. ? Comp. H. Oort, Jeremia in de lijst van eijn Hjd, pp. 160 sq. 
 
 t The events subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem we know from Jer. xl. 1 — xliii. 7; 
 comp. 2 Kings xxt. 22 — 26. 
 
56 THE EELIOION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 done."* All that we can infer from this is, that there was a 
 material difference between them and Josiah their predecessor; 
 wherein that difference lay, this adverse verdict does not inform 
 us. But we are able to consult other sources. The prophet 
 Habakkuk and the unknown writer whose oracular utterances 
 are contained in chaps, xii. — xiv. of the book of Zechariah, 
 belo^ig to this period. Jeremiah, who made his first appearance 
 in the thirteenth year of Josiah (626 B.C.), lived to see the faU 
 of Jerusalem and the events that succeeded it. In the fom-th 
 and fifth years of.Jehoiakim's reign (604 and 603 B.C.) he began 
 to write down his addresses.+ From that time, with Baruch's 
 assistance, he continued to commit to writing his own prophecies 
 and the narrative of his adventures, which also throw light upon 
 the political and religious condition of the people. Shortly 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem, the prophecy of Obadiah was 
 brought to its present form. The Lamentations too, the last 
 alone excepted, were composed then. Among the exiles who 
 had lived on the banks of the Chebar since 597 B.C., Ezekiel 
 appears as a prophet as early as the year 592 B.C.; before he 
 was carried ofi' he served as a priest in the temple at Jerusalem, 
 and afterwards he was well informed of what went on in his 
 native land ; we have him to thank for more than one impor- 
 tant piece of information. And, finally, it is as good as certain 
 that some of the penitential psalms belong to this period. Of 
 no other period of Israel's history do we possess such abundant 
 and trustworthy evidence. 
 
 The first significant fact that we learn from these eye-wit- 
 nesses, is the revival of idolatry. Habakkuk mentions it but 
 once — we shall see why presently — if, at least, we may assume 
 that this sin also is included in the "iniquity" and the "griev- 
 ance" of which he complains. J The author of Zech. xii. — xiv. 
 is more lucid. He looks forward longingly to the time when 
 " Jahveh of hosts shall cut off the names of the idols out of the 
 
 * 2 Kings xxiii. 32, 37, xxiv. 9, 19; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 5, 9, 12. 
 + Jer. xxxvi. J Hab. i. 3, 4. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.O. 57 
 
 land, so that they shall no more be remembered."* When he 
 states further, that many prophets are actuated by the " unclean 
 spirit," one is led to conjecture that they encouraged the service 
 of the strange gods, or even prophesied in their name.-)- It is 
 Jeremiah especially, however, who enters into details upon this 
 subject. It is not always possible to determine when he is 
 speaking of the past, and when of his own contemporaries. But 
 this in itself is full of significance, for it proves that no real dif- 
 ference existed between the state of affairs before the eighteenth 
 year of Josiah's reign, and that of which the prophet was a 
 witness under Jehoiakim and his successors. He does not 
 hesitate, either, to say to his hearers : " Your fathers have for- 
 saken Jahveh and followed after other gods .... hut ye 
 have done worse than your fathers." X Sometimes he confines 
 himself to the complaint that his contemporaries serve " other 
 gods," "the Baalim," or "Baal" — equal in his mouth to "the 
 false gods" — and burn incense to them.§ At other times he 
 mentions particularly the worship of the false gods on hills and 
 under green trees. |1 He would not have proved so indignant at 
 the Molech- worship, IT which was practised largely on the topheth 
 in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, if all traces of it had been 
 wiped out. It would seem that the temple at Jerusalem was 
 again polluted with idols,** and that the burning of incense to 
 "the host of heaven'' was resumed. -f-I- And "the queen of 
 heaven" especially, i.e. the moon-goddess, Astarte, is zealously 
 worshipped by men and women, with all the ceremonies per- 
 taining to her service. Jl Jeremiah had stUl to combat this 
 form of idolatry in Egypt. The inhabitants of the kingdom of 
 Judah had served this goddess " in the cities of Judah and in 
 the streets of Jerusalem." Nay, they themselves declared that 
 
 * Zech. xiii. 2. + Zeoh. xiii. 2—6. % Jer. xvi. 11, 12. 
 
 § Jer. ix. 12 seq., xiii. 10, xTiii. 15, xxii. 9. 
 II Jer. xiii. 27, xvii. 2 seq., comp. ii. 20, iii. 6, 13. 
 11 Jer. vii. 31, xix. 4, 6, 11 — 13, xxxii. 35, oomp. 30. 
 ** Jer. vii. 30, xxxii. 34. t+ Jer. xix. 13. %% Jer. vii. 16—19. 
 
58 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO TSE 
 
 from the moment that they ceased to honour her (openly and 
 officially), i.e. from the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign, aU 
 sorts of misfortunes had befallen them.* If Jeremiah, in an 
 oracle uttered before Josiah's reformation, but not written down 
 tOl after it, could speak in this way : 
 
 " As a thief is made ashamed when he is found, 
 So stands the house of Israel ashamed, 
 They, their kings, princes, priests, and prophets, 
 Who say to a stock, ' Thou art my father !' 
 And to a stone, ' Thou hast brought me forth !' 
 For they have turned their back unto me, and not their face. 
 But in their trouble they will say, ' Arise and save us !' 
 But — where are thy gods that thou hast made thee ? 
 Let them arise, that they may save thee in thy trouble ! 
 For as mimerovs as thy cities have thy gods iecome, 
 Judah /"-f- 
 
 he repeats these last words in the reign of Jehoiakim, and 
 adds: 
 
 " According to the number of the streets of Jerusalem have 
 ye set up altars to the ' shameful thing,' 
 Altars to burn incense unto Baal !"J 
 
 When we open Ezekiel's prophecies, we find Jeremiah's state- 
 ments confirmed. Our attention is especially attracted by his 
 description of what took place in or around the temple at 
 Jerusalem. § It has been suspected, not without reason, that 
 he refers to earlier times, and particularly to the reign of 
 Manasseh. But when we reflect how Ezekiel speaks of his 
 contemporaries,!! it is difficult to believe that an end was put 
 to these practices under Zedekiah. He too makes mention 
 more than once of the Molech-worship.lT He expressly adds 
 
 * Jer. xliv. 7 — 9, 17 seq. 
 
 t Jer. ii. 26—28, comp. iii. 6 seq., iv. 1, t. 7, 19, J Jer. xi. 13. 
 
 § Bzek. Tiii. ; comp. Note I. at the end of this Chapter. 
 
 II Ezek. XX. 30 seq. 1 Ezek. XTi. 20, 21, xx. SO, 31, xxiii. 37—39. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 E.G. 59 
 
 that those who dedicated their sons and daughters to the false 
 gods by fire, afterwards appeared in Jahveh's sanctuary, and 
 so defiled it.* Jeremiah also knows frequenters of the temple 
 who at the same time burn incense in honour of Baal-f- — with 
 him, as has been said, a general name for the false gods. There- 
 fore both bear witness — and we should assume it even without 
 their assurance — that the worshippers of the other gods did 
 not intend to substitute them for Jahveh, and thus to sever 
 the connection between him and Israel. Like their forefathers, 
 they only repudiated the exclusive Jahveh- worship, of which the 
 prophets, whose evidence we have collected, were the vigorous 
 defenders. Their Jahvism, however, partly in consequence of 
 increased intercourse with other countries, was even more mixed 
 than that of the common multitude in the eighth century B.C. 
 And, moreover, this mixed Jahvism, the prophets assure us, was 
 not the religion of the few, but of the majority of the people. 
 
 We should at once mistake the nature and the extent of 
 these phenomena, were we to imagine that they can be ex- 
 plained by pointing to the statement of the historian, that 
 Josiah's successors " did that which was evil in the sight of 
 Jahveh." In any case it would devolve upon us to explain 
 the nature of this " evil-doing." But even if we succeeded in 
 so doing, such an appeal to the example and influence of the 
 kings would still be quite unsatisfactory. However great we 
 suppose their power to have been, and however strong the 
 pressure that they brought to bear, they remain insufficient to 
 account for the sudden restoration of the service of the false 
 gods. But besides this, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah — the other 
 two only reigned three months each — were, unless we are alto- 
 gether deceived, not at all powerful princes, who applied them- 
 selves to alter the religious condition of the nation, or would 
 have been capable of effecting a change. Josiah was the man 
 of zeal and power who had tried to do so, and had really 
 
 * Bzek. xxiii. 38, 39. t Jer. vii. 9, 10, comp. 6. 
 
60 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 succeeded. His successors did nothing more than — let things 
 alone. But this, of itself, was enough to revive the old forms 
 which Josiah had opposed. So little had the violent measures 
 of that pious king effected, so deeply rooted in the majority were 
 the craving to serve and the habit of serving other gods besides 
 Jahveh. It is far from improbable that during the sole domina- 
 tion of strict Jahvism in the second half of Josiah's reign, the 
 Mosaic party increased in number. To this extent the reforma- 
 tion gained its end. But in other respects Jeremiah was not 
 wrong when he asked : 
 
 " Shall the Ethiopian change his skin, 
 Or the leopard his spots ? 
 Shall ye also do good. 
 Who have been taught to do evil V* 
 
 Ezekiel even goes so far as to ascribe to his contemporaries 
 the intention to become " as the nations, as the families of the 
 countries, serving wood and stone" — although he assures them 
 at the same time that Jahveh shall compel them " with a mighty 
 hand and a stretched- out arm and with fury poured out" to 
 acknowledge him as their god, "untiL all the house of Israel 
 serve him upon his holy mountain."-f- Can words declare more 
 plainly, that as yet exclusive Jahvism is not the religion suited 
 to the minds and the hearts of the Israelites ? that when left to 
 themselves, they walked in the ways of the heathen ? 
 
 But this "left to themselves" is a supposition opposed to the 
 reality. The Mosaic party — as we have already said — continued 
 stronger than ever, and did not lose sight of its aim. From this 
 time its different varieties claim our attention, for we perceive 
 at the first glance that its unity was broken. 
 
 Like Isaiah and Micah, but in a much higher degree, Jeremiah 
 and Ezekiel are opposed to " the prophets." Jeremiah, espe- 
 cially, wages unceasing war against them, and pays back with 
 interest in reproaches and accusations the treatment that he 
 * Jer. xiii. 23. t Ezek. xx. 32—40. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.O. 61 
 
 receives at their hands. From the fact that he does not charge 
 them with idolatry, at all events in his later prophecies, we un- 
 hesitatingly conclude that they were not guilty of it. In one 
 passage* he himself compares the prophets of Samaria with 
 those of Jerusalem ; of the former he says that " they prophesied 
 in Baal's name and caused Jahveh's people Israel to err," and 
 of the latter, that they " commit adultery, walk in lies, and 
 encourage the evil-doers, so that they do not return from their 
 wickedness." In fact, Jeremiah's great complaint against the 
 Jahveh prophets of his time is, that instead of preaching repent- 
 ance as he does, they set their hearers at ease and predict them 
 a glorious future. "Sword and famine shall not rage in this 
 land," they say.-|- And again, " Ye shall not see the sword, and 
 famine shall not hurt you, for Jahveh shall give you unbroken 
 peace in this place." J To those who despise Jahveh — so he 
 describes their preaching in another passage — they say, " Jahveh 
 hath said, 'Ye shall have peace;'" to every one that walks in 
 the wickedness of his own heart, "N"o evil shall come upon 
 you."§ Ezekiel also reproaches them that they speak of "peace," 
 where there is no peace. || — We learn best how to interpret all 
 this from Jeremiah's meeting with Hananiah the Gibeonite. In 
 the fourth year of Zedekiah's reign, while plans of rebellion 
 against Nebuchadnezzar were being laid, Jeremiah appeared in 
 the temple with a yoke, the symbol of slavery, on his neck. He 
 earnestly warned the people against the rash step which it was 
 proposed to take : no blessing would rest upon the enterprize ; 
 on the contrary, it could not but result in the destruction of the 
 state. IT This prophecy of misfortune was answered by Hananiah. 
 He too spoke in the name of Jahveh of hosts, but his prediction 
 was of quite another purport : Jahveh shall break the yoke of 
 the king of Babylon ; within two years the holy vessels that 
 Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple shall be brought 
 
 * Jer. xxiii. 13, 14, comp. 27. t ■'er. xiv. 15. 
 
 X Jer. xiv. 13. § Jer. xxiii. 17. 
 
 II Ezek. xiii. 10, 16. II Jer. xxvii. 
 
62 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO TEE 
 
 back, and Jehoiachin with the rest of the exiles shall return to 
 his native land.* Jeremiah was ready with his reply: if he 
 (Jeremiah) had spoken of war and famine and pestilence, his 
 predecessors had also prophesied in the same spirit ; Hananiah, 
 who foretold quite another future, could not be recognized as an 
 envoy of Jahveh until events had confirmed his words.-f- But 
 Hananiah will not allow himself to be driven from the field : he 
 snatches the yoke from Jeremiah's neck and breaks it to pieces 
 in the presence of all the people in the temple : " So," he says, 
 " shall Jahveh break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon 
 from the neck of all nations in two years." J For the moment 
 Jeremiah was unable to answer him : it was not until after- 
 wards that he repeated his prediction, and then declared also, 
 that Hananiah, as a punishment for his deception, would die 
 that very year. "And Hananiah the prophet died the same 
 year, in the seventh month." § 
 
 Before we try to understand the contest of which this inci- 
 dent makes us witnesses, let us see what supporters the two 
 parties had. The great majority sided with Hananiah, nay 
 more than this, Jeremiah fought almost alone. He pours out 
 bitter complaints at the charges and ill-treatment to which he is 
 exposed. || One of his allies, Urijah the son of Shemaiah, who 
 prophesied against the city and the land " according to all the 
 words of Jeremiah," was obliged in Jehoiakim's reign to flee 
 to Egypt, to save his life, but was fetched back and put to 
 death with the sword. IT At the same time Jeremiah himself, 
 in consequence of the discourse which has been preserved to 
 us in the seventh chapter of his prophecies, was accused of 
 blaspheming Jahveh's sanctuary by talking of its approaching 
 destruction. It was "the priests and the prophets" who brought 
 this charge against him, "the princes of Judah" who inves- 
 tigated it. When Jeremiah repeated his prediction in their 
 
 * Jer. xxviii. 1—4. + Jer. xxviii. 5—9. J Jer. xxviii. 10, 11. 
 
 § Jer. xxviii. 12—17; comp. my bhO. II. 196, n. 5. 
 
 II Chap. xi. and elsewhere. If Jer. xxvi. 20—24. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 63 
 
 presence and declared that Jahveh. had put it into his mouth, 
 the princes refused to pronounce sentence of death upon him, 
 and there stood up men from among " the elders of the land," 
 who, pointing to the example of Micah,* maintained the pro- 
 phet's right to threaten even the holy city and the temple.f 
 For the moment this feeling prevailed. But the opposite party 
 did not abandon the persecution. While Jehoiakim was still 
 on the throne, it would seem, Jeremiah was arrested upon one 
 occasion by the governor of the temple and was not released till 
 the next day J — an occurrence that drew bitter complaints from 
 him.§ When, in Zedekiah's reign, he exhorted the exiles who 
 had been carried away with Jehoiachin to submit calmly, the 
 Jerusalem priesthood received letters urging them to do their 
 duty and imprison Jeremiah. || At length, during the last siege 
 of Jerusalem, Jeremiah was deprived of his liberty, and did not 
 regain it tUl after the conquest. The narrative of his sufferings 
 during this period belongs to the story of his life, which cannot 
 be told here. IT I have given enough of it to show that Jeremiah 
 pulled against the stream, while his opponents were backed by 
 the people and their leaders. 
 
 This does not, indeed, surprise us. Hananiah and, in general, 
 the prophets who agreed with him, were merely the representa- 
 tives of the popular desires and expectations. Full of faith in 
 Jahveh's might, penetrated with the conviction that he stood in 
 the most intimate relation to Israel, gazing on the temple dedi- 
 cated to him, in which the smoke of sacrifices ascended in his 
 honour, — they were convinced that the humiliation of Jahveh's 
 people could not be transitory. In the series of disasters which 
 commenced with the death of Josiah, they could see nothing 
 but signs of an approaching change. And especially after the 
 removal of Jehoiachin and the partial plundering of the temple, 
 the deliverance and glorification of Israel seemed to them to be 
 
 * Mio. iii. 12 ; comp. Vol. I. p. 40. t Jer. xxxi. 1 — 19. J Jer. %%. 1—6. 
 
 § Jer. XX. 7—13, 14—18. || Jer. xxix. 24—32. 
 
 T Comp. my Hk. 0. II. 200 eeq. ; Oort, Jeremia, pp. 127 seq. 
 
64 TEE tLELIQION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 at hand. Would Jahveh suffer his sanctuary to be desecrated 
 by strangers and his people to be oppressed any longer ? In 
 their eyes this was an absurdity. His justness would not 
 allow it. The Chaldean would soon receive his due, and Israel 
 would reap the fruits of the zeal with which it had observed 
 the commandments of Jahveh's law since Josiah's reforma- 
 tion. 
 
 But — surely they could not talk of having observed the law ? 
 Was it not openly broken by very many of them ? Our pre- 
 ceding investigations show that we must reply in the affirma- 
 tive. Some of the divergences, indeed, were so glaring, that 
 every one who belonged to the Mosaic party must have seen 
 them, and consequently have desired that they should be dis- 
 continued. But it is easily conceivable that there were some 
 who thought this of minor importance and considered judg- 
 ment upon the Chaldeans much more urgent. It seemed to 
 them that it was necessary hefore all things that Jahveh should 
 maintain his honour and avenge the desecration of Zion. This 
 judgment would include at the same time the purification of 
 Israel, so far as was requisite. In fact, we can very well 
 imagine that earnest men held these opinions, and in prophetic 
 ecstasy gave utterance to their ideas of the state of affairs at 
 that time and of the immediate future as Jahveh's word. And 
 what is more, we have documents to prove it. Habakkuk and 
 the author of Zech. xii. — xiv. may not have encouraged the 
 rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar, and may thus have distin- 
 guished themselves from Hananiah. But their expectations 
 have a greater resemblance to his than to the sombre views of 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 There is a slight difference of opinion as to the year in which 
 Habakkuk's prophecy was written: he must have made his 
 appearance either immediately after the battle of Carchemish 
 (604 B.C.), or a few years later, not long after Jehoiachin's re- 
 moval (597 B.C.) ; the latter is the more likely. He is not blind 
 to the sins of his nation. But he has scarcely begun to lament 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 65 
 
 over them,* before he interrupts himself and points to the much 
 greater abominations of which the Chaldeans have been guilty, 
 and which they still commit.f Will Jahveh let these iniquities 
 go unpunished, he, " who is purer of eyes than to behold evil " ? | 
 It is impossible ! And before long he learns from Jahveh that 
 the judgment is approaching : " it will surely come and not 
 tarry."§ He seems already to hear the nations that were con- 
 quered by the Chaldean crying, Woe ! unto him, and rejoicing 
 in his faU.|l It is true that his heart trembles at the thought 
 of the terrible things' that are at hand, and of which Judah will 
 receive its share, but he does not doubt the final issue for a 
 moment : 
 
 " Thou (Jahveh) wentest forth for the salvation of thy people. 
 For the salvation of thine anointed.lT 
 
 ***** 
 I will leap for joy in Jahveh, 
 I will rejoice in the God of my salvation. 
 Jahveh the Lord is my strength ; 
 He maketh my feet like hind's feet. 
 And maketh me to walk upon mine high places."** 
 
 So the oppressor is punished, and Jahveh's people escape the 
 danger which threatens them.-|"f-— This is what Habakkuk writes. 
 If a man such as he adopted this tone, is it to be wondered at 
 that the people and their leaders added the deed to the word, 
 and, as often as an opportunity presented itself, instead of 
 "waiting qiiietly for the day of trouble," j| rushed to arms to 
 hasten the hour of their deliverance ? 
 
 The writer of Zech. xii. — xiv., who perhaps appeared a few 
 years later, held opinions akin to those of Habakkuk. Was he, 
 like Micah, a countryman ? We should infer this from the idea 
 which he forms of the future. In his eyes, Jerusalem had been 
 
 * Hab. i. 2-4. + Hab. i. 5—17. X Hab. i. 13. 
 
 § Hab. ii. 3. || Hab. ii. 6—20. U Hab. iii. 13 a. 
 
 ** Hab. iii. 18, 19a. ■++ Hab, iii. K Hab. iii. 16. 
 
 VOL. II. F 
 
66 THE RELiaiON OF ISEAEL TO THE 
 
 guilty of a great sin, on account of which her citizens, headed 
 by the house of David, would humble themselves deeply with 
 loud lamentations.* Perhaps it is for that reason that Jahveh 
 " shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house 
 of David and of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify 
 itself against Judah."-f- A great catastrophe is at hand. The 
 nations gather themselves together against Jerusalem and make 
 war upon her. At first they seem to succeed in their object; 
 the city is taken and plundering begins. But at this moment 
 Jahveh appears, to fight the nations. In the midst of terrible 
 natural phenomena he executes judgment upon them. Jerusa- 
 lem and the temple are spared, and remain the centre of the 
 worship of Jahveh.| The prophet does not deny — the very de- 
 scription of the city's distress proves it — that the people of 
 Jahveh, and especially the population of Jerusalem, are sinful 
 and unclean. Yet he does not despair of the accomplishment 
 of the great events which he announces. He looks forward to 
 the time when idolatry and the prophetic order, of which he 
 evidently has a very low opinion, shall be rooted out,§ and a 
 stream of living water shall purge David's house and Jerusalem's 
 inhabitants,!! and spread fruitfulness also over the whole land.lT 
 Thus it is a new, a regenerate Jerusalem that will remain after 
 the judgment.** From that time forward the nations of the 
 earth shall go up thither every year to keep the feast of taber- 
 nacles in Jahveh's honour: those who stay away shall be severely 
 punished ; the whole city shall be sacred to Jahveh, and become, 
 as it were, his temple.-f-f There is much that is fantastic in 
 this description; much too that remains an enigma to us, be- 
 cause we only half know the circumstances of the time. But 
 we certainly are not mistaken in our estimation of the author's 
 standpoint, when we place him half way between Habakkuk 
 and Jeremiah. He is more distressed than the former by the 
 
 * Zeoh. xii. 10—14. + Zeoh. xii. 7, comp. 5. J Zech. xii. xlr. 
 
 § Zeoh. xiii. 2—6. || Zecli. xiii. 1. ^ Zeoh. xiv. 8. 
 
 ** Zeoh. xiv. 9—11. ft Zeoh. xiv. 16—21. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN o8Q £.0. 67 
 
 wickedness that he sees in his contemporaries ; therefore his 
 idea of the future, or rather of the events which will introduce 
 it, is less brilliant. But he too — and therefore we call his 
 opinions akin to those of Habakkuk — expects that before long 
 Israel will be exalted. He too considers her safety guaranteed 
 by Jahveh's justice, and by the relation in which he stands to 
 her. 
 
 Now in what does the difference between these men and 
 Jeremiah consist ? It cannot be said that they hold another 
 creed. How can that be possible ? Habakkuk and the un- 
 known author of Zech. xii. — xiv. uttered the very same convic- 
 tion that had been declared about a hundred years before by 
 Isaiah.* Jeremiah will also agree with him. No, the difference 
 between Jeremiah and his contemporaries arises from his views 
 and estimation of the religious-moral condition of the people. 
 As we have already pointed out,"!" his opinion of this condition 
 is most unfavourable. He is not misled by appearances. He 
 does not allow the fact that the multitude regularly frequent 
 the temple to persuade him that they are true to Jahveh. His 
 eyes are fuUy open to the manifold sins of the people, the extor- 
 tions of the great, the theft, murder, adultery and false swearing 
 which he sees around him.| Let it not be imagined that, in- 
 spired with a sort of misanthropy, he takes a delight in seeing 
 and exposing all this wickedness. On the contrary, it is a 
 source of deep sorrow to him, for he loves his nation with all 
 his heart, and would gladly give his life to rescue her from the 
 error of her ways. " Oh," he cries, " Oh, that my head were 
 waters and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I could weep day 
 and night for the slain of my people." § Jeremiah's feelings 
 were extremely sensitive, and, had it been possible, he would 
 have avoided the spectacle of Israel's sins and meditation upon 
 their deplorable consequences. It speaks well for him, there- 
 fore, that in spite of this and the opposition which he had to 
 
 * See Vol. I. p. 40. t Comp. pp. 57 sq. 
 
 J Jer. vii. 5, 6, 9, and elsewhere. § Jer. viii. 23. 
 
 f2 
 
68 THE BELIOION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 expect, he accepted his vocation and came forward as a prophet. 
 This sensitiveness naturally made the internal struggle more 
 severe. If at first he flattered himself with the hope that his 
 preaching would work a change for the better, he must gradu- 
 allji have given up that hope. The sad events that followed 
 Josiah's death must have robbed him of all that was then left of 
 these cheerful anticipations. At all events, when, four years 
 afterwards, he caused his prophecies, which already extended 
 over a period of twenty-three years, to be written down, he 
 evidently took it for granted that he should not succeed.* But 
 could he, then, simply acquiesce in all this ? Could he accept 
 the subjection of his people, first by the Egyptians and then 
 by the Chaldeans, as he would any other dispensation of Jahveh? 
 On the contrary, it was just this that cost him the most bitter 
 agony. One of two things must happen. Either Jahveh must 
 mitigate in some measure the rigour of his demands, and be 
 content with a half-dedication of Israel to his service, or Israel's 
 chastisement, the foretaste of which was already being felt, 
 would be accomplished in full, and her independent existence 
 would cease. According to Jeremiah it is the latter alone that 
 can happen. 
 
 It was not without a cruel struggle that he brought himself 
 to this. ISTay, even after this conviction had been forced upon 
 him, he fought against the duty of asserting it publicly. Eead 
 his bitter complaint : 
 
 " Thou hast deceived me, Jahveh, and I allowed myself to be 
 deceived ; 
 
 Thou hast overcome me and hast prevailed ; 
 
 So am I become a derision the whole day long; they all 
 mock me ! 
 
 For whenever I speak, I must shout, and cry 'violence' 
 and ' spoil ; ' 
 
 For the word of Jahveh is a reproach unto me, and a deri- 
 sion the whole day long. 
 
 • Jer. xxxyi,, comp. xxy. 1 seq. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 69 
 
 And if I say, ' I will not make mention of him nor speak 
 
 any more in his name' — 
 Then it becomes in my heart as a burning fire shut up in 
 
 my bones, 
 And I weary myself to keep it within me, but I cannot 
 
 do it."* 
 
 In truth, we are not surprised to hear him complain in this 
 way. He drew down derision and persecution upon his head ; 
 but, besides this, he had the appearance of being a traitor to his 
 country. When, under Jehoiakim and especially Zedekiah, the 
 lire of rebellion was smouldering and occasionally burst into 
 flame, he did not cease to exhort the people to submission and 
 humiliation, or to shake the courage of the rebels by his pro- 
 phecies of misfortune. We do not for a moment suspect the 
 purity of his intentions. But it is a fact, that during the siege 
 of Jerusalem (588 — 586 B.C.), he did all that lay in his power 
 to make the defence fail, and that his preaching was practised 
 by those who — deserted to the enemy.-f It was a sad, I had 
 almost said a humiliating, part that Jeremiah found himself 
 called upon to play. Is it to be wondered at, that in a moment 
 of despair he cursed the day of his birth ?| 
 
 But while we admit this candidly, and judge Jeremiah's op- 
 ponents leniently on this account, we wish at the same time to 
 give him the praise which is his just due. From the point of 
 view of Jahvism he was the great man. He had comprehended 
 Jahveh's being and the rigour of his moral requirements, and 
 they had made so deep and indelible an impression upon him, 
 that he could disown them even for a moment. Therefore, 
 however painful it may have been to him, he held fast to what, 
 in our estimation, forms the real significance and the lasting 
 value of the Jahvistic idea. The Jahvism of the rest was, in 
 truth, subordinate to their patriotism; Jeremiah's stood above 
 
 * Jer. .XX. 7—9. t Comp. Jer. xxi. 9, xxxviii. 2, 17, 23. 
 
 X Jer. XX. 14—18. 
 
70 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 it; -when the difficult task of choosing between the two was 
 imposed upon him, he preferred to be a bad citizen to his 
 country rather than an unfaithful servant to Jahveh. We have 
 drawn attention more than once to the intimate connection 
 between Israel's religion and her nationality. In ordinary times 
 these two could live together in peace. But there was always 
 the possibility of a conflict between them, and, under certain 
 circumstances, it was unavoidable. "We easily perceive now, 
 that the destiny of Israel's religion to become the property of 
 mankind could not be accomplished unless the ties between this 
 religion and the people among which it was born and grew up, 
 were loosened. This gives a special interest to the repeated 
 struggles between Jahvism and Jewish nationality, for they 
 belong to the history of the world. We do not say that Jere- 
 miah wished to sever that bond : we are about to perceive that 
 the contrary is true. But he prepared this separation, as far as 
 he was able and circumstances permitted. If his contemporaries, 
 who encouraged the national cravings, gained the applause of 
 the many, he had to bear their reproach, but then he lived and 
 laboured for the future and for mankind. 
 
 But we must hasten to quit the domain of general considera- 
 tions and return to facts. In attempting to show what Jeremiah 
 at last achieved, by virtue of his conception of Jahveh's being, 
 we run the risk of giving an incorrect idea of what he himself 
 desired and taught. We repeat : Jeremiah did not sever the 
 bond between Jahveh and Israel; it never even entered his 
 thoughts to do so ; it could not enter his thoughts. When 
 necessity demanded it, he did not consider his belief in Israel's 
 existence as a nation and in the inviolability of the temple too 
 precious to sacrifice to the pure conception of Jahveh's being. 
 That is all. Others had already preceded him on that road,* 
 but he had the courage and the self-denial to go on in their 
 
 * Mie. iii. 12, iv. 10; oomp. also Am. v. 27; Hos. ix. 3, &c. It must not be for- 
 gotten, however, that these threats date from an earlier period, long before Josiab's 
 reformation. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.O. 71 
 
 footsteps, when the loss of the goodwill of the people, nay, even 
 of the better disposed, was connected with it, when his life was 
 endangered by it. For the rest, he was not able, even less able 
 than his predecessors, to imagine Jahveh without Israel and 
 Israel without Jahveh. As yet there was but one people that 
 knew and served " the living God ;" * its destruction would at 
 the same time have been that of Jahvism. This, therefore, was 
 not to be thought of Jeremiah too believed — nay, was forced 
 to believe — in a future for his people, in the restoration, there- 
 fore, of its independent existence as a nation. It certainly will 
 not be superfluous to consider somewhat more minutely the form 
 which these expectations assumed in his mind. 
 
 In the collection of prophecies which Jeremiah dictated to 
 his servant Baruch in the 4th and 5th years of Jehoiakim's 
 reign, he also set forth his ideas as to the future of the heatheu.-f- 
 Let us begin by making ourselves acquainted with them. These 
 utterances against the heathen are generally marked by a certain 
 uniformity and by their close resemblance to the earlier prophets, 
 whose predictions are sometimes borrowed word for word. The 
 fate that Jeremiah announces to those nations — Egyptians, 
 Philistines, Moabites, &c. — is sad : ITebuchadnezzar will invade 
 and subjugate them, and some he will even utterly destroy. 
 But with respect to Egypt, Moab, Ammon and Elam, a hope is 
 expressed at the end, although only in a single word, that 
 "Jahveh will turn their captivity" — give them back their 
 former prosperity. J The prophet repeated this prediction some 
 time afterwards § in reference to Judah's neighbours — partly, 
 therefore, to the same nations — but he made it depend upon a 
 condition, to which we shall revert immediately. |1 First we must 
 examine Jeremiah's ideas as to the future of his own nation. 
 
 Whatever he may have thought before of the judgment that 
 was awaiting Judah, when he summed up his labours of 23 years 
 
 * Jer. xxiii. 36, oomp. x. 10. t Jer. xlvi. — xlix. 
 
 % Jer. xlvi. 26, xlviii. 47, xlix. 6, 39. § Jer. xli. 16. 
 
 II Jer. xii. 16, 17. 
 
72 THE nELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 in the 4th year of Jehoiakim's reign, as we have already men- 
 tioned, he felt certain that his nation would be carried away 
 into exile.* But while he expressed this conviction, he added 
 immediately afterwards, that its existence as a nation would 
 only cease temporarily. Judah shall serve Nebuchadnezzar 
 seventy years — was then his prediction.-)- Subsequently, in a 
 letter to the exiles, this was repeated, J while about the same 
 time it was asserted that Judah and her neighbours would serve 
 Hehuchadneezar, his son and Ms grandson, until Babylon's time 
 should also have come.§ We gather from these passages that 
 Jeremiah pictured to himself a long exile for Judah. Seventy 
 is a round number, and the prophet himself did not intend it to 
 be taken literally. || When that time has elapsed, judgment will 
 be executed upon Babylon : it is true that Jeremiah calls Nebu- 
 chadnezzar " Jahveh's servant," IT but only in so far as he carries 
 out the divine sentence ; he and his people remain responsible 
 for their actions and shall not escape their well-deserved punish- 
 ment. The fall of Babylon and the restoration of Israel will be 
 simultaneous. From all quarters of the world, wherever they 
 have been carried, the children of Israel will return to their 
 native land,** Ephraimites as well as the tribe of Judah, in fact 
 the former will return first. This agrees with the comparatively 
 favourable verdict which the prophet pronounces upon the exiles 
 from the kingdom of the ten tribes.-ff In one of his oldest 
 prophecies J j he places them much above the men of his own 
 tribe. This preference is certainly not based upon a minute 
 comparison of the religious-moral condition of the two kingdoms. 
 It arises rather from the very dismal impression that "treacherous 
 Judah" — as he calls her in contradistinction from " backsliding 
 Israel" — has made upon the prophet, an impression so sad 
 
 * Jer. XXV. 9 seq. t Jer. xxv. 12. 
 
 J Jer. xxix. 10. § Jer. xxvii. 7. 
 
 II Comp. my Bk 0. II. 217 sq., and Nieuw en Oud, New Series, II. 269 seq. 
 
 IT Jer.. xxv. 9, xxvii. 6, xliii. 10. ** Jer. xxiii. 7, 8, and elsewhere. 
 
 +t Jer. iii. 11 seq., xxxi. i—6. +{ Jer. iii., 6 — iv. 2. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.C. 73 
 
 that he cannot imagine Ephraim's depravity to be still greater. 
 But it is also connected with the fact that at that time the 
 Ephraimites had already been in exile for more than a century. 
 This excites Jeremiah's pity, and he readily believes in their 
 inclination to repent. For the same reasons, in the beginning of 
 Zedekiah's reign, he places Jehoiachin and his fellow exiles very 
 far above their brethren in Judah, upon whom the judgment 
 had not yet been accomplished.* We are not surprised, there- 
 fore, that the Ephraimites take precedence in Israel's restoration 
 to national existence, and that Judah returns after them and 
 joins them. They have all repented together of their former 
 errors, which are now no longer remembered, for " Jahveh shall 
 cleanse them from all their iniquity which they have committed 
 against him, and pardon all the sins which they have sinned 
 against him."-f- Jahveh and his people start afresh, as it were. 
 " The days come, saith Jahveh, that I will make a new covenant 
 with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not 
 according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the 
 day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt, 
 for my covenant they brake, although I was their master, saith 
 Jahveh. But this is the covenant that I will make with the 
 house of Israel after those days, saith Jahveh : I will put my 
 law in their inward parts and will write it in their hearts, and 
 will be their god and they shall be my people. And they shall 
 teach no more every man his neighbour and every man his 
 brother, saying, ' Know Jahveh !' — for they shall all know me, 
 saith Jahveh, from the least unto the greatest ; for I shall forgive 
 their iniquity and remember their unrighteousness no more." J 
 The people thus restored and regenerate will be again ruled by 
 David's descendants. It is said generally that " their (Israel's) 
 head shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed 
 from the midst of them; I, Jahveh, will cause him to draw 
 near, and he shall approach me ; for who is he that hath engaged 
 
 * Jer. xxiv. + Jer. xxxiii. 8. J Jer. xxxi. 31—34. 
 
74 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE 
 
 his heart to approach unto me? saith Jahveh."* Here, there- 
 fore, the prophet excludes all foreign dominion, and states at the 
 same time that the king of Israel, dedicated to Jahveh, shall 
 have free access to him. Elsewhere he unequivocally expresses 
 his anticipation that this king vi^ill be a descendant of David : 
 " I wiU set up shepherds over them which shall feed them, and 
 they shall know fear and dismay no more, neither shall they be 
 lost, saith Jahveh. Behold, the days come, saith Jahveh, that I 
 will raise unto David a righteous branch,-f- and he shall reign 
 as king and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in 
 the land. In his days Judah shall be saved and Israel dwell 
 safely, and this is the name whereby men shall call him [all 
 Israel], ' Jahveh is our righteousness.' "| And in another passage, 
 " they shall serve Jahveh their god, and David their king, whom 
 I will raise up unto them."§ It is only apparently that mention 
 is made here of a single Davidic king. The prophet expects 
 that the princes of this race — the shepherds whom he named in 
 the first instance|| — will succeed each other without interruption, 
 and wiU all, without distinction, answer to the description which 
 he gives, for in each of them David their forefather wUl live 
 again. Under their rule Israel will enjoy uninterrupted pros- 
 perity. Her enemies shall be rendered harmless and shall set 
 foot in the land no more. IT Jerusalem shall be rebuilt** and 
 greatly enlarged,-f-|- even as her population shall be much more 
 numerous than before.j| The cities of Judah and the streets of 
 Jerusalem shall again echo, as in former times, with " the voice 
 of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom 
 and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that say, ' Praise 
 Jahveh of hosts, for he is good, for his mercy endureth for 
 ever.'"§§ There shall be an abundance of corn and wine and 
 
 * Jer. XXX. 21. 
 
 t Perhaps more correctly, "righteous sprout" (zfimach), i.e. offepring. 
 X Jer. xxiii. 4 — 6. § Jer. xxx. 9. J] Jer. xxiii. 4. 
 
 IT Jer. xxxiii. 9, and elsewhere. ** Jer. xxx. 18. ft Jer. xxxi. 38 — 40. 
 
 §§ Jer. xxxiii. 10, 11. 
 
FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 586 B.O. 75 
 
 oil and sheep and oxen ; the virgin shall rejoice in the dance, 
 both young men and old together; for Jahveh wiU turn their 
 mourning into joy and make them rejoice according to their 
 sorrow.* The temple — we scarcely need say — will again be the 
 centre of the worship of Jahveh. The priests will be satiated 
 by Jahveh.f Watchmen upon mount Ephraim will cry, " Come, 
 let us go up to Zion, to Jahveh our god !"| In harmony, however, 
 with the new state of things which will commence after the 
 restoration, not only the temple, but the whole of Jerusalem 
 will then be dedicated to Jahveh. § "When ye" — the prophet 
 had already said in Josiah's reign || — " be multiplied and fruitful 
 in the land, in those days, saith Jahveh, they shall say no more, 
 ' The ark of the covenant of Jahveh ;' neither shall it come to 
 mind, neither shall they remember it nor miss it, and it shaU 
 not be made again. At that time they shall call Jerusalem the 
 throne of Jahveh." 
 
 When we hear Jeremiah utter such anticipations as these, we 
 call to mind how his contemporary the author of Zech. xii. — xiv.,ir 
 and even Isaiah and Micah,** had announced the participation 
 of the heathen in this glorious Jahveh-worship. This idea also 
 is not wanting in Jeremiah. Having caUed Jerusalem "the 
 throne of Jahveh," he immediately adds, " all nations shall be 
 gathered unto it on account of the name of Jahveh." -fi- "To 
 thee" — he says elsewhere |j — " to Jahveh shall the nations come 
 from the ends of the earth and shall say, ' Our fathers have only 
 inherited lies, vanity, and among them (among these good-for- 
 nothing gods) there is none that helpeth.' " The restoration of 
 the tribes carried away by Nebuchadnezzar — as we have already 
 said§§ — depends upon their willingness to " learn the ways of 
 Israel and to swear by the name of Jahveh, as they formerly 
 taught Israel to swear by Baal ;" if they fulfil this condition, 
 
 * Jer. smxi. 12, 13. + Jer. xxxi. 14. t Jer. xxxi. 6. 
 
 § Jer. xxxi. 40. || Jer. iii. 16, 17a; comp. Vol. I. p. 233, u. f. 
 
 U See above, p. 66. ** See Vol. I. pp. 66 seq. +t Jer. iii. 17 b. 
 
 §§ Above, p. 71. 
 
76 THE RELiaiON OF ISRAEL. 
 
 " they shall be built in the midst of Jahveh's people."* It 
 cannot be said, however, that Jeremiah attaches much value to 
 this prospect. He considers the conversion of the heathen by- 
 no means certain,f and in his exhaustive description of Israel's 
 future^ he confines himself to the prediction, that " they shall 
 fear and tremble at all the good and all the prosperity that 
 Jahveh will give unto his own."§ He is evidently so full of 
 what his own people has to expect in the immediate future and 
 thereafter, at its restoration, that he does not trouble himself 
 with the future of the heathen. 
 
 I have purposely given Jeremiah's anticipations somewhat 
 fully. He is in all respects worthy of an important place in the 
 history of the Israelitish religion. Our tolerably extensive know- 
 ledge of his fortunes and of the time in which he laboured, causes 
 him, more than any other prophet, to stand before us in person, 
 with his peculiar, strongly marked characteristics. Jeremiah, 
 so to speak, is a living figure. The same is true, therefore, of 
 his ideas and views of the future : however strange and mixed 
 they may seem to us, they present themselves at once as the 
 natural expression of the real living man, and as the fruit of 
 his belief and experience. Thus we have him to thank, that 
 the Israelitish religion, at the important crisis in its history 
 which we have just approached, lies before us as a reality. But 
 there is another reason for which it was necessary to pay more 
 attention to Jeremiah. He exercised a most important influence, 
 not during his lifetime, but after his death, not upon his con- 
 temporaries, but upon those who came after him. We have 
 explained his views without involving ourselves in the ques- 
 tion, whether events proved him to be in the right and his 
 enemies in the wrong. In our estimation, the purity of his 
 principles, and not the precision of his political insight, decides 
 his merit. But with the men of his time, of course, it was very 
 
 * Jer. xii. 16. t Jer. xii. 17. 
 
 J Jer. XXX. — xxxiii. § Jer. xxxiii. 9. 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI. 77 
 
 different. If he, the prophet of misfortune, had been contra- 
 dicted by events ; if Nebuchadnezzar had not laid waste Jeru- 
 salem and the temple — we should probably never have possessed 
 his prophecies. But as it is, he became a great man, and pre- 
 eminently the prophet, in the eyes of his contemporaries, and 
 still more so in the eyes of their children. The hope of restora- 
 tion pronounced by him soon passes into the consciousness of 
 the people, and, partly at all events, on this very account, 
 is realized. The men in whose midst he worked in his last 
 days, flee to Egypt and disappear there without leaving any 
 traces. But his prophecies are brought to Babylon and here 
 do not fail to take effect. The exile on the Chaboras and else- 
 where accept his legacy. After seventy years they return to 
 their native land. Upon them devolved the beautiful but dif- 
 ficult task of realizing the rest of the prophet's expectations 
 as well The future of Israel and of Israel's religion is in their 
 hands. 
 
 We now turn, therefore, to Babylonia and the exUes who there 
 await the time of their deliverance. 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 See p. 4, n. 3, and p. 58, n. §. 
 
 Chapters viii. to xi. of Ezekiel's prophecies belong together 
 and describe to us, according to chap. viii. 1, what Ezekiel saw 
 and heard in an ecstasy into which he fell on the 5th day of 
 the 6th month of the 6th year of his captivity, while " the elders 
 of Judah" sat before him in his house. Now it has already 
 been shown in Hlc. 0. II. 295 seq. (comp. p. 270, n. 9), that the 
 dates, &c., in the titles of Ezekiel's prophecies are of no histo- 
 rical value : they are in great part fictitious and are employed 
 as a literary form. Therefore we must consider that the prophet 
 draws us here a picture of the idolatry in Judah, in the form of 
 
78 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 an ecstatic vision, which is represented as having occurred to 
 him, apparently to announce, but in reality to vindicate, the 
 judgment that had already descended upon Jerusalem and the 
 temple. It will now be perceived how difficult it is to decide 
 whether and to what extent Ezekiel is faithful to historical truth 
 in this description. With respect to various, not unimportant, 
 particulars, there consequently remains some uncertainty, which 
 I do not consider myself able to clear away entirely, but yet 
 wish to explain somewhat more fuUy. 
 
 (1.) Haevernick's opinion (Comm. uber den Proph. Ezech. pp. 
 97 — 104), that only one form of idolatry, and this a feast to 
 Adonis, is described in chap. viii. 5 — 16, has been rejected with 
 perfect justice by the rest of the exegesists, and among them by 
 KeiL The prophet does not intimate by a single word that the 
 ceremonies which he sketches are subdivisions of one cultus. 
 The climax in chap. viii. 6, 13, 15, also pleads against this view. 
 There are therefore four forms of idolatry that occur here: (1) The 
 worship of " the image of jealousy, that provoketh [Jahveh] to 
 jealousy" (chap. viii. 5, 6, comp. 3), i.e. of an image of a 
 false god, perhaps a symbol of Ashera (comp. 2 Kings xxL 7, 
 xxiii. 6). (2) The worship of animals, with figures of which the 
 walls of a secret chamber were ornamented (chap. viii. 7 — 12): 
 it is suspected, on the strength of the accounts of the Ancients, 
 that Egyptian idolatry is meant here ; the figures represent " aU 
 the filth-gods of the house of Israel" (chap. viii. 10); perhaps, 
 therefore, although we may think of Egypt, we must not do so 
 of her exclusively ; (3) The mourning over Tammuz, i.e. Adonis, 
 performed by women (chap. viii. 13 — 15); comp. Keil, der Pro- 
 plid Ezechiel, pp. 75 sq. (4) Prayer to the sim at sunrise (chap, 
 viii. 16). 
 
 (2.) Does Ezekiel believe that all these idolatrous customs — 
 whether it were in the reign of Zedekiah or earlier — took place 
 in and around the temple at Jci-usalem ? This is denied by Keil 
 (/. c. p. 72). According to him, the locality belongs to the lite- 
 rary form : to render it quite plain how very much Israel was 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI. 79 
 
 sinning by her idolatry, Ezekiel makes the latter take place in 
 the very centre of the Jahveh-worship, where he makes (chap, 
 viii. 11) seventy elders, the representatives of the whole people, 
 and (chap viii. 16) twenty- five men, the representatives of the 
 priesthood, appear and commit their abominations. That at all 
 events some of these ceremonies were practised in the houses 
 of the Judseans, is evident from chap. viii. 12, where we read, 
 " Seest thou what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the 
 dark, every man in his chambers adorned with figures ?" This 
 unequivocally teaches us that the worship of animals took place 
 in the houses of the great, and therefore not in the temple. 
 Such is Kail's opinion. The liberty which he makes Ezekiel 
 take, does not seem to me to be too great : I think it quite con- 
 ceivable that, contrary to reality but in harmony with the idea 
 he wished to represent, he made the sanctuary at Jerusalem the 
 scene of all the abominations. But would he, in that case, have 
 indicated the different sides and courts of the temple so minutely 
 as he now does in chap. viii. 3 seq.? Is it not evident from the 
 distinctions which he makes, that he has the real temple in 
 view, and thus also the rites which actually occurred there ? 
 As regards chap. viii. 12, it would follow from this passage 
 that the Judsean of high rank had more than one chamber 
 adorned with figures in his house : can this have been Ezekiel's 
 meaning ? must we not allow to Hitzig that the text is cor- 
 rupted? His emendation (Ber Proph. Ezech. p. 61), partly 
 according to LXX., consists in striking out the words which 
 produce difficulty; it seems very hazardous. But even if it can- 
 not be decided for certain what the prophet wrote, in no case 
 can chap. viii. 12 be employed to reject the conclusion to which 
 all the rest of the description leads. 
 
 (3.) Does Ezekiel describe the idolatry which was practised 
 in the temple in his time, whether it were in the 6th year of 
 his captivity, or while he still lived at Jerusalem, but in either 
 case after Josiah's 18th year ? Or does he refer to earlier times, 
 and particularly to the reign of Manasseh ? To arrive at cer- 
 
80 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 tainty in this respect, let us first study chap. viii. 11, xi. 1, 13. 
 Among the seventy elders who take part in the second form of 
 idolatry, we find Jaazaniah ben Shaphan ; to the twenty-five 
 men who stop at the east gate of the temple, belong Jaazaniah 
 ben Azur and Pelatiah ben Benaiah ; when Ezekiel — in the 
 vision — prophesies against these twenty -five men, the last- 
 mentioned is struck dead by divine judgment. WTiat are we 
 to think of these names ? Do they indicate contemporaries of 
 Ezekiel, who distinguished themselves by their zeal among the 
 upholders of idolatry ? Is, e.g., Shaphan the father of Jaazaniah 
 (chap. viii. 11) the same as Shaphan the Scribe, whom we know 
 from the narrative of Josiah's reformation (2 Kings xxii. 3 seq.)? 
 These questions are usually answered in the affirmative. If the 
 accuracy of that answer could be proved, the case would be at 
 once made out : Ezekiel would then treat of facts and persons 
 of his own days. But this proof has not been, and cannot be, 
 furnished. It may be assumed equally well, that the three 
 names belong to the literary form, and are only intended to 
 render the picture more striking — in the same way that the 
 sudden death of Pelatiah is, doubtless, related for no other 
 purpose (comp. chap, xi 13 b). Thus it appears to me that the 
 proper names do not decide the point in question for us — how- 
 ever much light they may have thrown upon Ezekiel's meaning 
 for his contemporaries. — Chap. viii. 17 seems to me less ambi- 
 guous. After the prophet had seen all the abominations, Jahveh 
 asks him, " Hast thou seen it, son of man ? "VYas it not 
 enough for the house of Judah to commit the abominations 
 \\hich they have committed here, that they [now, in addition] 
 have filled the land with wrong, and have again provoked 
 
 me ?" The words, "which they have committed here," 
 
 and especially the antithesis between " to commit the abomina- 
 tions" and " to fin the land with wrong," are in favour of the 
 hypothesis that the idolatry belongs to the past, or at all events 
 was practised in the past in the forms in which it was described 
 here. In that case Ezekiel would here make up the account of 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI. 81 
 
 his nation, as he does in chap. xx. — xxiii. (comp. Hk. 0. II. 
 274 — 276), and delineate in particular the worship of strange 
 gods in aU its compass and diversity. 
 
 The reader will now understand why, when use was made 
 above of Ezek. viii., the applicability of that chapter to Ma- 
 nasseh's time was represented, not as quite certain, it is true, 
 but yet as extremely probable. 
 
 II.— Seep. 9, w. X- 
 
 The provisions of the Book of the Covenant concerning the 
 Jahveh-worship are in every sense worthy of further explanation. 
 
 A prominent position must be given to the fact, that the 
 author of that book sets his face against the service of other 
 gods, and stirs up and exhorts the Israelites to worship Jahveh 
 alone. See Exod. xx. 23, xxii. 20, xxiii. 13, 24 — 33. According 
 to the Authorized Version, chap. xxii. 28 runs, " Thou shalt not 
 revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." This has 
 been interpreted as if it were forbidden here to treat the gods of 
 other nations insultingly. This is incorrect : such a prohibition 
 is opposed to the notions of the ancient Israelites. Nor can 
 " the gods " (Hebr. EloMm) be interpreted in the sense of 
 " judges." Translate, " Thou shalt not curse God, nor revile the 
 ruler of thy people." We find the same combination of God 
 and ruler (or king) in 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13. 
 
 The Book of the Covenant permits sacrifice to Jahveh in more 
 than one place. Eead Exod. xx. 24 : " Make me an altar of 
 earth, and sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and thy thank- 
 offerings, thy sheep and thy oxen ; in all places where I shall 
 establish the remembrance of my name (or, where I shall make 
 my name remembered), I will come unto thee and bless thee." This 
 evidently speaks of more than one place where the Israelite 
 
 VOL. ii. G 
 
82 TEE RELIGION OE ISRAEL. 
 
 praises Jahveh — and this, as the context shows, by means of 
 sacrifices — and Jahveh accepts that praise and answers it with 
 his blessing. In accordance with this, mention is made in verse 
 24a of an altar of earth, and in verse 25 of an altar of stone, 
 and directions are given there as to the manner in which each 
 sort of altar must be made. The sense of verse 24b becomes 
 much plainer, however, if we slightly improve the text, according 
 to the Syriac translation and the thargum of Jerusalem, and 
 read, " in all places inhere thou shalt praise my name," &c. This 
 emendation is strongly recommended by the idiom (comp. for 
 hizkir, among others, Exod. xxiii. 13), and no less by comparison 
 with the other old translations, from which it is clearly evident 
 that the text has been altered in various ways, to make it agree 
 with the younger laws, which only recognize one altar, at Jeru- 
 salem. (Comp. Geiger in Zcits. der D. M. G. xix. 603 sqq.) 
 
 In the meantime it is thought that this interpretation of Exod. 
 XX. 24, is contradicted by other passages of the Book of the 
 Covenant. Men point to chap. xxi. 14, where mention is made 
 of " mine altar," in the singular. But comp. Exod. xx. 26, in 
 connection with verses 24, 25, which passage proves that chap, 
 xxi. 14 must be understood as referring to one of the altars of 
 Jahveh. Appeal is made to chap, xxiii. 19 a, " the first of the 
 first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of Jahveh 
 thy god." But exactly the same thing applies to this passage : 
 the lawgiver could express himself thus, although several temples 
 to Jahveh existed at the time. If, as is probable, he was ac- 
 quainted with the temple at Jerusalem, and had this especially 
 in view, he still does not absolutely exclude sacrifice in other 
 places. And further, when chap, xxiii. 14 speaks of three feasts 
 in honour of Jahveh, and verse 17 of appearing before (or 
 seeing) Jahveh's face three times, this can be just as well 
 understood to mean a visit to the smaller sanctuaries, the " high 
 places," as a festival in the temple at Jerusalem. 
 
 Eather do passages occur in the Book of the Covenant which 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI. 83 
 
 remain inexplicable, unless we suppose them to refer to a larger 
 number of Jahveh-sanctuaries and to the priests who served 
 there. See chaps, xxi. 6, xxii. 8, 9. According to the States- 
 translators, these passages speak of " the gods." Of course 
 they did not mean false gods, but judges, who, they believed, 
 are called "gods" {EloMm) because judgment is considered to 
 proceed from God and to be delivered in his name. This inter- 
 pretation has been upheld quite recently by Knobel and Keil. 
 But Graf is perfectly right in rejecting it {Z. d. D. M. 0. xviii. 
 309 — 314). In the three passages cited above he translates 
 EloMm by God, and shows that they refer to an act done or a 
 decision taken at the holy place, before Jahveh's face and with 
 the co-operation of the Jahveh-priest. The Hebrew slave who 
 voluntarily entered into servitude for life, had to make his 
 declaration to that effect in the sanctuary, in order to add to the 
 solemnity of his act (chap. xxi. 6). The questions mentioned in 
 chap. xxii. 8, 9, cannot be decided by the ordinary judge, by the 
 " elders of the city" (see above, p. 34) ; therefore they are settled 
 by the priest, at the sanctuary — presumably with the urim and 
 thummlm, i.e. by sacred lot (Vol. I. pp. 97 seq). Chap. xxii. 11, 
 also, indicates " the oath of (or by) Jahveh" as a means of 
 settling a dispute. The reason why God {EloMm, with the 
 article) is employed in the passages referred to, and not Jahveh, 
 is no other than this, that in proceedings of this nature the 
 name of the god is not concerned : the decision proceeds from 
 the deity, quite in a general sense, and thus from Jahveh, not in 
 his capacity as Israel's god, but as god, and nothing more. Now 
 it is obvious — and this is why we have referred in this note to 
 these texts — that Exod. xxi. 6, xxii. 8, 9, could not possibly be 
 put in practice, if the Israelite had to go for that purpose to 
 the one sanctuary, whether it was at Shiloh or at Jerusalem. 
 Precepts such as these suppose that every one had a sanctuary 
 of Jahveh in his immediate neighbourhood, or at all events had 
 not to travel very far to reach such a sanctuary. In other words, 
 
 G 2 
 
84 TBE RELiaiON OF ISRAEL. 
 
 the centralization of worship, either in the one tabernacle or in 
 the temple at Jerusalem, is unknown to the author of the Book 
 of the Covenant. 
 
 Graf's explanation is objected to by Dr. J. Werner {Z. d. 
 D. M. G. xix. 306), and this on the strength of 1 Sam. ii 25. 
 He translates, " if one man sin against another, the judge (Hebr. 
 eloMm) decides, but if a man sin against Jahveh, who shall set 
 himself up as judge for him (Jahveh) ?" Xo evidence can be 
 brought against the accuracy of this interpretation, which diverges 
 from the ordinary one in the last words. But how can it serve 
 as a proof that elohtm is here = the judge ? ^Yhy could not we 
 translate god, and think of the oracles in the Jahveh-sanctuaries ? 
 The meaning then becomes : transgressions against men, however 
 serious they may be, are judged by the Jahveh-priest and re- 
 paired by paying the penalty imposed by him, but a sin against 
 Jahveh cannot be repaired by any means whatever; it must 
 be expiated, and that by the severe punishment which Jahveh 
 himself will execute upon the offender. 
 
 III.— Seep. 13, n. ff; jj. 29, n.f; p. 30, n. IT. 
 
 The ideas put forward in these passages as to the feast of 
 unleavened bread and the passover, require some further expla- 
 nation. A thoroughly complete treatment of this extremely 
 involved problem must not be expected here ; the main points 
 alone can receive attention. 
 
 I. The passover-feast of Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 21 — 23) is 
 regarded above (p. 13) as historical, at variance with the opinion 
 held by Eedslob (Die Uhl. Aitgaben. iiber die PascMfeicr, p. 33) 
 and Dozy {Be Israelicten te Mckka, pp. 139, 140). They hold 
 2 Kings xxiii. 21—23 to be a subsequent interpolation, tending 
 to represent the more recent, in fact post-exile, passover as 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI. 85 
 
 having been already known and solemnly kept in Josiah's days, 
 and thus to facilitate its introduction. In support of this opinion 
 they point to verse 21, where Josiah says, " Keep the passover 
 unto Jahveh your god, as it is written in this hook of the covenant" 
 — although the book of the covenant has not been mentioned 
 since verse 3, and verses 4 — 20 treat exclusively of the rooting 
 out of idolatry. They also refer to verse 24, where, conversely, 
 the said book is indicated with great diffuseness by the formula, 
 " the words of the law which were written in the book that 
 Hilkiah the priest had found in the house of Jahveh" — as if 
 that book had not been spoken of immediately before. Both 
 these difficulties disappear if we regard verses 21 — 23 as an 
 interpolation. — I have already intimated above (Vol. I. p. 95) 
 that this argument does not seem to me to be convincing. After 
 having stated in 2 Kings xxiii. 1 — 3, that on the basis of 
 Hilkiah's book a covenant was made between Jahveh and the 
 people, the author goes on to relate how the stipulations of this 
 covenant were put into execution. In verses 4 — 23 he describes 
 how public worship was instituted according to the words of 
 Hilkiah's book of the law, and this (1) (verses 4 — 20) by the 
 complete abolition of idolatry and illegal Jahveh- worship, which 
 are described here una tenore ; (2) by the solemn celebration of 
 the feast of the passover, which the book of the law prescribed 
 (verses 21 — 23). In verse 24 he passes to another subject, viz. 
 the abolition of the idolatrous practices, images, &e., which 
 belonged to household worship (comp. Thenius, die Biicher der 
 Konige, pp. 434 sq.). It cannot be said, therefore, that verses 
 21 — 23 break the sense or are misplaced. Now as for the ex- 
 pression in verse 21, it proves that I was right just now in 
 regarding verses 4 — 20 and verses 21 — 23 as subdivisions of one 
 whole : verse 21 refers straight back to verse 3, and shows that 
 the author, after having sketched the negative side of the intro- 
 duction of the law, now goes on to the positive introduction of its 
 principal commandments ; for this reason " this hook of the 
 covenant" is mentioned again in verse 21. And as for verse 24, 
 
86 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 the expression is certainly unnecessarily long, but not more so 
 than in verse 3 compared with verse 2 ; and moreover the author 
 of Kings generally writes very diffusely, and, as we have ob- 
 served above, he enters in verse 24 upon another subdivision of 
 his subject, so that it is not without reason that he employs the 
 full formula to indicate the book of the law. 
 
 If, therefore, the proofs of the subsequent interpolation of 
 2 Kings xxiii. 21 — 23 are inadequate, it is certain, on the other 
 hand, that a passover was already held in honour of Jahveh 
 before the captivity, nay before Josiah's time, even if it was 
 not kept at Jerusalem, as first prescribed in Deut. xvi. 1 — 8, 
 and thus in Hilkiah's book. Ezekiel mentions the passover 
 (chap. xlv. 21 — 24), and he does it as if he considered it already 
 known to his readers. In Deut. xvi., too, it is not only com- 
 manded, but also represented as a thing generally known. Nay, 
 even in Exod. xxxiv. 25, the words of the Book of the Covenant 
 (Exod. xxiii. 18 b), " the fat of my feast-offering shall not remain 
 until the morning," are reproduced with this alteration, "the 
 sacrifice of the feast of the passover shall not remain until the 
 morning." Therefore, unless it be thought that these texts 
 may also be regarded as later interpolations, there is not the 
 least ground to deny 2 Kings xxiii. 21 — 23 to the author of the 
 portions of the chapter that precede and follow it. Thus it will 
 surprise no one that, instead of looking upon Deut. xvi. 1 — 8 as 
 a proof of the later origin of the Deuteronomic law, I have, on 
 the contrary, advanced that pericope, in its connection with 
 2 Kings xxiii. 21 — 23, as evidence for the identity of Deute- 
 ronomy with Hilkiah's book of the law. 
 
 II. In what chronological order do the laws relating to the 
 feast of unleavened bread — henceforward called mazzoth for 
 shortness' sake — and to the sacrifice of the passover follow each 
 other ? After considering carefully what has been put forward 
 on this subject by, among others, Hupfeld (de vera et primit. fest. 
 apud Hehr. ratione), Eiehm {die Gesetzgebxmg Mazes' im, Lande 
 Moai), and lately by Graf {die gesch. Bileher des A. T. pp. 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI. 87 
 
 32 — 37), I am of opinion that they must be arranged in this 
 way: 
 
 1. Exod. xxiii. 15 (mazz6th ; no mention of the sacrifice of the 
 
 passover) ; 
 
 2. Exod. xiii. 3 — 10 (ditto; but in verses 2 and 11 — 16, the 
 
 dedication of the first-born) ; 
 
 3. Exod. xxxiv. 18 (ditto; but mention is again made in 
 
 verses 19, 20, of the dedication of the first-born ; while 
 verse 25 speaks of " the sacrifice of the feast of the pass- 
 over") ; 
 
 4. Deut. xvi. 1 — 8 (mazzoth and sacrifice of the passover; 
 
 immediately preceded in chapter xv. 19 — 23 by com- 
 mandments relating to the first-born of sheep and oxen) ; 
 
 5. Exod. xii. 1—28, 43—50 ; Lev. xxiii. 5—8 [also 10—14] ; 
 
 Num. xxviii. 16 — 25, ix. 1 — 14 (all of which laws belong 
 together and connect mazzoth with the sacrifice of the 
 passover). 
 
 The most debatable point in this arrangement is the placing 
 of 4 before 5 — with respect to which I refer my readers to Graf. 
 Eiehm alleges {Stud. u. Krit. 1868, pp. 362 sq.) against him, 
 that the celebration of the passover in the houses of the Israel- 
 ites, according to 5, is obviously older than that at the sanc- 
 tuary, according to 4. It must indeed be admitted that the 
 Deuteronomist introduces something new when he removes the 
 sacrifice of the passover to Jerusalem. But it does not follow 
 from this that the laws named under 5 are older and were known 
 to him. Let it be taken into consideration, that especially the 
 first and second of these laws, Exod. xii. 1 — 28 and 43 — 50, 
 exhibit a double character; they are promulgated at the exodus 
 from Egypt, and therefore serve partly to ordain the first paschal 
 sacrifice and partly to regulate the yearly passover. Of course, 
 at the first paschal sacrifice a sanctuary, &c., was out of the 
 question. But as far as the annual passover is concerned, the 
 lawgiver, unless I be mistaken, really takes the celebration in 
 
88 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 the city of the temple for granted (comp. Exod. xii. 16; also 
 Lev. xxiii. 7, 8, 10 — 14 ; Num. ix. 6 seq., throughout which the 
 celebration at the sanctuary seems to be assumed). The cele- 
 bration prescribed in Exod. xii. is more ancient than that of 
 Deut. xvi. in one respect alone : in the commandment that the 
 lamb of the passover must be eaten in the evening by the 
 members of one family indoors. Should I succeed in showing, 
 however, that the Deuteronomist was acquainted with this cus- 
 tom, but, for reasons sufficient for himself, does not expressly 
 mention it, then this objection to the higher antiquity of Deut. 
 xvi. 1 — 8 will have been cleared away; for then an old custom 
 will have been elevated into a law in Exod. xii., although by a 
 younger lawgiver. Thus the very weighty arguments advanced 
 by Graf and others (see also Geiger, Jildische Zeitschrift, iii. 178 
 sqq.) in favour of the later origin of the laws named under 5, 
 will retain their full force. 
 
 III. From the list of the laws relating to mazzoth and passover 
 given above, it is most clearly evident, a. that mazzoth origin- 
 ally stood alone ; b. that this feast, at a comparatively early 
 date, and at all events in the eighth century B.C., was interpreted 
 as a memorial of the deliverance out of the land of bondage. It 
 is not probable in itself that this fact will have been celebrated 
 by such a feast. But besides this, it is obvious that the law- 
 givers are puzzled when they have to explain the connection 
 between the eating of unleavened bread and the exodus. The 
 oldest laws abstain from any attempt to do this (1, 2, 3). The 
 Deuteronomist gives two explanations : a. he calls the mazzoth 
 " bread of affliction " (chap. xvi. 3 a); h. he writes, " for thou 
 camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste" (chap. xvi. 3 b) 
 — presumably an allusion to Exod. xii. 34, 39 (" the people took 
 their dough before it was leavened; their kneading -troughs 
 being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders ;" of this 
 same dough they afterwards baked unleavened cakes, " for they 
 were thrust out of Egypt and could not tarry"). The youngest 
 lawgiver, it would seem, is acquainted \\'ith both these explana- 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI. 89 
 
 tions ; see Exod. xii. 8 (the bitter herbs with the mazzoth reminds 
 us of "the bread of affliction"), 11 (the preparation for the 
 journey described here reminds us of Deut. xvi. 3 b ; nor is the 
 expression " in haste" wanting). It will surely be admitted that 
 the Old Testament conception of mazzoth, both in itself and on 
 account of the difference in the way in which it is worked out, 
 is not at all probable and can hardly be original. But then 
 whence comes the custom of eating mazzSth for seven consecu- 
 tive days in the spring? We do not know for certain. Let 
 any one who desires to become acquainted with the contradic- 
 tory answers to this question consult Knobel, Mxod. u. Levit. 
 pp. 103 sq. and the authors named there i also M. Duncker, 
 Oesch. des Alterthums, I. 311, 765 sq. (3e Ausg.). Without mak- 
 ing any definite choice from among the various explanations, I 
 would draw attention to the precept in Lev. ii. 11, that meat- 
 offerings for Jahveh must always be unleavened. Unleavened 
 bread therefore was looked upon as pure, and its use was 
 eminently fitted to symbolize the dedication of the people to 
 Jahveh. This agrees with the fact that mazzoth is a spring- 
 feast and is kept at the beginning of a new year. But, I repeat, 
 this explanation, in my opinion, is far from certain. This alone 
 is certain, that, whatever may have been the original meaning 
 of mazzoth, attempts were made at a very early date to connect 
 that feast with the remembrance of the exodus, and thus to turn 
 it into a Jahveh-feast in a still narrower sense, into a theocratic 
 feast. 
 
 IV. To comprehend the meaning of the passover-sacrifice, 
 we must keep in view the decrees of the various lawgivers in 
 reference to the dedication of the first-born to Jahveh. Arranged 
 chronologically they are as follows: Exod. xxii. 29b, 30, xiii. 2, 
 11—16, xxxiv. 19, 20; Deut. xv. 19—23; Lev. xxvii. 26, 27; 
 Num. xviii. 15—18, iii. 11—13, 40—51, viii. 5— 22— with this 
 proviso, that the precepts in Leviticus and Numbers are almost, 
 if not quite, contemporaneous. These laws by no means agree 
 with each other : comp. Hk. 0. I. 34, 35. Setting aside what 
 
90 THE SELialON OF ISRAEL. 
 
 does not directly concern our present subject, I will devote my 
 attention to the following points. 
 
 (1.) According to the Book of the Covenant, there is no 
 manner of connection between the dedication of the first-hom 
 and any one of the three j'early feasts. It is expressly said 
 (Exod. xxii. 30) of the first-born of oxen and sheep, that they 
 must be given to Jahveh eight days after their birth, i.e., there- 
 fore, at all seasons of the year. When the first-born sons were 
 "given to Jahveh" and in what that "giving" consisted, the 
 lawgiver does not say (v. 29). We may suspect that they too 
 had to be eight days old. It is also natural to connect this with 
 the circumcision on the eighth day (Gen. xvii. 12 ; Lev. xii. 3). 
 See further under VI. 
 
 (2.) On the other hand, we see very plainly in Exod. xiii. 
 xxxiv., Deut. xv., the endeavour to connect the dedication of 
 the first-born with mazzoth. Comp. above under II. In Exod. 
 xiii. a law relating to mazzoth (verses 3 — 10) stands between a 
 short precept and a longer law relating to the dedication of the 
 first-born (verses 2, 11 — 16). In Exod. xxxiv. the command- 
 ment to keep mazzoth (verse 18) is separated by the precepts 
 about the first-born (verses 19, 20) from the commandments 
 relating to two other high feasts (verse 22). Deut. xvi. 1 — 8 is 
 immediately preceded by the law concerning the first-born of 
 oxen and sheep (Deut. xv. 19 — 23). For the moment I will pass 
 over what follows from this. At any rate the phenomenon is 
 remarkable. 
 
 (3.) Whereas all the rest of the laws assign the first-born 
 of man as well as of beasts to Jahveh, the Deuteronomist speaks 
 exclusively of the first-born of oxen and sheep (chap. xv. 19 — 23). 
 The fact cannot be denied, but — is it of any significance? or 
 must we attribute it to accident ? It seems to me that the 
 Deuteronomist is purposely silent with respect to the dedication 
 of the first-born sons. He had more than one opportunity of 
 speaking of it, not only in chap, xv., but also in chap, xviii. 4 — 
 that is to say, if the custom of redeeming the first-born by pay- 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI. 91 
 
 ing a sum of money to the priest already existed in his time 
 (comp. Num. xviii. 15 — 18). Ezekiel too mentions the dedica- 
 tion of the first-born sons but once, in chap. xx. 25, 26, where 
 he speaks of " the statutes of Jahveh, that were not good, and 
 the judgments whereby they could not live;" in regulating the 
 incomes of the priests, chap. xliv. 29, 30, he only assigns to them 
 the first-fruits of the field. I admit, however, that this reasoning 
 is not conclusive. But if it can be shown what the Deuterono- 
 mist's motive was for keeping silence as to the dedication of the 
 first-born sons, then it will become highly probable, if not certain, 
 that there has been no accident in this case. Therefore see below 
 under VI. 
 
 V. In explaining the paschal sacrifice, we have to notice both 
 the manner in which it was offered and the meaning of the 
 name which it bears. But for particular reasons the practices 
 decreed in Exod. xii. 1 — 28 afford us but little light. This law, 
 namely, tends definitely to connect the paschal sacrifice with 
 the events which occurred at the exodus, and therefore cannot 
 be followed, unless we could either regard this interpretation of 
 the passover as the original one, or could be sure that the law- 
 giver did not allow himself to diverge in the least from existing 
 customs. Neither one nor the other is the case. Therefore 
 we turn to the name pMsach (of which the New Testament 
 pascha is the Aramaic form). Dozy (I.e. p. 139) has inferred 
 from the proper name Thapsacus (from the verb pMsach, Hebr. 
 phasacK) that the primitive meaning of ph&ach is no other 
 than a going over, a passage, in accordance with which he assumes 
 that the paschal sacrifice was intended to keep alive the remem- 
 brance of the passage, of the Jordan. But when we consult 
 the Old Testament, it becomes evident that the meaning of the 
 Hebrew verb, however closely it may be allied to the sense 
 expressed by the Aramaic verb, as appears from the name 
 Thapsacus, does not coincide with it entirely. In the law rela- 
 ting to the paschal sacrifice the Hebrew verb clearly means to 
 spring ot pass over, and therefore to spare. See Exod. xii. 13, 23, 
 
92 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 27. However much liberty the author of that law may have 
 allowed himself, he must have employed the verb phasach in 
 the same sense as that in which the Israelites used it, at least 
 if he wished to be understood by them. In fact, phdsach does 
 occur at least once again in the Old Testament — 1 Kings xviii. 21 
 is surely of a different nature — in the same sense, in Isaiah, 
 chap. xxxi. 5. We read there, "as birds fluttering [over their 
 young], so will Jahveh of hosts defend Jerusalem, defending and 
 saving, sparing and deKvering." And besides this, the Hebrew 
 words which are derived from phasach (and especially phissiach, 
 cripple) do not contradict the supposed original meaning of this 
 verb. Thus we have to consider that pMsack is equal to a pass- 
 ing over, an exemption. This is the opinion of the great majority 
 of exegetes. 
 
 YI. It may be assumed to be probable that the interpretation 
 of the paschal feast which is advanced in Exod. xii. is not very 
 far from the original meaning of that sacrifice : to gain accept- 
 ance for his explanation, the lawgiver was obliged to adhere as 
 much as possible to existing ideas and customs. From this 
 point of view, the hypothesis that the paschal sacrifice is a sub- 
 stitutional sacrifice, that the animal sacrificed takes the place af 
 the first-born son, to whom Jahvcli is considi-red to have a right 
 and to lay claim, deserves special recommendation. We are 
 not surprised that this supposition has met with defenders before 
 now, and has lately been maintained by M. Duncker, in the 
 work referred to, pp. 310 sq., 765 sq. Independently of these 
 examples, it has forced itself upon me also, in studying the 
 whole of this subject anew. Let the following serve to elucidate 
 and recommend this view. 
 
 Originally, the father of every family, on the eighth day after 
 the birth of his first-born son, offered up to Jahveh a redemption- 
 offering, which was called phesach for the reasons just indicated : 
 viz., it induced Jahveh to pass over or spare the child, to which 
 he had a claim, and which therefore ought really to have been 
 offered up to him (Exod. xxii. 29, and above, IV. 1). From 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI. 93 
 
 its very nature, this offering was of a private character ; it was 
 not and could not be congregational. Now it must gradually 
 have become the custom, a. to offer such an exemption-sacrifice 
 annually, and &., in connection with this, to combine it with one 
 of the feasts that recurred annually, with mazz6th. We find 
 evident traces of this combination in Exod. xiii. xxxiv. (above, 
 IV. 2). Probably the paschal offering consisted of a lamb or a 
 he-goat. Was it originally offered to Jahveh as a burnt- offering ? 
 This is not unlikely, but it must gradually have become cus- 
 tomary that the members of one family should eat the paschal 
 lamb together, and that then the first-born of oxen and sheep that 
 the past year had produced should be eaten at sacrificial meals 
 on the following days of mazzoth. This is what the Deutero- 
 nomist found in existence. He made this alteration in it, that 
 he removed mazzoth, and therefore also the sacrificial meals just 
 mentioned, to Jerusalem. But at the same time he places those 
 meals in the foreground — as was pointed out on p. 30— and the 
 eating of the paschal lamb in the background ; why he did so 
 is there shown. The priestly lawgiver, Exod. xii. 1 seq., is the 
 first who can entirely restore the paschal sacrifice to its right 
 position, while and because he interprets and represents it in a 
 purely historical sense, and thus alters considerably its original 
 meaning. The same lawgiver makes another alteration besides 
 this. He decrees, namely, that every first-born son, as belonging 
 to -Tahveh, must be redeemed from the priest (Num. xviii. 16), 
 and, moreover, that the priest is entitled to the first-born of 
 oxen and sheep, after deducting what goes to the altar (verses 
 17, 18). Both these innovations are introduced in the interest 
 of the priesthood and find in this their explanation. The first, 
 if our interpretation of the paschal sacrifice be correct, was a sin 
 against the rule, ne his in idem. But there is nothing strange in 
 this, after all the modifications that the original dedication of 
 the first-born to Jahveh had undergone in the course of centuries. 
 Our hypothesis is recommended by the fact that it accounts 
 
94 TBE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 for the diversity of the laws, and for the peculiar phenomena 
 which present themselves in the Deuteronomic precepts about 
 mazzoth and ph^sach (chap. xvi. 1 — 8), and for the Deutero- 
 nomist's silence with regard to the dedication of the first-born 
 sons. So long as this dedication had not yet been explained 
 historically, it constituted a real difiiculty for a man such as the 
 Deuteronomist. Therefore he says nothing about it, and when 
 he mentions the paschal sacrifice, which was so intimately con- 
 nected with that dedication, he abstains from aU further expla- 
 nation of its meaning. 
 
 Let the reader himself judge whether other attempts to solve 
 this intricate historical problem answer reasonable expectations 
 better than this one. 
 
 TV.— See p. 32, n. ' 
 
 In reference to " clean and unclean," a paper by Veth in de 
 Evangelie-Spicgcl, 1862, pp. 257 seq., 353 seq., is worthy of 
 perusal. His idea of the reasons why some animals were looked 
 upon as unclean, is the same as that advanced above (p. 32) ; 
 comp. also Knobel, Exod. u. Levit. pp. 431 sqq. 
 
 My remarks upon Deut. xiv. and Levit. xi. must be illustrated 
 here somewhat more fully. 
 
 The capability of distinguishing between clean and unclean 
 belonged in Israel to the priests ; it was especially their task to 
 give instruction (thorah) in this matter to all who desired it. 
 This is evident, not only from the laws relating to cleanness and 
 purification in Levit. xii. — xiv., where the assistance of the priest 
 is always called in, but also from passages such as Ezek. xliv. 
 23 ; Hagg. ii. 11 seq. And other passages as well, wliich simply 
 mention the thorah of the priest, we have no hesitation in 
 taking to refer to his directions upon the same subject, e.g. 
 ]\Ial. ii. 6, 7; Deut. xxxiii. 10, &c. (comp. Vol. I. pp. 340 seq.). 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI. 95 
 
 The conjecture that Deut. xiv. 1 — 21 is a piece of priestly 
 thorah, thus brings its own recommendation with it. It is con- 
 firmed by the agreement in style between this pericope and the 
 elohistic (priestly) portions of the Pentateuch. Mark the formula 
 "after his kind" (Deut. xiv. 13 — 15, 18), and the expression 
 "creeping things" (verse 19), and not only these, but also the 
 whole character and the style of the Deuteronomic law relating 
 to food. It is not without reason that Riehm writes (Stud. u. 
 Krit. 1868, p. 359) : "In 3 Mos. 11 ist das Gesetz Bestandtheil 
 einer Gesetzsammlung, deren charakteristisches Geprage auch 
 ihm eigen ist; im Deuteronomium steht es dagegen in einer 
 Gesetzsammlung, deren charackteristisches Geprage ihm so fremd 
 ist, das die Annahme der Entlehnung aus einer alteren Urkunde 
 [comp. Graf, diegesch. Biicher des A. T. S. 22, 67] nicht abzuweisen 
 ist. Dazu komt dasz mehrere der fur die Formulirung des 
 Gesetzes charakteristischen Ausdriicke (die im Deuteronomium 
 eben nur in ihm vorkommen) der aus der Genesis wohlbekannten 
 Schreibweise des Verfassers der Grundschrift angehoren." 
 
 Yet I cannot agree with Eiehm's opinion that Lev. xi. is older 
 than Deut. xiv. Deut. xiv. 21, compared with the rest of the 
 ordinances relating to the same subject, pleads against it — 
 besides the general arguments for the more recent origin of the 
 priestly legislation. The precept in Deut. is almost the same as 
 that of the Book of the Covenant, Exod. xxii. 31. But it differs 
 from Lev. xvii. 15, 16 (where the prohibition extends also to 
 " the stranger"), and from the same passage and Lev. xi. 40, 
 where the eating of carrion is so far allowed, that a not very 
 severe penalty is provided, submission to which was all that was 
 required, if, for any reason, e.g. from poverty, a man did not 
 wish to leave the carrion uneaten. According to the priestly 
 legislation, the priest alone has to abstain from eating carrion 
 (Lev. xxii. 8). "Who does not perceive that here the Deutero- 
 nomic law is older and more original than Leviticus ? The 
 author of the enactments in Lev. xvii. 15, 16, xi. 40, finds himself 
 
96 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 forced by custom to make concessions ; of a religious precept he 
 makes, so to speak, a police-regulation ; in doing this, he makes 
 it apply also to the stranger, who is exempted in Deut., because 
 the religious grounds did not exist in his case. — If this view of 
 Deut. xiv. 21 be admissible, we apply it without hesitation to 
 the preceding verses as well : verses 3 — 20 are no more younger 
 than Lev. xi. 1 seq., than verse 21 is younger than Lev. xi. 40. 
 
 The two-fold result thus far obtained (1. Deut. xiv. 3 — 20, 
 displays the characteristics of the priestly legislation; 2. this 
 pericope is older than Lev. xi.) serves to confirm an hypothesis 
 which I put forward in 1861 in my Hk. 0. I. 84 seq. The 
 Elohistic laws in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, embrace " the 
 tradition which had been preserved and committed to writing 
 by the priests and Levites concerning the lawgiving of Moses, 
 in so far as the latter regulated religious service and all that 
 was connected with it;" thus they did not originate at one 
 period, but successively, and were repeatedly worked up and 
 re-edited, according to the wants that arose. In agreement with 
 this hypothesis, I already at that time took some of the priestly 
 laws to be younger than the parallel decrees in Deuteronomy 
 (I.e. pp. 146 — 148, 152 — 155). Since then, by further study and 
 by the excellent work of K. H. Graf, Die gesch. Biichcr des A. Tes- 
 taments, I have been led to the conviction that the priestly 
 legislation in Exod.- — Numbers was not brought to its present 
 form until after the exile, and therefore in its entirety is younger 
 than Deuteronomy. But this opinion, which will be justified 
 more fully in the sequel of this History, is not opposed to my 
 earlier hypothesis as to the successive origination of that legis- 
 lation, and must be combined with it. The decrees of the priestly 
 law were not made and invented during or after the exUe, but 
 drawn up. Prior to the exile, the priests had already delivered 
 verbally what — with the modifications that had become necessary 
 in the mean time — they afterwards committed to writing. A 
 set terminology, a definite mode of expression, gradually formed 
 
NOTES ON CBAPTER VI. 97 
 
 itself for these "instructions" (comp. Graf, I.e. p. 93). The 
 committal to writing of the priestly thorah, also, will not have 
 been deferred until the period of the second temple, or even till 
 the days of Ezra. It is true, there did not exist before that 
 time any complete system of priestly lawgiving, but detached 
 priestly laws, priestly advice upon this or that subdivision of 
 the questions that belonged to the domain of the staff of the 
 temple, cannot have been wanting. N"ow such a priestly 
 " Gutachten" as this is adopted by the Deuteronomist in chap, 
 xiv., and especially in verses 3 — 20 of that chapter. Thus both 
 the priestly (Elohistic) character of that document and the want 
 of completeness which it shows in comparison with Lev. xi. are 
 most natural : when the priests wrote down their thorah about 
 clean and unclean animals nearly two centuries after Josiah's 
 reformation, their system was more finished and developed, and 
 thus they were obliged to treat the same subject at greater 
 length. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
98 THE RELIOIOX OF ISRAEL. 
 
 CHAPTEE YII. 
 
 The Iseaelitish Exiles in BABYLO^^A. 
 
 About the year 580 B.C. Judsea presented a sad spectacle. 
 Jerusalem and Solomon's temple lay in ruins. Xebuchadnezzar 
 had thrice caused a number of the chief inhabitants of the land 
 to be carried away.* The remainder, although still many in 
 number, formed but a pitiful remnant of the former kingdom of 
 Judah. Part of them had grown wild and led the lives of free- 
 booters.-f- Others busied themselves with agricidture,| but they 
 had much to suffer from the bands of Chaldean soldiers that 
 roved about the land, and from the neighbouring tribes, who 
 took advantage of Israel's abasement to extend their territories. § 
 After the murder of Gedaliah, who at first stood at their head as 
 the governor appointed by the Babylonish king, || they appear to 
 have had no regular government. They were also deprived of 
 almost all spiritual guidance. It is true, a few prophets still 
 raised their voices among them after the fall of Jerusalem,*! but 
 these men do not appear to have made much impression : if we 
 remember how the grey-haired Jeremiah was treated by his 
 countrymen, first in Judsea and afterwards in Egypt, we could 
 scarcely expect it. The priests of Jahveh had almost all been 
 carried away, and, after the destruction of the temple, would 
 have had much less influence than before. In a word, the hope 
 that those who were left in Juda?a would work the regeneration 
 of Israel** was of short duration ; even in those who cherished 
 it at first, subsequent events gradually weakened and at last 
 stifled it altogether. 
 
 * 2 Kings xxiv. 14—16, xxv. 11 ; Jer. lii. 28—30. t Jer. xl. 7 seq. 
 
 J 2 Kings XXV. 12 ; Jer. lii. 16. § Lam. t. 1 seq. || Above, pp. 55 seq. 
 
 IT Obadiali (comp. HI;. 0. II. 339 seq.), and, probably some years after Mm, the 
 author of Isa. xxiv. — xxvii. (comp. I.e. II. 145 seq.). 
 ** Ezek. xxxiii. 23— 2'.\ 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 99 
 
 This time also the light was to arise in the East. We do 
 not know with certainty the number of the exiles carried off by 
 Nebuchadnezzar: the returns given in the Old Testament are 
 evidently incomplete.* But that their number was very con- 
 siderable, can be gathered from the number of those who after- 
 wards went back. For their intrinsic worth, even more than for 
 their numerical strength, these exiles had a right to be regarded 
 as the real representatives of the kingdom of .Tudah and thus of 
 all Israel. The repeated rebellions against the Chaldeans were 
 kindled by the Judseans of the highest rank. Upon them in the 
 first place, therefore, the conqueror's revenge necessarily fell. A 
 few men of high position were even punished with death, -f but 
 by far the most of them were condemned to banishment. To the 
 first body of exiles there belonged, as will shortly appear more 
 fully, prophets, opponents of Jeremiah, and priests. After the 
 fall of Jerusalem it was again the most enlightened who were 
 sent into exile. It was therefore the kernel of the nation that 
 was brought to Babylonia. 
 
 Our information as to the social condition of the exiles is 
 very defective. Even to the question, where they had to settle, 
 we can only return an imperfect answer. We meet with a 
 colony of exiles, companions of Jeconiah, at Tel-abib, in the 
 neighbourhood of the river Chebar, usually supposed to be the 
 Chaboras, which runs into the Euphrates not far from Gircesium, 
 but considered by others to be a smaller river nearer to Babylon. J 
 It lay in the nature of the case, that the second and third 
 company of captives received another destination. Even had it 
 been possible, prudence would have opposed their settling in the 
 immediate vicinity of their predecessors. We are not surprised, 
 therefore, that Ezekiel, who lived at Tel-ablb, does not mention 
 their arrival there. Where they did go we are not told. The 
 
 * 2 Kings xxiv. 14—16, xxv. 11 (.Jer. lii. 15); Jer. lii. 28—30. Comp. Note I. 
 at the end of this Chapter. 
 
 t 2 Kings xxv. 18—21 (Jer. lii. 10 b, 24—27). 
 
 t Ezek. iii. 15, i. 3, &c. Comp. Ilk. 0. II. 258, n. 2, and SchenkeVs Bibel-lexikon, 
 I. 508 sq., II. 558, also 247. 
 
 H 2 
 
100 THE RELIGION OF ISIUEL. 
 
 historian says "to Babylon,"* to which place, according to him, 
 the first exUes (597 B.C.) were also brought ;t probably he does 
 not, in either passage, mean only the capital of the Chaldean 
 kingdom, but rather the province of that name, to which the 
 city of course belonged. But wherever they may have settled, 
 the exUes had to live. How did they support themselves ? 
 Some undoubtedly tilled the land or pui-sued their former handi- 
 crafts. J But aU would not be in a position to do this. These 
 were naturally led to take part in the trade that was carried on, 
 upon a large scale, in their new dwelling-place. At first they 
 could have occupied only subordinate parts in it. But we may 
 assume it to be probable that they speedily showed their natural 
 aptitude for commerce, and that many of them soon managed to 
 acquire some wealth. 
 
 It follows from this that they enjoyed a certain amount of 
 liberty in the land of their exile. Such was indeed the fact. 
 Probably they were not all upon an equally favourable footing 
 in this respect. The instigators of the rebellion would for some 
 time be subjected to a strict surveillance, and perhaps even had 
 to work as slaves. But there was no occasion to treat the 
 whole of the exiles in tliis way. Nebuchadnezzar's purpose, 
 the prevention of fresh disturbances, having been attained by 
 their removal from Judsea, he could now leave them to develop 
 their resources. It was even for the interest of the districts 
 in which they settled, that their development should not be 
 obstructed. Many unnecessary and troublesome conflicts were 
 avoided, and the best provision was made for the maintenance of 
 order, by leaving them free, witliin certain limits, to regulate 
 their own affairs. So the elders of the families and tribes 
 remained in possession of the authority which they had formerly 
 exercised. § Nay, it would not surprise us if the foundations 
 
 • 2 Kings xxv. 7 (Jer. lii. 11), of Zedekiah; Jer. xxxix. 9, xl. 1, 4, of the rest of 
 tlie exiles. 
 
 t 2 Kings xxiv. 15, 16. J Comp. 2 Kings xxiv. 14, 16; also Jer. xxix. 5. 
 
 § Ezek. viii. 1, xir. 1, xx. 1. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 101 
 
 were already laid of the organization which we meet with 
 centuries afterwards in Babylonia. Then the Jews who were 
 established there formed an independent community, governed 
 by a chief of their own, the Besh Galutha ("head of the exiles"), 
 just as at Alexandria an of&cer chosen from among them, the 
 Alabarch, represented them before the magistrates of the land, 
 and was, as it were, responsible for them. If this organization 
 was at least prepared as early as the first years of the captivity, 
 then we can easily comprehend how it is that, at the return 
 under Cyrus, Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, and Joshua, a 
 priest, place themselves at the head of the exiles and exercise 
 their authority without meeting with contradiction. We may 
 then see in this a proof that the families of distinction, the 
 princes and the chief of the priests, were acknowledged by the 
 Chaldeans as the natural leaders of their fellow-countrymen, and 
 were not obstructed in the exercise of their power. 
 
 But we will abstain from farther conjectures on this subject. 
 However full of interest it may be, a deeper study of it is not 
 absolutely necessary for the right comprehension of the religious 
 condition of the exiles, with which we now have to do. 
 
 As was to be expected, we find among the captives the same 
 diversity of convictions that existed in the kingdom of Judah 
 after Josiah's death.* It is sometimes imagined that the cala- 
 mities which befell the nation under Jehoiakim and his suc- 
 cessors, brought about an immediate change in its relation to 
 Jahvism. These misfortunes, and especially the final catastrophe, 
 were foretold by the prophets, and thus confirmed the prophets' 
 unfavourable opinion of the religious and moral condition of the 
 kingdom : must not their effect have therefore been that many 
 men repented and entered upon the path into which Jeremiah, for 
 example, desired to lead them ? But this expectation, however 
 natural it may be to all appearance, is not confirmed by the 
 evidence of history, and, in fact, has no adequate foundation. 
 To be able to regard the fall of Jerusalem as a judgment of 
 
 * Above, pp. 55 aeq. 
 
102 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Jaliveh upon his faithless people, as Jeremiah did, it was 
 necessary that the Judseans should start from the same premises 
 as the prophet. But, as we perceived before, this was not the 
 case. Their standpoint was a different one, and consequently 
 their view of the events also differed from his. We can prove 
 tliis from the documents themselves. 
 
 It is evident, in the first place, that the worship of the 
 strange gods remained in existence.* Jeremiah had to continue 
 the struggle against idolatry in Egypt. The Judseans who had 
 emigrated thither still kept up the worship of "the queen of 
 heaven," and were not at all ashamed of it. "When the prophet 
 pointed to the disasters which had afflicted their native land on 
 the very account of their infidelity to Jahveh, they were not at 
 a loss for an answer. "All that hath gone forth out of our 
 mouth" — they said-f- — "all our vows we will certainly perform, 
 burning incense unto the queen of heaven and pouring out 
 drink-offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, 
 our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and the streets 
 of Jerusalem : then (when we did this) we had plenty of bread, 
 and it was well with us, and we saw no evil. But from the time 
 that we left off to burn incense and pour out drink-offerings 
 unto the queen of heaven, we have wanted all things, and have 
 perished by the sword and by the famine." It will be observed 
 that these men, as well as Jeremiah, regarded and explained the 
 events from their own religious point of view. Things were no 
 better among the exUes in Babylonia. One of their number, 
 the prophet Ezekiel, reproaches them repeatedly with their 
 idolatry, and especiallj" adverts, with deep abhorrence, to the 
 sacrifice of children to jMolech.J Xay, he even puts these words 
 into their mouths : " we shall be as the nations, as the families 
 of the countries, serving wood and stone." § There are reasons 
 for taking this description to be somewhat exaggerated, but it 
 
 * Comp. above, pp. 57 seq., where the testimony of both Jeremiah and Eiekiel is 
 given. 
 
 t Jer. xliv. 17, 18. t Above, pp. 68 seq. § Chap. xx. 32. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 103 
 
 could not have been given at all if the exiles, without any excep- 
 tion worth mentioning, had been addicted to exclusive Jahvism. 
 
 We also meet again among the exiles with the party of the 
 political Jahvists — as we can fitly call Jeremiah's antagonists.* 
 It had started the resistance to Nebuchadnezzar ; upon it there- 
 fore, in the first place, fell the punishment, the captivity. At 
 first it was not disheartened by it. While Zedekiah reigned at 
 Jerusalem, prophets appeared among those who had been carried 
 away with Jeconiah : Ahab, Zedekiah ben Maaseiah, and She- 
 maiah, who consoled their fellow-captives with the prospect of a 
 speedy deliverance. Their words met with such ready accept- 
 ance that Jeremiah thought it necessary to write to the exiles 
 and exhort them to have patience.^ I pass over the question, 
 whether he is right in accusing, in this letter, the first two 
 of these prophets of immorality.| Their colleague, Shemaiah, 
 did not hesitate to come forward for the cause which he upheld. 
 In a letter which he sent to Zephaniah and other priests at 
 Jerusalem, he imputed it to Jeremiah as a crime that the latter 
 had said to the exiles, "It will last still a long time ! Build houses 
 and dwell in them ; plant gardens and eat the fruit of them." 
 In his opinion, the priests of Jerusalem ought to have interfered 
 and imprisoned the prophet.§ With such great confidence did 
 this party come forward in Babylonia. 
 
 Some of Jeremiah's friends also had undoubtedly already 
 gone thither into exile with Jeconiah. We gather this from 
 the favourable verdict that the prophet passed upon the first 
 exiles, II and from his letter itself, which surely would not have 
 been sent, unless the prophet had reckoned upon a friendly 
 reception for it, at all events from some. The course of events 
 necessarily strengthened these adherents of Jeremiah. So long 
 as Jerusalem yet stood, it was in a certain sense easy to believe 
 in the inviolability of Jahveh's seat. After the fall of city and 
 temple, before a single presage of their approaching restora- 
 
 * Above, pp. 60 seq. t Jer. xxix. 1—23. % Verses 21—23. 
 
 § Verses 21—32. || Chap. xxiv. 
 
104 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 tion had yet shown itself, it was but natural that only a few 
 could be induced to expect that restoration shortly. At that 
 time, therefore, the explanation which Jeremiah gave of these 
 sad events must have recommended itself to many who hitherto 
 had not sided one way or other in the fierce struggle between 
 him and his opponents. And this the more, because he too 
 announced the regeneration of Israel, even though it were after 
 a long lapse of time and as the fruit of the people's conversion 
 to Jahveh.* 
 
 It is not improbable that an attempt was made as early as 
 the first years of the captivity to give visible shape to that 
 conception of Israel's history, of which Jeremiah had been the 
 interpreter, and at the same time to disseminate it among the 
 people. The opinion has been advanced recently from more 
 than one quarter, that the Deuteronomist not only worked up 
 his own laws into one whole with the older historical narratives 
 relating to the patriarchs Moses and Joshua,-f- but also treated 
 in his own spirit the later history of Israel, during the period 
 of the Judges and under the Kings.| The books of Judges, 
 Samuel and Kings, with the exception of a few additions of 
 still later date,§ would then be the work of the Deuteronomist, 
 and would thus also, it speaks for itself, have been written 
 shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. We need not involve our- 
 selves here in an examination of this opinion. Thus much is 
 certain, that in the books just mentioned, the spirit, at all events, 
 if not the hand, of the Deuteronomist appears plainly here and 
 there — and especially in the judgments passed upon the actors 
 and in the views respecting the direction of Israel's fortunes by 
 Jahveh.|l Whether it be assumed that this conception was really 
 
 * Atove, pp. 72 seq. + Above, p. 39. 
 
 J Comp. K. H. Graf, die gesch. Bilcher des A. T. pp. 97 eqq., where, however, 
 the Deuteronomic redaction of Judgea and Samuel is overlooked ; E. Schrader, in 
 De Wette's EinUitimg, 8e. Ausg. §§ 218—223, and the writers quoted there. 
 
 § Schrader (p. 353) names as such, 2 Kings xxv. 22 — SO ; 1 Kings iv. 24, 25 
 (Hebr. v. 4, 5). 
 
 II Comp. my Hk. 0. I. 201, 215 (upon Judges), 239 seq. (upon Samuel), 274 seq. 
 (upon Kings). 
 
TEE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 105 
 
 put into writing under the fresh impression of the fall of the 
 kingdom, or its written redaction be placed somewhat later, in 
 either case we may consider that, from the very first, there was 
 no lack among the exiles of men who followed in the footsteps 
 of the Deuteronomist and his fellow-thinker Jeremiah, and ap- 
 pealed to hidcyry in proof of their mission from Jahveh. They 
 could not have employed a more powerful means than this of 
 recommending their views and causing them gradually to pass 
 into the consciousness of the people. 
 
 Our sketch of the religious condition of the exiles during 
 the first period of their abode in a strange land would end here, 
 were it not that, even before the taking of Jerusalem by Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, a man had risen among them who merits all our 
 attention. We have already mentioned more than once the 
 name of the prophet Ezekiel. It is true that less even than 
 almost all the other prophets can he be regarded as the repre- 
 sentative of his age. It is true, he stands fighting at his post 
 alone — in such a way that we see his spirit revive, not in his 
 immediate successors, but in a younger generation. But in 
 spite of this — or is it on this very account? — he attracts our 
 notice in a high degree, and deserves to be sketched as accurately 
 as possible, both in his relation to his contemporaries and to 
 posterity. 
 
 Ezekiel the son of Buzi was a priest in the temple at Jeru- 
 salem, when, in the year 597 B.C., Jeconiah was punished by 
 Nebuchadnezzar for the revolt of Jehoiakim, his father and 
 predecessor, and was carried off to Babylonia with the chief 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem. Why this lot also befeU Ezekiel, we 
 do not know : he could scarcely have taken an active part in 
 Jehoiakun's rebellion ; but other priests besides him were sent 
 into exile;* and it may have been purely by accident that he 
 was among their number. Unless we be mistaken, this captivity 
 
 * Jer. xxix. 1. 
 
106 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 was a terrible blow to Ezekiel. He was one of those priests 
 who were wholly engrossed in the dnties of their ofi&ce, and 
 attached great weight to every portion of them. To him the 
 temple was, in the full sense of the word, the dwelling of Jahveh; 
 the priest's calling seemed to him to be a very high one, his 
 responsibility very great. Is it a wonder that he resigned him- 
 self to sombre meditations in the comparative sohtude and 
 inaction to which he found himself condemned on the banks 
 of the Chebar ? It was impossible for him to agree with those 
 of his companions in misfortune who, believing the words of 
 their prophets, anticipated a speedy return and the approaching 
 restoration of Israel's independence. His nature had no pro- 
 pensity for such optimism ; he was rather accustomed to look 
 at the dark side of things. But besides this, for him at least 
 Jeremiah's words had not echoed in vain. With that preacher 
 of repentance, whom he may have heard more than once in the 
 court of the temple, he saw in the sins of the people the cause 
 of the disasters that had befallen them, and from earnest repent- 
 ance alone did he expect the dawn of better times. He was 
 firmly convinced, therefore, that the cup of misery was not yet 
 full, and that — he and his fellow exiles would not return to 
 Jerusalem, but — the men of Jerusalem would come to them. 
 Perhaps I should express myself too strongly were I to say 
 that Israel's apostasy einbittered him. But true it is, that his 
 sentiments at that time were quite different from those of 
 Jeremiah, for instance, in whom sadness was the prevailing 
 tone. Was it because he, Ezekiel, was himself the victim of 
 his people's error and found himself deprived by it of the office 
 which he loved and valued as the highest privilege ? Enough 
 that he judged his contemporaries severely, and did not show 
 the least inclination to excuse their conduct out of pity for their 
 lot. 
 
 When we open Ezekiel's prophecies and note the exactness 
 of the dates with which they are provided, we imagine at first 
 that we are in a position to follow him in his career step by 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 107 
 
 step. According to these headings,* he made liis appearance 
 as a prophet in the 5th year after his banishment, and at that 
 time, and in the 6th, 7th and 8th years, spoke out more or less 
 at length upon the fate that was hanging over king Zedekiah 
 and the population of Jerusalem and Judsea. He then, accord- 
 ing to a second series of headings,^ just before the fall of Jeru- 
 salem and immediately after that event, committed to writing 
 his expectations with regard to the future of Ammon, Moab, 
 Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Zidon, and Egypt, and added to these one 
 more prophecy, in the 27th year of his captivity (570 b.c.).| 
 And, finally, the predictions concerning Israel's restoration (chap, 
 xxxiii. — xlviii.), according to the dates of the first and last,§ 
 were written down between the year of the taking of Jerusalem, 
 the 11th of his exile (586 B.C.), and the 25th year after his 
 banishment (572 B.C.). In the meantime, phenomena occur in 
 the prophecies themselves that forbid us to accept this chrono- 
 logy as literally correct. I need only give here the results of the 
 researches which have been made elsewhere || into this subject. 
 We possess, then, in the book of Ezekiel, a review, written by 
 the prophet himself with great freedom and no less skill, both 
 of his public preaching and of the outcome of his meditations 
 upon Israel's lot and future. It may be historical, that in the 
 5th year after his banishment (592 B.C.) he felt himself seized 
 by the hand of Jahveh, and then for the first time addressed 
 his fellow-captives as an envoy of the god of Israel. IT Also, he 
 may have written down a few prophecies, especially those against 
 some heathen nations,** in the years to which they are referred, 
 just as we now possess them. But when, at least 25 years 
 after the beginning of his exile,-|-|- he sat down to give, for 
 the benefit of his contemporaries and posterity, an account 
 
 * Chap. i. 2, viii. 1, xx. 1, xxiv. 1. 
 f Chap. xxvi. 1, xxix. 1, xxx. 20, xxxi. 1, xxxii. 1, 17. 
 J Chap. xxix. 17 — xxx. 19 (according to others, chap. xxix. 17 — 21). 
 § Chap, xxxiii. 21, xl. 1. || Blc. 0. II. 295—306. IT Ezek. i. 2. 
 
 ** Chap. xxvi. seq., xxix. seq. tt Chap. xl. 1, xxix. 17. 
 
108 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 of his labours, and to lay bare the ideas which he had formed 
 of the future, he did not then consider himself bound — even 
 supposing that he was in a position to do so — to report lite- 
 rally what he had said on various occasions. It was enough for 
 him to reproduce his chief thoughts correctly. Let us then 
 try, in our turn, to form an idea of what went on in his 
 mind. 
 
 We are surely not mistaken in believing that Ezekiel often 
 meditated deeply upon the sins of his people. At all events, 
 the description of them occupies a considerable portion of his 
 oracles. For our present purpose, his conception of Israel's 
 conduct in general is at least as important as the accusations 
 which he brings against his contemporaries in particular. More 
 than once he lays open, as it were, the register of Israel's sins — 
 nowhere so expressly, however, as in the 20th chapter of his 
 prophecies. " Wilt thou judge them, son of man, wilt thou 
 judge them ? Cause them to know the abominations of their 
 fathers !" — so runs the beginning of this castigation. In Egypt 
 — the prophet goes on to say — Jahveh had declared himself 
 ready to deliver Israel and to bind Israel to himself. But the 
 condition which he imposed, the forsaking of the idols, had not 
 been complied with. Yet, to save his name from disgrace, he 
 had fulfilled his promise once given and had led Israel out into 
 the wilderness.* There Jahveh had revealed himself to his 
 people, had made known to them his ordinances, and had intro- 
 duced the Sabbath as a token of the covenant made with him. 
 Again the Israelites had been refractory and had proved them- 
 selves worthy of destruction. But once more their god had 
 forgiven them, and had promised fertile Canaan to the next 
 generation.-f" But even this new generation had not submitted 
 to Jahveh's laws. Hence it was that the future dispersion of 
 Israel among the heathen was already announced in the desert ; 
 hence it was too that Jahveh hud " given to the Israelites 
 statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they could 
 • Chap. XX. 5—9. + Verses 10—17. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 109 
 
 not live," and had especially prescribed the dedication of the 
 first-born, which in after times was to be made use of to justify 
 the sacrifice of children* Yet out of mercy, on this occasion 
 also, the actual sentence of destruction was not executed.-f So 
 now Canaan was given to the Israelites for an inheritance. But 
 here also they went on sinning, for they allowed themselves to 
 be seduced by the Canaanites into taking part in their idolatry 
 on the "high places" — the name of which (bamah) Ezekiel 
 derives from the curiosity with which the first Israelitish inha- 
 bitants of the land had observed and inquired into the practices 
 of the natives.! The prophet now turns to his contemporaries, 
 to upbraid them that they had followed in the footsteps of their 
 forefathers, nay, had made a formal resolution to forsake Jahveh 
 and to become as the heathen. Terrible punishments will come 
 upon them, and with this result, that at last it will be possible 
 to assemble in the holy land a people that has dedicated itself 
 entirely and with its whole heart to Jahveh and serves him 
 alone. § — In this light does the history of his nation present 
 itself to Ezekiel, as a series of errors, one worse than another, 
 and collectively the incontrovertible proof of Israel's ingratitude 
 and obstinacy. Elsewhere he employs other figures to express 
 the same conception — such as, in chapter xvi., an allegory worked 
 out in detail|| — ^but in his verdict he remains throughout con- 
 sistent with himself. 
 
 If we are to form a true notion of the impression which such 
 a sinful existence as that of Israel made upon Ezekiel's mind, 
 we must bring the sketch which he drew of it into connection 
 with his conception of Jahveh's justice. It is scarcely necessary 
 to say, that it agrees in general with that of his predecessors 
 among the prophets : divergence from it would have been equal 
 
 * Comp. Theol. Tljdschrift, I. 69 seq. + Verses 18—26. 
 
 t Verses 27—29. § Verses 30—40. 
 
 II Comp. also chap, xxiii., where Samaria and Jerusalem are indicated by the sym- 
 bolical names of Oholah ("her tent"), and Oholibah ("my tent is in her"). 
 
110 TBE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 to a renunciation of Jahvism. Yet his ideas have a peculiar 
 tint, the reflection of his personality. The same formality and 
 severity that characterize himself, he also attributes to Jahveh. 
 The prophet is convinced that fidelity to Jahveh and apostasy 
 from him are followed at once by Jahveh's blessings and punish- 
 ments. The piety of the righteous man always results in good 
 to him, but to him alone, and so long as he perseveres in it, but 
 not a moment longer. In the same way, the godless man, and 
 he alone, is punished for his sins, but his repentance too is 
 immediately followed by reward. Ezekiel devotes a long dis- 
 course to the development of these ideas.* At the outset he 
 mentions the proverb which we also know from Jeremiah : " The 
 fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set 
 on edge"-t- — but only to combat it with all the earnestness that 
 is in him. This earnestness is also shown by the application of 
 these ideas to his own person and office. He is deeply penetrated 
 with the responsibility which rests upon him. Prom the moment 
 that he entered upon his office, he feels that he is required to 
 render account of the conduct of those in whose midst he lives. 
 He who .slights his warnings has only himseK to blame, if just 
 punishment overtakes him. But should any one be lost without 
 having been ^\■arned, his blood will be demanded from the 
 unfaithful watchman to whose care he had been consigned. :): We 
 may not indeed withhold our respect from a man who spoke and 
 thought thus ; still a figure such as his is not attractive. He 
 involuntarily reminds us of Calvin. He also has this in common 
 with the reformer of Geneva, that he does not recoil from a 
 single consequence that results from his fundamental principle. 
 That the reality seems to ridicule his conception of Jahveh's 
 government of the world ; that it would appear from experience 
 that the consequences both of good and e\'A — according to his 
 
 * Chap, xviii., comp. xiv. 12 — 23, xxxiii. 10 — 20. 
 
 t Chap, xviii. 2; comp. Jer. xxi. 29. 
 
 t Chap. iii. 16—21, xiv. 9—11, xxxiii. 1—9. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. Ill 
 
 conception, rewards and punishments — are by no means confined 
 to the individual and the term of his life during which he goes 
 on in the same path — all this does not hinder him from holding 
 fast and working out in detail his notion, the only one which he 
 can form, of Jahveh's justice. We repeat : a character such as 
 this may claim our respect, but its onesidedness and its want of 
 depth do not escape our notice. 
 
 Besides, this idea of Jahveh's justice is not an independent 
 phenomenon, it is in harmony with the whole of the prophet's 
 idea of God. Even though he be not without faith in Jahveh's 
 mercy and love, still it is much less apparent than his reverence 
 for the highly exalted God and his fear of his majesty. It is as 
 if Ezekiel could not for a single moment forget the infinite 
 distance that separates him from Jahveh. He is constantly 
 addressed by Jahveh as "son of man,"* a designation which 
 does not exclude the intimate relation between the prophet and 
 his sender, it is true, but still places it quite in the shade. More 
 than once he tells us that "the hand of Jahveh came upon 
 him," "I" as if, whenever a revelation was made to him, he felt 
 himself seized by an irresistible power. In connection with 
 this, it deserves our notice, that he — for the first time among 
 the prophets — makes the angels act as emissaries to the prophet 
 from Jahveh, and as interpreters of the visions in which the 
 latter reveals himself to him.| And the elaborate description 
 of Jahveh's appearance — to Ezekiel himself and at the entry 
 into the new temple § — is also intended to convey a deep 
 impression of Jahveh's unapproachable glory. All this is closely 
 connected. The idea of Jahveh's being becomes purer and more 
 elevated, but at the same time Jahveh draws back, as it were 
 and a gulf opens between him and mankind. Here, in the 
 prophecies of Ezekiel, we discover the first evident traces of 
 this modification of the notion of God. As we proceed, we 
 
 ' Chap. ii. 1, 3, 6, 8, &c., altogether about ninety times. 
 
 t Chap. i. 3, iii. 22, xxxvii. 1, xl. 1. t Chap. viii. seq., xl. seq. 
 
 § Chai). i. X., xliii. 1 seq. 
 
112 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 shall learn to comprehend it better, and to estimate more truly 
 its gfeat significance. 
 
 We return to Ezekiel's conception of Jahveh's justice. The 
 prophet looks upon Israel and the heathen world from the same 
 point of view. A portion of this book is devoted to a descrip- 
 tion of the lot that awaits the latter. It is especially — as we 
 were reminded above — the nations and cities with which Israel 
 had been in contact, whose future he sketches. He dwells 
 longest on Tyre and Egypt.* Here also we are struck by his 
 astonishing exactness. The lamentation over Tyre-f- embraces a 
 complete enumeration of the tribes who traded with the great 
 capital, and of the articles with which they provided her and 
 those which they received from her in exchange. To archaeology 
 it is invaluable. But is it not very characteristic that all these 
 particulars are given us in a prophecy which has no other aim 
 than to announce the utter ruin of Tyre ? To explain this 
 diifuseness, however, we must take another thing into consider- 
 ation besides Ezekiel's exactness : he evidently lingers with 
 satisfaction over the deep humiliation, or rather the destruction, 
 which he predicts for the proud queen of the seas. Just as the 
 other nations who share her fate, the inhabitants of Tyre had 
 also wronged Israel and had shown in no equivocal manner 
 their joy at the fall of Jerusalem. | This the prophet cannot 
 forgive them. He is fully convinced that the God of Israel will 
 punish them for it. For, in spite of his extremely unfavourable 
 verdict upon his own nation, he does not waver for a moment 
 in his belief that Israel is Jahveh's chosen people. Nay, it is 
 precisely because he believes this so firmly, that he is so severe 
 in his demands upon Israel. It is no wonder, therefore, that he 
 does not doubt the punishment of the peoples who have sinned 
 against Jahveh's people, and gladly gives the reign to his 
 imagination in describing their misfortune. 
 
 He is no less sure with regard to Israel's future. The last 
 
 * Cbap. \xvi. — xxviii., and chap. xxix. xxxii. f Cbap. xxvii. 
 
 t Chap. xxvi. 2, oomp. xxt. 1 seq,, 8 seq., 12 seq., 15 seq. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. ll.i 
 
 part of his book* is devoted to its description. We already 
 know that he looks forward to the return of the . Israelites to 
 their native land. We meet again in his prophecies with the 
 ideas uttered by his predecessors on this subject. Thus, he 
 believes in the re -union of Judah and Ephraim,-f- in the restora- 
 tion of the Davidic monarchy, J in the moral regeneration of 
 Israel. § But here also peculiar traits are not wanting. Thus, 
 that regeneration is represented figuratively as the return of life 
 into dead men's dry bones.|| Thus also — and this divergence 
 from the older prophets does not affect the form merely — chap, 
 xxxviii. and xxxix. announce a final and decisive attack of 
 heathendom upon Israel restored. Gog, from the land of Magog, 
 the leader of a number of nations, viz. Eosch, Meshech, Tubal 
 and others, marches upon Canaan to exterminate the inhabitants 
 and enrich himself with their possessions. But immediately 
 after he has passed the borders of the holy land, he is overtaken 
 by Jah veil's judgment and destroyed with all his followers. 
 Israel reaps immense spoils, and appears, under Jahveh's pro- 
 tection, to be invulnerable. Ezekiel himself gives us a hint as 
 to the origin of this conception, when he makes Jahveh speak 
 to Gog thus : " Thou art he of whom I have spoken in old time 
 by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those 
 days that I would bring thee against him (against Israel)." IT To 
 begin with, the reference to the earlier prophets, of which Ezekiel 
 here gives the first example, is remarkable. But it is evident at 
 the same time that the prophet, while he acknowledges that 
 those predecessors have been sent by Jahveh, reserves to himself 
 the right of interpreting their utterances very freely : we search 
 in vain in the prophecies of earlier date for the announcement 
 of the attack by Gog upon Israel mentioned here. Moreover, 
 we find in this appeal to Jahveh's former envoys the proof that 
 
 * Chap, xxxiii. — xlviii. \ Chap, xxxvii, 15 — 18. 
 
 + In the same passage, and chap, xxxiv., xvii. 22 — 24. 
 
 § Chap, xxxvi. 16 — 38, xxxvii. 1 — 14, &c. 
 
 II Chap, xxxvii. 1—14; comp. Hh.O. II. 289, 290. 
 
 1[ Chap, xxxviii. 17, cump. xxxix. 8. 
 
 VOL. II. I 
 
114 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 the whole picture is the product, not of prophetic enthusiasm, 
 but of calm deliberation and thought. Its form also surely 
 bears witness to this : no trace of elevation of mind, but great 
 copiousness and precision of detail. If Ezekiel's prophecies in 
 general be works of art, this is true in a special degree of this 
 prediction. 
 
 If Ezekiel strikes out his own path in these two chapters, he 
 does so much more still in chap. xl. — xlviii., where he sets forth 
 his ideas upon the new order of things which will come into 
 being after Israel's return to her native land. "We search the 
 Old Testament in vain for a parallel to this picture. One might 
 call it a complete plan for the organization of the new Israel. 
 Ezekiel first gives a minute description of the temple;* this is 
 followed by his precepts concerning religious worship and the 
 staff of the temple, and concerning the Prince, his rights and 
 obligations ;-f- and finally he regulates the division of the land 
 among the twelve tribes, the residences of the priests and Levites 
 and the arrangement of the temple -city. J 
 
 From more than one point of view this last portion of 
 Ezekiel's book is the most important of all. In the first place, 
 it confirms in the most striking manner our conception of the 
 origin of the laws attributed to Moses. The Jewish tradition 
 tells us that in the first century of the Christian era the 
 canonical authority of Ezekiel's prophecies was still disputed. § 
 
 * Chup. xl. 5 — xliii. 27. Mention is made here in turn of the outer courts and its 
 buildings; the inner court and its chambers; the temple as a -whole; the holy cells 
 and the size of the sanctuary. According to chap, xliii. 1 — ] 2, Jahveh's glory takes 
 possession of the temple. After this, again (verses 13 — 27), there follows the descrip- 
 tion of the altar for burnt-offerings. 
 
 t Chap. xliv. 1— xlvi. 24, These regulate the duties of the sons of Zadok and of 
 the rest of the Levites ; the incomes of the temple and the Prince ; the sacrifices, at 
 festivals as well as in general ; the Prince's gifts and the preparation of the sacrificial 
 meals. 
 
 X Chap, xlvii. xlviii. We find here first the description of the spring that rises in 
 the temple and flows through part of the land ; then a statement of the boundaries of 
 the land and directions as to its division among the tribes, the priests and the Levites ; 
 and finally a precept relating to the gates of Jerusalem. 
 
 § Comp. Theol. Tijdschrifl, III. 463. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 115 
 
 This does not surprise us. Eather do we wonder that for so 
 long afterwards the conflict between his book and the current 
 opinion as to the age of the Pentateuch remained unnoticed or 
 was thought capable of explanation. For that conflict is indeed 
 most obvious. Let us suppose for a moment that Ezekiel was 
 in possession of the entire Pentateuch. Even then, with a view 
 to Israel's return to the holy land, he might have framed a 
 number of precepts and rules. There was nothing to hinder 
 him, e.g., from decreeing how the temple should be built and 
 arranged: the Solomonic house of Jahveh lay in ruins and 
 would have to be replaced by a new building. Nor would the 
 precepts concerning the division of the land among the twelve 
 tribes and concerning the share of the Prince, the priests and 
 the rest of the temple-servants, have been unnatural or super 
 fluous in that case. But Ezekiel goes further in his regulations. 
 He gives instructions as to the consecration of the altar of burnt- 
 offerings,* the qualifications required for admittance into the 
 priesthood,-}- the dress and the cleanness of the priests, J the 
 festivals and the sacrifices which belong to them.§ What? we 
 ask upon reading these decrees, was all this necessary ? Why 
 does not Ezekiel content himself with a simple reference to the 
 Mosaic laws ? For in the present Pentateuch all these subjects 
 are, in fact, regulated, and this generally more fully and minutely 
 than in the writings of the prophet of the exile. No one gives 
 us a satisfactory answer to this question. So we must therefore 
 infer from Ezekiel's regulations that he was not acquainted with 
 the whole of the Mosaic law : Deuteronomy and the still older 
 Book of the Covenant || are presupposed by him throughout, but 
 nothing beyond these collections. 
 
 The accuracy of this conclusion, however, is still open to 
 doubt. In the abstract, the possibility must be granted, that 
 Ezekiel thought this and that decree of the Mosaic laws less 
 adapted to the new state of things which he was describing, 
 
 * Chap, xliii. 18—27. t Chap. xliv. 10—16, comp. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xlviii. 11. 
 t Chap. xliv. 17—31. § Chap. xIt. 18—25. || Above, p. 8. 
 
 i2 
 
116 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 and therefore tried to replace them with others. But when we 
 lay his precepts side by side with those of the Pentateuch, it is 
 evident a^ain and again that this is not the relation between 
 them. Ezekiel's regulations have the appearance rather of an 
 older draft, an as yet incomplete and less elaborated sketch, 
 of what has become law in the Pentateuch. We know from 
 Deuteronomy, that at the time of Josiah's reformation all the 
 Levites, without exception, were considered qualified to serve as 
 priests of Jahveh.* Ezekiel is the first to desire other rules for 
 the future: after the return of Israel to her native land, "the 
 sons of Zadok" shall be the only lawful priests; they have 
 rendered themsehes worthy of this honour hy their fidelity to 
 Jahveh; their brethren, the rest of the Levites, have strayed 
 away from Jahveh with Israel, nay, have set the example to 
 Israel in practising idolatry; for this sin they are punished with 
 degradation ; in future they shall be employed in and about the 
 sanctuary in subordinate positions.-f- The younger laws of the 
 Pentateuch go much further: according to the accoimt which 
 they give us, the difference between priests and Levites is 
 founded upon their descent; the former are "sons of Aaron," 
 and as such are exclusively qualified for the priestly office.^ 
 Had Ezekiel known of these regulations, he would have with- 
 held his historical explanation of the difference in rank between 
 "the sons of Zadok" and the Levites. How could he have 
 thought of putting forward as something new and alleging 
 express reasons for what, according to the laws of the Pentateuch, 
 had existed from the very beginning, and, so long as the election 
 of Aaron and his race by Jahveh retained its force, would have 
 to continue unaltered ? 
 
 "We might go on in this way : every fresh comparison would 
 render it still clearer that Ezekiel's regulations are to the 
 younger, priestly ordinances of the Pentateuch as a preliminaiy 
 
 * Above, p. 26. t See the passages indicated on p. 115, n. +. 
 
 X Exod. xxviii. xxix. ; Lev. xxi. xxii. ; Num. iii. It., xviii. 1 seq., and a number 
 of other passages which will be cited in this and the next Chapter. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 117 
 
 draft is to a definite law. But it seems preferable to reserve 
 this comparison, in so far as it belongs to our subject, untQ 
 later, when we shall be called upon to handle expressly the 
 priestly documents of the Thorah. The manner in which Ezekiel 
 wished to see the public service conducted is, to a certain degree, 
 a matter of indifference to us. His anticipations and plans do 
 not become of real interest to us, until it appears that they have 
 been realized or even exceeded by the reality. In this latter 
 case they show us the road by which the ultimate purpose, 
 which we learn from the Pentateuch, has been attained. Who 
 would not hail with thankfulness every ray of light which falls 
 upon the highly important, but unfortunately in great part 
 hidden, efforts of the Jahveh-priests ? 
 
 There is still another point of view from which Ezekiel's 
 description of the re-born Israel deserves our whole attention. 
 It surprises us at first to meet with such a picture in a book 
 written out of Palestine and at a time when no temple, nay, 
 even no IsraeHtish state, existed. Nothing can be more natural 
 than that the exiles should have pondered deeply upon the 
 things which were to come. But how can it have occurred to 
 one of them to outstrip time, as it were, and to regulate the 
 service of a temple which was yet to be built? Upon more 
 mature consideration, however, this surprise disappears. The 
 very firmness of Ezekiel's belief in Israel's restoration accounts 
 in some measure for the fulness and minuteness of his draft : 
 he lives and moves in the future, as though it were already 
 present. But besides this, it is easy to explain psychologically 
 how it was that his mind busied itself in preference with the 
 Jahveh-worship in the temple. He had carried the remembrance 
 of it with him into exile. His estimation of that worship, far 
 from suffering from its temporary suspension, necessarily gained 
 by it : the sacrifices and feasts, with their ceremonial, were 
 fairer in the imagination than in the — often not very elevating 
 and sometimes even degrading — reality. Hence it is that we 
 find in Ezekiel — and why not also in others, who were placed 
 
118 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 in the same circumstances as he ?— great predilection for the 
 ceremonies and customs of the Jahveh-worship, which displayed 
 itself, very naturally, in the collecting and writing down of the 
 priestly traditions relating to them, and led of itself, as it were, 
 to the projection of fixed laws. 
 
 But even though such considerations as these dispel the 
 surprise which Ezekiel's undertaking at first occasioned, that 
 undertaking nevertheless remains most remarkable and worthy 
 of reflection. We Dutchmen are involuntarily reminded of the 
 great man, who, -while Xapoleon's yoke pressed upon our land 
 with the weight of lead, employed himself in his quiet study in 
 drafting a " Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands." 
 To him it was given to witness the realization of his desires 
 and to powerfully co-operate therein Mmself. This privilege 
 was not reserved for Ezekiel. He quitted the scene before the 
 new day began to glimmer upon the horizon. Tet he did not 
 think and labour in vain. His words did not make much im- 
 pression upon his contemporaries : they appear to have ridiculed 
 the sombre preacher, his similes and metaphors, his apparently 
 harebrained visions.* And even the next generation, which 
 lived to see the deliverance, shows but feeble traces of his influ- 
 ence. But his prophecies were preserved, and, even if they did 
 not meet with their fulfilment, at all events exercised great 
 influence upon the regeneration of Israel about a hundred years 
 after his death. 
 
 Let us not anticipate, however. As yet the priestly tendency, 
 which Ez;ekiel represents, is not the main stream of Israel's 
 religious history. The exile at Tel-abib stands aside, as it 
 were. Jeremiah, to whom he also was much indebted, was to 
 revive among his nation before Ezekiel's spirit gained the upper 
 hand. The men who uttered their inspired language towards 
 the end of the captivit}^ walked in Jeremiah's footsteps. In 
 order to understand that language, we will first take a glance at 
 the course of political events. 
 
 * Chap, xxxiii. 30—33; comp. HI: 0. II. 259, u. 7, 
 
TBE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 119 
 
 After a reign of more than 40 years, which upon the whole was 
 very prosperous, Nebuchadnezzar died in the year 561 B.C. Under 
 Evil-Merodach, his son and successor, better times seemed to 
 be dawning for the Israelitish exiles. Jehoiachin, who hitherto 
 had been a prisoner, was treated with favour at the beginning 
 of the new reign, and even admitted to the court.* Perhaps 
 the Israelitish captives expected an improvement in their own 
 condition also from this change of fortune for their former king. 
 In that case, however, their hope was not realized : everything 
 remained as before. But soon phenomena presented themselves 
 which were to give another direction to their hopes. The usual 
 malady of Eastern monarchies began to declare itself in the 
 Chaldean kingdom in a very alarming manner. After a rule 
 of two years, Evil-Merodach was killed and succeeded by his 
 brother-in-law Neriglissar (559 B.C.). The latter reigned four 
 years. After a reign of nine months his son Laborosoarchod 
 fell a victim to a conspiracy, in consequence of which Nabonedus 
 or Nabunita, descended from another family than that of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, now became king (555 B.C.). He does not seem to 
 have been wanting in energy and talent. But he struggled 
 against his fate in vain. The man had already arisen who was 
 to hurl him from his throne. In the year 558 B.C. the Persians, 
 led by Cyrus, the son of Cambyses, had won their independence 
 from the Medes. Before long they sizbjected their former masters 
 to their authority, so that Cyrus stood at the head of the united 
 Persians and Medes, and soon threatened all Asia. Next to the 
 tribes which had belonged to the Medean monarchy, Croesus 
 king of Lydia was vanquished by him. It was now Nabunita's 
 turn. Cyrus crossed the Tigris and defeated him severely. 
 Nabunita had to save himself by flight, was unable to reach 
 his capital again, and threw himself into Borsippa. The reduc- 
 tion of Babylon, however, where Nabunita's son, Belsharezer or 
 Belshazzar, now commanded, remained for Cyrus a very difii- 
 
 * 2 Kings XXV. 27—30; Jer. lii. 31—34. 
 
120 THE RELIGIOX OF ISRAEL. 
 
 cult, nay, an almost hopeless undertaking. He succeeded in 
 it by a fortunate stratagem : the waters of the Euphrates, which 
 ran through the city, were diverted, so that the Persians were 
 able to enter by the nearly dry bed of the river and to attack 
 the inhabitants unawares. The mighty Babylonish monarchy 
 became a province of the great kingdom of Persia (538 B.C.). 
 
 Nothing can be more natural than that these events should 
 have attracted the attention of the P>abylonish exiles in a high 
 degree. Especially those among them who were most attached 
 to Jahveh and his worship must have watched them with the 
 greatest interest. To these men their exile in a foreign land, 
 their removal from Zion, Jahveh's abode, was a great calamity : 
 they were much less able than their fellow tribesmen to adapt 
 themselves to their new surroundings. But besides this, the 
 remembrance of Jahveh's promises, of which Jeremiah espe- 
 cially had been the interpreter, remained alive among them. 
 If the expectations that had been built upon these promises had 
 gradually been lulled to sleep by the long duration of the exde, 
 but little was needed to re-waken them. And veiy soon after 
 his rise it was evident that Cyrus' plans were wide in their con- 
 ception and masterly in their execution. 
 
 We are not astonished, therefore, that after the year 558 b.c. 
 the exiles began to bestir themselves. How glad we should be 
 to be accurately informed of what took place amongst them. 
 But this wish is idle : historical accounts are altogether wanting. 
 Yet we can form a tolerably complete and accurate idea of what 
 went on in their minds. Unless the Israelites had grown alto- 
 gether unlike their forefathers, the fermentation among them 
 must have shown itself outwardlj- in prophetic ecstasy. And 
 this is what indeed happened. 
 
 The book named after Isaiah includes, besides the oracles 
 which are really derived from that prophet, Hezekiah's con- 
 temporary, a number of other prophecies, which, as appears 
 from their form and contents, date from later times, in fact 
 from our period. Part of them have been inserted between the 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 121 
 
 genuine productions of Isaiah,* but by far the majority are at 
 the end of the collection.-]- From the fact that they are pre- 
 ceded by four historical chapters,^ it has been rightly inferred 
 that they were added to the book of Isaiah when the latter, in 
 the intention of the original compiler, was already finished : if 
 he had also attributed chap. xl. — Ixvi. to Isaiah, he would have 
 made the historical explanation of part of the labours of the 
 prophet, which is now given in chap, xxxvi. — xxxix., follow chap. 
 Ixvi. At any rate it is certain that the author of these last 
 twenty-seven chapters never thought of passing for Isaiah. Not 
 so certain are the answers to the questions : Are these chapters 
 from one hand ? Were they written before the fall of Babylon 
 or — all or part of them — after it ? Which is the land of their 
 birth, Babylonia or Palestine? The investigation of these points 
 is yet far from completed. Still I do not hesitate to accept it as 
 proved, that at all events some portions§ were written down in 
 the land of the exile, whether it were in the vicinity of the 
 Chebar, or in the immediate neighbourhood of Babylon, and this 
 before the fall of the Chaldean monarchy. It is especially of 
 these portions that we may confidently make use for our present 
 purpose. Nor do we hesitate to borrow from Isa. xiii. 1^ — xiv. 
 23, xxi. 1 — 10, xxxiv. xxxv. the information which we seek. 
 Besides the light which they themselves afford, these prophecies 
 are of service to us through their affinity with Jeremiah, chap. 
 1. li. : they teach us, namely, that the lengthy oracle against 
 Babylon contained there did not originate from Jeremiah, but 
 was written in his name towards the end of the exile. Very 
 naturally — but in violation of literary good faith — the seer 
 who had announced the return of the exiles in the distant future, 
 is now made to predict their deliverance as immediately at 
 hand.|| 
 
 If the chief inducement to all these prophets to come for- 
 
 * Chap. xiii. 1 — xiv. 23, xxi. 1 — 10, xxiv. — xxvii. xxxiv. xxxv. 
 
 t Chap. xl. — Ixvi. J Chap, xxxvi. — xxxix. § Viz. chap. xl. — xlviii. or xlix. 
 
 II Comp. also Hh. 0. II. 98-144, 151—157, 226—240. 
 
122 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 ward, or — for some of them seem to have worked rather as 
 writers than as speakers — to write all these prophecies, lay in 
 the revolt and the first victories of Cyras, we are not surprised 
 that the approaching fall of the Babylonish kingdom, and, in 
 consequence, the liberation of the Israelites from their captivity, 
 formed the real purport of the predictions. The anticipations 
 cherished and uttered concerning these events, which were the 
 main thing for the contemporary, have lost much of their weight 
 for us, and therefore need not be set forth here at length. In 
 describing the fall of Babylon and the journey of the liberated 
 exiles to their native land, the prophets could allow their 
 imaginations full play. But whatever shape their representa- 
 tion of the deliverance assumed, to which moreover the result 
 did not at all respond, the ideas upon which it was based 
 remained the same. The Chaldeans sinned against Jahveh 
 when they laid waste Jerusalem and the temple and earned 
 away Israel into exile ; this insult Jahveh could leave unpun- 
 ished for a time, it is true, but not for long ; he is the just one ; 
 moreover he is faithful to the covenant made with Israel : these 
 are thoughts to which these seers give utterance again and 
 again. It is easy to imagine the picture of the future which 
 unrolled itself to their minds on the strength of these convic- 
 tions. One describes to us the deep humiliation of Babylon's 
 king and the reception given him in the lower world, the Sluol, 
 when the spirits awake out of their slumber and cry to him, 
 " How art thou fallen from heaven, O morning-star, son of the 
 dawn ! how art thou cast down to the earth, which didst smite 
 the nations!"* Another revels in the description of Babylon's 
 destruction and of the glorious return of the Israelites : 
 
 " The ransomed of Jahveh shall return 
 And come to Zion with rejoicing. 
 And everlasting gladness is upon their heads : 
 Joy and rejoicing shall be their portion. 
 But sorrow and sighs shall flee awaj-.""!- 
 
 * Isa. xiv. 4 seq., 12. t Isa. xxxiv. sq., xxxv. 10. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 123 
 
 A third is never tired of telling of the striving of the nations 
 against the proud city* Another again makes us witnesses of 
 the abasement of her gods+ and of the confusion of her astro- 
 logers.]: 
 
 In these expectations the prophets who raised their voices 
 towards the end of the exile agree together and do not essentially 
 differ from their predecessors. But we should be mistaken, did 
 we imagine that they confined themselves to repeating, in a 
 modified form, what had already been said before. In our opi- 
 nion, there is no real or internal connection between the great 
 conquests of Cyrus and the fortunes of the Israelitish exiles in 
 the kingdom of Babylon : the latter, we believe, when they 
 obtained permission to return to their native land, reaped the 
 fruits of events with which at first they had nothing to do. But 
 this was not the standpoint of the pious Israelites in those days. 
 They were thoroughly convinced that it was for their sakes that 
 Cyrus appeared and that his enterprizes were crowned with such 
 great success. If we place ourselves upon this standpoint, it at 
 once becomes clear to us how the conception of Jahveh's being 
 necessarily became modified and enlarged under the influence of 
 the events of those days. It is true, even before the Babylonish 
 exile the prophets had regarded events of such preponderating 
 significance as, e.g., the victories of the Assyrians and the 
 struggle between the Chaldeans and the Egyptians, as dispensa- 
 tions of Jahveh, and had connected them most intimately with 
 Jahveh's plans respecting his people. But now they became 
 convinced that the condition of the whole of Asia was governed 
 by Jahveh, and was changed in accordance with their wants and 
 wishes. The violent revolution of which they had been inte- 
 rested spectators, was the fulfilment of the promises which he 
 had caused Jeremiah and other prophets to announce. Nothing 
 could be more natural than that they should now form a much 
 grander idea than before of Jahveh's might and foreknowledge. 
 
 Jer. 1. li. t Isa. xlvi. 1, 2. X Isa- "Ivii. 9, 12—15. 
 
124: THE RELIGIOX OF ISRAEL. 
 
 It is especially the author of Isa. xl. seq., whom we can call 
 for the sake of distinction the second or Babylonish Isaiali, who 
 reflects in his oracles the influence thus exercised by these great 
 events. Hear how he challenges the servants of the false gods 
 to try their strength with Jahveh : 
 
 " Produce your cause, saith Jahveh ; 
 Bring forth youi- strong proofs, saith the king of Jacob. 
 Let them bring them forth and declare to us 
 The things which shall happen. 
 Declare to us whaX the former predictions were. 
 That we may mark tliem and consider their end ; 
 Or let us hear what is to come. 
 Declare the thiugs that shall come hereafter. 
 That we may know that ye are gods ; 
 Do some good or evil. 
 
 That we may be amazed and behold it together. 
 Behold, ye are of nothing and your work is of nothing : 
 An abomination is he that chooseth you. 
 
 I raised him* up out of the north, and he came. 
 Out of the east him who caUeth upon my name, 
 Tliat he should trample upon governors as upon mire. 
 As the potter who kneadeth the clay. 
 Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may 
 
 know it, 
 And beforetime, that we may say, he is right. 
 There is none that declared it, none that proclaimed it, 
 None that understood your words. 
 As the first (I say) to Zion, ' Behold, there they are !' 
 And I give to Jerusalem one that bringeth good tidings." t 
 
 No less strongly does he express himself elsewhere, in a discourse 
 which seems to be addressed to the Israelites who are inclined 
 to idolatry : 
 
 " Eemember this and show yourselves men, 
 
 * i.e. Cyrus. + Isa. xK. 21—27. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 125 
 
 Take it to heart, ye unfaithful. 
 
 Eemember the former things from of old, 
 
 That I am a Strong One,* and none else, 
 
 A Fearful One.-f- and none is like me, 
 
 Who declare the end from the beginning, 
 
 And from old what has not yet happened. 
 
 Who say, ' My counsel shall stand 
 
 And all my pleasure I shall perform ;' 
 
 Who call from the East an eagle, 
 
 From a far country the man of my counsel : 
 
 I have spoken it and I will also bring it to pass, 
 
 I have planned it and I will also fulfil it.":j: 
 
 The comparison between Jahveh and the gods of the heathen 
 which we find instituted in these and similar passages, occurs 
 again constantly in the second Isaiah, and always leads to the 
 same result, the utter nullity of the idol. The way in which 
 he identifies the false god with the image of the false god is 
 characteristic. The prophet describes with biting sarcasm the 
 making of such an idol, and the folly of those who expect light 
 and help from it. § Others had already attacked the worshippers 
 of false gods in this way before his time, but no one does it so 
 expressly and fully as he. Here also the influence of contem- 
 porary events is unmistakable. On the one hand, the warning 
 against the worship of those images is absolutely necessary in 
 Babylonia, "the land of -idols." || And, on the other hand, the 
 humiliation of the false gods is the reverse side of the exaltation 
 of Jahveh. In none of the earlier prophets, therefore, do we find 
 so much stress laid upon JahveKs oneness as in the second Isaiah. 
 Its recognition, as we have seen.lT is not wanting in his pre- 
 decessors. But they are not in the habit of enlarging upon it. 
 
 * Hebr. El; comp. Vol. I. p. 41. ' t Hebr. EloUm; comp. Vol. I. p. 41. 
 
 t Isa. xlvi. 8 — 11. See fai-tber also chap. xli. 1 — 7, xlli. 9, xliii. 8 — 13, xlv. 
 19—21, xlviii. 
 § Isa. xl. 19, 20, xli. 6, 7, xliv. 9—19, xlvi. 6, 7. 
 II Jer. I. 38. H Vol. I. pp. 50 seq. ; above, p. 22. 
 
126 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 In fact, it is enough for them to know that done of the other 
 gods can be compared to Israel's god. Jahveh's envoy to the 
 exiles goes much further in utterances such as these : 
 
 " Ye are my witnesses, saith Jahveh, 
 And my servant whom I have chosen. 
 That ye may observe it and believe me, 
 And understand that / am he : 
 Before me there was no god formed. 
 And there shall be none after me. 
 I, even I, am Jahveh, 
 And beside me there is none that saveth. 
 I have declared, and saved, and made known. 
 While there was no strange (god) among you : 
 Ye are my witnesses and I am god. 
 Yea, from of old I am he. 
 And there is none that teareth out of my hand : 
 I accomplish it, and who shall hinder it ?" * 
 
 " Thus saith Jahveh, Israel's king and redeemer, Jahveh of 
 hosts : 
 I am the first and I am the last. 
 And beside me there is no god."-|- 
 
 " Thus saith Jahveh, thy redeemer, 
 And thy creator from thy mother's womb : 
 I, Jahveh, do all things, 
 I alone stretch out the heavens 
 And establish the earth by my might ; 
 (I am he) that frustrateth the tokens of the liars. 
 And putteth the diviners to shame. 
 That turneth back -wise men. 
 And turneth their knowledge into foolishness.":): 
 
 This strict monotheism necessarily influenced the whole of 
 
 * Isa. xliii. 10—13. t lua. xliv. 6. 
 
 t Isa. xliv. 24, 25. See further chap. xIt. 5, 6, 14, 18, 22, xlvi. 9, &c. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 127 
 
 the prophet's religious views. Jahveh is enthroned in awful 
 majesty, above the earth and its inhabitants : what are the latter 
 compared with him ? 
 
 " All flesh is as grass, 
 And all its goodliness as the flower of the field : 
 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, 
 When Jahveh's breath hath blown upon it ; 
 Surely the people is grass ! 
 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth. 
 But the word of our god standeth for ever."* 
 
 Contrasts such as these also occur elsewhere in this prophet.-|- 
 There were some among his contemporaries who threw doubt 
 upon the care of so highly exalted a God for the affairs of men, 
 or for Israel in particular. The second Isaiah does not think of 
 doing so. On the contrary, he firmly believes in Jahveh's all- 
 embracing activity. In the same discourse in which he points 
 so emphatically to the infinite distance between mankind and 
 Jahveh, we find this touchingly beautiful encouragement : 
 
 " Why sayest thou, Jacob, 
 And speakest thou, Israel, 
 ' My way is hid from Jahveh, 
 And my right passeth by my god' ? 
 Knowest thou not, or hast thou not heard, 
 That Jahveh is an everlasting god. 
 The creator of the ends of the earth, 
 Who fainteth not, neither is weary. 
 Whose understanding is unsearchable ? 
 He giveth power to the faint, 
 And to the weak he sendeth great strength. 
 Youths become faint and weary, 
 And young men surely stumble, 
 But they that wait for Jahveh shall renew their strength 
 
 * Isa. xl. 6—8. t Isa. xl. 15, 17, 22, 23, &c. 
 
128 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 And spread out their wiugs as eagles : 
 They shall run and not become weary, 
 They shall walk and faint not."* 
 
 It win be observed that as yet the recognition of Jahveh's 
 majesty does not in the least detract from the belief in his 
 gracious nearness to man : " The high and lofty one that sitteth 
 in eternity and whose name is holy'' also dwells "in the con- 
 trite and humble of spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble 
 and the heart of the contrite." f But the prophet does feel 
 the necessity of making it plain to himself and others, how this 
 absolutely sole Jahveh could place himself in an altogether 
 peculiar relation towards a single people. In proportion as 
 Jahveh became more highly exalted in the estimation of his 
 servants, the choosing of Israel by Jahveh appeared the more 
 singular: was it not at variance with what, precisely as that 
 Only One, he owed to all ? At all events it was very natural 
 that an attempt should also be made to justify logically the 
 universal belief of the Israelites iir that choice. The Babylonish 
 Isaiah employed his energy upon this, and arrived at results 
 which more than merit our closer study. 
 
 Nothing is further from the mind of our great unknown 
 writer than the idea that from the very beginning Israel has 
 been entitled by her virtues to the distinction which has fallen 
 to her share, or has since proved herself worthy of its continu- 
 ance by her fidelity to Jahveh. He rather deplores throughout 
 the sins of his nation, and more than once he makes it humbly 
 confess its guilt : 
 
 " "Who hath given Jacob for a spoil 
 And Israel to the robbers ? 
 Hath not Jahveh, against whom we have sinned, 
 In whose ways we would not walk, 
 To whose thorah we did not liearken V'\ 
 
 * Isa. xl. 27 — 31; oomp. also chap. xlix. 14 — IG. 
 t Isa. Ivii. 15. } Isa. xlii. 24. 
 
TBE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 129 
 
 " Transgressor from thy mother's womb is thy name" — he says 
 in another passage.* The confession which the people make is 
 touching : 
 
 "Behold, thou (Jahveh) art become wroth, and we have 
 sinned. 
 Thine anger is everlasting, and we have transgressed.f 
 We are all as one unclean, 
 And our virtues as a soiled garment ; 
 So we all faded as a leaf, 
 And our sins tore us away like the wind ; 
 No one called upon thy name 
 And stirred himself up to take hold of thee. 
 For thou hast hid thy face from us 
 And lettest us perish because of our transgressions."| 
 
 But it is unnecessary to write out any more passages to prove 
 this.§ It is, perhaps, superfluous to add that the deliverance 
 from the exile may also by no means be regarded as a reward 
 for Israel's fidelity. For : 
 
 " Not upon me hast thou called, Jacob ! 
 Nor given thyself trouble for my sake, Israel ! 
 Thou hast not brought me thy burnt offerings of sheep. 
 Nor honoured me with thy sacrifices ; 
 I have not caused thee to serve with a meat offering. 
 Nor wearied thee with incense. 
 Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money. 
 Nor fiUed me with the fat of thy sacrifices : 
 But thou hast vexed me with thy sins. 
 And wearied me with thy transgressions." || 
 
 If the cause of the intimate relation in which Jahveh stands 
 to this one people, and which, as appears from the approaching 
 
 * Isa. xlviii. 8. t According to an altered reading of the text. 
 
 t Isa. Ixiv. 5 b — 7. 
 
 § Among others, Isa, xl, 2, xliv. 22, xlvii. fi, xlviii. 4, 18, 1. 1, li. 13, liii. 5, 6, 
 8,. 12, Iviii. 1 seq., lix. 2 seq., 10 seq., Ixiii. 10, 15 seq. 
 II Isa. xliii. 22—24, comp. Ixv. 1 — 7. 
 VOL. II. K 
 
130 THE RELiaiON OF ISRAEL. 
 
 miraculous deliverance, he will not break off in the future, do 
 not lie in Israel, then it must lie in Jahveh himself. And so in 
 fact it does : to the words just quoted the prophet immediately 
 adds: 
 
 "I, even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for 
 mine own sake. 
 And remembereth thy sins no more."* 
 
 He reverts to this idea again and again.-f Now it is Jahveh's 
 faithfulness to his promises, | then again his love, by which the 
 prophet considers the continuance of the relation between Jahveh 
 and his people to be assured. Every one will remember those 
 beautiful words : 
 
 " Zion said, ' Jahveh hath forsaken me, 
 And the Lord hath forgotten me.' 
 Doth a woman forget her sucking child. 
 Having no compassion on the child of her womb ? 
 Though she should forget, 
 Yet will I not forget thee."§ 
 
 The problem has now been clearly put, it is true, but it is 
 yet far from solved : how is so intimate a connection between 
 the sole God and a single nation — a nation laden with guilt — 
 to be justified? Of course, I by no means assert that the 
 Babylonish Isaiah gives a complete and satisfactory answer to 
 this question, nor even that he puts it exactly in this form. 
 Yet we find in him two ideas which are not only connected with 
 this problem, but also occurred to the prophet, or at any rate 
 were further developed, in consequence of it. I refer to what 
 he says of the servant of Jahveh and his calling as regards tJie 
 heathen ivorld. 
 
 To the question, who is " the servant of Jahveh" ? — the prophet 
 himself seems to give an unequivocal answer, when he explains 
 
 * Isa. xliii. 26. + Comp. Isa. xlviii. 9—11, and elsewhere. 
 
 J Isa. liv, 10, and elsewhere. § Isa. xlix. 11, 16, oomp. xliii. 3, 4. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 131 
 
 that expression by adding to it "Jacob" or "Israel." As, e.g., in 
 the words : 
 
 " And thou, Israel, my servant, 
 Jacob, whom I have chosen. 
 Seed of Abraham, my friend."* 
 
 " And now hear, Jacob, my servant, 
 And Israel, whom I have chosen. 
 Thus saith Jahveh, that made thee and formed thee, 
 That helpeth thee from thy mother's womb : 
 Fear not, my servant Jacob, 
 And Jeshurun,-f- whom I have chosen." J 
 
 Or where the servant is introduced speaking : 
 
 " Jahveh said unto me, ' Thou art my servant, 
 Israel, in whom I will glorify myself.' "§ 
 
 But it is already evident from these passages, and still more 
 so from others which wiU be quoted immediately, that Isaiah 
 is not thinking of the actual Israel, but of Israel proper, i.e. of 
 the kernel of the nation, that reaUy possesses the attributes 
 which ought to characterize the whole. Thus he makes a dis- 
 tinction between Israel in a broad and in a narrow sense. To the 
 latter belong those who are not only descended from Jacob, 
 but also possess the virtues which beseem the chosen people of 
 Jahveh. It lies in the nature of such a form of speech, that 
 it exhibits a certain looseness, and here and there leaves the 
 prophet's meaning somewhat doubtful : in reality also the lines 
 of demarcation between the spiritual Israel and the Israel of 
 the flesh could not be sharply defined. Eead, e.g., the beautiful 
 description which is put into the mouth of the servant of 
 Jahveh : 
 
 * lea. xli. 8. t Comp. Vol. I. 379, n. J. 
 
 J laa. xlir. 1, 2. See, further, chap. xlii. 19—21 (oomp. 22—24), xliv. 21, xlv. 4, 
 xlviii. 20. 
 § Isa. xlix. 3. 
 
 k2 
 
132 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 " Hearken, inhabitants of the coast, unto me, 
 And listen, ye peoples from afar. 
 Jahveh hath called me from my mother's womb ; 
 Even before I was born, he made mention of my name. 
 And he made my mouth like a sharp sword. 
 In the shadow of his hand he hid me ; 
 He made me a sharp arrow, 
 And put me away in his quiver. 
 Then said he unto me, ' Thou art my servant, 
 Israel, in whom I will glorify myself.' 
 And I said, ' I have laboured in vain. 
 Without fruit and for nought have I spent my strength : 
 Yet — my right is with Jahveh, 
 And my reward with my god.' 
 
 But now saith Jahveh, 
 Who formed me from my mother's womb to be his servant, 
 That he should bring back to himself Jacob, 
 And gather to himself Israel, 
 While I am honoured in Jahveh's eyes, 
 And my god is my strength ; 
 Thus he said, ' It is too little that thou shouldst be my 
 
 servant. 
 To raise up the tribes of Jacob, 
 And bring back the liberated of Israel : 
 Therefore have I appointed thee for a light to the nations. 
 That my salvation may reach to the end of the earth. 
 
 Thus saith Jahveh, the redeemer and holy one of Israel, 
 To him whose life is despised, whom the nation abhorreth, 
 
 who serveth the rulers, 
 (To him) shall kings look up; (before him) they shall 
 
 stand up, 
 The princes, and unto him they shall show honour — 
 For the sake of Jahveh, who is faithful, 
 Of the Holy One of Israel, who hath chosen thee."* 
 * Isa. xlix. 1 — 7, oomp. also chap. xlii. 1 — 7. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 133 
 
 It is true, one thing and another occurs here upon which the 
 requisite light will not be thrown till afterwards. But it is 
 undeniable that the author contrasts a portion, and that the 
 better portion, of the nation with the rest. If we now recall 
 to mind that at all times some prophets belonged to that kernel 
 of Israel, we are not surprised that here and there " the servant 
 of Jahveh " is pictured or made to speak in such a way, that 
 evidently in the first place Jahveh's envoys are referred to. 
 Thus, e.g., where it is said of Jahveh : 
 
 " He confirmeth the word of his servant 
 And performeth the counsel of his messengers. 
 When he saith to Jerusalem, ' be restored !' 
 And to the cities of Judah, ' be rebuilt ! 
 And their ruins wiU I raise up again '"* — 
 
 and where the second Isaiah — or one of his younger contem- 
 poraries ? — sketches himself, as one of Jahveh's interpreters, in 
 particular : 
 
 " The Lord Jahveh gave me a tongue of the learned. 
 That I might refresh the weary with words ; 
 Morning by morning he wakeneth mine ear. 
 That I may hear as they that are instructed. 
 The Lord Jahveh opened mine ear, and I resisted not. 
 And I turned not away backward. 
 I gave my back to them that smote. 
 And my beard to them that plucked out the hair ; 
 I hid not my face from shame and spitting. 
 The Lord Jahveh shall help me : 
 Therefore shall I not be confounded ; 
 Therefore I make my face as flint,-f- 
 And I know that I shall not be put to shame. 
 He is near that justifieth me ; 
 
 Will any one contend with me ? let us then stand up 
 together. 
 
 " Isa. xliv. 26. f A symbol of undauntedness. 
 
134 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Hath any one a cause against me ? let him come near to me. 
 Behold, the Lord Jahveh shall help me : who shall con- 
 demn me ? 
 Behold, they all shall wax old as a garment; the moth 
 shall eat them up ! 
 Who among you feareth Jahveh 
 And hearkeneth to the word of Ms servant ? 
 He that walketh in darkness and hath no light, 
 Let him trust in the name of Jahveh, 
 And stay upon his god !"* 
 
 The distinction which the prophet constantly makes here, was 
 borrowed from the reality, as we have already been reminded. 
 There existed, in fact, two sorts of Israelites, Israelites in name 
 and in reality — in the same way that, especially in the final 
 chapters of the book named after Isaiah, the "servants of 
 Jahveh" (in the plural) are contrasted with those who had de- 
 serted or forgotten their god.f But it was precisely of this 
 distinction that a new difficulty was born. According to the 
 Israelitish conception of the divine justice, the lot in life of the 
 individual man corresponded with his attitude towards Jahveh : 
 was this also the case with " the servant of Jahveh " ? was his 
 condition different from that of the unfaithful ? Daily expe- 
 rience taught the contrary : he too had been carried away into 
 exile, and as deeply humbled as they who were in rebellion 
 against Jahveh. How were these sufferings of " Jahveh's 
 servant " to be explained ? He suffers as a part of Israel ; he 
 hears the sins of Ms nation. Had the prophet confined himself 
 to the utterance of this truth, we should then have to admit 
 that he has grasped and represented the reality more purely 
 than his predecessor Ezekiel.j but otherwise we should have no 
 inducement to dwell longer upon this view of his. But he goes 
 further : to him the " servant's " sufferings are more than a sad 
 
 * Isa. 1. 4 — 10, comp. ctap. xlviii. 16, Ixi. 1 — 3. 
 
 + Isa. liv. 17, Ivi. 6, Ixiii. 17, Ixv. 8, 9, 13—15, Ixvi. 14. 
 
 f See above, pp. 109 seri. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 135 
 
 necessity or a burden laid upon him by Jahveh. It is part of 
 his task to bear those sufferings ; they are not his least power- 
 ful means of benefiting his whole nation — and, as we shall 
 shortly find, the heathen also. This idea, which is just indicated 
 here and there,* is developed expressly in the famous descrip- 
 tion of the suffering " servant of Jahveh," which the Christian 
 church from the earliest times has seen fully confirmed and ful- 
 filled in the person of its founder. The reader will remember 
 that pathetically beautiful description : 
 
 " Despised and forsaken of men, 
 A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, 
 Like unto one from whom a man covereth his face. 
 Despised, and esteemed not by us. 
 
 But — it was our griefs that he bare. 
 Our sorrows that he carried — 
 Yet we did esteem him stricken. 
 Smitten of God and afflicted. 
 But he was wounded for our transgressions. 
 Bruised for our iniquities : 
 The chastisement which would give us peace was upon 
 
 him, 
 And with his stripes we were healed. 
 All we like sheep had gone astray 
 And had turned every one to his own way. 
 But Jahveh laid upon him the iniquity of us all !"-f- 
 
 In all this the increasing depth of religious thought is un- 
 mistakable. The Babylonish Isaiah might, with most of his 
 contemporaries, have retained in its simplicity the traditional 
 conception of Israel's election by Jahveh ; to the doubts engen- 
 dered by Israel's degradation he might have replied by refer- 
 ring to the future, and the dominion which his nation would 
 then have over its present oppressors. We do, in fact, find this 
 latter notioii in his writings : his description of Israel's approach- 
 
 * Isa. xlix. 4, 7, and ia the verses just quoted, Isa. 1. 5, 6, 10. 
 
 + Isa. liii. 3 — 6; the whole perioope runs from chap. lii. 13 to liii. 12. 
 
136 THE RELIOION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 ing glory is even richer and more highly coloured than that of 
 any cue of his predecessors* But side by side with this stand 
 the ideas which we have just quoted. In the limited concep- 
 tion of " Israel" which comes to light in many of the utterances 
 relating to " the servant of Jahveh," the election of that people 
 loses to a certain degree its arbitrary character, and receives an 
 ethical colouring, even if it does not become a moral act. And 
 again, the explanation of the suffering of the pious by the con- 
 nection in which they stand to the whole nation, is both a real 
 advance in theodicy and an important step onwards in the path 
 to a more spiritual conception of the relation between Jahveh 
 and his people. 
 
 The truth of aU this becomes still more obvious when we 
 fix our attention upon tli£. task of Jahveh! s servant. Here and 
 there in the last chapters of the book of Isaiah — as we remarked 
 just now — is uttered the expectation with which we are already 
 acquainted, viz., that the heathen shall one day serve Israel. 
 This expectation is religious and political at the same time: 
 the nation shall go up to Jerusalem both to pray to Jahveh and 
 to pay homage to Israel. Moreover, this conversion is regarded, 
 in the utterances referred to, as a miracle: Jahveh will call 
 these nations to himself and cause them to go up to his house ; 
 full of awe and fear they will repair to his holy mount.-f Now 
 from these ideas the sketch of the labours of " Jahveh's servant " 
 among the heathen is easily to be distinguished. Does not his 
 influence upon them exhibit a moral character ? The nations 
 witness his preaching and his sufferings, are deeply impressed 
 by them, turn to Jahveh, and recognize the close relation between 
 him and his servant, whose glorification is thereby completed. 
 These are the thoughts which are expressed in a few passages 
 already given above,]: and which we also meet with elsewhere in 
 the second Isaiah. " Behold" — says Jahveh — 
 
 * See i. a. Isa. xlix. 22, 23, liv. 3, Iv. 6, Ivi. 6—8, lix. 16—20, Ix., Ixri. 12 seq. 
 + See the passages cited in the preceding note. 
 t See Isa. xlix. 1, 0, 7; above, p. 132. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 137 
 
 " Behold my servant, whom I uphold, 
 Mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth : 
 I lay my spirit upon him, 
 He shall proclaim right to the nations'' * 
 
 " He shall not fail nor be discouraged. 
 
 Till he have set right in the earth 
 
 And the inhabitants of the coast wait for his instruction." f 
 
 " I, Jahveh, have called thee in righteousness, 
 And will hold thine hand. 
 And will keep thee and place thee for a covenant of the 
 
 people. 
 For a light of the Gentiles" X 
 
 " Behold, my servant shall be prosperous, 
 Shall be exalted, become high and illustrious. 
 As many have been astonished at him — 
 So marred, lower than human, was his visage. 
 And his form meaner than those of the sons of men, — 
 So shall he cause many nations to spring up, 
 And kings shall shut their mouths for him ; 
 For that which had not been told them shall they see. 
 And observe that which they had not heard/'§ 
 
 " Free from the trouble of his soul he shall behold till he be 
 
 satisfied ; 
 By his knowledge shaU my righteous servant bring many 
 
 to righteousness. 
 And he shall bear their iniquities. 
 Therefore will I give him a portion among the great, 
 And he shall divide the spoil with the strong ; 
 Because he hath given his life unto death, 
 
 * Isa. xlii. 1, "right" (mishfM), in the estimation of the prophet, is inseparable 
 from religion. 
 
 + L.c. verse 4 ; for "instruction" there stands in the Hebrew "thorah." 
 t Ver. 6. § Isa. lii. 13—15. 
 
138 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 And is numbered with the godless, 
 Whereas he bare the sins of many 
 And made intercession for the godless."* 
 
 It is evident that we have here, not a dogma with sharp 
 outlines and bounds, but an idea which forces itself upon the 
 prophet, a surmise, as it were, as to the destiny of Jahveh's 
 servant and the meaning of his fortunes, which occurred to his 
 mind in consequence of what he saw and experienced. If those 
 other utterances, in which the earlier, politico-religious concep- 
 tion of Israel's glorification stands in the foreground, be from 
 the same author, then it is stiU more obvious that the expec- 
 tations concerning " Jahveh's servant" are nothing more than 
 the rudiments of a more moral view of Jahveh's relation to 
 Israel and to the heathen : then they have not yet pushed out 
 the traditional ideas, but serve to complement them. This 
 would also be the case if the traditional predictions referred to 
 had to be attributed to other prophets : the new ideas about 
 " Jahveh's servant" are merely indicated and are not developed 
 any farther. It cannot surprise us, even, that they are not 
 taken up and worked out by later prophets and poets : they are 
 mere hints which could easily remain unnoticed. But this does 
 not deprive these ideas of their unmistakable importance. They 
 point, as it were, beyond the borders of the Israelitish religion, 
 and form the transition to a universalism which is the more 
 worthy of our notice, since it was not added from the outside, 
 but must be regarded as the fruit of Israel's own religious 
 development. 
 
 How interesting soever they may be to us, the new ideas and 
 hints of the second Isaiah naturally made but little impression 
 upon his contemporaries. A deeply agitated period, such as that 
 at which he lived, could lead him and a few kindred minds to 
 a deeper conception of religious truth, but it was unfitted to 
 advance the masses. Their attention was wholly absorbed by 
 
 * Isa. liii. 11, 12. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 139 
 
 the weighty events of which they were spectators. They would 
 listen gladly to the voice of the prophets, when the latter showed 
 them in those events the foretokens of the approaching deliver- 
 ance. This, therefore, as we have already mentioned,* forms the 
 principal contents of the prophecies which have been preserved 
 to us. Even now, in reading them, we feel the enthusiasm 
 which they breathe : how they must have echoed in the hearts 
 of those whom they concerned so closely ! The taunting song 
 on the king of Babylon, with which the unknown author of one 
 of those prophecies concludes,-|- is eminently adapted to give us 
 an idea of the feeling which prevailed at that time among the 
 exiles. The decisive blow has yet to be struck, and more than 
 one obstacle has stiU to be removed, but their imagination out- 
 strips all these difficulties, and revels in the humiliation of the 
 tyrant who has robbed them of their country and their inde- 
 pendence, and in the certainty that — 
 
 " Jahveh will have mercy on Jacob, 
 And will again choose Israel 
 And set them in their own land : 
 Then shall strangers join them 
 And cleave to the house of Jacob." j 
 
 To understand rightly how so bold an expectation found 
 favour with many, if not with all, we must call one more circum- 
 stance to mind. There was little or no similarity of religious 
 ideas and practices between the Israelitish Jahveh-worshippers 
 and the people in whose midst they were placed. The image- 
 worship § and astrology II of which they were witnesses, may 
 have had a seductive power over a few, but the great majority 
 of the Israelites, and at any rate the upright worshippers of 
 Jahveh, must have felt altogether strange to them. Thus they 
 must have been the more struck at learning that the Persians 
 professed another religion, and one which had much more re- 
 semblance to the convictions and the rites of the Israelites than 
 
 * Above, pp. 121 seq. t Isa. xiv. 4 — 23. % Isa. xiv. 1. 
 
 § Above, p. 125, u. ||. || Isa. xlvii. 12, 13. 
 
140 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 had the Babylonish. At first the exiles will not have formed 
 at all a correct notion of this fact, but the very rumour of it 
 must have made a deep impression on them. Hereafter we shall 
 have occasion to revert to the Persian religion and its relation to 
 Mosaism.* Por the moment we will confine ourselves to stating 
 what will surely be universally admitted — that the similarity 
 existed, and was apparent enough to be noticed by the Israelites, 
 even from a distance. What could be more natural than that 
 this should strengthen their confidence in Cyrus and the Per- 
 sians ? From this point of view, the manner in which the 
 Babylonish Isaiah speaks of that king is remarkable. His faith 
 in Jahveh's universal direction of events is sufficient to account 
 for his conviction that Cyrus will lend himself to carry out 
 Jahveh's designs : so Jeremiah f had already called Nebuchad- 
 nezzar " Jahveh's servant," because he was the instrument for 
 fulfilling the judgment upon the unfaithful Judfeans. But Isaiah 
 goes somewhat further, when he speaks thus of the Persian 
 monarch : 
 
 " Jahveh saith of Cyrus, ' my shepherd' 
 And ' he shall perform all my pleasure. 
 By saying to Jerusalem, Be rebuilt ! 
 And to the temple. Be founded !' " 
 
 " Thus saith Jahveh to his anointed, to Cyrus, 
 Whom I hold by his right hand, 
 To cast down nations before his face 
 And to loose the girdles of kings,]: 
 To open doors before his face 
 And to keep gates not shut : 
 ' I will go before thy face 
 And make hills level ; 
 Gates of brass will I break in pieces 
 And cut in sunder bars of iron ; 
 
 * See below, Chap. IX, t Jer. xxv. 9, xliii. 10. 
 
 J Comp. 1 Kings xx. 11 b. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 141 
 
 And I will give thee treasures that lie in darkness 
 
 And hidden riches, 
 
 That thou mayest know that I am Jahveh, 
 
 Which call thee by thy name, the God of Israel. 
 
 For the sake of Jacob my servant 
 
 And Israel mine elect, 
 
 I called thee by thy name, 
 
 I spake unto thee, while thou didst not know me.'"* 
 
 If the prophet admits, in these last words, that Cyrus is not a 
 Jahveh-worshipper, he connects this " anointed of Jahveh" with 
 his sender so intimately, that he describes him elsewhere -f- as 
 one " who calleth upon Jahveh's name." He would not have 
 expressed himself so strongly, had he looked upon Cyrus as an 
 ordinary worshipper of false gods. Of the real relation between 
 his religion and Jahvism he too will not have been able to form 
 a clear conception. But what was told about it was enough to 
 make the prophet hope everything good of Cyrus, and was 
 eminently suited to give his predictions weight with his fellow 
 exiles. 
 
 Did the Israelites await their deliverance passively ? Did 
 they, as much as lay in their power, assist Cyrus, when he had 
 once begun the conflict with the Chaldean monarchy, or at least 
 give him tokens of their hope in the successful issue of his 
 exertions ? We have already observed! that we must leave 
 these questions unanswered. But whatever we imagine the state 
 of affairs to have been previously, after Cyrus had taken Babylon 
 he must have involuntarily turned his attention to the Jews. 
 Flavins Josephus dishes us up a very improbable story,§ which 
 is not based upon tradition, but must be regarded as a free 
 composition of the Jewish historian. According to this story, 
 Cyrus became acquainted with Isaiah's prophecies, which were 
 written 140 years before the desolation of Jerusalem, and 210 
 
 * laa. xKv. 28, xlv. 1—4. t Isa. xli. 25; above, p. 124. 
 
 J Above, p. 120. 
 
 § Jewish Ant. xi. 1, sec 1, 2; comp. B!c. 0. 11. 101 — 103. 
 
142 THE RELIGION OF ISliAEL. 
 
 years before the taking of Babylon; he found that his own 
 name was foretold in them, and that at the same time it was 
 announced that he would promote Israel's return and the re- 
 building of the temple ; this made a deep impression upon him 
 and convinced him that " the Most High, who had made him 
 (Cyrus) king over the whole earth, was the same who was adored 
 by the people of Israel; so he hastened to perform the duty 
 with which he was charged. All this is evidently invented by 
 Josephus, who, as we also know from other parts of his writings, 
 ascribed Isa. xl. seq. to Hezekiah's contemporary, and, searching 
 for an explanation of Cyrus' favourable disposition, thought he 
 had found it in the astonishment excited by the wonderful pre- 
 dictions in those chapters. In one respect he may have guessed 
 the state of the case correctly. It is far from improbable that 
 Cyrus was aware of the fact that the Jews had fixed their hopes 
 upon him, and that the taking of Babylon was announced by 
 their seers some time beforehand. In that case, this was an 
 additional reason for him to be favourably disposed towards 
 them. An additional reason : for he must have been inclined to 
 regard them favourably, independently of this. Like the Jews 
 themselves, he too must have been struck with the resemblance 
 between the Israelitish and the Persian religions. But, above 
 all, policy drove him to satisfy their desire to return to their 
 native land. Palestine was a border -district of the great empire 
 which he was erecting. It was to the interest of the stability of 
 that new erection that a people should settle there who felt 
 themselves indebted and bound to the ruling Persian nation, 
 and who would side with it in a war with Egypt, or in the 
 event of a rebellion on the part of the recently subjugated 
 nations. This demand of policy could not be better satisfied 
 than by revoking the sentence passed by Nebuchadnezzar upon 
 the Jewish nation. Of course it is taken for granted here that 
 the exUes, or at all events many of them, were anxious to see 
 their native soil again. We shall soon find that this supposition 
 is correct. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA, 143 
 
 " Jahveh the god of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms 
 of the earth, and he hath charged me to build him an house 
 at Jerusalem in Judah. Who then among you belongs to his 
 people, his god be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem 
 in Judah and buUd the house of Jahveh the god of Israel ; he 
 is the god who dwelleth in Jerusalem. Now as for the Israelites 
 that remain, let in all places each of them be supported by 
 the people of such a place, with silver and gold and goods and 
 beasts, beside the freewill offerings for the house of the god that 
 dwelleth at Jerusalem." In these words a younger Jewish 
 historian* clothes the edict promulgated by Cyrus in the first 
 year of his reign over Babylon (538 B.C.). His statement that 
 the Persian king acknowledged Jahveh as "the god of heaven" 
 in this manner, thanked him for all his victories and declared 
 himself ready to carry out his commands, is very improbable in 
 itself and is not confirmed by other sources : the whole procla- 
 mation has obviously a Jewish tint and thus is not authentic. 
 But it is historically certain not only that Cyrus permitted the 
 return of the exiles, but also that he greatly promoted the 
 rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem by, among other things, 
 restoring the holy vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had stolen.-|- 
 A large number of Israelites at once declared themselves ready 
 to begin the journey to Judaea. According to a statement made 
 twice in the Old Testament,| there were 42,360 of them who set 
 out. If, as may be said to be probable, this was the number of 
 the heads of families, it was an army of more than 200,000 
 Israelitish men, women and children, that left Babylonia. If 
 these figures be thought too high, we are at liberty to subtract 
 something from them ;§ in spite of this it remains a caravan of 
 considerable size. At its head stood Zerubbabel the son of 
 Shealtiel, a descendant of David, as hattirsatha, i.e. governor, || 
 
 ♦ Ezra i. 2—4. t Ezra vi. 1—5, i. 7—11. 
 
 t Ezra. ii. 64 ; Neh. vii. 66. § Comp. Note I. at the end of this Chapter. 
 
 II Zerubbabel bears this title in Ezra ii. 63 ; Neh. vii. 65, 70 ; and Nehemiah in 
 Neh. viii. 10, a. 1. 
 
144 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 and Joshua the son of Jozadak, grandson of Seraiah, who in 586 
 B. c. served as high-priest in the temple at Jerusalem, and was 
 killed by order of Nebuchadnezzar in the same year * 
 
 The reader no doubt expects that we shall now at once accom- 
 pany the returning exHes on their journey to their own land. 
 But weighty reasons induce us first to remain for a time with 
 the Jews who stay behind in Babylonia. They fill an important 
 place in the history of Israel's religion. This sounds strange, for 
 it is universally admitted that accounts of them are altogether 
 wanting. But we stand on firm ground when we ascribe to 
 them this important part. Our researches shall themselves 
 furnish proof of this. 
 
 What we remarked before on the isolation of the prophet 
 Ezekieli" will be remembered. Unless I be mistaken, those 
 remarks are fuUy confirmed by our study of the second Isaiah 
 and his contemporaries. In his wiitings we seek in vain for that 
 thoroughly priestly conception of Israel's destiny and future of 
 which Ezekiel is the representative. We discover at most a 
 few points of contact with it. This is the case, e.g., in a passage 
 on the keeping of the Sabbath, concerning which, moreover, 
 there is still room to doubt whether it must not rather be 
 ascribed to a younger prophet in Judaea than to the Babylonish 
 Isaiah, j First, the practice of judgment and justice is insisted 
 upon generally, and the man who devotes himself to this is 
 called blessed. § But immediately afterwards, "the keeping of 
 the Sabbath from polluting it," together with " the restraining of 
 the hand from doing any evil," is named as the characteristic of 
 the righteous, II while a glad future is predicted for the strangers 
 who join Israel, and for the eunuchs, if they keep Jahveh's 
 covenant and again take care, in particular, that they do not 
 pollute the Sabbath. IT The high estimation of the Sabbath 
 
 * 2 Kings XXV. 18; Jer. Iji. 24; 1 Chr. vi. 14, 15. 
 
 + Above, pp. 105, 118 seq. J Isa. Ivi. 1— 7. § Vers. 1,2 a. 
 
 II Ver. 2 b. IT Vera. 3—7. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 145 
 
 which pervades this passage, reminds one of Ezekiel's declara- 
 tions to the same effect.* But opposed to this one point of 
 agreement, which moreover is notably weakened by the doubtful 
 origin of the prophecy, there are at any rate weighty points of 
 difference. While Ezekiel shows that he attaches great impor- 
 tance to the descent of the priests from Zadok, the later prophet 
 expects that Jahveh will also "take for Levitical priests "f of 
 the Israelites who shall be brought to Jerusalem from all parts 
 of the world by the heathen : he probably means that the other 
 tribes shall also be admitted to the priesthood, but in no case 
 does he, like his predecessor, limit the power of holding that 
 dignity to a single family of Levi. Concerning fasting, too, the 
 younger prophet has his peculiar notions. To the question put 
 by some Israelites : 
 
 " Wherefore have we fasted, and thou (Jahveh) didst not see 
 it. 
 And afflicted ourselves with abstinence, and thou observest 
 it not?" J 
 
 Jahveh answers, that such fasting as that with which they are 
 content cannot be acceptable to him. They not only combine 
 with it attention to their affairs and care for their daily work, 
 but they are guilty of quarrelling and other sins.§ " Is not" — 
 asks Jahveh of them — 
 
 " Is not this the fasting that I chose : 
 To loose the chains of wickedness, 
 To undo the bands of the yoke, 
 To let the oppressed go free, 
 And to take off every yoke ? 
 Is it not to break thy bread for the hungry. 
 To bring the wandering poor into thy house, 
 AVhen thou seest a naked man, to clothe him. 
 And not to hide thyself from thine own kin ?"|| 
 
 * Ezek. XX. 12, 20, 21, xxi!. 8, 26, xxiii. 28, &c. + Isa. Ixvi. 21. 
 
 X Isa. Wiii. 3 a. § Vers. 3 b— 5. || Vers. 6, 7. 
 
 VOL. II. L 
 
146 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 This is genuinely prophetic language, to which a man such as 
 Ezekiel could not have objected, it is true, but which he would 
 not have written down just in this way of his own accord. 
 
 It is certain, therefore, that the priestly spirit was not the 
 predominant one among the exiles at the time of their release, 
 and that their prophets in particular moved in another direc- 
 tion. There is even, speaking generally, a tolerably sharp 
 contrast to be observed between the last twenty-seven chapters 
 of the book of Isaiah and the prophecies of Ezekiel. But it is 
 equally certain that the priestly conception of the religion soon 
 had numerous and worthy defenders among the exiles who re- 
 mained in Babylonia — as if Ezekiel revived among them, not as 
 an individual, but in an entire school, which embraced his princi- 
 ples and took up and carried on his work. It is this remarkable 
 fact which must now be elucidated. 
 
 Let us begin by clearing away a — very natural — prejudice 
 with regard to the Jews who stopped behind iu Babylonia. At 
 first we cannot be inclined to judge favourably of them. The 
 mere fact that they stayed behind seems to testify against them. 
 The journey to Judsea and the settlement there, in a very thinly 
 populated land, where everything had to be built up from the 
 very ground, were undoubtedly connected with great difficulties, 
 which had the more weight in proportion as the hope of extra- 
 ordinary and miraculous help from Jahveh, with which they had 
 at first flattered themselves, was contradicted by experience and 
 weakened every day. It would hardly be possible to with- 
 hold from those who did not embark upon these troubles, the 
 praise that they made a wise choice. But so much the darker 
 a shadow seems then to fall upon their interest in Jahveh and 
 his service. What could they who were not among those " whose 
 spirit God had raised to go up to build Jahveh's temple at Jeru- 
 salem "* — what could they be but indifferent and faint-hearted, 
 of whom it was to be feared that, forsaken by their more zealous 
 
 * Ears i. 5. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 147 
 
 brethren, they would soon become as the nations and the fami- 
 lies of the earth, serving wood and stone ?* 
 
 Perhaps there were some among them whom such a verdict 
 would not have wronged. But there decidedly remained behind 
 not a few who stood much higher than we should have suspected. 
 What kept them back from sharing in the great work to which 
 Cyrus called them, we do not know, but it is easy for us to sup- 
 pose motives which justified their staying. Even could we not 
 do so, we should yet have to yield to facts. The facts are these : 
 the deputation of Babylonish Jews to the temple at Jerusalem, 
 about the year 520 B.C., mentioned by the prophet Zechariah j-f 
 the fervent love of such a man as Nehemiah for his nation and 
 Jahvism ;:j: and lastly and above all the character of Ezra and 
 the intrinsic worth of the second colony, which — in the year 
 458 B.C. — entered upon the journey to Jerusalem under his lead- 
 ership.§ We shall afterwards revert to this subject and illus- 
 trate it more fully. These facts are mentioned here provisionally 
 as so many proofs that interest in the Jahveh-worship was not 
 wanting in those who stayed behind, but on the contrary was 
 very lively. It is true, we have no right to judge of all the rest 
 by these few persons, but much less to regard them merely as 
 exceptions to the rule, and to place those of whom we know 
 nothing — but also nothing bad — far lower than those whose 
 deeds are known to us and bear testimony in their favour. 
 
 Interest in the religion of their fathers was therefore far from 
 extinct among the Jews who remained. But how do we know 
 that it was precisely the priestly conception which found sup- 
 porters among them and was further developed ? Provisionally 
 we are disposed to gather this from what we are told about 
 Ezra and his colony. We may already assert without fear of 
 contradiction — and it shall be expressly proved in the next 
 chapter — that a tendency which was priestly and legal at the 
 same time, predominated among them. Ezra and his adherents 
 
 * Ezek. XX. 32. t Zech. vi. 9—15. 
 
 X N»h. i. 1 — ii. 8. § Ezra vii. seq. 
 
 L 2 
 
148 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 would uot be its only defenders. There is not the slightest 
 ground for drawing so sharp a line of demarcation between them 
 and the rest of the Baliylonish Jews. In the absence of any 
 proof to the contrary, we rather assume that, as they went out 
 from Babylonia, so also they represented the predominant feeling 
 among the Jews there. 
 
 Upon closer consideration, details present themselves in Ezra's 
 accounts which confirm this provisional conclusion. But before 
 ■\\e point them out, we will strike into a side-path wliich will 
 bring us nearer to the end at which we are aiming. "We wiR 
 take the Pentateuch — with the book of Joshua, so closely related 
 to it — into our hands, and notice the phenomena which occur 
 there. It will soon be evident that this examination furnishes 
 important results. 
 
 Our present Pentateuch contains a great number of priestly 
 dements, i.e. documents of legislative and historical tenor, which 
 were written in a priestly spirit and in the priestly interest, and 
 therefore probably by priests, as they treat of what directly 
 concerns them and belongs to the sphere of their labours. 
 Which these documents are, can really be gathered from what 
 has already been said of the Pentateuch in this history.* Take 
 away the prophetic historical narratives and the few laws in- 
 cluded in them, especially the Book of the Covenant ;-f- then 
 remove the work of the Deuteronomist, in the first place his 
 legislation, and also the documents of an exhortatory tendency 
 A\-hich were added to it subsequently, and the Deuteronomic 
 redaction of the older prophetic historical narrative, and all that 
 remains in the Pentateuch and Joshua is priestly in origin and 
 tendency. But we shall undoubtedly gain in clearness if, in- 
 stead of resting content with this indication, we lay the priestly 
 elements themselves before the reader. 
 
 As we have already said, they are partly laws and partly 
 narratives. This double character of the priestly legislation 
 
 * Comp. Vol. I. pp. 104 sq. ; above, p]i. 15 sq., and elsewhere, 
 t E.xod. xxi. — xxiii. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 149 
 
 does not surprise us in the least. It entirely agrees with the 
 practice followed by the other lawgivers. The Book of the 
 Covenant was preserved to us as an integral part of a history 
 of the patriarchal and Mosaic times. The Deuteronomist not 
 only put his laws into an historical frame, but also linked them 
 afterwards to the prophetic historical narrative, and then worked 
 up in his own spirit the accounts relating to Joshua as well. 
 The legislation of the priests conforms to these examples. Its 
 historical elements, as was to be expected, are easy to dis- 
 tinguish from the prophetic (and Deuteronomic). They are 
 characterized by tlie spirit in which they are written, and by 
 peculiar expressions. They are to be found throughout the 
 whole of the Pentateuch and in Joshua, so that the priestly 
 lawgiver appears to have handled history from the creation of 
 the world to the division of Canaan among the Israelitish tribes. 
 But let us confine ourselves first to the laws, which occupy 
 the most space, and thus no doubt are of more consequence in 
 the estimation of the author — or authors — of the priestly ele- 
 ments than the historical narratives. To these laws, then, 
 belong : the ordinance as to the feast of the passover, which 
 is inserted in the account of Israel's exodus from Egypt;* the 
 precepts concerning the tabernacle and the consecration of the 
 priests,-f- from which the long description of the execution of 
 these precepts]: is inseparable; all the regulations which toge- 
 ther form the book of Leviticus ; and, finally, several chapters of 
 l^umbers, containing both laws in the strict sense § and semi- 
 historical documents relating to the numbering and division of 
 Israel, 1 1 the legislative tendency of which, however, is so obvious 
 that they must decidedly be placed here. 
 
 * Exod. xii. 1—28, 43—50. + Exod. xxv. 1— xxxi, 17. 
 
 J Exod. XXXV. — xl. 
 
 § Num. iii. iv. v. vi., viii. 23 — 26, ix. 1 — 14, x. 1 — 9, xv. xviii. xix. xxviii. — xxx, 
 xxxiv. XXXV. 
 
 II Num. i. ii. vii., viii. 1 — 22, ix. 15 — 23, xxvi., xxvii, 1 — 11, xxxi. xxxvi. The 
 lineidividiug this group from the previous one (note §) cannot be drawn without some 
 arbitrariness. 
 
150 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 All these laws are mutually related and breathe one spirit, 
 yet they are not from one hand or one time. This is evident 
 both from the difference of expression and from the mutual 
 antagonism of some of the laws. Thus they originated in suc- 
 cession, probably in the same circles. The younger regulations 
 appear to be additions, whether it be to complete and explain 
 the older ones, or to provide for the wants which did not become 
 visible till after the older documents had been written. Great 
 difiiculties — we need scarcely say — are connected with the chro- 
 nological arrangement of the priestly laws in their entirety. The 
 least hazardous method seems to be to divide them into three 
 groups, of which 
 
 The first embraces some laws concerning clean and unclean 
 things, the priests and religious worship, which are now included 
 in Leviticus chap, xviii. — xxiii. xxv. xxvi., but in an elaborated 
 form and linked with a few younger regulations ; 
 
 The second is formed by a complete system of priestly ordi- 
 nances, the author of which was acquainted with and adopted 
 the first group ; to this group belong in great part the laws in 
 Exodus chap. xii. xxv. — xxxi., in Leviticus chap. i. — xvii. xxiv. 
 xxvii., and most of the priestly documents in Numbers, both 
 the purely legislative and the semi-historical.* From this corpus 
 of the legislation of the priests must now, finally, be distin- 
 guished 
 
 The third group, which includes the later additions : they are 
 usually closely united with the older documents, in the three 
 centre books of the Pentateuch, and cannot be separated from 
 them without difficulty. 
 
 Let the following suffice, provisionally, to vindicate and ex- 
 plain this distribution. The Book of the Covenant, as well as 
 the Deuteronomic legislation in its original form, is concluded 
 by an exhortatory discourse, which sets forth the consequences 
 both of the observance and the transgression of the preceding 
 laws.-f Now we also find a similar discourse — otherwise very 
 
 • Comp. above, p. 140, n. § and ||. + Exod. xxiii. 20—335 Deut. xxyiii. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 151 
 
 peculiar in language and style — in Leviticus, in chap. xxvi. It 
 does not belong to the priestly legislation in its entirety, as may 
 be inferred from its very position — not at the end, but before 
 Lev. xxvii. and the laws in Numbers. It must rather be regarded 
 as the concluding discourse of another, likewise priestly, legis- 
 lation, which, according to the thoroughly unequivocal sub- 
 scription. Lev. xxvi. 46, was instituted on mount Sinai, and 
 thereby plainly distinguishes itself again from the legislation to 
 which most of the ordinances of the present Pentateuch belong, 
 which were promulgated not on the mountain, but in the desert 
 of Sinai* Now it is surely very improbable that of that other 
 legislation the exhortatory discourse. Lev. xxvi., alone was 
 included in the Pentateuch; it is much more credible, at all 
 events, that other documents also, and especially laws, were 
 borrowed from it. Now in the chapters immediately preceding 
 (xviii. — xxiii. xxv.) we find exactly what we seek : a number of 
 ordinances which exhibit some agreement in expression with 
 Lev. xxvi., and, conversely, differ altogether from the rest of the 
 priestly laws in language and style. One of these ordinances, 
 relating to the year of the sabbath and of the jubilee, is actually 
 expressly stated to have been delivered on mount Sinai.f It 
 would have been perceived long before this, therefore, that the 
 laws which were referred above to the first group, must be dis- 
 tinguished from the rest of the priestly legislation, were it not 
 that the peculiar expressions of those other laws occurred from 
 time to time in this our first group also. This seems to upset 
 again the distinction which otherwise is very obvious. Yet it 
 ought to be retained, with this understanding, however, that the 
 laws of that first group be considered to have been adopted and 
 worked up by the author of our second group. This hypothesis 
 accounts satisfactorily for all the phenomena which occur here. 
 Of course, it presupposes that the first group is the oldest of the 
 three — for which reason we placed it first. | 
 
 * Comp. Note II. at the end of this Chapter. t Lev. xxv. 1. 
 
 X Comp. Note II. at the end of this Chapter. 
 
152 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 We need not enlarge here upon the second and third groups 
 of priestly laws. We shall revert to them hereafter* The 
 necessity of keeping these two groups apart, or, in other words, 
 of distinguishing the later additions from the real corpus of the 
 legislation, is not admitted by many, and, in fact, is not ap- 
 parent at once. A reason the more for not dwelling upon it 
 longer here, in this provisional survey. 
 
 We now turn from the laws to the historical documents of 
 priestly origin. It seems superfluous to enumerate them aU 
 here. Presently, in this very chapter, an opportunity will occur 
 of making known their contents. Let it suffice to remind the 
 reader that, to begin with, the first narrative of the creation,-|- 
 and, further, aU the documents related to it in Genesis and in 
 the following books, as far as and including Joshua, are of 
 priestly origin. There is, upon the whole, so much in them that 
 is peculiar, that they can be separated with tolerable certainty 
 from the remaining prophetic historical narratives. The latest 
 writers upon this subject are unanimous upon all the main 
 points. In this also they are at one, that the priestly narratives 
 are the most intimately related to the second group of laws 
 mentioned above. Without hesitation, therefore, we attribute 
 them to the author of that second group. Perhaps some of the 
 historical documents must also be regarded as later additions, 
 and would then stand upon a level with our third group of laws. 
 For our present purpose this further division is of less moment. 
 
 We now have to connect the results of these investigations 
 
 O 
 
 with the Jews in Babylonia and their labours in the domain of 
 religion. The reader will suspect already that, in my opinion, 
 we have them to thank for the committal to writing of the 
 priestly laws and narratives. This is indeed the case. TJie 
 laws of the first and second groups and tlie historical narratives 
 belonging to them were tvritten doioi in Babylonia, between the 
 years 538 and 458 B.C. Let it be considered, 
 
 " In Chai'lLT IX. and its Note I. + Gtn. i, 1 ii, 3. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 153 
 
 111 the first place, that when Ezeldel, in the year 572 B.C., 
 wrote his description of the new Israelitish state (chap. xl. — 
 xlviii.), no written regulations for religious worship, no complete 
 priestly legislation, yet existed, and the laws of our second group, 
 especially, had not yet been made ;* 
 
 In the second place, that no evident trace of these laws, or of 
 the spirit which they breathe, is to be found in the prophecies 
 which saw light towards the end of the captivity, about 538 B.C. ;-f- 
 
 And lastly, that in the year 458 B.C., Ezra could start for 
 Jerusalem " with the law of his god in his hand,"| to introduce 
 that law some years afterwards into Judaea, where it had hitherto 
 been unknown. § This "law" is none other than the priestly 
 legislation — as will be expressly shown hereafter. || Ezra, who 
 had already won for himself in Babylonia the title of " ready 
 scribe of the law of Moses," IT must thus be considered to have 
 brought thence what originated there. 
 
 If we put these reflections together, we arrive at the following 
 idea of the course of the priestly legislation. Ezekiel, in uttering 
 his wishes as to the future, made a beginning of the committal 
 to writing of the priestly tradition. The priests in Babylonia 
 went on in his footsteps. A first essay in priestly legislation — 
 remains of which have been preserved to us in Lev. xviii. — xxvi. 
 — was followed by others, until at last a complete system arose, 
 contained in an historical frame. Possessed of this system, the 
 priestly exiles, and among them Ezra in particular, could consider 
 themselves entitled and called upon to come forward as teachers 
 in Judaea, and to put in practice the ordinances which hitherto 
 had been exclusively of theoretical interest to them. 
 
 The objections which can be made to this conclusion on the 
 score of probability, are easily removed. At the first glance, no 
 doubt, so great an activity on the part of the priests of Jahveh 
 
 * See above, pp. 114 — 117. + See above, pp. 144—146. X Ezra vii. 14, 25. 
 § Neh. viii. 15—18. || See below, Chapter VIII. 
 
 H Ezra vii. 6, 11, 12, 21 ; Neh. viii. 1 ; comp. Ezra vii. 10. 
 
154 THE RELIOIOX OF ISRAEL. 
 
 m the land of exile is singular. Had not sacrifice been confined 
 to the temple at Jerusalem, in accordance with the Deuteronomic 
 law, since Josiah's reformation ? how then could the priest pro- 
 secute his work in a foreign country and actually, in a certain 
 sense, take the lead there ? Let us consider, first of all, that the 
 priest's task embraced more than the mere offering of sacrifices. 
 To his ofi&ce belonged, besides this, a share in the administration 
 of justice and the giving of " instruction" (tJwrah), e.g., con- 
 cerning clean and unclean. It lay in the nature of the case that 
 this last gradually acquired greater significance in that foreign, 
 unclean land, where the real worship was at a standstill Thus 
 the priest remained in office and in honour. We are not sur- 
 prised, therefore, to find that, upon the return of the exiles, 
 Joshua the priest, next to the descendant of David, assumes the 
 lead of the expedition. But after the departure of the first 
 colony, according to the hypothesis advanced above, the zeal 
 and influence of the priests in Babylonia increased : is not that 
 very singular ? By no means. Let the reader observe, in the 
 second place, the peculiar position of the Jews who stayed 
 behind. They themselves did not regard it as final. Inas- 
 much as they were Jews, not only by -birth, but also by religion, 
 they must always have had their eyes fixed upon the holy land 
 and have looked forward to a restoration of the Israelitish state. 
 Even after the year 538 B.C., that restoration was still of the 
 future : what Zerubbabel and Joshua effected was nothing more 
 than a beginning — a poor beginning even, as we shall see here- 
 after. Thus there were no reasons for the priests of Jahveh to 
 lay down their task. If, as was involved in the nature of the 
 case, the prophets, the second Isaiah and those of his mind, 
 joined the first expedition to Judaea, then it was most natural 
 that those who stayed behind should look upon the priests as 
 their leaders, and that the latter should feel the importance of 
 their office even more than they had done before. From the 
 very fact that they were unable to perform a good deal of the 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 155 
 
 practice of that of&ce, they must have felt called upon to collect 
 and commit to writing the rules which hitherto had been orally- 
 handed down. That which reached their ears concerning the 
 state of affairs in Judtea may have augmented this zeal. There 
 is, indeed, nothing strange in their taking this interest in distant 
 matters ; on the contrary, it is extremely natural from a psy- 
 chological point of view, as was shown before with regard to 
 Ezekiel.* In addition to this, in the third place, the need of 
 settled religious institutions, which showed itself among the 
 Jews in Babylonia, must have served to encourage the priests 
 to go on in the path upon which they had of their own accord 
 entered. After his arrival in Judsea, Ezra endeavours to gain 
 influence by reading out the law; soon after his time began 
 the meetings of the Jews on the sabbath, at which this public 
 reading was the chief feature.-f- It is no hazardous supposition 
 that these practices existed in Babylonia, and were not invented 
 by Ezra, but were brought by him to Palestine. The want of 
 the temple and of the opportunities which it gave for common 
 worship must have made itself felt in the strange land more 
 deeply than ever, especially after the completion of the sanctuary 
 at Jerusalem. In those regular meetings, for which the day of 
 rest was so well suited, a proper substitute was sought and found. 
 They were so urgently needed to supply the existing and gene- 
 rally acknowledged wants, that they must have sprung up of 
 themselves as it were : nothing can surprise us less than that 
 history is unable to name the man who introduced them. Now, 
 assuming that the priests were consulted, and, moreover, already 
 had inducement to commit their ideas and ordinances to writing, 
 must not the opportunity of communicating them to the people 
 which was offered by the sabbath-meetings have incited them to 
 go on in the road which they had taken? Is it not evident, 
 from the increased necessity for religious instruction, speaking 
 
 * See above, pp. 117 seq. t See again below, Chapter VIII. 
 
156 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 quite generally, that the time had arrived for writing down what 
 hitherto had been delivered verbally ? A number of " teachers" 
 undertook the journey to Judaea with Ezra the priest and 
 scribe :* may we not infer from this fact, after all the foregoing, 
 that we have formed a correct idea of the condition of the Jews 
 in Babylonia and of the movement which took place there in 
 the domain of religion ? 
 
 There is one more detail which may not be passed over here 
 in silence. The Jews' growing knowledge of the Persian religion 
 could not well fail to have influence upon them. "We shall 
 revert to this in connection with other points : to estimate the 
 influence of that religion upon Jahvism, we must be acquainted 
 with facts which will not come to light till further on in our 
 investigations. Here we will confine ourselves to observing, 
 what is scarcely open to contradiction, that the contact with the 
 Persian religion must have led the Jews to study their own 
 religion and to define it more exactly than had been done 
 hitherto. In the Persians they learnt to know for the first time 
 a people which, as far as the development of its religion was 
 concerned, could be compared in some measure to themselves ; 
 "which moreover was possessed of a religious legislation regulating 
 even to the minutest points its whole life and worship. Inde- 
 pendently of what they could borrow from such a system, to 
 complete their own usages, it must have induced them to take 
 count of what they possessed and to draw up an inventory of it 
 as it were. The wish not to be in any respect behind the 
 Persians, to whom they could consider themselves in many 
 respects superior, was truly not unnatural. Who will not admit 
 that the activity which we ascribe to the Jewish priests in 
 Babylonia tended to meet that wish, and thus again from this 
 point of view may safely be acknowledged as historical ? 
 
 The whole of this survey still lacks something of great ini- 
 
 * Ezra viii. 16. 
 
THE EXILES IN. BABYLONIA. 157 
 
 portance. I have twice referred to Ezra and put forward my 
 conception of his labours in Judaea. Far too little has been said 
 upon this subject, however, and, in consequence, the whole is 
 wanting in perspicuity, and perhaps even seems more or less 
 arbitrary. Let the reader, therefore, suspend his judgment until 
 he sees Ezra appear upon the scene and witnesses his doings, in 
 the next chapter. He will then be in a position to judge whether 
 our conception of Ezra's preparation for the task which he 
 undertook and carried out is to be considered admissible. 
 
 The preceding investigation can now at once be supplemented 
 in another way. The result which we have obtained is, that the 
 system of priestly legislation which was indicated as the second 
 group (p. 150), together with the narratives that belong to it, 
 was written down in Babylonia before Ezra's journey to Judaea. 
 It will be best to speak of the particular ordinances and rules 
 included in that system, when we narrate its introduction into 
 Judaea. But the system as a whole, and especially the historical 
 suppositions upon which it rests, can be set forth here. Nay, 
 this alone is the proper place to describe them. In sketching 
 the situation of the Jews in Babylonia, it is necessary to answer 
 the questions, what notions did the priests who were settled 
 there hold as to the course of religious development ? and what 
 was the ideal which they formed ? If they are to be found 
 anywhere, we shall find the answers to these questions in the 
 historical and legislative writing which one of those priests 
 composed. With this end in view, then, we will make ourselves 
 acquainted with the contents of that writing.* 
 
 Scarcely, however, have we begun to do so, before we arrive 
 at the conviction that we cannot regard the author of the Book 
 of Origins — as, in imitation of others, we will call the system of 
 priestly legislation already mentioned — merely as a represen- 
 tative of the order to which he belonged. It is true, he is a 
 finest, and as such is deeply attached to the Jahv eh- worship, its 
 
 * Compare with the following Note III. at the end of this Chapter. 
 
158 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 ceremonies and the privileges of the priesthood. Hence it is 
 that he regulates public worship expressly and exhaustively, and 
 draws up several rules in the interest of the priests. Any other 
 priest in his place would have done the same. But besides this, 
 there is something which is peculiar to him personally. He is 
 a friend of order, regularity, and symmetry. It is a necessity to 
 him to reduce everything to number and measure. He is fond 
 of distinguishing between different periods and demonstrating a 
 regular gradation in them. One might call him a statistician. 
 But now we must at once add to this, that the historical reality 
 has but little value in his eyes. He sacrifices it without hesita- 
 tion to his need for a minute and tangible representation of the 
 past. In doing so, therefore, he gives rein to his imagination 
 and is more a poet than an historian. Yet his imagination is 
 anything but poetical in the ordinary sense of the word. His 
 descriptions display unmistakable talent, but still they are 
 monotonous and sometimes even dry, namely, when they are 
 given in the form of authentic documents or records, although 
 in truth nothing could be less so in reality. Examples of all 
 that I am saying will present themselves to us directly in 
 abundance. It will surely be generally admitted that in them 
 the writer proves himself to be a man of peculiar, sharply-defined 
 characteristics. We certainly should not be justified in putting 
 down his work, in so far as it is the expression of this indi- 
 viduality, to the whole priesthood, and this we wish to avoid. 
 But on the other hand, can it be by accident that we meet with 
 a man such as this among the priests ? Is there not an unmis- 
 takable connection between the office which he fills and the 
 interpretation and notion of things which we have just sketched ? 
 At the least it can hardly escape our attention, that in this he 
 so often coincides with the priest Ezekiel, who, in fact, deserves 
 to be called his predecessor in more than one respect. 
 
 The author of the Book of Origins was not the first in Israel 
 to narrate history, from the creation of the world to the settle- 
 ment of the people in Canaan. The course which he had to 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 159 
 
 follow, therefore, had been pointed out to him by liis predecessors, 
 and especially by the author of the second creation-narrative* 
 and the accounts connected with it.-f- But the latter's inter- 
 pretation and conception of events could not possibly satisfy 
 him entirely. Not only did he miss a great deal in his narratives 
 and the laws that they contained — e.g. the whole of the regula- 
 tions as to public worship and the rights and duties of the 
 priests, which the Deuteronomist did not give completely 
 either — but he found in them things that were at variance, or 
 only partially agreed, either with his views of the past or his 
 wishes for the future. He therefore went his own way. He 
 only included in his work the priestly laws which form our first 
 group (p. 150). 
 
 " In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth." 
 This is the simple and sublime commencement of this work.| 
 That first act of creation produced a chaos (Hebrew, tohu vahohu), 
 over which the spirit of Elohim hovered. § But this chaos was 
 soon to be reduced to order. In six days were created in suc- 
 cession — light ; the firmament ; the sea, the dry land, herbs and 
 trees; the sun, moon and stars; fishes and birds; four-footed 
 beasts and creeping things, and finally man.|| The regular climax 
 is obvious. Man is created as male and female, in the image 
 and likeness of Elohim ; then dominion is given him over the 
 earth and sea and their inhabitants, and the fruit of herbs and 
 trees is ceded to him for his food. IT At the close of the whole 
 description, it becomes evident why the work of creation is 
 divided over six days : the seventh day Elohim devotes to rest, 
 and therefore blesses it and hallows it for the future also.** 
 Thus at the very beginning of things one of the principal Mosaic 
 institutions is prepared. 
 
 * Gen. ii. 4 seq. 
 
 t Which these accounts are, the reader can infer from the 2ad Chapter of this work 
 (Vol. I. pp. 104 seq.), where the prophetic notion of the course of history is given in its 
 main features. 
 
 J Gen. i. 1. § Yerse 2. || Verses 3—27, 
 
 t Verses 28—30. '* Gen. ii. 1-3. 
 
160 THE nELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Now begins the first period of the history of mankind. The 
 writer gives nothing more of it than a genealogical list, which 
 from Adam down to and inclnding Noah contains ten names.* 
 They are borrowed from older records.f but the writer is able 
 to give the year of the birth and the age of each of the ten 
 patriarchs. With the exception of Enoch — concerning whom 
 tradition said that he had lived 365 years, precisely as many 
 years as the solar year has days ; in fact, Enoch was originally 
 the year — with the exception of Enoch, all these men attained a 
 very great age, reaching to close upon 1000 years. Noah forms 
 an exception to the rule that their eldest sons were born before 
 they themselves had reached the age of 200 years,| for he was 
 500 years old when Shem came into the world :§ this the writer 
 does in order to let Methuselah die in the year of the deluge, 
 but according to his notion certainly before that catastrophe! 
 It is already apparent, and it will lie confirmed as we go on, 
 that we have here before us no history or legend, but an inge- 
 nious system, built up from a few mythic names. 
 
 Again, following in the footsteps of one of his predecessors, ^' 
 the author now describes to us the deluge. He makes Noah's 
 residence in the ark last exactly 365 days, i.e. a solar year; he 
 is able also to fix the exact length of the shorter periods which 
 together form the year.** After the deluge, Elohim makes a 
 covenant with Noah and his family. -f-f- He blesses them, as he 
 had formerly blessed the first human beings,|| but besides the 
 
 * Gen. T. excepting ver. 29. When this verse was introduced, "a son" was sub- 
 stituted in verse 28 for " Noah. " 
 
 + Gen. iv. 17, 18, 25. 
 
 t See verses 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 25, 28. § Verse 32. 
 
 II Methuselah is bom in the year of the creation 687, and lives 969 years (verse 27) ; 
 thus he dies in the year of the creation 1656, in which year the delnge also falls. 
 
 IT Whose account. Gen. viii. 21, 22, was present in the mind of the second Isaiah, 
 chap. liv. 9. 
 
 ** In Gen. vi. — viii. his account is fused with that of the predecessor into one 
 whole. The dates fixed in chap. vii. 11, 17, 24, viii. i, 13, 14, are from his hand. One 
 (lunar) year [=355 days] + 10 days=365 days elapse between vii. 11 and viii. 14. 
 
 tt Gen. ix. 1—16. ++ Gen. i. 28^32. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 161 
 
 fruit of trees and herbs, he also gives them the flesh of animals 
 to eat, and at the same time most strictly forbids the eating of 
 blood* — another preparation for Mosaism, which emphatically 
 maintains this prohibition. -f- 
 
 Noah's descendants are now enumerated, and first 70 = 7 x 10 
 greater and lesser nations which sprang from his three sons, Shem, 
 Ham and Japheth;| after this come Shem's offspring, ten in 
 number, down to and including Abraham.§ Their genealogy is 
 the companion picture to that of the patriarchs before the flood, 
 only it is somewhat more concise ; their ages are considerably 
 less, do not exceed 600 years, and approach more and more to 
 the ordinary length of the human life. 
 
 Our writer looks upon Abraham's journey to Canaan as an 
 ordinary migration,|| at variance with the older prophetic author, 
 who accounts for it by an express command from Jahveh.lT On 
 the other hand, he lays all stress upon Elohlm's covenant with 
 Abraham, an important epoch in his historical system. Elohim 
 makes himself known to Abraham as El Shaddcd ; circumcision 
 is the token of the agreement made between them.** Thus we 
 are again brought a step nearer to Mosaism. It is also worthy 
 of remark, that as yet, according to our author, no sacrifices are 
 offered to Elohim. 
 
 The fortunes of the patriarchs are disposed of with compara- 
 tive brevity .-|-f- The main features of the legend are retained, 
 but all details are omitted, and consequently the historical pic- 
 ture lacks life and motion. Thus, according to the priestly 
 writer, Esau and Jacob remain united as brothers till after 
 Isaac's death, when the former quits the land and settles on 
 
 * Gen. ix. 4. t Lev. iii. 17, vii. 26, 27, xvii. 12—14. 
 
 t Gen. X. 1—7, 13—32. § Gen. xi. 10 eeq. 
 
 II Gen. xi. 27—32, xii. 4 b, 5. H Gen. xii. 1—3. ** Gen. xvii. 
 
 t+ With tolerable unanimity the most recent writers upon this subject ascribe to 
 him Gen. xix. 29, xxi. 1 b, 5, xxiii., xxv. 7 — 20, 26 b, xxvi. 6, 34, 35, xxvii. 4 b 
 — xxviii. 9, xxxi. 17 b, 18, xxxiii. 18, 19, xxxt. 6 a, 9—16, 23—29, xxxvi., xxxvii. 
 1, 2 a, xlvi. 5 b— 27, xlvii. 7—11, 27, 28, xlviii. 3—6, xlix. 1 a, 28 b— 33, 1. 12, 13, 
 22. 
 
 VOL. II. M 
 
1G2 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 mount Seir, while Jacob continues to live in Canaan* The 
 author is exhaustive and circumstantial only in the narrative 
 of the negociations between Abraham and the Hittites for the 
 purchase of a burying-place for Sarah,-f- probably because upon 
 the lawful possession of that burying-place he bases a certain 
 right of the Israelites to the possession of Canaan ; and further 
 in his chronological statements.^ It would seem that only a por- 
 tion of his account of the migration of Jacob and his family to 
 Egypt has been preserved to us;§ probably, however, he also 
 only included the main features of the older narratives in his 
 review. On the other hand, we possess his very brief informa- 
 tion as to the oppression in Egypt,|| and his return of the precise 
 length of the sojourn there, 430 years, exactly twice as many 
 years as had elapsed between Abraham's migration and the 
 settlement in Goshen.lT 
 
 Before we describe the writer's conception of Closes and his 
 labours, we must make a general observation with regard to 
 his chronology. It is only recently** that attention has been 
 paid to the remarkable fact that, according to his genealogies 
 and the dates which accompany them, 2666 years, i.e. two- 
 thirds of 4000 years, had elapsed at the exodus of Israel from 
 Egypt since the creation of the world. There is no question of 
 accident here, for, as we have already pointed out in one or two 
 instances, the author's figures show evident signs of thought 
 and calculation. Most probably, therefore — like so many other 
 old writers, e. g. Berosus the Babylonian and Manetho tlie 
 Egyptian — he had a chronological system of his own, which 
 reckoned the duration of the earth at 4000 years, and made 
 the exodus from Egypt open the last third of that cycle. Some 
 of the subdivisions of the 2666 years had already been fixed by 
 
 * Gren. xxxvi. 6, 7, xxxvii. 1. t Gen. xxiii. 
 
 J See Gen. xii. ib, xvi. 16, xxi. 5, xxv. 7, 17, 26, xxxii. iS, xlrii. 9. 
 
 § See the passages in n. %. || Exod. i. 13, li, ii. 23b— 25. 
 
 IT Exod. xii. 40; comp. Vol. I. pp. 162 seq. 
 
 ** By Tb. Noldeke, Untersuchungen :u,r Kritik des A. T. pp. 110 sqq. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. lfi?> 
 
 others, more or less exactly, before his time ;* the rest he deter- 
 mined himself in such a way, that collectively they made up the 
 number mentioned. Does not the use of such a system furnish 
 conclusive proof that the author belongs to the later historians, 
 and that his accounts can by no means be regarded as reproduc- 
 tions of popular tradition ? 
 
 To return to Moses. Of his earliest adventures and his resi- 
 dence in Midian our writer makes no mention. He sketches 
 the first revelation which occurs to him in Exodus chap, vi. 
 Here Elohim makes himself known as Jahveh, with the posi- 
 tive assertion that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had addressed 
 him, not as Jahveh, but as El Shaddai.f Thus again a new 
 period opens in the history of God's manifestations : a new cove- 
 nant, after the deliverance out of Egypt, and the settlement in 
 Canaan are announced.;}: The narrative of that deliverance, 
 which in the present Pentateuch is combined into one whole 
 with the older accounts, we can pass over in silence. As is 
 done in those earlier narratives, our author too makes the death 
 of the Egyptian first-born of man and beast Jahveh's last judg- 
 ment upon Pharaoh's obstinacy. But the way in which he 
 connects the first paschal sacrifice and the institution both of 
 the feast of unleavened bread and of the passover with this 
 sentence, is peculiar.§ His precepts in this respect are exhaus- 
 tive and minute ; he evidently moves here upon his own ground, 
 as he had also done before in his rules for the circumcision in 
 Genesis xvii., with which chapter the paschal law entirely agrees 
 in style and language. — But as yet he has not approached the 
 promulgation of the laws. After describing the deliverance, he 
 brings Moses and the people to Sinai, the holy mountain, which 
 for a long time had been regarded as the scene of the lawgiving. 
 In this, therefore, he remains true to tradition. But in his account 
 
 * Comp. Gen. xy. 13 with Exod. xii. 40, and further, above, p. 160, the remark 
 upon Enoch. 
 
 t Exod. vi. 2, 3. The author of Exod. iii. 1 seq. likewise places the announcement 
 of the name of Jahveh in the Mosaic time. 
 
 t Exod. vi. 4—8. § Exod. xii. 1—23, 28, 37(?), 40-51, are from his hand. 
 
 M 2 
 
1G4 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 of the covenant made there with Israel, he diverges from the 
 older prophetic writers as much as he sustains in it his priestly 
 character. 
 
 Our author's account of the delivery of the law is as foUows. 
 Immediately after the arrival at Sinai, Moses receives from 
 Jahveh very exhaustive rules concerning the building of the 
 tent of assembly or the tabernacle, the dress of the priests and 
 their consecration to their of&ce.* In accordance with these 
 commands, the tabernacle is now built, and Aaron and his sons 
 are consecrated to serve as priests.f The further manifestations 
 of Jahveh take place in the tabernacle ; they are communicated 
 either to Moses alone, or to Moses and Aaron, and refer to sacri- 
 fices, cleanness, the priesthood, feasts, and other kindred sub- 
 jects.j About this time, in the beginning of the second year 
 after the exodus, the whole of Israel is numbered,§ a plan of 
 encampment based upon that numbering is introduced, |1 and the 
 tribe of Levi is set apart in its entirety — not for the priesthood, 
 but — for the service of the sanctuary.lT Shortly afterwards the 
 Israelites break up their camp and take their departure for 
 Canaan.** But according to our author also, the unwillingness 
 of the people to penetrate into Canaan after the spies have been 
 sent out, results in Israel being condemned to wander in the 
 wilderness for forty years.f -f- He gives us a few historical de- 
 tails and laws belonging to this period.:};^ The settlement in the 
 region beyond the Jordan and the death of Moses takes place at 
 its end.§§ 
 
 It will be observed that in this copious and important part 
 of his work, the writer really lays before us two different things: 
 
 * Exod. XXV. 1 — xxxi. 17. t Exod. xxxv. seq. ; Lev. viii. — x. 
 
 X These regulations are to be found in the book of Leviticus. 
 § Num. i. II Num. ii. 
 
 IT Num. iii. 5 seq., viii. 5 seq. ** Num. .v. 11 — 28. 
 
 tt His narrative is fused in Num. xiii. xiv. into one whole with the older accounts. 
 $t Num. XV. xvi. (in part), xvii. — xix. 
 
 §§ L a. Num. xxvi. — xxxi. xxxii. (in part), xxxiii. (almost all), xxxiv. — xxxvi.; 
 Deut. xxxii. 48—51, xxxiv. 1 — 3, and 5, 7—9 (in part), originate from our author. 
 
TEE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 165 
 
 a description of Israel in Moses' time, and laws which are in- 
 tended to be in force in Israel in later times as well. There 
 is an intimate connection between these two elements : to the 
 picture of Israel's condition there also belongs the fact that 
 the people received the several ordinances from Moses, while 
 the sketch of that condition at the same time furnishes a rule 
 for what is to be done in the future. But let us make an 
 attempt here to keep these two elements apart. The Mosaic 
 laws, which were also applicable to the future, we will reserve 
 for the next chapter, which treats of their introduction by Ezra. 
 Here is the place to sketch the author's delineation of the past. 
 It is weU adapted to show us his standpoint, and moreover it 
 throws a strong light upon his relation to the older prophetic 
 narratives, which he pre-supposes and at the same time modifies 
 on main points. 
 
 The Israelites are numbered by Moses twice, in the second 
 and the fortieth years after the exodus,* both times with the 
 exception of the Levites, who, on account of their being destined 
 for the sacred service, are not included in the fighting-men. 
 How authentic soever they may be in appearance, the lists which 
 give us the results of these numberings are merely the composi- 
 tions of the priestly author. The figure 600,000 for the collec- 
 tive fighting-men, had already been given in older writings.f 
 Divided among the twelve tribes, it gave an average of 50,000 
 combatants for each tribe. Now the two lists are drawn up so 
 that six tribes always remain above this number, and six below 
 it. But not the same tribes in each list : Simeon and Naphtali. 
 which in Num. i. contain 59,300 and 53,400, are reduced in 
 Num. xxvi. to 22,200 and 45,400, while, conversely, Asher and 
 Manasseh are raised from 41,500 and 32,200 to 53,400 and 
 52,700. It is clear that all this is fictitious. Should any one 
 be still unconvinced by the proportion of these figures to 50,000, 
 let him reflect that while the total sum of the fighting-men 
 
 * Num. i. xxvi. t See the passages quoted in Vol. I. pp. 124 seq., 172. 
 
166 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 during the forty years remains nearly the same, Simeon falls 
 from 59,000 to 22,000, and Manasseh rises from 32,000 to 52,000, 
 and yet, in the historical accounts of the same author, the two 
 tribes share the same fortunes. The writer's aim was simply 
 and solely to place before his readers a clear and pointed view 
 of Mosaic Israel; for this purpose he deemed returns of the 
 numerical strength of the separate tribes indispensable * 
 
 He now divides the (about) 600,000 combatants into four 
 groups, headed by the tribes Judah, Eeuben, Ephraim, and Dan. 
 The first group encamps towards the east, the second towards 
 the south, the third towards the west, and the fourth towards 
 the north. They are so composed that they do not differ from 
 each other too much, and each of the four remains below 200,000, 
 and above 100,000, in number. The Israelites march in the 
 same order. All this is as unhistorical as the foregoing. In the 
 Sinaitic desert such an encampment is as inconceivable as such 
 an order of march. 
 
 But in this description the writer has a definite end in view. 
 In the centre of the encampment thus formed he places the 
 tabernacle, and round this the tribe of Levi. We shall per- 
 ceive more clearly what this means if we first mark in what 
 respects this description of his differs from the earlier one. 
 
 The prophetic narrators, too, are acquainted with a " tent of 
 assembly," in which the ark of Jahveh was deposited at the 
 resting-places. But this tent was evidently small and primi- 
 tive.-f- And as the ark went before the Israelites when they 
 were on the march,:!: so likewise the tent was pitched outside 
 the camp.§ Now in this the priestly historian makes, in the 
 first place, this alteration, that for the small, insignificant tent 
 he substitutes a tolerably large and splendid tabernacle. The 
 latter is built after the model of the temple of Solomon, and 
 
 * Comp. Noldeke, I.e. pp. 116 sq. J Gomp. Exod. xxxiii. 7. 
 
 J Num. A. 33. 
 
 § Exod. xxxiii. 7; Num. xi. 16, 26, xii. 4; Deut. xxxi. 14, 15. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 167 
 
 therefore consists of a holy of holies, a sanctuary, and a court.* 
 The holy of holies contains the ark ; but whereas the latter, in 
 Solomon's temple, was placed under the cherubim, and thus was 
 overshadowed by their wings,-f- here the cherubim are attached 
 to the lid of the ark| — a modification which was absolutely 
 necessary, if the ark was to be constantly moving about, and 
 yet to be always covered by the cherubim.§ The holy of holies 
 is divided from the holy place — ^not, as in the temple, by fold- 
 ing doors,|| but — by a veil, which hides the ark from the sight 
 of the people, nay, of the priests also ;% only once a year the 
 high-priest enters the holy of holies.** How the sacred vessels 
 are placed and the tabernacle itself is arranged and put together, 
 can be read in the minute description of our author.-)~f- It will 
 then be observed that he no longer makes the ark go before the 
 Israelites,!! but expressly points out how it must be covered 
 over with the greatest care, and carried by the Levites in the 
 centre of the marching host.§§ In fact — and this is the second 
 important departure from tradition which the author allows 
 himself — the whole tabernacle is placed in the centre of the 
 camp.|||| Could the writer express more plainly his conviction 
 as to the sanctity and the central importance of " the tent of 
 assembly" and the ark which was kept in it ? He makes known 
 by this account, much better than by exhortation and warning, 
 how he wishes the Israelites to regard the sanctuary and public 
 worship. 
 
 It scarcely needs mention that this tabernacle, according to 
 the author, is the only place of sacrifice. The Deuteronomist, 
 part of whose aim it was to elevate the temple of Solomon to 
 this rank, had yet admitted that unity of worship did not exist 
 
 ^ Exod. xxvi., xxvii. 9 &eq. 
 
 t 1 Kings vi. 22—28, viii. 6, 7; oomp. Vol. I. p. 258. t Exod. xxt. 18 seq. 
 
 § Corap. Vol. I. pp. 234, 257 seq. || 1 Kings vi. 21, 31 -35, viii. 8. 
 
 IT Exod. xxvi. 31 seq. and elsewhere. ** Lev. xvi. ; comp. Exod. xxx. 10, &o. 
 
 t+ Exod. XXV. seq. JJ As in Num x. 33. 
 §§ Exod. XXV. 10—22, xl. 20, 21 ; Num. iv. 5, 6, 15. 
 II II Num. ii. 2, and the whole chapter. 
 
168 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 during the journey in the desert.* Our writer goes a step 
 further and makes Moses ordain and introduce it at Sinai.-f- Of 
 still greater consequence, however, is another diA^ergeuce in 
 which he indulges. The reader will remember what we have 
 said about the priestly tribe of LeAT., both its actual condition 
 and the Deuteronomic precepts relating to its exclusive quali- 
 iication for the sacrificial service and all the other priestly 
 duties. ;J: The Deuteronomist had already ascribed the choosing 
 of the Levites to ]\loses,§ and the priestly lawgiver retains this 
 idea, but at the same time modifies it on more than one point. 
 He places the selection earlier, not after Aaron's death and at 
 one of the last stations of the journey in the wilderness, |1 but in 
 the second year after the exodus and at Sinai.lT He further 
 draws a very sharp line of demarcation between Aaron and his 
 sons (descendants), as the only lawful priests, and the Levites 
 in general as qualified exclusively for subordinate duties in and 
 about the sanctuary.** In reality this distinction had arisen 
 immediately after Josiah's reformation, when the priests of the 
 high places were admitted into the temple at Jerusalem, but 
 not to offer sacrifices. ■^"f" Ezeki^l had sanctioned this distinc- 
 tion for the future by recognizing " the sons of Zadok" — as the 
 families of priests who had served in the temple of Solomon 
 from the very first were called — as the only lawful priests, and 
 by assigning inferior positions to all the rest of the Levites. j J 
 Our priestly author goes to work in a much more thorough 
 manner. According to him, the difference between priests and 
 Levites was original, was based upon the extraction of each, 
 and had been acknowledged by Moses from the very beginning, 
 and emphatically maintained by Jahveh in the desert upon the 
 occasion of Korah's rebellion. §§ The fact that all this is entirely 
 
 * Deut. xii. 8, 9. + Ley. xtU. 
 
 X Vol. I. pp. 337 seq. ; above, pp. 26 seq. § Deut. x. 8, 9, xviii. 1— S. 
 
 II As the Deuteronomist does, chap. a. 6 — 9. II Num. iii. 5 seq., viii. 5 seq. 
 
 ** Exod. xxviii. xxix. ; Num. xviii. 3, 7, and elsewhere. 
 ++ 2 Kings xxiii. 9. ++ Above, p. 116. 
 
 §§ Comp. Num. xvi. xvii. An older narrative o£ the rebellion of Datlian and Aliiram 
 includes an accoHnt of our author relating to Korah's claims to the priestly office and 
 their rcjectioD, to wliicli. i. «., belong Num. xvi. 6—11, 16—22, 35. 
 
'JHE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 169 
 
 unliistorical does not trouble our writer. He wishes to per- 
 petuate, but at the same time to confirm, what had come into 
 existence by degrees more than a century before and was already 
 regarded in his days as reasonable, but had hitherto possessed 
 no legal standing. Was he the first who derived that precedence 
 of the priests from their descent from Aaron, or had others 
 already done this before him ? We are unable to decide this, 
 but we consider it very probable that the honour of the disco- 
 very is due to him. This much is certain, that this — so to speak, 
 genealogical — settlement of the dispute between the priests of 
 Jerusalem and those of the high places may be said to have 
 been a great success: of course "the Levites" were not very 
 pleased with the rank assigned to them,* but, as far as we know, 
 they did not oppose the exclusive fitness of the " sons of Aaron." 
 And finally the author diverges from his predecessors also in 
 this, that he elevates the high-priest — first Aaron, and after- 
 wards his eldest son Eleazar — far above the rest of the priests. 
 This too was something new. Before the exile, the high-priest 
 was looked upon as the first among his equals. Now he gives 
 him, in contradistinction to all the rest, an ofiicial dress to 
 be worn by himself alone,-h whereby he acquires, among other 
 things, the exclusive right of consulting Jahveh by means of the 
 "urim and thummim,"J and is both allowed privileges and 
 charged with duties which do not exist for the other priests. § 
 
 If we put all this together, we can say that in his description 
 of the Mosaic time the author puts forward a thoroughly hier- 
 archical system. The tribe which is dedicated to the service of 
 the sanctuary, stands with the sanctuary itself in the centre of 
 the Israelitish state. We notice a regular gradation among those 
 who belong to this tribe. The high-priest is the visible head of 
 the whole. In conformity with this, Aaron the first high-priest 
 
 * See below, Chapter VIII. on this point. 
 + Exod. xXTiii. 2 —38 ; Num. xx. 26, 28. 
 
 * Comp. Vol. I. pp. 96—100. 
 
 Lev. xxi. xxii. ; comp. again Chapter VIII. 
 
170 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 is placed as much as possible in the foreground ;* if he, as could 
 not well be otherwise, remains subordinate to Moses, his son 
 Eleazar stands higher in reality than Moses's successor, Joshua.-f- 
 
 There are still a few traits to be added to the sketch of this 
 system. "We can pass over in silence the mode in which the 
 writer divides the service of the sanctuary among the three 
 Levitical families :| his decrees in this respect, however precise 
 they may be in appearance, are worth no more as history than 
 the rest ; they serve simply to give greater perspicuity and the 
 necessary finish to the whole conception; moreover they are 
 mutually antagonistic. § But, on the other hand, it deserves 
 mention — 
 
 (1.) That the author alleges as a motive for the setting apart 
 of the whole of the Levites for the service of the tabernacle, the 
 idea that Jahveh has accepted them as substitutes for the first- 
 born of the Israelites who were spared by him at the exodus 
 from Egypt, and thus became his property. || Jahveh's right to 
 the first-born was acknowledged from the very earliest times, 
 and was connected with the exodus and thus historically ex- 
 plained, long before the days of the writer of the Book of 
 Origins.lT But our writer is the first who includes the election 
 of the Levites in the sphere of these ideas. To do this, he must 
 assume that there were about as many Levites as Israelitish 
 first-born : according to his account, the number of the former 
 does, in fact, amount to 22,000, and that of the latter to 22,273, 
 so that only 273 Israelites remain who have to ransom them- 
 selves for five shekels a head.** In writing this, the author 
 forgets that then only one Israelite in 42 must have been a 
 first-born son ! His account has already given exegesists much 
 
 * Comp. Num. xiii. 26, xiv. 2, 5, 26 (and on the contrary xiii. 27, xi%-. 11, 39), 
 xvi. 3, 18, 20, &c.), XX. 1—13, xxxiii. 1. 
 
 t Num. xxvii. 18 — 23, xxxiv. 17; Josh. xiv. 1, xxi. 1. 
 
 t Num. iii. 15— 39, iv. § Further details in Noldeke, I.e. pp. US sq. 
 
 II Num. iii. 11—13, and elsewhere. H Vol. I. pp. 239 seq. 
 
 * Num. iii. 39, 40—51. 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLOKIA. 171 
 
 trouble to no purpose. We must consider that here too he gives 
 way to his desire to reduce everything to figures, but in doing 
 so does not trouble himself at all about the truth or even the 
 probability of his returns ; 
 
 (2.) That liberal provision is made for the incomes of the 
 priests and Levites.* "We shall enter hereafter into the details 
 of what the writer allows them. But the fact that his precepts 
 are very much in favour of the priests compared with those of 
 Deuteronomy ,-f- belongs to the sketch of his historical system ; 
 
 (3.) That, in conflict with history and with the Deuteronomic 
 legislation, the priests and Levites have particular cities set 
 apart for them, together with the adjacent pastures for their 
 flocks and herds. These cities are 48 in number, and are dis- 
 tributed over the territories of all the tribes. J The author also 
 tells us of the execution of this precept, § when each tribe gives 
 up four cities to tire Levites or priests, with the exception that 
 Naphtali gives three and Judah and Simeon nine between them. 
 In spite of this the whole affair is unhistorical. Joshua cannot 
 possibly have exacted four cities for this purpose from each 
 tribe, down to the very smallest. He cannot possibly have 
 allotted to the descendants of Aaron, who at that time were still 
 very few in number, thirteen cities, and these in the territories 
 of the tribes of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin, not near the place 
 where the sanctuary then stood (Shiloh), but, on the contrary, in 
 the vicinity of Jerusalem, the later temple -city. In a land such 
 as Canaan, the commandment relating to the pastures round 
 about those cities || could not possibly have been carried out. 
 And besides this, as we have already pointed out, there is not a 
 single trace of such cities for priests and Levites in trustworthy 
 historical accounts. They are a product of the imagination of 
 our priestly writer : their equal distribution over the twelve 
 tribes and the regular form of the pastures which belong to them 
 stand upon a par with Ezekiel's proposal to divide the land 
 
 * Num. xviii. and the parallel passages in Leviticus and Numbers. 
 
 + Above, p. 26. t Num. xxxv. 1 — 8. § Josh. xxi. || Num. xxxv. 4, 5. 
 
172 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 of Canaan among the twelve tribes by drawing a number of 
 parallel lines.* 
 
 Thus it is already evident that the writer is not inconsistent 
 with himself when he handles the settlement of the Israelites 
 in Canaan. To the conquest of the land, it would seem, he only 
 referred in passing.-f- He dwells so much the longer upon the 
 division of Canaan among the tribes. According to him, it took 
 place hy lot, in the presence of twelve men, one from each tribe, 
 with Eleazar and Joshua at their head.| This, again, is an 
 utterly unhistorical hypothesis, and it condemns itself; for, on 
 the one hand, the territory must be assigned to each tribe 
 according to its numerical strength, § while, on the other, its 
 territory must be assigned by lot. But it is a necessity to the 
 author to put everything in a systematic form, while, moreover, 
 he is glad to confer an important duty both upon Eleazar || and 
 upon the representatives of the twelve tribes.lT He is also 
 consistent with himself in this, that he gives us in full the 
 boundaries of the territory of each tribe and the names of the 
 cities that were situated in it.** He no doubt borrows these 
 returns from older records, but includes them in his work in 
 order that it may show an official character, as it were, to the 
 very end, and lay before us the fulfilment of Jahveh's promises, 
 not merely in a general way, but as proved by authentic 
 documents. 
 
 Have we perchance dwelt too long upon the Book of Origins, 
 and given up too much space in this History to the review of 
 its contents ? In truth, were we engaged now in studying 
 Israel's earliest fortunes, the patriarchal and Mosaic times, such 
 
 * Ezek. xlviii. 
 
 t We find clear traces of his hand only in Josh. iv. 15 — 17, 19, v. 10 — 12. 
 X Num. xxxiv. 13 — 29, corap. xxxiil. 54; also Josh. xiv. 1, 2, xr. 1, &o., xviiL 10. 
 § Num. xxxiii. 54; comp. upon the whole subject, Vol. I. pp. 131 seq. 
 II See above, p. 1 70, ij. f. 
 
 If Comp. Num. ii. vii., xiii. 3—16 (utterly unhistorical, according to Vol. I. pp. 137 
 seq.). 
 
 Josh. xiii. — XX. in great part borrowed from the Book of Origins. 
 
 #* 
 
THE EXILES IN BABYLONIA. 
 
 .16 
 
 great fulness could not well be justified. But we are now 
 examining the Booh of Origins from another point of view, not 
 as a witness to the past, but as an historical fact. It lies there 
 before us as an irrefragable proof that the prophetic conception 
 of Israel's early history and of the Mosaic legislation no longer 
 fully satisfied the priest in Babylonia ; that in him the necessity 
 arose and the power was present to re-create the past, as it were, 
 and to hold up, as he thought, a truer picture of that past to his 
 contemporaries. Even in itself this attempt is interesting, but 
 its significance is increased beyond this, both by the result which 
 it has accomplished and by the presage which it contains. The 
 author of the Book of Origins succeeded in his undertaking : 
 the conception of the past which he advocated, gradually became 
 a part of the consciousness of the Jewish nation, and has re- 
 mained the traditional account down to the present day; we 
 all begin by picturing Israel to ourselves as he has drawn it ; it 
 is only with difficulty that historical criticism has freed itself 
 from the prestige which he exercised over his contemporaries 
 and posterity.* Such a success may be of no value as evi- 
 dence for the historical truth of the picture which he designed, 
 yet it must avail as proof of the power of his mind. And 
 therefore I spoke, in the second place, of the presage which the 
 Book of Origins contains. The priesthood which produces such 
 a book is capable of great things. It is ready to pass to practical 
 ground and there to assume the command. He who is able so 
 to re-create the past, certainly possesses the power to reform the 
 future. The Book of Origins is an achievement and the prophecy 
 of other achievements. 
 
 " Comp. my remarks upon the Chronicler in Chapter X. 
 
174 THE RELIGWX OF ISIIAEL. 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 I.— Seep. 99, «.*;^. 1-43,71. §. 
 
 The returns of the number of Judseans who were carried 
 away and of those who went back to their native land, con- 
 sidered both separately and together, present difficulties which 
 have not yet been removed. Although I myself am not in a 
 position to clear up everything, I think it my duty to make the 
 reader acquainted with the real state of the case^ and to make an 
 attempt at a solution. 
 
 We will begin by studying the returns themselves. In doing 
 this let us remember that the Israelites only included and 
 counted the men in their genealogies (comp., e.g., Exod. xxx. 
 11 — 16; Num. i. xxvi.; whenever this rule was broken there 
 were special reasons for so doing, e.g. Num. iii. 39 — 51, and 
 even then the women were not included). This will also be 
 the case with the figures relating to those who were carried 
 away and to those who came back ; and also with Jer. Iii. 29, 30, 
 although in this passage "souls" are mentioned; for it is said 
 of Jacob that he and his were seventy " souls," in which num- 
 ber the women, with the exception of Dinah, are not included 
 (Gen. xlvi. 26, 27). Therefore, in order to get at the full num- 
 ber, we must always multiply our returns by four or fi^ve. 
 
 The first transportation took place in the year 597 B.C. How 
 many it affected we learn from 2 Kings xxiv. 14 — 16, on which 
 verses compare Thenius and Keil. In the passage quoted only 
 the exiles from Jerusodem are enumerated, but it does not ap- 
 pear that inhabitants of the country were carried to Babylonia 
 besides these. The total amounts (verse 14) to 10,000, which 
 are subsequently divided into three groups : 7000 men of means, 
 1000 craftsmen and smiths (?) and (therefore 2000) courtiers, 
 princes, and men of high rank. Of course this is entirely a round 
 number, the accuracy of which cannot be guaranteed. It merely 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VII. 1 
 
 / .-» 
 
 proves that a tolerably large multitude was carried away from 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 According to the Masorethic text, the number of those car- 
 ried away with Jehoiachin is given once more in the Old Testa- 
 ment, in Jer. lii. 28. That passage speaks of Nebuchadnezzar's 
 seventh year, i.e. of the same year which in 2 Kings xxiv. 12 
 is called the eighth, for in calculating the years of JSTebuchad- 
 nezzar's reign, the author of Jer. lii. 28 — 30 is always one year 
 behind the author of Kings (comp. Jer. lii. 29 with 2 Kings 
 XXV. 8 ; Jer. lii. 12). The number given is 3023, and thus it does 
 not at all agree with 2 Kings xxiv. 14 — 16. This is already a 
 first reason for doubting whether Jer. lii. 28 really refers to the 
 exile of 597 B.C. But another consideration is of greater weight. 
 Verses 28 and 29 evidently form an antithesis, and the Judceans 
 of verse 28 are opposed to the captives from Jerusalein of verse 
 29. This antithesis does not receive its due until for seven in 
 verse 28 we read seventeen, and assume that this verse refers to 
 the inhabitants of Judaea who were sent to Babylon during the 
 siege of the capital, while in verse 29 follow the citizens of 
 Jerusalem who were banished after the fall of their city. This 
 opinion, which is defended by Ewald and others {Hk. 0. II. 214, 
 n. 8), is recommended by the fact that in Jer. lii. we do expect 
 to find information about the number of those who were carried 
 away in 586 B.C., but not about the exiles who left their native 
 land eleven years before. Thus Jer. lii. loses its place among the 
 witnesses to the first exile. 
 
 The second transportation took place after the reduction of 
 Jerusalem in 586 B.C. The writer of 2 Kings xxv. confines him- 
 self to stating that " the rest of the people that were left in the 
 city, and the fugitives that fell away to the king of Babylon, and 
 the rest of the craftsmen [so read for " multitude ;" comp. Graf, 
 Jeremia, p. 626], were carried away by Nebuzaradan" (verse 11; 
 Jer. lii. 15) — without giving any figures. Now Jer. lii. 28, 29, 
 fills in this omission by naming 3023 Judseans and 832 captives 
 from Jerusalem. These figures have an appearance of accu- 
 
176 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 racy, and are also guaranteed by the total given at the end of 
 verse 30. 
 
 There now followed a third transportation, five years after the 
 one just mentioned, and therefore in the year 581 B.C. Josephus' 
 account of it is handled in Hk. 0. 284 sq. Dr. H. Oort's coa- 
 jecture respecting the connection between this transportation 
 and the murder of Gedaliah, to which we referred above, p. 55, 
 n. *, is very attractive. The number of those carried off amounts 
 to 745 — -according to Jer. lii. 30, the only place in the Old Testa- 
 ment in which this fact is mentioned. 
 
 If we put all this evidence together and examine it in con- 
 nection with the further accounts by the authors in whose 
 writings it occurs, we arrive at the conclusion that a very large 
 number of Judaans remained iehincl in their own country. It is 
 true, 2 Kings xxv. 12 (Jer. lii. 15) states that in 586 B.C. Xebu- 
 zaradan "left of the poor of the land to be vine-dressers and 
 husbandmen," or, as Jer. xxxix. 10 expresses it, " of the poor of 
 the people, which had nothing," so that even the vineyards and 
 fields had to be given to them. But it is most obvious that we 
 must not understand this literally, but rather with great reserve. 
 That which Jer. xl. seq. tells us of those who remained behind, 
 gives us the impression that they formed no despicable remnant, 
 or at all events soon increased to a considerable number through 
 the return of the fugitives from the surrounding districts. This 
 is confirmed by Jer. lii. 30, the fresh exile in the year 581 B.C.; 
 and further by Ezek. xxxiii. 23 — 29 (above, p. 98); and finally 
 by the undeniable fact that the Babylonians did not send any 
 colonists to Judtea, which they would have had to do if the 
 land had been almost depopulated. Nor must we lose sight of 
 the fact that the writer of 2 Kings speaks of those who remained 
 after t\\& first exile as " the poor of the land" (2 Kings xxiv. 14) 
 — and this although that remnant was numerous and powerful 
 enough a few years later to resist Xebuchadnezzar for two years : 
 this is truly a proof that we may not take this writer at his 
 word. 
 
\OTBS ON CHAPTER FIT. 177 
 
 During the Babylonish exile, therefore, many JudiEans re- 
 mained in their former dwelling-places, and these we have also 
 to notice in the history of Israelitish literature. Compare HJc. 0. 
 II. 150, n. 8, o39 sqq., III. 357 sq. In spite of this we could say 
 above, p. 55, that " the Israelitish nation had ceased to exist in 
 its native land." Not only had those who remained in Judtea 
 much to suffer from the neighbouring tribes, and especially from 
 tlie Edomites, who appropriated a good portion of the territory 
 of the tribe of Judah (comp. ffk. 0. II. 152 sq., 341, n. 4), but 
 they also lacked organization and leaders. The aristocracy, in 
 more than one sense, had been carried off to Babylonia. Those 
 who were left formed a part of the population of a Chaldean 
 province, but they were no longer a people and no longer repre- 
 sented a nationality. When a fresh nucleus was formed in 
 Judaea, they were able — as we shall see directly — to join it and 
 greatly increase it. But left to themselves they had no alterna- 
 tive but to become gradually absorbed by the foreign intruders 
 and to cease to exist as Israelites. 
 
 We will now pass to the accounts relating to the return of 
 the exiles from Babylonia. In Ezra ii. we possess a list of " the 
 children of the province (Judaea) that went up out of the cap- 
 tivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchad- 
 nezzar had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto 
 Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city " (verse 1). After 
 this heading follow the names of the men who stood at the 
 head of those who returned, Zerubbabel, Joshua and ten others 
 (verse 2a); then there comes another heading: "the number of 
 the men of the people of Israel" (verse 2b), with which compare 
 the commencement of verses 36, 40 — 43, 55. The same list 
 occurs again in Neh. vii. 6 seq., in the memoirs of Nehemiah 
 himself, who relates that he found it while searching for the 
 means of increasing Jerusalem's population : so much is certain, 
 therefore, that this list was in existence about the year 440 B.C., 
 and was provided with the same heading as it bears now. We 
 find a third copy of the same list in the Greek book of Esdras 
 
 VOL. II. N 
 
178 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 (3 Ezra), chap. v. 7 seq. — of course a translation of the Hebrew 
 original, but from a text which differs a good deal from that in 
 Ezra ii. and Neh. vii., and which moreover, at any rate here and 
 there, deserves the preference. The three texts give the same 
 total: 42,360 Israelites. Ezra ii. 2b, Neh. vii. 7b, lead us to 
 believe that these were the grown-up men ; but in 3 Ezra 
 V. 41, it is stated that all who had attained the age of 12 are 
 included ; this is probably a conjecture of the Greek author to 
 which we can attach no value. Xow it is remarkable that this 
 total does not agree with the preceding figures of which it ought 
 to be the sum ; in Ezra ii. these figures amount to 29,818 ; in 
 Neh. vii. to 31,089; in 3 Ezra v. to 30,143. There can be no 
 question here of a mistake in the total, in which the three texts 
 agree. The separate numbers are not nearly so well guaranteed, 
 and actually differ in the three copies. But it would be a very 
 strange coincidence had they been corrupted in the three texts 
 in such a manner that in each case they fell short of the total — 
 and this by about 12,000. This presents a difficulty which as 
 yet we are unable to solve. 
 
 We have now to remark further that the exiles did not all 
 return, that even very many remained behind, the latter being 
 apparently quite equal in number to those who had set out 
 under Zerubbabel. This appears from Ezra vii. viii.: 1496 Jews 
 began the journey to their own country with Ezra (chap. viiL 
 3 — 14), not counting the priests, the descendants of David 
 (verse 2) and the Levites (verses 15 — 20); 3 Ezra viiL 28 — 40 
 gives 1690 instead of the 1496. But even then many Jews 
 remain behind in Babylonia, as the sequel of the history will 
 teach us. Compare provisionally Graetz, Gesch. der Jvden, III. 
 283 sq.; IV. 302 sqq. 
 
 iSTow how are these returns of the Jews who went back and 
 of those who remained in Babylonia to be reconciled with the 
 accounts of the number of those who were carried away into 
 exile ? How can the figures given by the former be so much 
 higher than those given by the latter ? 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VII. 179 
 
 The simplest way would certainly be to suppose that those 
 who came back also included descendants of the ten tribes, 
 so that they only partially corresponded with those carried off 
 by Nebuchadnezzar, and could easily be more numerous than 
 the latter. But this supposition is prevented by Ezra i. 5 (only 
 Judah, Benjamin and Levi), ii. 1 (the exiles carried away to 
 Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar), &c. It is true, the inhabitants of 
 Judtea look upon themselves as the representatives of the whole 
 of Israel, and are thus prone to make use of the number twelve 
 (Ezra ii. 2, vi. 17), but as the returned exiles settle within the 
 borders of the kingdom of Judah, nay, at first in the immediate 
 neighbourhood of Jerusalem (comp. Bertheau, Esra, Nehemia u. 
 Ester, pp. 34 sq.), so also they belong to the two tribes which had 
 remained faithful to David and his house. 
 
 There is more foundation for the opinion that the returns of 
 the number of those carried away are incomplete. This is even 
 beyond all doubt, as we have already shown. 2 Kings xxiv. 
 14 — 16 is especially open to this interpretation. Should we not 
 be going too far, however, in assuming, with Herzfeld {Gescli. d. 
 V. J. von der Zerstorung des ersten Tempels, &c. 1. 116, 447, 452), 
 that the exiles of the year 586 B.C. were from 300,000 to 400,000 
 in number ? Is not so high a figure too much in conflict with 
 the evidence preserved to us in the Old Testament ? 
 
 We must also take into consideration the increase of the 
 Israelites in the land of their captivity. Their condition, upon 
 the whole, was very tolerable, so that their number assuredly 
 increased during the fifty or sixty years of their sojourn in 
 Babylonia. But this growth too has its limits ; it somewhat 
 lessens the difficulty, it is true, but it does not remove it. 
 
 On the other hand, we can hardly believe either that subse- 
 quently to 586 B.C. many of those who had remained behind in 
 Judaea went voluntarily to Babylonia (Strieker, Gesch. van het 
 Joodsche volk, 1862, p. 5), or that the transportation of 581 B.C. 
 (Jer. lii. 30) was followed by other transportations (Graf, Jeremia, 
 pp. 630 sq.). We find no trace anywhere of either the one or the 
 
 N 2 
 
ISO THE RELIGIOX OF ISRAEL. 
 
 other. "Would such a voluntary migration have been permitted 
 by the Babylonish authorities ? Must it not have been preceded 
 by an allotment of territory, somewhere in Mesopotamia ? Were 
 the men who remained in Judeea, however numerous they may 
 have been, powerful enough to resist the Chaldeans, or even to 
 awaken their fears, and so to occasion repeated transportations ? 
 All the attempts hitherto mentioned to make the accounts 
 relating to the exiles agree with those relating to the return, 
 start from the latter and pre-suppose their absolute authenticity. 
 But still suspicion, or at all events doubt, has been thrown also 
 upon these. Professor E. Eeuss (Schenkel's Bihel-Lexikon, II. 
 245) writes somewhat to this effect : " The number given in 
 Ezra ii. 64 sq., Xeh. vii. 66 sq., is quite out of proportion to the 
 number of those carried away. We shall have to assume, either 
 that the list of those who had returned (Ezra ii. and Neh. vii.) 
 also contains the names of those who came back subsequently, 
 or that it refers to a later period, or that during the exile the 
 number of the Israelites had very greatly increased — which is 
 not probable, — or finally, that the said list gives us the result of 
 a census in which the component parts of the nation, as far as 
 their origin was concerned, were not accurately distinguished, so 
 that other Israelites, who had joined the families which had 
 returned from Judah and Levi, were included in it. In any 
 case, the arrangement of the list is very peculiar and surprising. 
 Side by side with a number of very numerous but otherwise 
 entirely unknown families, among -which are some that contain 
 more than 2000 persons, we find a series of much smaller groups, 
 comprising the inhabitants of separate, well-known places. "We 
 have here a riddle of which criticism will probably be able to 
 give no more than a doubtful solution." — It seems to me that these 
 reflections of Eeuss have been already satisfactorily answered in 
 part by Bertheau, in his commentary upon Ezra ii. The names 
 of the families which we meet with in Ezra ii. 3 — 19, and do 
 not indeed read without surprise, occur also in other places — 
 in Ezra viii. ; Xeh. viii. — x., &c. — and thus do not present any 
 
 o 
 
NOTES ON UHAPrHR Vll. 181 
 
 insurmountable difficulty. Besides this, Neh. vii. 1 — 5 forbids 
 us to carry our doubts too far. Moreover, before venturing to 
 draw a definite conclusion, we ought to possess a better know- 
 ledge of the organization of the new colony than we are now 
 able to employ. Yet Eeuss puts forward a conjecture which is 
 worthy of all consideration. Why should we not assume that 
 the original list of those who returned was amplified after 
 the lapse of some years, and that then the Judaeans who had 
 remained in their own country, for so far as they had joined the 
 former, were added to it ? There was opportunity enough for 
 such an addition in the interval between 538 and about 440 B.C. — 
 when Nehemiah found the list. That the original inhabitants 
 were included among those who came back, and not, conversely, 
 the latter among the former, lies in the nature of the case : the 
 leadership of the Jewish state rested with the men who had 
 returned ; they took the lead in every domain. This hypothesis 
 also explains why we hear nothing of the Judseans who were 
 already on the spot : they became assimilated by the new 
 comers, and so negatived at the same time. And finally, it is 
 recommended by the fact that it agrees with Feh. x. 28 — a 
 passage to which we shall return in Chapter VIII. If, upon the 
 occasion of Ezra's reformation, some Judieans who had remained 
 behind joined those who had returned — they are indicated in 
 the passage referred to by the words, " all they that had separated 
 themselves from the peoples of the lands unto the law of God" — 
 what can be more natural than the hypothesis that others had 
 done the same thing before ? 
 
 Perhaps in the want of agreement between the total and the 
 preceding figures, to which we have referred, a trace has also 
 survived of a redaction which the original list has undergone. 
 At any rate this antagonism affords proof that the whole docu- 
 ment, however it may have been done and whoever may have 
 done it, has suffered, so that it cannot be called presumptuous to 
 remove the difficulties in our way by conjectures such as these. 
 If by this means the total of those who returned is reduced and 
 
132 THE ItELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 that of the exiles, on the contrary, increased, then the chief 
 difficulty has been cleared away. In the absence of historical 
 records we must be content with a hypothetical solution, and 
 therefore we can rest satisfied for the present with this attempt. 
 
 IT. — Seep. 151, n.* and |. 
 
 Among the hitherto most disputed— but not on that account 
 the most disputable — positions from which we start in this 
 History, belongs the more recent origin, during the exile or the 
 period after the exile, of the priestly (ritual) laws of the Penta- 
 teuch and of the narratives connected with or related to them. 
 "We have already advanced evidence in justification of this 
 opinion- Thus in A^oL I. pp. 96 seq., attention was drawn to the 
 regulations as to the urim and thummim; on pp. 124 seq., 175 
 seq., to the numberings of the people in the desert; on pp. 162 
 seq., to the chronology in Exod. xii. 40, and other allied passages; 
 on pp. 233 seq., 257 seq., to the precepts respecting the ark of 
 the testimony ; above, p. 26, to the laws regulating the incomes 
 of priests and Levites ; on pp. 87 seq., to the ordinances con- 
 cerning the feast of the passover ; on pp. 95 seq., to the laws 
 relating to clean and unclean things — all for the purpose of 
 showing that priority to the Book of the Covenant and Deutero- 
 nomy is attributed to the priestly or ritual laws incorrectly, and 
 that it is equally incorrect to regard the priestly narratives as 
 older than the prophetic. In Chapters VII., VIII. and IX., 
 too, some of the principal arguments in favour of the exile or 
 post-exile origin are touched upon, and others are worked out 
 more fully. But even when all this is put together, the pro- 
 position mentioned above is still far from thoroughly proved. 
 That which is wanting here cannot be entirely supplied in the 
 ISTotes to Chapters VII. — IX., unless the latter are to transgress 
 all bounds and sweU into a volume. On the other hand, it 
 stiU seemed advisable not to omit all explanation and further 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VII. 183 
 
 evidence. Therefore in this and the following Note, and also in 
 Note II. to Chapter VIII. and Note I. to Chapter IX., some of 
 the chief points will be further elucidated and confirmed, pre- 
 ference being given to such as seemed to admit of a curtailed 
 and more popular treatment. In the Theologisch lijdschrift for 
 1870 (pp. 391 sqq., 487 sqq.), tlie whole of this important subject 
 is handled, with especial reference to the opinions which differ 
 from mine. 
 
 In this Note the combination of Lev. xviii. — xxiii. xxv. and 
 xxvi. in one group, and their separation from the rest of the 
 ritual laws, will be vindicated. 
 
 It is universally admitted by critics that the book of Leviticus, 
 from chap, xviii., according to some even from chap, xvii., as 
 far as and including chap, xxvi., contains divergences from 
 the idiom and style of the laws which precede in chap. i. — xvi. 
 and follow in chap, xxvii. But opinions differ as to the way in 
 which these divergences are to be explained. According to one 
 view, these chapters contain later additions to the real kernel 
 of the laws of Leviticus, i.e. to "the Book of Origins" (above, 
 p. 157) or the so-called " Grundschrift." Others, on the con- 
 trary, find in these chapters older laws, adopted and partly 
 modified by the author of the Book of Origins. There are also 
 some who hold the said chapters to be partly younger and partly 
 older than those which precede and follow them. In the abstract, 
 these opinions are of equal value : one accounts as well as the 
 other for the divergences which we observe in reading Lev. 
 (xvii.) xviii. — xxiii. xxv. and xxvi. Of course, however, only 
 one of these opinions can be correct. 
 
 Let us begin by examining the first opinion, that of Knobel 
 {Exod. u. Levit. pp. 494 sqq.). He refers the larger portion of 
 Leviticus to the "Grundschrift." But with this have been 
 linked — by the " Erganzer," the Jahvist — some documents which 
 he borrowed from the " Kriegsbuch," namely. Lev. xvii. — xx., 
 xxiii. 2 (partly), 3, 18, 19 (partly), 39—44, xxiv. 10—23, 
 xxv. 18 — 22, xxvi. The general considerations against the 
 
184 THE BELIGIUN OF ISRAEL. 
 
 system of which this opinion is a subdivision, I have set forth 
 in the Godg. Bijdr. of 1862, pp. 369—383. The supposition 
 that Lev. xxvi. belongs to the '' Kriegsbucli," i.e. was written 
 in the reign of Jehoshaphat, is entirely irreconcilable with the 
 contents of that discourse — as will appear shortly. But the 
 following considerations in particular plead against Knobel's 
 opinions upon these chapters : 
 
 a. He makes Lev. xix. 5 — 8 (Kriegsbuch) younger than Lev. 
 vii. 15 — 18, xxii. 29, 30 (Grundschrift). The converse is true. 
 The older, general regulation that thank-offerings must be eaten 
 on the day upon which they are offered, or the next day (Lev. 
 xix.), is adopted in Lev. vii., but at the same time is made 
 stricter, so that one sort of thank-offering, the praise-offering, 
 may not even remain till the next day. If this had been held 
 to be prohibited when Lev. xix. was written, the author of this 
 chapter would have been fwced to forbid it ; but he does not do 
 so ; thus he precedes chronologically the author of Lev. vii. 15 — 
 18, (and the parallel passage, Lev. xxii. 29, 30), 
 
 I. Lev. xix. 21, 22, give one — although they did not give 
 Knobel — the impression that they are a later addition, a priestly 
 limitation of the exemption decreed in verse 20. But it is an 
 addition quite after the spirit and the style of the Book of 
 Origins, which must therefore be younger than 'Lex. xix. in its 
 original form. 
 
 c. Knobel (pp. 550 sqq.) is correct in holding Lev. xxiii. 39 — 
 44 to be an addition to the calendar of feasts upon which Lev. 
 xxiii. is founded. But the precept concerning the day of atone- 
 ment, verses 26 — 32, is introduced in exactly the same manner — 
 with "but" — and therefore the same verdict must probably be 
 passed upon it. Now this precept belongs to the Book of 
 Origins (comp. Exod. xxx. 10, Lev. xvi.. Num. xxix. 7 — 11, 
 Lev. XXV. 9), with the idiom of which the beginning with " but" 
 entirely agrees (comp. xxxi. 13, xii. 15, Num. xxxi. 23, &c.). 
 Therefore the author of that book adopted and extended the 
 original of Lev. xxiii. 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VII. 185 
 
 d. It has not escaped Knobel's notice that Lev. xxiv. 10 — 23 
 is singularly placed and breaks the continuity (p. 556). But 
 this is also true of Lev. xxiv. 1 — 9 : chap. xxv. should imme- 
 diately follow chap, xxiii. The two pericopes, however, Lev. 
 xxiv. 1 — 9 and verses 10 — 23, are quite in the style of the Book 
 of Origins, or rather of the later additions to that book (of -which 
 more in Chapter IX.), as Knobel himself admits with regard to 
 the first (p, 552). Thus it again appears that the writer of that 
 book is the interpolator, and therefore must be placed later than 
 the author of Lev. xviii. seq. 
 
 Upon the strength of these and other difficulties, which will 
 come under our notice directly, Knobel's opinion must be re- 
 jected. But the supposition which I named above in the third 
 place, is also inadmissible. It is to be found, among other places, 
 in JSToldeke, Untersucliungen, &c., pp. 62 sqq. He judges very 
 correctly of Lev. xviii. — xy^., as we shall see presently. But he 
 holds (pp. 65 sq.) Lev. xxvj. 3 — 45 to have been inserted after- 
 wards, for the purpose of eiophatically enjoining the observance 
 of the preceding laws. Ttje chief argument for this opinion is 
 the later origin of Lev. xxyi. — which, however, would prove 
 nothing, should it appear th.at the " Grundschrift," the Book of 
 Origins, is still younger. Nbldeke himself admits that Lev. xxvi. 
 agrees somewhat in idiom with Lev. xviii. — xx. (comp. Knobel, 
 p. 573), and wishes to explain this by the fact of tlie author 
 having read those preceding chapters, because there is also a 
 difference, and Lev. xxvi. contains so much that is peculiar to 
 itself But is it not much more reasonable to conclude from 
 this agreement that they were written by one author, and to 
 explain the difference by the surely undeniable fact that Lev. 
 xviii. — XX. gives us laws, whereas Lev. xxvi. is a castigatory 
 discourse ? 
 
 The opinion of Graf {Die gesch. Biicher des A. T. pp. 75 — 83), 
 which I have made my own, above at pp. 151 sq., is much more 
 admissible than these two. Let the following remarks serve to 
 recommend it. 
 
186 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 I. It is certainly a strange phenomenon that a document such 
 as Lev. xxvi. 3 — 45 should occur in the midst of the priestly 
 legislation. The analogy of Exod. xxiii. 20^33, Deut. xxviii., 
 at once renders it very probable that this discourse formerly 
 stood at the end of a collection of laws, such as the Book of 
 the Covenant or the Deut. law; and this the more, because 
 verse 14 clearly refers to those preceding ordinances. This 
 probability is also considerably increased by the subscription 
 in Lev. xxvi. 46. We are not surprised to find such a subscrip- 
 tion at the end of the next chapter. Lev. xxvii. 34 : in dividing 
 tlie Pentateuch into five books it was likely that such a line 
 of demarcation would be drawn (comp. Num. xxxvi. 13). Had 
 Lev. xxvi. 46 the same form as Lev. vii. 37, 38, xi. 46, 47, 
 xiii. 59, xiv. 55 — 57 — even then this subscription would lead 
 to no conclusion whatever. But it is evidently intended to 
 close a certain whole, not to indicate the end of one particular 
 law, or of one group of laws upon the same subject. 
 
 II. Besides this, the same subscription mentions " mount 
 Sinai" (above, p. 151). I have no doubt that in this a trace has 
 been preserved of a legislation which chronologically precedes 
 the Book of Origins, although I must admit that the evidentiary 
 value of this phenomenon is open to dispute. Upon the fusion 
 and working up of the various collections of laws, such traces 
 of their separate existence are usually obliterated, so that the 
 little which remains of them can be interpreted in more than 
 one way. The question stands thus. According to the order 
 in which the various portions now follow each other, the descrip- 
 tion of the tabernacle, &c., Exod. xxv. — xxxi., was delivered to 
 Moses on mount Sinai; comp. xxiv. 18, xxv. 1, xxxi. 18, xxxii. 
 1 seq. In the mean time it appears from Exod. xxv. 9, 40, xxvi. 
 30, xxvii. 8 (comp. Num. viii. 4), that, according to the a^dhor of 
 the description, Moses was no longer upon the mountain when 
 it was given to him — although, on the other hand, the subdi- 
 visions of this description are elsewhere (in younger additions 
 to the Book of Origins ?) said to have been delivered on mount 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VII. 187 
 
 Sinai, Num. iii. 1 (comp. Exod. xxviii. sq.); xxviii. 6 (comp. 
 Exod. xxix. 38 — 42). However this may be, after the tabernacle 
 is finished (Exod. xxxv. — xL), Jahveh speaks to Moses out of 
 the tent of assemUy, Lev. i. 1 ; Num. i. 1 ; or — what comes to 
 the same thing and is merely less definite — in tlu wilderness of 
 Sinai, Num. iii. 14, ix. 1. There are exceptions, however, to 
 this rule, which otherwise entirely agrees with what we should 
 expect. The first exception is Lev. vii. 38 : " (the law of sacri- 
 fices) which Jahveh commanded Moses on mount Sinai!' This 
 conflicts with Lev. i. 1, and is most probably an old clerical 
 error for in the wilderness of Sinai, which words now stand, 
 quite superfluously and even incongruously, at the end of verse 
 38, but no doubt were originally written as another reading 
 next to "on mount Sinai" (comp. Noldeke, I.e. p. 61). The 
 second and third are Lev. xxv. 1, xxvi. 46, which I hold to 
 be real exceptions, and regard as proofs of these chapters hav- 
 ing been borrowed from elsewhere. The fourth is Lev. xxvii. 
 34, which note we have already (sub. I.) brought into connec- 
 tion with the division of the Thorah into five books ; thus it 
 is of very late date, and has evidently been worded, like Lev. 
 xxvi. 46, on purpose ; it does not explain the origin of Lev. 
 xxvii. 
 
 IIL When we have once seen that Lev. xxvi. 3 — -45 forms 
 the closing discourse of a separate legislation, we involuntarily 
 search for the remains of that legislation in the book of Levi- 
 ticus. No one would look for them in chap. i. — xvi. But from 
 chap. xvii. onwards, phenomena occur which evidently point to 
 the use of sources, to loans from other records. In chap, xvii., 
 however, the departures from the style and language of the 
 Book of Origins are still very insignificant. They become much 
 more important in the eighteenth and following chapters. We 
 will hear what Noldeke says of them. "Die Schwierigkeit" — 
 he writes with reference to the relation of chap, xviii. — xx. to 
 the "Grundschrift" — "scheint mir immer noch am leichtesten 
 
188 THE RELIGION OF IHRAEL. 
 
 auf die Weise zu losen, dass wir (vgl. Ewald, Gesch. I. 31, 140) 
 die Benutzung einer dlteren schriftlichen Gesetzsammlung durch 
 den Verfasser der Grundschrift annehmen. Er behielt die 
 Ausdriicke derselben zum Theil bei, anderte sie aber auch nach 
 Bedtirfniss ab, und fiihrte Manches nach seiner eignen Weise 
 
 weiter aus Ueberhaupt scheint nun die Grundschrift diese 
 
 Gesetzsaminlung gelegentlich schon friiher benutzt zu haben. 
 [Noldeke refers to Exod. xii. 43 — 49], wie auch weiter unter 
 luehrfache Beriihrungen zwischen beiden ein ahnliches Verhalt- 
 niss ergeben, z. B. in Lev. 21 £P., 26, 1, 2 sind sicher ganz aus 
 derselben Quelle als Lev. 18 — 20." — All this is perfectly correct, 
 and essentially agrees with the result obtained by Graf, I.e. It 
 is naturally the strongest possible confirmation of the conclusion 
 drawn from Lev. xxvi. 3 — 45 and 46. 
 
 IV. With regard to the details there is still much doubt. 
 There is room for divergent opinions, especially with respect 
 to the traces of the older, priestly legislation in Lev. xxi. — -xxiii. 
 and XXV. (upon chap. xxiv. see above). It seems to me that 
 Lev. xxi. xxii. have been very much worked up by the author 
 of the Book of Origins, although much that is characteristic 
 has survived in them. In chap, xxiii. we have already noticed, 
 in verses 26 — 32, 39 — 43, the hand of the same author. Chap. 
 XXV. certainly belonged originally to the legislation of which 
 Lev. xxvi. 3 — 45 is the concluding discourse : this is evident 
 both from chap. xxv. 1 (" on mount Sinai") and from chap. xxvi. 
 34, 35, 43, which verses render it probable that that legislation 
 insisted upon the keeping of the sabbath-year, as is actually 
 done in chap. xxv. 2 — 7. On the other hand, however, chap, 
 xxv. has been entirely worked up, as is evident from verse 9 
 (which mentions the great day of atonement) and verses 32 — 34 
 (which mention the Levite-cities and their pastures). Graf 
 believes that in chap, xviii. 2 — 5 he discovers the introduction to 
 the whole of the older legislation, but he himself refers to verses 
 24 — 30, which might lead to the conclusion that the first-men- 
 
NOTES ON OHAPTEU VII. 189 
 
 tioned verses are an introduction to chap, xviii. alone. In any 
 case these two passages (chap, xviii. 2 — 5, 24 — 30), and also 
 chap. XX. 22 — 26, teach us how easily the author of those laws 
 falls into a tone of exhortation, and thus how very much cause 
 there is for ascribing Lev. xxvi. 3 — 45 to him. 
 
 If the foregoing has justified the opinion advanced above 
 (pp. 151 sq.) as to the relation between Lev. xviii. seq. and the 
 Book of Origins, the question, vjlien must we consider that 
 older legislation to have been written ? still remains to be 
 answered. 
 
 Not lefore the Babylonish exile. Lev. xxvi. is the work of an 
 author to whom not only the settlement in Canaan and the 
 erection of high places and sun-images are things of the past 
 (verse 30), but who also knows that the sabbath-year has not 
 been observed (verses 34, 35, 43), and consequently can look 
 upon the compulsory rest of the land, during the exile of the 
 people, as a punishment for this neglect. The preceding laws 
 in Lev. xviii. seq. also set us down in the post-deuterouomic 
 times. This is true of all priestly laws, as will become continu- 
 ally more apparent in the sequel, but especially of those which 
 occur in Lev. xviii. seq., and cannot be considered to have been 
 worked up by the author of the Book of Origins. Thus, e.g., the 
 calendar of feasts in Lev. xxiii., even if we remove the later 
 additions, is more recent than Deut. xvi. 1 — 17; the law relating 
 to the sabbath-year in Lev. xxv. 2 — 7, is younger than Deut. xv. 
 1 — 11; that relating to the year of jubilee in Lev. xxv. 8 seq. 
 (even before the redaction in which we now possess it), younger 
 than Deut. xv. 12 — 18, &c. The comparison of Lev. xviii. xx. 
 with Deut. xxvii. leads to the same result ; comp. Graf, 1. c. 
 pp. 76 sq. 
 
 On the other hand, it has already been proved that Lev. xviii. 
 seq. are older than the Booh of Origins, i.e. than the year 457 B.C. 
 (above, pp. 153 sq. and Chapter VIII.). 
 
 Graf, I.e., pp. 81 — 83, has attempted to give a more exact 
 
190 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 chronology. He draws attention to the very remarkable simi- 
 larity in language, style and thought between Lev. xviii. seq., 
 especially Lev. xxvi., and the prophet Ezckid, and, upon this 
 ground, holds the latter to be the author of that priestly legis- 
 lation. Bertheau agrees with him {Jahro. fiir D. TJieol. xi. 
 150 sqq.). In the meantime Graf's main argument is not con- 
 clusive: the similarity exists, but it can also be accounted for by 
 imitation (comp. Noldeke, I.e. pp. 67 — 71) ; nay, it requires this 
 explanation, if it be found that differences also exist. Now 
 this is actually the case. I do not mean here differences of ex- 
 pression, but oi facts. In the same way that Ezekiel differs in 
 many details from the laws of the Book of Origins (comp. above, 
 pp. 114 sq.), so he does not entirely agree with the ordinances 
 in Lev. xviii. seq. Some points of difference fall away before 
 the hypothesis that those ordinances were worked up by the 
 author of the Book of Origins. Thus, e.g., the difference between 
 Ezek. xli. 23 (the most holy place separated from the holy place 
 with doors, as in the temple of Solomon, 1 Kings vi. 31, 32) 
 and Lev. xxi. 23 (where the curtain is mentioned, comp. above, 
 p. 167). The priesthood of Aaron and his sons might also be 
 attributed to the redaction of Lev. xxi. xxii. (comp. above, pp. 
 169 and 116 sq.), in the same manner as the day of atonement, 
 Lev. xxiii. 26 — 32, xxv. 9 — with which Ezekiel was not ac- 
 quainted, chap. xlv. 18 — 20 — has been interpolated into chap, 
 xxiii. xxv. But it does not seem to me to be possible to account 
 in this way for these points of difference : 
 
 a. Lev. xxi. 5 does not quite agree with Ezek. xliv. 20 ; 
 
 h. The distinction between the duties of the priests and the 
 high-priest, Lev. xxi. 1 — 9 and verses 10 — 15, does not occur at 
 all in Ezekiel ; 
 
 c. Compared with Lev. xxi. 7, 13, 14, Ezek. xliv. 22 appears 
 to be an older regulation, which was afterwards somewhat 
 relaxed for the priests and made more stringent for the high- 
 priest; 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VII. 191 
 
 d. Ezek. xlv. 21- — 24 not only prescribes other sacrifices than 
 Lev. xxiii., but also passes over in complete silence the sheaf 
 of the first-fruits and the feast of Pentecost (Lev. xxiii. 10 seq.). 
 
 How can this difference be accounted for upon the hypothesis 
 that Ezekiel was the author of Lev. xxi. seq. ? It is especially 
 in conflict with Grafs opinion (p. 83) that Ezek. xl. — xlviii. 
 gives us the prophet's latir notions ; the precepts contained there 
 are much rather anterior to those of Lev. xxi. seq. And besides 
 this, there is another objection to Graf's opinion. The custom of 
 putting the laws into Moses mouth may be considered to have 
 been already established in Ezekiel's time. Probably the prophet 
 himself would have followed this custom without hesitation in 
 the case in point. But it does not appear that he did so. And 
 from the fact that in chap. xl. — xlviii. he makes Jahveh himself 
 proclaim the organization of the new theocracy, it follows that 
 he did not observe that custom rather than the reverse. Is it 
 not, upon the whole, more probable that Ezekiel's school made 
 use of Moses' name, than that he himself, the prophet, took 
 refuge in that mode of representation 1 
 
 I believe, therefore, that I must place even the older priestly 
 legislation in Lev. xviii. seq., after Ezekiel, and ascribe it to 
 a priest who went on working in Ezekiel's spirit. So far as I 
 can see, there is but one objection of any weight which can be 
 advanced against tliis conclusion. Ezekiel speaks in chap. xlvi. 
 17 of " the year of release" as the year in which a field reverts 
 to its lawful owner. This seems to be a reference — the only 
 one in the whole of the Old Testament — to the law of the year 
 of jubilee, Lev. xxv. 8 — 55, in which the same word occurs 
 (verse 10), and therefore it appears to be a proof that Ezekiel 
 was acquainted with that law and with the collection of laws of 
 which it formed a part. I should indeed admit this conclusion, 
 were it not that so many other phenomena lead to precisely the 
 opposite one with regard to the relation between these two 
 writings. I must now point out (1) that Ezekiel xlvi. 16 — 24 
 
102 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 contains two appendices which do not really stand quite in 
 their proper places, and, if they were added by the writer at all, 
 were at any rate added subsequently. Comp. Hk. 0. II. 296, 
 11. 1 ; (2) that " release" also occurs elsewhere, particularly in 
 Jer. xxxiv. 8, 15, 17, and that therefore " the year of release" 
 need not be precisely the year of jubilee; (3) that, even were 
 this so, it would not prove that the prophet made use of Lev. xxv. 
 He may have had in view either a postulate which was current 
 in his time in priestly circles, or another regulation relating to 
 the same subject that is handled in Lev. xxv. Comp. above, 
 pp. 96 sq., where I have already drawn attention to the pro- 
 bability that disconnected priestly ordinances or thorahs were 
 in circulation before the exile, even though a system of priestly 
 legislation was wanting at that time — nay, even in Ezekiel's days. 
 
 III. — Seep. 157, n.*. 
 
 The priestly elements — laws and narratives —of the Penta- 
 teuch and the book of Joshua were indicated above (p. 157) by 
 the name — adopted from Ewald — of the "Book of Origins." Now 
 this book comes under discussion both in Chapter VII. and in 
 Chapters VIII. and IX., and this in such a manner that in the 
 former attention is directed more towards its historical contents, 
 and in the two latter chiefly towards the laws which it contains. 
 In conformity with this division of the subject, this note is 
 devoted to the representation of historical facts and persons in the 
 Book of Origins. It must serve especially to bring to light the 
 relation of this representation to that of other narratives included 
 in the Pentateuch, and to uphold, as briefly as possible, the 
 verdict pronounced upon this subject above (pp. 157 — 173). 
 
 In the work which we have already quoted of K. H. Graf, 
 Die geschichtlichen Biicher dcs A. T. (Leipzig, 1866), and especially 
 in tlie first treatise (pp. 1 — 113), proof is given that the priestly 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VII. 193 
 
 or ritual laws belonging to the B. of 0. — as it shall henceforward 
 be written for shortness' sake — are younger tlian Deuteronomy 
 and, a fortiori, than the Book of the Covenant (Exod. xxi. — xxiii.). 
 But Graf, in the work referred to, detaches those laws from the 
 narratives, which were usually attributed to the same author. 
 He acknowledges a relationship between the two, but accounts 
 for it by the hypothesis that the narrator was imitated — e.g. in 
 Gen. xvii. — by the much younger lawgiver. His conclusion is 
 this, that the B. of 0. of Ewald and others is not a whole, 
 but that it includes both the oldest historical elements of the 
 Pentateuch and Joshua, and the youngest legislative portions of 
 the Pentateuch. As was to be expected, tliis result — which the 
 author himself does not put forward without hesitation (pp. 92 
 sq.) — has not found favour : the priestly historical portions and 
 , the priestly laws are connected much too closely to be thus torn 
 apart and even separated by an interval of many centuries. 
 Noldeke, namely, in his Untersuchungen, &c., pp. 1 — 144, has 
 clearly shown the unity of the priestly historiography and legis- 
 lation, and thus at the same time has confirmed the current 
 opinion as to the extent of the B. of 0. I am not surprised 
 that even Graf himself has admitted this objection to be well 
 grounded. In his paper entitled Die sogenannte Gh-undschrift des 
 Fentateuchs (in the Archiv of Merx [1869], i. 466—477), the last 
 which we had from his hand, he acknowledges his mistake on 
 this point. But now, instead of holding, with Noldeke, that the 
 priestly laws are as old as the narratives of the B. of 0. are 
 usually considered to be, he holds, conversely, that those nar- 
 ratives are as recent as tlae ritual legislation. A re-examination 
 of the Pentateuch, as early as the year 1866, led me to the same 
 conclusion. Now is this result upheld by the careful study of 
 the priestly narratives ? 
 
 I do not hesitate to reply in the affirmative. In the paper 
 just referred to (p. 468), Graf writes : " "Was der Anerkennung 
 dass die ' Grundschrift' [=B. of 0.] den jiingsten Bestandtheil 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
194 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 des Pentateuchs bildet, im Wege steht, ist inir — die Gewohnung!' 
 This is perfectly true. When one has once freed oneself from 
 the power of tradition — which is very great even in the domain 
 of criticism — one discovers on all sides most convincing evidence 
 in favour of the proposition that the narratives of the B. of 0. 
 give a later representation of facts and persons than that which 
 is given by the prophetic narrators, the so-called Jahvist and 
 his predecessors. 
 
 Let us begin by making sure that the field of our investigation 
 is free. It would be conceivable, namely, that there were con- 
 clusive reasons for placing the priestly narratives so early as is 
 usually done. In that case we should have to give way and to 
 acquiesce in that chronology, even though it did not seem to us 
 to be supported by the contents of those narratives. But such 
 proofs of the higher antiquity of the priestly narratives do not exist. 
 The evidence which it is customary to adduce in its favour 
 proves nothing, or even pleads for the opposite opinion. For, 
 
 (1.) It is now pretty generally admitted that the Jahvist or 
 prophetic narrator in Genesis — Numbers, who was formerly 
 regarded as the " Erganzer" or supplementer of the B. of 0., 
 worked independently. See the evidence which, in my opinion, 
 raises this above all suspicion, in Hk. 0. I. 105 — 112 ; 
 
 (2.) The Deuteronomist is not acquainted with the narratives 
 of the B. of 0. Whereas he makes constant use, especially in 
 Deut. i. — iv., of older accounts, and particularly of the Jahvistic 
 narratives, his statements nowhere clearly betray the charac- 
 teristic priestly conception of events. See this demonstrated by 
 Dr. W. H. Kosters, de historie-beschouwing van den Deuteronomist 
 met de berichten in Genesis — Numeri vergeleken (Leyden, 1868) ; 
 
 (3.) The traces of acquaintance with the narratives of the 
 B. of 0. which it is thought can be discerned in the pre-exUe 
 writings, are few in number and anything but conclusive. Where 
 similarity really exists, it often remains doubtful on which side 
 the priority lies. Men point, e.g., to Am. iv. 11 compared with 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VI L 195 
 
 Gen. xix. 29; to Jer. iii. 16, xxiii. 3 (tlie combination of "to be 
 fruitful and multiply," as in Gen. i. 28 and elsewhere), iv. 23 ; 
 Isa. xxxiv. 11 compared with Gen. i. 2 ; and further to a number 
 of expressions which Ezekiel has in common with the B. of 0., 
 comp. Zunz, die goitesd. Vortrdge der Juden, pp. 160 seq. ; N61- 
 deke, 1. c, p. 69. Surely no one will base a conclusion upon the 
 first-mentioned passages. And with regard to Ezekiel, what can 
 be more natural than that his language should have many points 
 of resemblance to that of the author of the B. of 0., who lived, 
 as he did, in Mesopotamia, and can be considered to belong to 
 his school ? Let us conclude with one more quotation, which is 
 more conclusive than a long dissertation. Dr. H. Gelbe, who in 
 his Beitrag zur Einl. in das A. T. gives the results of his compa- 
 rison of the Pentateuch with the rest of the books of the Old 
 Testament, sums up (p. 112), before giving a tabular view of the 
 parallel passages, as follows : " Besonders ist hierbei darauf zu 
 achten, dass die nicM der Grundschrift angeJwrigen Theile des 
 Pentateuchs sehr hohes Alter zeigen, da auf einzelnes bei ihnen 
 schon von den altesten Propheten Eiicksicht genommen wird." 
 The author who writes this does not himself doubt the high 
 antiquity of the " Grundschrift." We who are not convinced of 
 it are confirmed in our opinion by his conclusion. 
 
 We can now examine the narratives themselves. All agree 
 in acknowledging their priestly character, and consider that this 
 is already clearly expressed in Genesis, e.g. chap. ii. 1 — 3, ix. 4, 
 xvii., and in a number of other passages. Does not this in itself 
 afford a first proof of the later origin of those narratives 1 Does 
 not the prime of prophecy precede, omnium consensu, that of the 
 priestly tendency among the Israelites ? Is it then to be con- 
 sidered probable that the Jahveh-priests preceded the prophets, 
 or, as Noldeke, for example, assumes, laboured contemporaneously 
 with them, in the domain of literature ? 
 
 A second and still stronger proof is furnished by the concep- 
 tion of history which the B. of 0., taken as a whole, expresses. 
 
 o2 
 
196 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Let the reader glance once more at the review given on pp. 157 
 to 173. Is such a historiography to be expected from a writer 
 belonging to the period when Israelitish literature was in its 
 prime, to the 8th or 7th century B.C. ? Much rather does the 
 B. of 0. unite in itself all the characteristics of the later histo- 
 riography. Comp. Vol. I. p. 175. The precise and yet unhis- 
 torical chronology ; the statistical method, which yet represents 
 the truth but apparently; the regular climax and systematic 
 course — everything is just as we should expect to find it in an 
 author who no longer draws upon living tradition, but depends 
 entirely upon learned research and combinations which to our 
 eyes seem arbitrary, but in his own estimation were quite 
 legitimate. It is indeed very strange that a scholar like Noldeke, 
 who (pp. 108 seq.) has judged so accurately of the style of the 
 B. of 0., should, in spite of this, place the author in the 9th 
 century B.C. 
 
 When we descend more into details and compare the narra- 
 tives in the B. of 0. with the prophetic (Jahvistic) accounts 
 which correspond to them, we obtain exactly the same result. 
 We have already drawn this comparison here and there in our 
 survey (pp. 162, 166 sq., &c.). But in addition to this let us 
 now consider the following parallel passages. 
 
 a. The two narratives of the creation. Gen. i. 1 seq. and ii. 4 
 seq. It is unnecessary to show again that they are mutually 
 antagonistic and utterly irreconcilable. But is it not equally 
 clear that the standpoint of the second narrator, the Jahvist, 
 betrays a higher antiquity than that of the B. of 0. ? His con- 
 ception of the creation is childishly simple ; his representation 
 of Jahveh-Elohtm strongly anthropomorphistic. Gen. i., on the 
 contrary, bears witness to a broad view of things, to much 
 reflection, and to a strong desire to arrange and systematize; 
 moreover Elohlm is not represented here so much in the likeness 
 of man as, e.g., in Gen. ii. 7, 8, 19. 
 
 h. It has long been remarked that the two genealogies in 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VII. 197 
 
 Gen. iv. 17 seq. and Gen. v. are variation.? on one theme, or, in 
 other words, that both are built up out of the same names. If 
 they be placed side by side, can there be any real doubt of 
 the priority of the Jahvistic list? Surely very few would now 
 uphold the figures in Gen. v. But if they do not represent the 
 truth and cannot be attributed to misunderstanding, what else 
 can they be but later fiction? 
 
 c. Gen. ix. 1—17 corresponds to Gen. viii. 20 — 22. It is 
 obvious that the former pericope is a priestly extension, and at 
 the same time a purification, of the latter. Noah's sacrifice is 
 omitted, because in the system of the B. of 0. the pre-Mosaic 
 periods are distinguished from the Mosaic and post-Mosaic time, 
 among other things, in this, that their pious men, in the absence 
 of a place of sacrifice appointed and a law of sacrifice promul- 
 gated by Elohim, offer no gifts to the deity. So, too, the very 
 anthropomorphietic expression in Gen. viii. 21 is left out. The 
 promise in verse 22 is adopted in chap. ix. 11, but at the same 
 time is enlarged into the description of a covenant which is made 
 by Elohim with the men and beasts saved, and of which the 
 rainbow becomes the token (verses 8 — 17). The commandments 
 in verses 4 — 6, and also the permission to eat meat in verse 3, 
 and the promises in verses 1, 2, 7, are connected with this 
 covenant. Now compare with this, on the one hand. Gen. i. 28 
 seq., and on the other hand Gen. xvii. and the accounts of the 
 B. of 0. relating to the covenant between Jahveh and Israel. 
 Everything is planned according to a fixed design, all is artistic 
 and well considered. 
 
 d. It is generally admitted that the representation of patri- 
 archal history in the B. of 0. differs from that given by the 
 prophetic writers. Whereas the latter made mention of a quarrel 
 between the shepherds of Abraham and those of Lot, of Ishmael's 
 expulsion from his father's house, of Jacob's flight before Esau ; 
 all these particulars are wanting in the B. of 0., and everything 
 goes on regularly and amicably. See Gen. xiii. 6, lib, 12a, 
 
198 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 XXV. 9 seq., xxxvi. 6 seq., xxxvii. 1. Here simplicity is on the 
 side of the priestly writer ; the prophetic accounts seem to be 
 more embellished than his. Precisely for this reason the latter 
 have usually been looked upon as the younger. But the con- 
 verse is the case. The simplicity of the B. of 0. is not the 
 simplicity of nature, but of art ; it is the uniformity obtained 
 by the omission of that which is concrete and individual — those 
 constant characteristics of living legends. The amicable parting 
 which takes place exactly in the same way between Abraham 
 and Lot, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, is — 1 had almost 
 said — the respectable residue of the animated and striking older 
 narratives, which the author thought he could insert in his pic- 
 ture of pre-Mosaic history. If the figures of Lot, Ishmael and 
 Esau had once existed in the imagination of the Israelites as 
 they are drawn in the B. of 0., it is altogether inexplicable how 
 they were afterwards transformed into the men of more or less 
 marked individuality sketched for us by the Jahvist. On the 
 other hand, the simplification which we ascribe to the author of 
 the B. of 0., is in harmony with analogy. He treated the narra- 
 tives of his predecessors in about the same way as the Chronicler 
 treated those of Samuel and Kings : saving the difference which 
 results from the nature of the case, the David and Solomon of 
 the Chronicler stand to those of tradition as the patriarchal figures 
 of the B. of 0. stand to those of the Jabvist. 
 
 The comparison between the priestly and the prophetic docu- 
 ments in Gen. xii. — 1. can be pursued further, always with the 
 same result. Among others, the difference between the reve- 
 lations of El-Shaddai to Abraham (Gen. xvii.) and Jacob (Gen. 
 XXXV. 9 — 16) — both as sober as they are solemn — and the theo- 
 phanies or angelophanies in Gen. xv. xviii. sq., is instructive. 
 We have already pointed to the minute, artificial and unhisto- 
 rical chronology of the B. of 0. in treating of this period. Let 
 the reader also observe, 
 
 c. Gen. xix. 29 compared with Gen. xviii. 1 — xix, 28. It is 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VII. 199 
 
 still the same contrast. But it is even more obvious here than 
 elsewhere that the priestly narrator is not the older historian, 
 but pre-supposes the older accounts and gives a summary of their 
 coutents in a few words; no other interpretation accounts for 
 the manner in which the B. of 0., in the verse which we have 
 quoted, makes mention of Lot's deliverance. 
 
 /. We have drawn attention above (pp. 169 sq.) to the place 
 which the B. of 0, assigns to Aaron. Aaron also appears out 
 of the Pentateuch, and this as, next to Moses, the liberator of 
 Israel out of the Egyptian bondage ; see Mic. vi. 4 ; 1 Sam. xii. 
 6, 8 ; Josh. xxiv. 15. We do not find him mentioned anywhere 
 in pre-exile documents as high-priest and tribe-father of the 
 lawful priesthood. But neither do the prophetic narratives of 
 the Pentateuch depict him in this character. There too he is 
 Moses' helper (Exod. iv. 14, 27—30, v. 1, 4, 20, &c., xvii. 10, 
 xviii. 12, xix. 24, xxiv. 1, 9, 14, xxxii., xxxiv. 30, 31). In Num. 
 xii. he appears as a prophet (verses 2, 6); this narrative is 
 diametrically opposed to the notion that he was high-priest, 
 and Exod. xxxii. was written at a time when that dignity had 
 not yet been attributed to him. Deut. x. 6, on the contrary, 
 speaks of the priestly office which he filled, and which passed 
 at his death to Eleazar. The author of that account assumed 
 without doubt that upon solemn occasions Aaron, by virtue of 
 his intimate relation to Moses, offered up the sacrifices for the 
 whole people, and consulted the oracle. But he is still so 
 ignorant of any exclusive fitness of Aaron and his sons, that 
 immediately afterwards he causes the whole tribe of Levi to be 
 set apart for the priestly service (Deut. x. 8, 9). This concep- 
 tion is of earlier date than Ezekiel, who pre-supposes it (above, 
 p. 116), just as the representation given in the B. of 0. is later 
 than that of this prophet. 
 
 g. We have already pointed out that the B. of 0., quite 
 unhistorically, refers Caleb to the tribe of Judah (Num. xiii. 6, 
 xxxiv. 19), and thereby distinguishes itself unfavourably from 
 
200 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 its prophetic predecessors, who either admit or at any rate do not 
 deny Caleb's descent from Kena.z (above, p. 172, n. IT; Vol. I. 
 p. 137). A similar remark must be made with reference to 
 Joshua. It is true, complete unanimity has not yet been attained 
 with respect to the composition of the narrative, Num. xiii. xiv. 
 (comp. Knobel ; Kosters, pp. 38^56 ; H. Oort in Theol. Tijd- 
 schrift, III. 256 seq.; Noldeke, pp. 75 seq.; de Wette's Einl. 
 I. 289 sq.). But this much is certain, that Joshua is counted 
 among the spies sent to Oanaan for the first time in the B. of 0^, 
 and, in connection with this, is separated with Caleb from the 
 other spies, and deemed worthy to enter Canaan. This not only 
 conflicts with passages such as Exod. xxiv. 13, xxxii. 17 ; Num. 
 xi. 28 (Joshua the servant of Moses), explained by Exod. xxxiii. 
 11 (where he is indicated by the same title, and besides this 
 is called a "young man" or "boy"), but is also evidently a later 
 notion, derived from a combination of the older accounts and by 
 way of deduction from them. Deut. i. 19 — 46 (see especially 
 verses 37, 38) and Josh. xiv. 6 — 15 (see especially verse 6), are 
 of earlier date than the B. of 0., and may have assisted to give 
 rise to the notion — which otherwise the authors of those accounts 
 do not share — that Joshua had been one of the spies, and thus 
 had been faithful with Caleb. 
 
 Compare together also Num, xxvii. 12 — 23 (Joshua ordained 
 Moses' successor by Eleazar) and Deut. xxxi. 3, 7, 14, 23 (Joshua 
 designated as Moses' successor). The first account, from the 
 B. of 0., was evidently unknown to the Deuteronomist (comp. 
 Kosters, pp. 85 seq.), and moreover is decidedly younger than his 
 time : the part which it ascribes to Eleazar is characteristic 
 evidence in favour of the priestly author. 
 
 The remarks advanced here in support of the later origin of 
 the B. of 0. may be dismissed with tlie argument which Schrader 
 (De Wette's Einl. I. 266, n. f ) employs against Graf : " wogegen 
 indess schon die kritische Analyse ihr Veto einlegt." One of 
 the results of that analysis, namely, is (p. 313, n. ») that "die 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VII. 201 
 
 proplietisclien Abschuitte Elicksicht nehmen auf die Schrift 
 des annalistischen Erzahlers" (= the B. of 0.). But the reader 
 must pardon me for preferring not to attempt to remove this 
 difficulty. More weight must in justice be allowed to evidence 
 such as that which we have put forward above, than to the 
 arguments which Schrader seems to think decisive. It is often 
 impossible to decide with certainty even whether two given 
 pericopes can have arisen independently of each other. And, 
 supposing that their mutual dependence must be allowed, the 
 question of priority stil]. remains unsettled and is frequently 
 beyond settlement. Unless I be entirely mistaken, " die kri- 
 tische Analyse" will have to yield to the considerations which 
 are advanced on pp. 157 — 17^ an4 in this pote, and not the 
 reverse. 
 
202 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 CHAPTEE VIII. 
 
 The Establishment of the Hieeaechy and the 
 Intkoduction of the Law. 
 
 Under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua, the Jewish 
 exiles, a numerous company, full of glad anticipations, began the 
 journey to their native land. No farther description is given us 
 of their march, but it certainly was not free from troubles and 
 privations. They succeeded, however, in overcoming all diffi- 
 culties. Upon their arrival in Judtea, the various families settled 
 down in their former dwelling-places.* 
 
 Before we proceed farther, we will glance at the composition 
 of the new colony. From the list of those who returned^ we 
 lind, in the first place, that, irrespectively of the staflf' of the 
 temple, they belonged to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin : the 
 towns and villages whose former inhabitants went back, were 
 all situated in the territory of these two tribes.j The continued 
 use of the sacred number twelve,§ therefore, proves — not that 
 " the children of the exile" belonged to all the twelve tribes, but 
 — that they considered themselves the lawful representatives of 
 all Israel. In the second place, our attention is attracted by the 
 returns concerning the staff of the temple. Separate mention is 
 made of: the priests,|| the Levites.U the singers,** the porters,ft 
 the Nethinim ("those given," i.e. temple slaves), J:|: and the chil- 
 dren of Solomon's servants, §§ i.e. the Canaanites whom Solomon 
 had made his slaves and who had thus been incorporated into 
 
 * Ezra ii. 70. The question whether Sheshbazzar (Ezra i. 8, 11, v. H, 16) must 
 be distinguished from Zerubbabel is passed over here, as it is not connected with the 
 history of the religion. 
 
 + Ezraii.; Neh. vii.; comp. .-ibove, pp. 177 aq. 
 
 J Ezra ii. 21—35 ; Neh. vii. 26—38. § Ezra ii. 2, vi. 17. 
 
 II Ezra ii. 36-39, vii. 39—42. IT Ezra ii. 40 ; Neh. vii. 43. 
 
 ** Ezra ii. 41 ; Neh. vii. 44. ft Ezra ii. 42 ; Neh. vii. 45. 
 
 -64 ; Neh. vii. 46—56. §§ Ezra ii. 55—58; Neh. vii. 57—60. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERAHCHY. 2(J;! 
 
 Israel* If we add the number of all these upper and lower 
 temple-servants together, we obtain a total of more than 5000 ; 
 thus they formed nearly an eighth of the entire colony, perhaps 
 even about a sixth, if the returns of the numerical strength of 
 the single families be more worthy of credit than the figure 
 which is given as the total amount.f Though this proportion 
 is remarkable in itself, yet there is more that calls for our notice. 
 The Levites, the singers, &c., are distinguished here from the 
 priests — and this for the first time. Among the returning exiles, 
 therefore, there were persons who were appointed to serve in the 
 sanctuary, but were not considered fit for the actual priestly 
 functions. If we remember, such under-priests — as one might 
 call them — had existed since Josiah's reformation (621 B.C.).| 
 It was very natural that the line of demarcation between them 
 and the priests had not been gradually obliterated, but rather 
 defined more sharply. Ezekiel had ordained, in his description 
 of the restored Israelitish state, that for the future only " the 
 sons of Zadok,'' i.e. the descendants of the priestly families of 
 Jerusalem, should take charge of the service of the altar, and 
 had excluded from the priesthood the rest of the sons of Levi, 
 precisely because they had been foremost in worshipping Jahveh 
 on the high places.§ It is now evident that the reality began 
 to answer these requirements of the prophet. But at the same 
 time another circumstance is now explained. The priests are 
 more than 4000 in number ;|| the Levites only amount to a total 
 of 74, or 341 if we include the singers and porters. IT This pro- 
 portion remains an insolvable riddle to any one who, with the 
 (younger) Mosaic laws, holds the priests or sons of Aaron to be 
 a small subdivision of the tribe of Levi. On the other iand, 
 it is extremely natural, if the Levites be regarded as degraded 
 priests : probably they were less numerous than their brethren 
 
 * 1 Kings ix. 20, 21. 
 
 t Comp. Ezra ii. 64 ; Neh. vii. 66 ; and above, pp. 1 80 sq. 
 
 X Above, p. 13. § Above, p. 116. 
 
 II Ezra ii. 36—39 and Neh. vii. 39—42 agree in the number 4289. 
 
 IT Ezra ii. 40—42. According to Neh. vii. 43—45, the total is 360. 
 
204 THE RELIOION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 at Jerusalem from the very first, but at any rate the desire to go 
 up to Jerusalem must have been less strong in them than in 
 the men who had the prospect of occupying the highest rank in 
 the new temple* And finally it does not escape our notice, 
 that in the list already mentioned of those who returned, the 
 singers and porters occur next to the Levites, and thus are dis- 
 tinguished from the latter. If this only happened here, we 
 might perhaps suspect a slight inaccuracy of expression, and — 
 in agreement with the Chroniclerf and tradition — assume that 
 the whole of the servants of the temple belonged to the tribe of 
 Levi. But the same distinction is made elsewhere.| The singers 
 are included among the Levites for the first time in a document 
 of considerably younger date,§ and the porters also still more 
 recently, by the Chronicler.|| It appears, therefore, from the 
 historical accounts themselves, that it was only by degrees that 
 the whole temple-service was assigned to the tribe of Levi, yet 
 not by removing from their posts the non-Levitical families 
 connected with it, but by including them in the tribe of Levi by 
 means of fictitious genealogies. This happened, e.g., with " the 
 sons of Asaph," singers and musicians, who no doubt were ap- 
 pointed to the temple because they were skilled in music, and 
 had made themselves indispensable there, when the idea arose 
 that an office such as theirs could only be filled by the oflspring 
 of Levi : Asaph now became a descendant of Levi,1I and a con- 
 temporary of David.** But we shall revert to this hereafter : 
 that idea did not yet exist at the time with which we are occupied 
 now. 
 
 The accounts of the first fortunes of the new colonyff are in- 
 
 * Comp. Ezra viii. 15 seq. 
 
 + 1 Chr. xxT., xxvj. 1 — 17, ^pd elsewhere; comp. 1 Clir. xxiii. 3 — 5. 
 
 % Ezra vii. 7, 24, x. 23, 24 ; Neh. fii. 1, x. 28, 39, xii. 47, xiii. 5, 10. 
 
 § Neh. xi. 15—18 ( = 1 Ohr. ix. 14-16; comp. Hk. 0. I. 293 sqq.). After the 
 total of " all the Levites in the holy city" has been given in Neh. xi. 18, the porters 
 are treated separately in ver. 19. 
 
 II 1 Chr. xxvi. 1—17, &c. ; comp. n. t. IT 1 Chr. vi. 39—44. 
 
 •* 1 Chr. XXV. and elsewhere. ++ Ezra iii. — vi. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERAROHY. 205 
 
 complete and moreover of later date, so that they must be used 
 with caution. Luckily, however, we can supplement them from 
 the contemporaneous prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah.* 
 
 The pivot upon which the history of the returned exiles at 
 first revolves, is the huilding of the temple. In the year of their 
 arrival in Judsea, in the 7th month, they assembled at Jerusalem 
 and there built an altar, upon which sacrifices were offered 
 regularly from that time forward. The feast of tabernacles was 
 also kept.-f The redactor of the book of Ezra, to whom we are 
 indebted for this information, adds, that immediately after this 
 they began to prepare for the building of the temple : as early 
 as the 2nd month of the 2nd year the foundations of the new 
 house of God were laid, amidst very mixed emotions on the part 
 of those present, among whom there were some who still remem- 
 bered Solomon's temple, and, mentally comparing it with the 
 building which was now to arise, could not share the joy evinced 
 by younger men. J The comparison of the utterances of the 
 prophets Haggai and Zechariah renders it at least doubtful 
 whether such great haste was made with the important work ; 
 we should rather infer from their words that it was not until 
 fifteen years later, in the second year of the reign of the Persian 
 king Darius Hystaspis, that the foundations of the temple were 
 laid. § But however this may be, difficulties soon arose which 
 made it impossible to continue the work. The inhabitants of 
 the former kingdom of the ten tribes came to Zerubbabel and 
 Joshua and requested permission to take part in the building of 
 the temple. It was refused then, and this on the ground of 
 Cyrus' mandate, whereby leave to carry out that work was 
 granted to the returned exiles exclusively. || As was to be 
 expected, this refusal aroused great animosity. Those who were 
 
 * In chap. i. — viii. of the book named after him ; chap. ix. — xiv. are older. Comp. 
 Bh. 0. II. 374 seq. 
 
 + Ezra iii. 1—6. J Ezra iii. 7—13. 
 
 § Hagg. i. 2, i, 8, 14, ii. 18; Zech. i. 16, iv. 9, 10, vi. 12, 13. Comp. also Ezra 
 T. 2, 16 (taken by the redactor of the book from an older writing). 
 
 II Ezra iv. 1—3. 
 
206 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 repulsed " hired counsellors against the Jews, to frustrate their 
 purpose, all the days of Kores king of Persia until the reign of 
 Darius king of Persia."* What the accusations were which 
 they made against the Jews with such good result, we are not 
 told. But if we may judge from what took place on other 
 occasions,-f- they succeeded in throwing doubts upon their fidelity 
 to the Persian monarchy, and in awakening the suspicion that 
 they wished to make themselves independent. We are surprised 
 that this complaint was at once believed, but if we knew the 
 circumstances of the case, our surprise no doubt would disappear. 
 It is enough that the prosecution of the work could not be 
 thought of. 
 
 The inhabitants of the former kingdom of Ephraim now appear 
 on the stage of history for the first time. Thenceforward they 
 repeatedly come in contact with the Jews, mostly as enemies. To 
 understand rightly the part which they play, it will be necessary 
 for us to study specially their origin and religious standpoint. 
 
 It lies in the nature of the case, that after the fall of Samaria 
 (719 B.C.) the extensive territory of the kingdom of the ten 
 tribes was not entirely depopulated by the Assyrians. They 
 confined themselves — as the Chaldeans did subsequently in the 
 kingdom of JudahJ — to carrying off the kernel of the nation as 
 captives. But this and the war which preceded it occasioned so 
 heavy a loss to the population of the land, that it was deemed 
 necessary to send foreign colonists thither. This was done, 
 either at once by Shalmanezer,§ or some years later by Esar- 
 haddon, Sennacherib's successor. |1 It would seem that they were 
 military colonies which the Assyrian king transferred to the 
 cities of Samaria, and to other parts of Syria as well, and that 
 they were under the command in chief of Osnappar,ir " the great 
 
 ' Verses 4, 5. + Ezraiv. 12sq., 15sq., 19 sq. J Comp. above, pp. 98 sq., 174 sq. 
 
 § As is stated in 2 Kings xvii. 24, since the "king of Assyria" mentioned here is 
 no other than Shalraanezer, verses 3 seq. Verses 7 — 23 were introduced by the last 
 redactor. According to the Assyrian monuments, Sargon must take the place of Shal- 
 raanezer. 
 
 !l Thus Ezra iv. 2. U Ezra iv. 10. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERABOBY. 207 
 
 and renowned," as he is called, of whom, however, we know 
 nothing more. Concerning the foreigners who settled upon 
 Israelitish territory, we are told that they came from Babylon, 
 Cuthah, Ava, Hamath and Sepharvaira ;* that at first they 
 served their own gods, but, in order to be freed from the wild 
 beasts which made their land unsafe, they allowed a Jahveh- 
 priest, whom the Assyrian king sent to them, to instruct them 
 in the service of Jahveh ;-f- that thus from that time forward 
 the worship of Jahveh was combined with that of their former 
 gods. I It may be assumed as probable that these foreign 
 colonists gradually became fused with the Israelites whom they 
 met with in the land, and that consequently the service of 
 Jahveh spread among them and acquired more and more pro- 
 minence. But it is equally probable that other Israelites, 
 especially in the more northern districts of Canaan, remained 
 unniixed. This explains the fact that in the time of Zerubbabel 
 and Joshua the colonists referred to continued to regard them- 
 selves as non-Tsraelites, and expressly declared that they had 
 served Jahveh " since the days of Esar-haddon,"§ and therefore 
 not before. We now understand, also, why Zerubbabel and 
 Joshua flatly refused their request to take part in the building 
 of the temple. Had they been Israelites, or had the Israelitish 
 element at least been predominant among them, then, it may be 
 presumed, their admission would not have been thought so 
 objectionable. Certainly the descendants of the ten tribes were 
 received without hesitation, if they were prepared to comply 
 with the laws which were in force in JudEea.|| The admission 
 of such descendants also helps to explain how it is that, about 
 four centuries later, we find a large portion of northern Palestine 
 peopled by Jews.lT But the refusal given to the descendants of 
 the Assyrian colonists was quite compatible with this willingness 
 to admit the tribes which were still regarded as their brethren. 
 
 * 2 Kings xrii. 24. t Verses 25—28. J Verses 29—33. § Ezra iv. 2. 
 II Comp. below, the remarks occasioned by Neh. a. 28. 
 If Comp. 1 Mace. v. 9, 14, 17 seq. 
 
208 THE EELIGIOX OF ISRAEL. 
 
 It would have been far from singular if those colonists, after 
 they had been repulsed by the Jews, had gradually become 
 estranged from the service of Jahveh. But this was not the 
 case. It is true, thenceforward a bitter hatred prevailed between 
 them and the inhabitants of Judaea ; they also continued their 
 hostilities under Ahasveros (Xerxes)* and Artachshast (Ar- 
 taxerxes I. Longimanus),-|- upon which occasions they again 
 appeared in their character as foreigners, and even made a very 
 sharp distinction between themselves and the Israelites. J But 
 meanwhile they went on worshipping Jahveh. Hence it was 
 that some Jews who — we shall shortly see why — had fled from 
 their native land, were received by them with open arms, and 
 that, when they happened to get a priest of Jerusalem, they 
 actually founded a Jahveh-temple on Gerizim, and from that 
 time forward gradually purified their Jahvism from foreign 
 elements. Thenceforward they also called themselves " sons of 
 Israel," and even set great store by the purity of their pedigree. 
 The Jews, however, did not acknowledge them even then as their 
 brethren, and called them Cutheans,§ or, after their chief city, 
 Samaritans. To some of the points which we have just touched 
 upon here we shall naturally revert when they present them- 
 selves in chronological order. We will now resume the thread 
 of the historical narrative. 
 
 The first design, therefore, which the Jews had cherished on 
 their journey to Judasa, turned out to be unattainable for the 
 present. About fifteen years elapsed before they could put their 
 hands to the work in real earnest. In the 2nd year of the reign 
 of Darius Hystaspes, Haggai and Zechariah the son of Iddo 
 made their appearance as prophets. Thanks to their influence, 
 the zeal of the people and its leaders was awakened. Alternately 
 by earnest warnings and glorious promises they set the lazy and 
 indifferent in motion. To many, the scarcity of food which 
 
 * Ezra iv. 6. + Ezra iv. 7, 8—23 ; Neh. ii. 10, 19, &c. 
 
 t Ezra iT. 9, verse 12, verse 15, and the sequel of the letter given there. 
 § Comp. 2 Kings xvii. 24. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 209 
 
 prevailed just then was a reason for postponing the work still 
 further. According to Haggai, it was a manifestation of Jahveh's 
 anger, and ought therefore to induce them to make a beginning, 
 the sooner the better.* Zechariah appealed to the fulfilment 
 of the predictions of the former prophets, to dissuade his con- 
 temporaries from imitating the sins of their forefathers.f If 
 there were any who were discouraged by the comparison between 
 the Solomonic and the new temple, Haggai consoles them with 
 the promise that the latter shall exceed the former in glory : 
 Jahveh shall set the heathen world in commotion, so that it 
 shall acknowledge his supremacy and come to pay homage to 
 him in his house at Jerusalem. :|: The two prophets address 
 themselves to Zerubbabel and Joshua in particular, to encourage 
 them in their arduous task, and to promise them a successful 
 issue to their exertions. § 
 
 The words of these prophets did not fail to take effect. Men 
 began to build and continued to do so even after the governor 
 of Syria had demanded a statement of their intentions.|| He 
 allowed himself to be induced to let the builders go on until 
 Darius should express his pleasure.lT The latter decided in 
 favour of the Jews.** The work now made good progress, and 
 was finished in the sixth year of the Persian king's reign.-f-f- 
 The later historian who tells us this, adds that the consecration 
 of the temple took place with great solemnity, and was soon 
 followed by the celebration of the passover and the feast of un- 
 leavened bread.jl The one is as probable as the other. It costs 
 us some trouble, however, to believe that the author had received 
 definite information as to these two feasts. At all events he is 
 inaccurate in saying, " they set the priests in their orders and 
 the Levites in their divisions for the service of God in Jerusalem, 
 as it is written in the hook of Moses ;"^% for this book contains 
 
 * Hagg. i. 2—11. + Zech. i. 2—8. t Hagg. ii. 1—9. 
 
 § Hagg. ii. 20—23 ; Zech. iii. iv., vi. 9—15. II Ezra v. 3, 4, 
 
 H Verse 5. ** Ezra vi. 1—12. tt Verses 14, 15. 
 §§ Ezra vi. 18, 
 
 VOL. II. P " 
 
210 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 no precepts on this subject. The writer rather supposes than 
 knows by tradition that the entire organization of public worship 
 agreed with the Mosaic laws. We shall shortly investigate 
 whether this supposition can be allowed. 
 
 The prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah awaken our interest 
 for other reasons than their immediate results. Did their appear- 
 ance perchance give rise among their contemporaries to the ex- 
 pectation that prophecy would play the came important part in 
 the new Jewish state as it had played in ancient Israel, before 
 the exile ? That expectation would not have been unnatural. 
 In the strange land the voice of the prophets had not been 
 silenced; when the time of deliverance drew near, they had 
 even made themselves heard with vigour and emphasis : now, 
 only a few years after the return, their addresses again exercised 
 an important influence And yet the great difference be- 
 tween the older and the younger prophets could long remain 
 hidden from none but superficial judges. There exists, in fact, 
 a tolerably sharp contrast between the inspired language of the 
 Babylonish Isaiah and the prophecies of his younger contempo- 
 raries, Haggai and Zechariah — a contrast as great as that between 
 the high anticipations of the former and the sad reality which 
 forced the latter to speak. Babylon had fallen, Israel's bonds 
 had been broken, but — in a manner so entirely different from 
 that which they had imagined ! The edict of Cyrus, however 
 remarkable and gladdening it may have been, was a very natural 
 event; the return to their native land had been marked by 
 nothing out of the common ; the Jews remained dependent as 
 before, and were soon to find how heavily the yoke of Persian 
 servitude woiild press upon them: they even saw themselves 
 disappointed in their reasonable desire to possess a sanctuary of 
 their own. A single sentence of Zechariah's can sketch to us 
 their position better than a long treatise. Sixteen years had 
 elapsed since the settlement of the Jews, when this prophet 
 brought in " the angel of Jahveh" speaking in these words : " 
 Jahveh of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jeru- 
 
ESTABLISBMENT OF TEE HIEUAROBY. 211 
 
 salem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had 
 indignation these threescore and ten years ?"* The deliverance 
 had taken place and — Jahveh's anger had not been averted. Is 
 it a wonder that under such circumstances the prophets' enthu- 
 siasm is very small, and that their discourses bear witness to a 
 certain languor and weariness? This does not show itself in 
 the two envoys of Jahveh quite in the same manner. Haggai 
 is characterized \ij simplicity, but at the same time by a want of 
 elevation. Zechariah is more dependent than he upon his pre- 
 decessors, to whom he even expressly refers and whose thoughts 
 he appropriates.f Besides this, his visions, eight in number,^ 
 betray more deliberation and art than true inspiration. In this 
 respect there is great similarity between him and Ezekiel, with 
 whom, too, he has his priestly extraction in common.§ We 
 detract nothing from the high merit of both men when we say 
 that their studied addresses are rather a feeble echo of the true 
 prophetic discourse than the announcement of a new period in 
 the history of prophecy. 
 
 There is yet another point of view from which Zechariah 
 deserves our attention. We spoke just now of the similarity 
 between his visions and those of Ezekiel. This similarity is 
 evident from, among other things, this, that angds play an 
 important part in both. That we must look here to foreign 
 influence, is probable in itself, and is distinctly proved by 
 Zechariah's prophecies. We find in him notions which clearly 
 betray their Persian origin, e.g., that of "the seven eyes (ac- 
 cording to others, the seven watchers) of Jahveh which walk 
 to and fro through the whole earth ;"|| the way in which he 
 introduces Satan, IT also, reminds us of Persian dualism. We 
 shall find an opportunity further on of dwelling upon this at 
 greater length,** but we ought already to note that the Jews 
 proved themselves not disinclined to enrich their theology with 
 
 * Zech. i. 12, comp. 7. + Comp. Sh. 0. II. 378 sq. J See I.e. pp. 376 sq. 
 § See 1. ,;. pp. 395 sq. || Zech. iv. 10. If Zeoh. iii. 
 
 ** See below, Chapter IX. 
 
 P2 
 
212 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 such elements of the Persian doctrines as they could adopt with- 
 out being unfaithful to their own principles. 
 
 In the year 516 B.C. the temple was finished; in 458 B.C. Ezra 
 came to Jerusalem. The intermediate period of nearly sixty 
 years is a blank to iis. All that we are told of it is contained 
 in this one statement : " in the reign of Ahasveros,* in the be- 
 ginning of his reign, they [the Samaritans] wrote an accusation 
 against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem ;"-f- what follows 
 about the events under Artachshast,J most probably relates to 
 the years after Ezra's arrival. The book of Usther, which transfers 
 us to the reign of the Ahasveros just mentioned, does not treat 
 of Judsea, and, moreover, cannot be regarded as an historical 
 narrative. One can understand that the fortunes of the returned 
 exiles afforded but little material for historians. Yet their silence 
 causes a void which we lament the more, because, as subsequent 
 history shows, not unimportant changes, of the course of which 
 we would gladly be accurately informed, took place in Judaea 
 during that half century. It is the period of the rise of tlm 
 hierarchy. 
 
 Even at the return, the high-priest Joshua, next to Zerub- 
 babel, stood at the head of the people. It was quite in the 
 nature of the case that he shoidd soon take the first place. 
 Zerubbabel was a descendant of David. This served to recom- 
 mend him to many among the people. But in the eyes of the 
 Persian king, or of the Persian governor "on this side the 
 Euphrates," to whose jurisdiction Judsea also belonged, his 
 extraction easily rendered him a somewhat suspected and dan- 
 gerous person: what guarantee had they that he would not 
 attempt to place himself upon the throne and render his people 
 independent ? Thus it was not unnatural that the government 
 of Judsea was entrusted to men of another family, perhaps even 
 by preference to foreigners.§ Such a governor, whether he were 
 
 * Xerxes I. 485—464 b. o. + Ezra \r. 6. 
 
 t Artaxerxes I. Longimanus, 464—421 b.o. See Ezra iv. "— 23. 
 § Comij. Neh. v. 15. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 213 
 
 an Israelite or a stranger, represented in either case the sovereign 
 power of Persia, to which exclusively he owed his elevation. 
 Meanwhile there remained room for a national authority next 
 or opposite to him; nay, its rise must have been desired and 
 promoted by the Persians in their own interest. This position 
 was now taken up as a matter of course by the Jerusalem priest- 
 hood, with the high-priest at their head. His dignity descended 
 by inheritance to his eldest son, so that it did not lack the requi- 
 site stability. He was moreover the acknowledged representative 
 of the religious individuality and unity of the Jewish people, 
 which had acquired undisputed precedence since the nation had 
 ceased to play a part in politics. ISTor should we forget that he 
 found a firm support in the comparatively large number of the 
 priests, Levites, and other officers of the temple, and must have 
 had great influence as their head alone, irrespectively of the might 
 and honour attributed to him by the whole nation. An autho- 
 rity which is indicated by circumstances, as it were, and in the 
 continuance of which, moreover, the whole of a powerful order 
 is directly interested, derives great strength from each of these 
 facts. 
 
 Unless I be mistaken, the comparison of the two prophets 
 Haggai and Zechariah with each other proves that we are not 
 wrong in taking the support of the priesthood into account. 
 The former is well disposed towards the priests ; he gives them 
 the honour which is their due ;* but yet it is Zerubbabel whom 
 he calls the chosen one of Jahveh and almost identifies with the 
 promised saviour of Israel.f Conversely, while Zechariah, the 
 man of priestly descent, assigns a very high place to Zerub- 
 babel,^: yet he regards Joshua as the real representative of the 
 nation, upon whom, therefore, Satan directs his attack, but who, 
 absolved from all blame, is permitted to hear the promise that 
 "he shall direct Jahveh's house and keep his courts;" with 
 whose person, moreover, the appearance of " the Branch, Jahveh's 
 
 * Hagg. ii. 11—13. + Hagg. ii. 21—23. 
 
 X Zeoh. iv,, e.5pecially vers. 6 — 10. 
 
214 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 servant" is most intimately connected.* Upon Joshua's head 
 he places the costly crown made from the gifts of the Jews who 
 had stayed behind in Babylonia : he thus raises him to a type 
 of the "Branch," who — it says — "shall build the temple of 
 Jahveh, who shall bear the ornament and shall sit and rule upon 
 his throne : he shall he a pHest upon his throne, and peaceful 
 counsel shall there be between them both (the priests and the 
 ruler)." -f Is it not evident from this that the elevation of 
 the high-priest proceeded, although not exclusively, it is true, 
 from those upon whom in the first place his lustre would be 
 reflected ? 
 
 It would now be of the highest importance to know the form 
 in which the high-priest exercised his power. But our informa- 
 tion on this point is very defective. From the silence of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah we infer that in their days — and so much the 
 more in the intermediate period of which we are now treating — 
 there was still no fixed court, such as the Council of the Elders 
 (Gerusia) or the Sanhedrim was in after centuries. We there- 
 fore assume that at first the high-priest exercised his authority, 
 which was tolerably unrestricted and nowhere accurately defined, 
 alone, or consulted the priests of the highest rank and the heads 
 of the families.^ No doubt no step of any importance was taken 
 without their consent. In very weighty matters the decision 
 even rested with the whole community, which was summoned 
 to Jerusalem for that purpose.§ When we reflect that the sphere 
 within which the Jews could do as they liked was tolerably 
 narrow, we are not surprised that great irregularities or even 
 arbitrariness prevailed in all these matters; everything depended 
 
 * Zech. iii,, especially vs. 7, 8. The appellation Zimach, Branch, which occurs in 
 chap. iii. 8, vi. 12, is borrowed from Isa. ix. 2, Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15, and indi- 
 cates the deliTerer of Israel, whose coming the earlier prophets had announced. 
 
 t Zech Ti. 9—15. 
 
 J Nehemiah mentions repeatedly the Jewish "nohles" and "rulers," chap. ii. 16, 
 iv. 14, T. 7, viii. 5, comp. vi. 7, xiii. 17. "The heads of the parent houses" or 
 " families" occur in Neh. vii. 71 (Ezra ii. 68), viii. 13 ; the " princes" in Neh. ix. 38, 
 xi. 1. 
 
 § Ezra X. 7 seq. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERAROHV. 215 
 
 upon the personal character of those who stood at the head of 
 affairs, whether as lieutenant-governors or as high-priests ; it was 
 only by degrees that each man's authority was marked out more 
 definitely, and that thus the necessity of binding its exercise to 
 set forms made itself felt. 
 
 In this state of the case, every particular relating to the men 
 who filled the office of high-priest would be welcome to us. But 
 our curiosity remains unsatisfied. Even with respect to Joshua 
 we are very imperfectly informed. From a fragmentary com- 
 munication in the book of Nehemiah,* we should almost infer 
 that he laid the foundation for the division of the priests into 
 twenty-four classes. In the list of the exiles who had returned, 
 the whole of the priests are referred to four families, and the 
 classes are not mentioned.+ When therefore twenty-two divi- 
 sions of priests are afterwards enumerated as having gone up to 
 Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Joshua, the conjecture is very 
 obvious that Joshua divided the four families in this way ; two 
 more may have been added subsequently, perhaps after the 
 arrival of Ezra and his colony.| Of Joshua's successor Joiakim 
 we only learn this, that the said classes of priests still existed in 
 his days.§ His son Eliashib was a contemporary of Nehemiahjl 
 and wiU. come under our notice again when we study his labours. 
 He was succeeded by Joiada, Jonathan and Jaddua,ir which last 
 Mved to see the fall of the Persian kingdom and the subjection 
 of the Jews to Alexander the Great.** 
 
 We should have to confine ourselves to this dry enumeration 
 of mere names, were we not able to draw some conclusions as 
 to the internal condition of the Jewish colony, and of the spirit 
 which animated its leaders, from the more circumstantial ac- 
 counts relating to Ezra and what befell him at Jerusalem. 
 Without anticipating what will be said presently about Ezra 
 
 ' Chap xii. 1—7. t Ezra ii. 36—39 ; Neh. vii. 39—42, 
 
 J Comp. Ezra viii. 2. § Neh xii. 12—21. 
 
 II Neh. iii. 1, 20 sq., xiii. 4, 7, 28, comp. xii. 10, 22, 23. 
 H Neh. xii. 10, 11. ** Neh. xii. 22. 
 
216 TBE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 and Nehemiah, we may assume it to be known here that both 
 these men met in Judsea with much, very much that seemed to 
 them reprehensible. They were especially scandalized at the 
 tolerance to which the numerous marriages of Jews with foreign 
 women bore testimony. Even priests, Levites, singers and por- 
 ters had been guilty of this evil* Of this evil ? But was alli- 
 ance in marriage with other tribes then really a siu ? was it not 
 merely narrowness of mind and national pride that opposed it ? 
 In truth, there was not a little to be said in support of such an 
 approach to the neighbouring tribes. It was in all respects 
 capable of being idealized, and is, in fact, defended and com- 
 mended from a purely Jahvistic standpoint in the book of Euth. 
 As we shall see shortly, the author of this book and the men of 
 his mind acted in good faith in taking it under their protection 
 against these who vehemently assailed it. But it does not follow 
 from this that it was the manifestation of a praiseworthy univer- 
 saUsm from the very first, or even — for it could also be viewed 
 in this light — of the desire to bring the heathen to Jahveh. 
 Probability pleads for another interpretation. We must regard 
 this union with the foreigner as a fruit of indifference, as an 
 actual sign of want of interest in that which distinguished the 
 Jews from the tribes that surrounded them. This is evident not 
 only from the verdict of Ezra and Xehemiah, who knew their 
 contemporaries' motives better than we do, but also from the 
 reception given to their attempts at reformation. Moreover, that 
 indifference is perfectly explicable under the circumstances in 
 which the Jews were placed. As we have already observed, their 
 lot, from the time that they were granted permission to return, 
 was one of uninterrupted disappointment. If we knew their 
 adventures more in detail, we would probably think it still more 
 natural that their zeal for religion gradually slackened. More 
 than ordinary strength of mind was indeed required in those 
 days to continue to believe in Israel's destiny. Is it a wonder 
 that many fell short in this and showed less and less concern ? 
 
 * Ezi-ax. 18-24. 
 
ESTABLISBMENT OF TEE BIERAECHY. 217 
 
 The strict isolation from the neighbouring peoples was necessa- 
 rily the first to suffer. But as the alliances with them became 
 more numerous and more intimate, the purity of Jahvism was 
 also in great danger. So the Jewish nation stood upon an 
 inclined plane. Its exemplars and leaders, the priests and the 
 rest of the temple-servants, may have been faithful in the dis- 
 charge of their duty; we have no reason to suppose the contrary; 
 but they proved unequal to the difficult task which they had 
 just then to perform. " The people of Israel and the priests and 
 the Levites are not separated from the peoples of these lands ;"* 
 so runs the account which was brought to Ezra and was con- 
 tradicted by no one. It was to be feared that the individuality 
 of Israel and of Israel's religion would be gradually effaced ; 
 that the great results which had already been obtained in the 
 domain of religion were not being preserved and developed, 
 but, with their inestimable value unrecognized, were being given 
 up and lost. Once again in the course of centuries after the 
 exile, under the Syrian dominion, Israel was exposed to a similar 
 danger. But let us not forget, that now, in the first half of the 
 5th century B.C., the danger was much more threatening than 
 it was or could be at a later period. As yet the Jews lacked 
 the sure guarantees for the preservation of their religion in its 
 integrity. Many of the writings which were afterwards to occupy 
 a place of honour in their sacred literature were in existence, 
 but they were scattered here and there, and were not yet acknow- 
 ledged by all ; as yet they were without the stamp which they 
 required before they could pass as law and rule the further 
 development of the life of the nation. Yet, in spite of this, the 
 Jewish nation even of those days would have been proof against 
 a persecution for its faith's sake. But would it also be proof 
 against the danger of amalgamating with the neighbouring and 
 kindred tribes, and thus of gradually sinking back to the stand- 
 point upon which it had stood in former times, and above which 
 
 * Ezra ix. 1. 
 
218 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Edom, Moab and Ammon had not yet been able to raise them- 
 selves ? The service of the strange gods, which had been so 
 seductive in the exile, did not certainly after the exile all at once 
 lose its attractiveness. Unless we be mistaken, the position of 
 Israel's religion about the middle of the 5th century B.C. was 
 most critical If no rescue came, the longer existence or at least 
 the future of Jahvism was doubtful. 
 
 The rescue was not long in coming. It cannot well have been 
 by chance that precisely at the time when the danger which 
 we have just sketched was rapidly increasing, Jewish men in 
 Babylonia felt themselves roused to go up to Jerusalem and to 
 reinforce the colony in Judaea. Constant intercourse undoubtedly 
 existed between the Jews who had returned and those who had 
 stayed behind.* The wants which made themselves felt in 
 Judaea were not unknown in Babylonia. We already know 
 enough of the Jews settled there to think it most natural that 
 they were deeply moved by the accounts which reached them 
 from their mother country. But instead of involving ourselves 
 in the calculation of their motives, we will let the facts speak 
 for themselves. 
 
 It is nothing less than a revolution which we are about to 
 describe. The labours of Ezra and Nehemiah form a turning- 
 point in the history of Israel's religion. And yet, however clear 
 this may be to us, the high importance and the real significance 
 of their work are stUl not generally acknowledged. Thus it is 
 necessary, not merely to give utterance to our conception of this 
 work, but also to prove its truth : on this subject less even than 
 on any other can the reader be asked to believe any assertion on 
 mere authority. Before we go further, then, let us glance at the 
 accounts furnished us by the Old Testament. 
 
 In the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes (-458 B.C.) Ezra 
 the priest and scribe left Babylonia for Judaea, accompanied by 
 
 * Comp. Zeoh. tI. 9 — 15 ; Neh. i 1 seq. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 219 
 
 a band of his fellow-exiles. Touching this journey and Ezra's 
 actions immediately after his arrival, we possess a narrative 
 which is partly from his own hand (Ezra vii. — x.). It breaks 
 off suddenly, so that we are altogether in uncertainty with 
 respect to the events of the years immediately succeeding. It 
 was in the 20th year of the same Persian king (445 B.C.) that 
 Nehemiah asked and obtained leave to go to Judaea as governor 
 and rebuild the ruined walls of Jerusalem. He himself tells us 
 how he succeeded in that mission (Nehemiah i. — vii., xii. 27 — 
 43); in doing so he only mentions Ezra once, upon the occasion 
 of the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem (chap. xii. 36). On 
 the other hand, in a succeeding portion of the book called after 
 Nehemiah, the two men, Uzra and Nehemiah, appear, acting in 
 concert: the event related there, in Nehemiah viii. — x., took 
 place in the seventh month* but the year in which it fell is not 
 given ; thus we must place it between 444 B. c, the year after 
 Nehemiah's arrival, and 433 B.C., when he went back to Persia,-f- 
 and presumably at the beginning of this period. If this pre- 
 sumption be correct, again some years elapsed of which we leam 
 nothing. Of Nehemiah's departure for Persia, too, we are only 
 told in passing. But he visited Judsea once more, probably as 
 early as 432 B.C., and drew up a narrative which we still possess 
 of what happened then (Nehemiah xiii.). How long his second 
 visit lasted, it does not show ; and it also leaves our curiosity 
 as to other points unsatisfied. Fortunately we can supplement 
 it in some measure from the prophecies of Malachi, who is 
 held with great probability to be a younger contemporary of 
 Nehemiah. 
 
 These accounts are not all of the same importance to the his- 
 tory of the Israelitish religion. The restoration of Jerusalem's 
 walls lies almost outside of that history. But all the rest is of 
 so much the greater importance. Let us begin by simply nar- 
 rating the facts. 
 
 * Chap. vii. 73, comp. chap. viii. 13, xi. 1. + Neh. v. 14. 
 
220 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Ezra the priest, "a ready scribe of the law of Moses,"* had 
 — we read-j- — " prepared his heart to study and keep the law 
 of Jahveh and to teach in Israel statutes and right." He must 
 have heen at work in this spirit for some time among his feUow- 
 exiles in Babylonia, when he conceived and matured the plan of 
 going to Jerusalem and there continuing these labours. But to 
 do this he reo[uired the permission of the Persian king, and his 
 authority to carry out his plans in Judeea. These were graciously 
 granted to him. Artaxerxes made an edict which, unfortunately, 
 we no longer possess in its original form. The later redaction 
 which has been preserved to us,| written in a Jewish spirit, 
 exaggerates the king's gracious orders. But unless it altogether 
 misrepresents the tendency of the original, Ezra got leave to go 
 to Judsea, with those who should join him, and important sub- 
 sidies were granted him for the journey; he further obtained 
 privileges and exemption from taxes for the temple at Jerusalem 
 and its servants; and finally, he was empowered to test the 
 condition of his nation by " the law of his God, which was in his 
 hand,"§ to organize the administration of justice in accordance 
 with that law,l| and to take the necessary steps to make it 
 known. IT It speaks well for the distinction which Ezra enjoyed 
 among the exiles, that so many of them declared themselves 
 ready to go to Judaea under his leading. AVe are not told how 
 numerous the two priestly families of Gershom and Daniel and 
 the Davidic house of Hattush were ;** but 1-496 men volunteered 
 besides these.-f-f" If, as we saw above,J| the Levites were badly 
 represented in the first expedition, now it appeared that they 
 were absent altogether. Ezra considered this so great a want, 
 that, to provide against it, he submitted to a short delay. A 
 deputation which he sent to a certain Iddo at Casiphia, who 
 must have had great influence there, succeeded beyond expecta- 
 
 Ezra vii. 6; compare verses 11, 12, 21 ; Neh. viii. 1, xii. 36. 
 + Kzia vii. 10. J Ezra vii. 11—26. § Verse 14a. || Verse 25a. 
 
 IT Verse 25 b. «« Ezra viii. 2. ft Verses 3-14. JJ P. 203. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 221 
 
 tion : 38 Levites and 220 Nethinlm decided to accompany Ezra* 
 So now the journey could be commenced. A day of fasting -was 
 kept at the river Ahava, where they had assembled, and Jahveh's 
 help was implored. " For" — writes Ezra himself, and even here 
 we are struck with the close combination of piety and national 
 pride which marks the whole of his labours — " I was ashamed 
 to ask the king for soldiers and horsemen to help us against 
 enemies on the way; for we spoke to the king, saying, The 
 hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him, but 
 his power and his wrath are against all them that forsake 
 him."f When the day of prayer was over, the gifts for the 
 temple were entrusted to twelve priests and as many Levites.;]; 
 The journey was successfully completed. Upon their arrival 
 at Jerusalem, they rested for three days. The gold and silver 
 which they had brought with them was then delivered into the 
 treasury of the temple, and a great sacrifice was offered up to 
 Jahveh.§ The governors "on this side the river" were made 
 acquainted with the king's mandate, and "they furthered the 
 people and the house of God."|j 
 
 Ezra goes on to tell us what happened next. It was sad 
 news which the princes — of their own accord, or at his insti- 
 gation ? — brought to him : " the people, the priests and the 
 Levites had taken wives for themselves and their sons out of 
 the tribes which they found in Judsea and in the adjacent re- 
 gions ; so the holy nation had mingled themselves with the 
 peoples of the lands ; the princes and rulers, far from preventing 
 this evil, had set the example in committing it." IT This account 
 has a crushing effect upon Ezra. He mourns and humbles liim- 
 self before all the people. For some time he sits motionless 
 and stunned. About the hour of the evening sacrifice he breaks 
 this silence. He throws himself in his rent garments to the 
 earth and turns in prayer to Jahveh. It is a humble confession 
 of guilt which he pours forth in the name of the whole nation. 
 
 * Ezra viii. 15—20. 
 
 t Verse 22. 
 
 t Verses 24—30. 
 
 § Verses 31—35. 
 
 II Verse 36. 
 
 1[ Ezra ix. 1, 2. 
 
222 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 If their fathers had already sinned and thereby drawn down 
 destruction upon their heads, now their children, in spite of the 
 mercy which had been shown to them, had also acted in direct 
 opposition to Jahveh's commandments. He scarcely ventures, 
 after such great sins, to appeal afresh to God's mercy. "0 
 Jahveh, God of Israel" — so he ends his prayer — "thou art 
 righteous, for we are left as a remnant, as it is this day. Behold, 
 we are before thee in our guilt, for there is no one who, notwith- 
 standing this sin, can stand before thy face!"* Thus did the 
 assembled multitude hear Ezra pray, and his words sank deep 
 into many hearts. One of his hearers, Shechaniah ben Jehiel, 
 acknowledges their transgressions in the name of all, but at the 
 same time expresses his trust that there is yet hope for IsraeL 
 "Let us" — he proposes — "let us all make a covenant with our 
 God to put away these wives and their children, according to 
 the counsel of my lord and of those that fear the commandment 
 of our God : and it shall be done according to the law."-)- Ezra 
 hastens to accept this proposal. He binds the chief of the priests, 
 the Levites and the people by oath to submit to it. Shortly 
 after this a great national assembly is convened at Jerusalem : 
 every one had to be there within three days imder pain of the 
 "ban" upon his goods :|: and of being thrust out from the com- 
 munity.§ On the 20th day of the ninth month — which cor- 
 responds nearly with our month of December — all the men of 
 Judah and Benjamin were assembled in the open place before the 
 temple, disconcerted at so peremptory a summons at that season 
 of the year, and shivering in the rain which fell in torrents. 
 Ezra stands up and says, " Ye have transgressed, and have taken 
 strange wives, and thus have increased the guilt of Israel. And 
 now, make confession to Jahveh the God of your fathers, and 
 do his pleasure, and separate yourselves from the nations of the 
 land and from the strange wives." || It was scarcely conceivable 
 
 * Ezra ix. 6—15. 
 
 t Ezra X. 2, 3. Othere translate : "the counsel of the Lord," &c., but the autho- 
 rized vereion must be retained. 
 
 X Comp. Vol. I. 290 sq. § Ezra i. 7, 8. Ij Ezi-a .\. 10, 11. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF TEE HIERARCBY. 223 
 
 that this vehement demand should be resisted. Yet there were 
 four men — the historian gives us their names* — who dared to 
 speak against it. But they were outvoted by the whole gather- 
 ing, which willingly submitted, and merely urged that the matter 
 should not be settled then and there, but by their rulers, in 
 conjunction with the elders of the cities.f This request was 
 granted. The inquiry, which occupied two entire months, began 
 on the first day of the tenth month. The writer — not Ezra, 
 but a later author, who made selections from Ezra's records 
 — concludes his narrative with a list of the names of those 
 who put away their wives. Four of them, who belonged to 
 the family of the high-priest, had to sacrifice a ram for their 
 crime.J Of the rest we learn no details. But what bitter scenes 
 of woe are hidden behind that laconic ending : " All these had 
 taken strange wives, and some of them sent wives and children 
 away"!§ 
 
 " It shall he done according to the law!' This maxim was put 
 into execution by Ezra without pity, directly after his arrival at 
 Jerusalem. If his zeal needed stimulating, the success of this 
 first attempt was the best encouragement. Therefore we now 
 expect to learn what he did next : so much still remained to 
 be done, and the field was ready. To our great astonishment, 
 however, the narrative of the book named after him breaks off 
 here. It is true, he appears again upon the scene subsequently, 
 but not till the arrival of Nehemiah, and therefore after an 
 interval of 13 years. || No doubt his own records said what 
 was necessary about this interval. But the Chronicler, who 
 gave the book of Ezra its present form, If did not think fit to 
 
 * Ezra X. 15. " Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jehaziah the son of Tikvah 
 opposed this matter, and Meshullam and Shabbathai the Levite supported them." — ■ 
 Ame^ided Translation. 
 
 + Ezra X. 12—14. t Ezra x. 19. 
 
 § Ezra X. 44. The Hebrew text of this rerse is unintelligible and must probably be 
 corrected as shown in the translation given here. Comp. Bertheau on this point. 
 Verses 18 — 43 name 113 fathers of families in all. 
 
 II See the passages already cited above (p. 219), Neh. xii. 36, and viii. — x, 
 
 IT Comp. Jlk. 0. I. 367 seq. 
 
224 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 enlighten us upon it. Here therefore a wide field is open to 
 conjecture. If the sketch of Ezra's later actions in N"eh. viii — x. 
 be correct,* then those 13 years are not merely a gap in our 
 knowledge of Ezra's history, but a period of actual rest or 
 cessation in his work ; in that case he did not continue his task 
 under Nehemiah's governorship, but set about it with vigour 
 then for the first time. The manner in which he acts in those 
 chapters admits of no other interpretation. We already know 
 enough of him to venture to assert that this rest was not volun- 
 tary, but forced. Its cause may have lain within himself or 
 beyond him : his preparation may have been defective in some 
 respect, or circumstances may have hindered him from carrying 
 out his plans. And why not one as much as the other ? We 
 shall soon see that the facts most strongly recommend this 
 supposition. 
 
 The first thing we have to do is to form an accurate concep- 
 tion of Nehemiah's mission. Formerly the opinion was pretty 
 general, that the walls of the capital had not yet been restored, 
 when (445 B. c.) he arrived there, so that he went to Jerusalem 
 to finish Zerubbabel's task as it were. But this is incorrect. 
 The state of affairs of which he, as cup-bearer at the court of 
 Artaxerxes, received information, had only arisen shortly before, 
 as appears from the very words of JSTehemiah's own narrative.-|- 
 What led to the destruction of the walls of Jerusalem and the 
 burning of her gates, we do not know for certain. But the 
 discontent which had already begun to prevail in the more 
 remote provinces of the Persian empire, and in which the Jews 
 may have been involved even against their wiU, is quite enough 
 to account for such an occurrence. J We also know from 
 authentic records — which have been preserved to us in conse- 
 quence of their having been inserted in the book of Ezra, though 
 in a wrong place § — that precisely in Artaxerxes' reign the 
 
 * Comp. Note I. at the end of this Chapter. f Neh. i. 1 — 3. 
 
 * Comp. Rutgers, Het tijdvak der Babyl, Ballinyschaj), &c. pp. 12/ sq. 
 § Ezra iv. 7—23. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 225 
 
 Assyrian colonists in Samaria came forward with complaints 
 against the Jews, and so hindered the restoration of the walls 
 of their capital. Nothing prevents us from assuming that the 
 war, which became so fatal to Judasa in particular, broke out 
 shortly after Ezra's arrival. In that case it becomes most natural 
 that when he had just begun, he found himself doomed to 
 inactivity. The change in Artaxerxes' disposition towards the 
 Jews, of course deprived the powers granted to him of their 
 force. Peace and quiet were indispensable for a reform such as 
 that which he had in view. In troubled times it could not 
 have been difficult for those who disagreed from him to render 
 his efforts unavailing. In short, it is very easy to comprehend 
 that he was obliged to wait for better days, and when we find 
 that he set to work directly after the completion of the walls of 
 Jerusalem, we consider it almost certain that it was political 
 circumstances which had hitherto stood in his way. 
 
 It lies beyond our purpose to study specially the vigorous 
 way in which Nehemiah came forward, and the happy issue of 
 his exertions. This can be read in his own narrative.* We 
 must only pay attention for a moment to two points which will 
 be useful to us hereafter. In the first place, if Nehemiah allotted 
 Ezra also a place in the procession at the solemn dedication of 
 the walls of Jerusalem,f it may be inferred from this that from 
 the very beginning the two men were on good terms with each 
 other. In the second place, it does not escape our notice that 
 Nehemiah, even when he was bent upon the rebuilding of the 
 walls, had to combat the opposition of some of his fellow- 
 countrymen, and especially of the Jahveh-prophets of those 
 days, j Viewed by themselves, his efforts to raise Israel from 
 the deep abasement into which she had sunk do not account for 
 this opposition. May it not be regarded as a proof that Nehemiali 
 made himself known at once as a by no means neutral man, as 
 the powerful advocate of a definite religious-political tendency ? 
 
 ♦ Neh. i.— vi. + Neh. xii. 36. t Neh. vi. 10—14. 
 
 VOL. II. Q 
 
226 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Did his joining Ezra perchance cause some forthwith to mistrust 
 him, and to fear injury in the future from the siiccess of his first 
 undertaking ? 
 
 We wUl inquire presently what use Ezra himself made of 
 his period of forced repose. First we will investigate how he 
 laboured with Nehemiah's support. A very distinct picture of 
 that work is drawn for us in a section of the book of Nehemiah 
 (chap. viii. — x.), which we have already mentioned. 
 
 On the first day of the seventh month a general gathering of 
 the people was held at Jerusalem. Men, women, and children 
 who had arrived at years of discretion, assembled on the open 
 place before the Watergate of the temple. A lofty and capacious 
 platform had been erected. Upon this Ezra took his stand with 
 fourteen priests, seven on his right hand and seven on his left. 
 At the request of the people, he had brought — from the temple ? 
 — the " book of the law of Moses, which Jahveh had commanded 
 to Israel." He now opens the roll ; the whole multitude stands 
 up ; Ezra utters a doxology, to which the people respond " Amen, 
 Amen," bowing down to the earth and worshipping. The read- 
 ing begins. Distributed among the people there are some* 
 Levites, whose task it is to repeat and, where necessary, to 
 explain the words read by Ezra. So deep is the impression 
 made by the word of the Law, so violent is the emotion aroused 
 by it, that Nehemiah, Ezra and his assistants have to guard 
 against extravagance. " This day," they say, " is holy unto 
 Jahveh ; mourn not therefore, nor weep ; rather go your way, eat 
 the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for 
 whom nothing is prepared ;" let it be a day of joy and remain 
 so. The people give ear to this exhortation. The next day 
 they aU assemble again and the reading of the Law is resumed. 
 They then found that it contained directions as to the keeping of 
 the great feast of ingathering, on the 15th and following days 
 of the 7th month, which had not been observed " since the days 
 
 * Neh. viii. 7 gives 13 names. 
 
ESTABLISBMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 227 
 
 of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day." They were the 
 precepts in Lev. xxiii. 40 — 43, concerning the dwelling in booths, 
 and steps were now taken for immediate obedience to them.* 
 The feast was kept with great joy for eight consecutive days,f 
 and during this time the reading of the Law was not forgotten. + 
 Finally, on the 24th day of the same month, a great day of 
 repentance was kept. The Israelites appear in mourning at 
 their usual place of meeting. A fourth part of the day is again 
 devoted to the reading of the Law. This is followed by a general 
 and solemn confession of sins by the Levites in the name of the 
 people. Praying in a loud voice, they recall how Jahveh had 
 chosen Abraham and delivered Israel out of Egypt ; what proofs 
 of his favour the nation had experienced at the exodus, in the 
 desert, and during the settlement in Canaan; how it had not 
 responded to all these benefits, and, in spite of Jahveh's repeated 
 warnings, had fallen from bad to worse. The threatened punish- 
 ment had come, and Israel had been carried off into exile. 
 " Yet" — they proceed — " in thy great mercy thou didst not 
 destroy them, nor forsake them, for thou art a gracious and 
 merciful god I" 0, let Jahveh then take pity upon his people ! 
 Nothing had befallen them but what they themselves had pro- 
 voked by their obstinacy ; they had no right to complain ; Jahveh 
 was righteous and had proved himself a faithful god, while they 
 had dealt faithlessly with him. But now their condition was 
 so sad and humiliating ! " Behold, we are slaves this day ; and 
 the land which thou gavest unto our fathers to enjoy the fruit 
 thereof and the good gifts thereof, behold, in that land we are 
 slaves. If it yieldeth much — it is for the kings whom thou hast 
 set over us because of our sins ; they have dominion over our 
 bodies and over our cattle, at their pleasure, and we are in great 
 distress !"§ 
 
 * Neh. viii. 15, 16. 
 
 t According to Lev. xxiii. 39, while the Deuteronomic law, chap. xvi. 13 — 15, fixes 
 the duration of the feast at seven days. 
 
 t Neh. viii. 18, 19. § Neh. ix. 5—37. 
 
 2 Q 
 
228 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Thus spoke the Le\dtes. The people were now disposed to 
 euter into the solemn covenant which had been prepared by 
 their leaders. The record of it, the covenant-deed as it were, is 
 given in Neh. x. Its form awakens suspicion; moreover the 
 introduction seems to be wanting ; but in the maia it may be 
 regarded as authentic* In the first place, Xehemiah the go- 
 vernor ;+ then the classes of priests, twenty-two in number ;:j: 
 then the representatives of the Levites ;§ and finally the heads 
 of the people, 11 bound themselves by their signatures to observe 
 the obligations which it imposed. These " nobles'"! were joined 
 by " the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, 
 the singers, the Nethinim, and all they that had separated them- 
 selves from the peoples of the lands unto the law of God, their 
 wives, their sons and their daughters, who observed with under- 
 standing (i.e. had arrived at years of discretion").** We may 
 dwell for a moment upon this enumeration. It was said before 
 that on that day " the seed of Israel separated themselves from 
 all the strangers." -f-f- Here, on the contrary, " all they that 
 had separated themselves from the peoples of the land" are 
 distinguished from the people and their leaders. How is the 
 one consistent with the other ? Presumably in this way, that 
 this latter expression refers to the Israelites who, although not 
 belonging to " the children of the captivity,"^ joined them on 
 this occasion. As we remarked before, §§ if the return of the 
 exiles had not taken place, the Israelitish population which was 
 left in Judaea — in great part belonging to the lower orders — 
 would undoubtedly have become entirely fused with the other 
 tribes which dwelt in Judaea. After the return they could either 
 remain united with these tribes or join their brethren Avho had 
 arrived from abroad. It appears that many of them preferred 
 the latter course. Their admittance was naturally subject to 
 
 * Comp. Note I. at the end of this Chapter. t Neh. x. la. 
 
 $ Terse lb— 8. § Verses 9— 13. || Verses 14— 27. 
 
 IT Verse 29. ♦* Verse 28. ft Neh. ix. 2. 
 
 JJ Comp. Ezra iv. 1, vi. Itj, 19- 21, a. 7, 16. g§ Above, pp. PS sq., 177. 
 
ESTABTASHMENT OF TEE HIERARCHY. 229 
 
 the same conditions as tliose to which the returned exiles had 
 now submitted. If the latter entered into an obligation to 
 make no sort of contract with the stranger, it is evident that 
 the Israelites who had not left their native land, had also to 
 begin with " separating themselves." 
 
 We now know the persons who bound themselves. But what 
 did they undertake to do ? What were the actual contents of 
 the agreement which was concluded ? Of all who allowed them- 
 selves to be admitted, it is said that "they bound themselves 
 by an oath and by cursing, to walk in God's law, vjhich was given 
 "by the hand of Moses, God's servant, and to observe and do all 
 the commandments of Jahveh their lord, and his judgments and 
 statutes."* This general formula really includes everything. 
 But it is only natural that the obligations which were most 
 in question at that time, are also named separately. Let the 
 reader take the trouble to turn up and peruse the record itself -f- 
 He will find there the express declaration that marriages with 
 women of foreign extraction will be no longer allowed, and that 
 the sabbath and the sabbath-year will be kept most strictly; J 
 he will further find the promise that each Israelite will bring 
 yearly the third part of a shekel to defray the costs of the sanc- 
 tuary ;§ also the agreement that aU, in the order decided by 
 lot, shall provide the wood required for the service of the tem- 
 ple ;|| and finally the engagement to furnish regularly for the 
 benefit of the priests and Levites all to which the Law gave 
 them a right : first-fruits, first-born of men, oxen and sheep, and 
 tithes of the produce of the field.'i It is with respect to the last- 
 named point that the record of the covenant enters most into 
 details. 
 
 Here the narrative breaks off. But we have already been 
 sufficiently enlightened for provisional purposes. In fact, the 
 meaning of all this is unmistakable. It is the introduction of 
 
 * Neh. i. 29. t Neh. a. 29—39. t Verses 30, 31. 
 
 § Verses 32, 33. || Verse 34. T Verses 35—39. 
 
230 TSE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 the Mosaic law of whicli the historian makes us witnesses. 
 Josiah, 180 years before, had bound his subjects to the observ- 
 ance of Hilkiah's book of the law,* and now his work is taken 
 up again, but at the same time advanced and completed. The 
 book of the law which is now proclaimed, also includes the 
 priestly laws. So their promulgation naturally becomes the 
 chief thing, and is also the most prominent in the mind of the 
 author. The former ordinances, and especially those of the 
 D enter onomist, merely required to be kept up ; the public recog- 
 nition and adoption of the younger, priestly laws gives the 
 covenant now concluded its distinctive character. We do not 
 hesitate to look upon the introduction of those laws, with the 
 historian, as the real task of Ezra and Nehemiah. All that 
 we know of them, and especially of the former, leads us to such 
 a conception of their labours. Ezra, " the ready scribe in the 
 law of Moses," goes to Jerusalem with " the law of his God in 
 his hand." The Persian king had empowered him to make that 
 law known and to apply it, particularly to the administration of 
 justice. His first act was inflexibly to uphold one of its ordi- 
 nances. In the national assembly which is held at Jerusalem 
 "in the seventh month," the reading of the Law is the pivot 
 upon which everything turns. It was to hear it that the multi- 
 tude had come together. One of its precepts, which hitherto 
 had been unknown, is carried into execution with great zeal 
 Ezra and his helpers weary not in reading it out and explaining 
 it ; the people pay them unflagging attention to the very end. 
 On the 24th of the month before mentioned the result of the 
 whole, as it were, is at length attained. In accordance with the 
 wish and the plan of the leaders, an agreement is concluded and 
 sealed, by which the people bind themselves to observe the 
 Mosaic laws. The record itself tells us which laws are meant 
 in preference. They are, in a word, the priestly ordinances. 
 The common sanctuary, religious worship, the priests and the 
 
 * 2 Kings xxiii. 1 — 3; conip. above, pp. 12 i 
 
 ! siiq. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 231 
 
 rest of the officers of the temple, stand iu the foregrouud in the 
 minds of those from whom the record originated. The duty of 
 providing the servants of the sanctuary with victuals, and espe- 
 cially of paying them those taxes which had not yet been 
 allotted to them in the former legislation, not even in Deute- 
 ronomy, is inculcated with unusual emphasis. AH this is quite 
 unambiguous and leads of itself to the interpretation advanced 
 just now. 
 
 I have spoken of the "promulgation" and "introduction" of 
 the Mosaic laws. Our former investigations teach us that these 
 expressions must be understood in the widest sense possible. 
 They were not laws which had long been in existence, and 
 which were now proclaimed afresh and accepted by the people, 
 after having been forgotten for a while. The priestly ordinances 
 were made known and imposed upon the Jewish nation now for 
 the first time. As we have already seen, no written ritual legis- 
 lation yet existed in Ezekiel's time.* But his prophecies show 
 that just in his days the want of precise and definite regulations 
 for religious worship and all that belonged to it, made itself felt. 
 Men also worked on in that direction, after his time, in Baby- 
 lonia. But it does not appear that the Jews who settled in 
 Judasa, under Zerubbabel and Joshua, were already in possession 
 of the results of that work. We rather gather the contrary 
 from all that we learn of them. The very absence of all mention 
 of the priestly laws, whether immediately after the arrival of the 
 exiles or subsequently, but before Ezra's time, is conclusive here. 
 ISTor does it escape our attention that the prophet Haggai, when 
 he wishes to make his hearers perceive that their offerings are 
 unclean, because they are offered by unclean persons, refers 
 them — not to the enactments of the written law, but — to the 
 priests, and advises them to obtain /' thorah" (instruction) from 
 them.-f- Is it not evident from this, that as yet only a priestly 
 tradition existed, or at all events that its written redaction was 
 unknown in Judsea ? This is also the impression given us by 
 
 * Above, pp. 114 — 117. t Hag. ii. 11 seq. 
 
232 THE REiraiON OF ISRAEL. 
 
 the description of Ezra's person and labours : armed with the 
 ordinances which had been drawn up in Babylonia, he goes to 
 Judsea, there to carry them from theory into practice. This 
 impression agrees with the tradition respecting Ezra. The latter 
 brings him into intimate connection with Israel's sacred litera- 
 ture, and with the Mosaic laws in particular. A parallel is 
 drawn in the Talmud between him and Moses. Jerome, one of 
 the fathers of the church and a pupil of the Jewish teachers of 
 the fourth century of our era, leaves it to his readers whether 
 they will refer certain dates in Deuteronomy "to Moses the 
 author, or to Ezra the restorer of the Pentateuch." The fabulous 
 statement in the apocryphal 4th book of Ezra — written about 
 the end of the first century of the Christian era — that he dic- 
 tated to his assistants the whole of the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, which had been lost, points to a similar notion of Ezra's 
 labours.* These witnesses and remembrances are of double 
 value, because they come from those centuries in which Moses 
 was acknowledged in all other respects as the author of the 
 whole legislation. 
 
 In connection with all the foregoing, a conjecture now forces 
 itself upon me, upon the approval or rejection of which the ver- 
 dict on the main case cannot be made to depend, but which still 
 deserves mention, were it only because it may make the result 
 obtained still clearer to us. Immediately after his arrival at 
 Jerusalem, Ezra puts his hand to the work, but after having 
 carried his first measures, he does not continue his task — at least 
 so far as we know, and to judge from the way in which he came 
 forward subsequently. For about thirteen years we he^r nothing 
 of him. The immediate cause of this lay in the very unfavour- 
 able circumstances of the times, in the confused state of political 
 affairs, in the jealousy of the neighbouring tribes, in the opposi- 
 tion of the Persian governors and their lieutenants. But does 
 it not seem very natural to suppose another cause besides this ? 
 However brisk the intercourse between the inhabitants of Judsea 
 * Coiup. on the whole of this subject, Hh, 0, III, 397 eeci. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 233 
 
 and their fellow-tribesmen in Babylonia may have been, it was 
 only at Jerusalem that Ezra could acquire a thorough knowledge 
 of the religious condition and requirements of his nation. The 
 book of the law which was " in his hand," cannot have fully met 
 the state of affairs which he found there. Nor could it be intro- 
 duced without the co-operation of the priesthood, which had now 
 already served for 60 years in Zerubbabel's temple. They no 
 doubt had their own traditions and usages, agreeing in the main, 
 it is true, with those which were written by the priests in Baby- 
 lonia, but yet with divergences of detail. It was necessary that 
 Ezra should come to an understanding with the priesthood, 
 should take its wishes and interests into account, modify the 
 book of the law in accordance with them, and, in general, frame 
 the measures which were needed for the good result of his under- 
 taking. Nothing could be left to chance. The docility of the 
 popular assembly could be counted upon to a certain degree, 
 but not unless the heads had been enlightened and won over 
 beforehand. Prudence absolutely forebade Ezra to attempt so 
 weighty a matter without the necessary preparation. When we 
 consider all this, does not his temporary inactivity become doubly 
 comprehensible? Is it not most natural that the reformer of 
 Israel's religion did not risk the decisive stroke and carry out 
 his far-seeing plans directly after his arrival from abroad, but 
 some years later ? Thus we are inclined to regard the years 
 which elapsed between 458 and 444 B.C. as the period of the 
 finishing off and — at all events provisional — final redaction of 
 the Thorah. The foundations of the book of the law with which 
 Ezra came forward in the popular assembly, were laid in Baby- 
 lonia. But it was in Judaea, and in the interval just mentioned, 
 that it received the form in which — with the exception of the 
 still later modifications, of which we shall speak below— it was 
 thenceforward current among the Jews as the rule of their faith 
 and life.* 
 
 * After the above had been written, I found the same conjecture in a paper by 
 Graf in the Archiv of Merx, Vol. I. 476. 
 
234 THE EELIQIOK OF ISRAEL. 
 
 A closer study of that book of the law is now incumbent upon 
 us. We have already examined the notions which the Jahveh- 
 priests in Babylonia entertained of the past, and especially of 
 the Mosaic times.* But their ordinances for the future deserve 
 to be studied and, at all events in their main features, to be 
 sketched. We wiU not shun this duty. Nor have we yet dis- 
 posed even of the introduction of the Mosaic laws : so weighty 
 a matter did not end in the repeated reading, or even in the 
 signing of the deed of the covenant ; more than this was needed, 
 if not to complete, at all events to insure for the future, the 
 execution of Ezra's plan. But our consideration of these two 
 subjects cannot but gain, if we first make ourselves acquainted 
 with the accounts relating to Nehemiah, to which we have not 
 thus far devoted our attention. A single glance at the review 
 which we gave of our sources,-f- will show us which documents 
 have not yet been consulted. We shall soon find that they also 
 throw light upon what we have already said. 
 
 For twelve years Nehemiah stood at the head of the Jews as 
 governor of the city for the Persian king (445 — 433 B.C.). The 
 documents from his memorials which are included in the book 
 of Nehemiah, give us somewhat full accounts only with regard 
 to the beginning of this period. They confine themselves chiefly 
 to his exertions in restoring the walls of Jerusalem; besides this, 
 they lead us to believe that he applied himself to increase the 
 population of the city of the temple, and succeeded.^ We also 
 know from N"eh. viii. — x. that he co-operated with Ezra to intro- 
 duce the Mosaic law. His later acts, and also the reasons for 
 his return to Persia, are unknown to us. Enough that in 433 
 B. c. he departed thither, but only soon to visit Judaea a second 
 time, in his former capacity of governor for the king.§ He him- 
 self tells us what he found upon his airival at Jerusalem.|| Dur- 
 
 * Above, pp. 157—173. t Above, p. 219. + Comp. Neh. vii. 1—5. 
 
 § Neh. xiii. 6. Nehemiah's absence, according to the most probable interpretation 
 of this verse, lasted one year. 
 II Neh. xiii. 4—31. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF TSE HIEBAROHY. 235 
 
 ing his absence — he relates — the high-priest Eliashib had caused 
 a chamber of the temple in which the holy vessels, the meat 
 offering, the incense and the tithes, were usually deposited, to 
 be arranged as a dwelling for Tobiah the Ammonite, to whom he 
 (Eliashib) was related.* Nehemiah's first work was to purify 
 this chamber and restore it to its former use.-f Shortly after this 
 he was informed that the tithes for the Levites and the singers 
 were brought in so irregularly, that these officials had found 
 themselves compelled to leave Jerusalem and to cultivate their 
 own fields.| He also put an end to this neglect : the authorities, 
 severely censured by him, supported him ; the Levites and the 
 singers returned to the temple ; the tithes were paid regularly, 
 and care was taken that they were divided equally. § " Eemem- 
 ber me, my God, concerning these things" — cries Nehemiah, 
 after telling us this — " and wipe not out my good deeds that I 
 have done to the house of my God and to its guardians." || These 
 and similar prayers IT are not incorrectly cited as proofs of Nehe- 
 miah's self-satisfaction. But we have an equal right to infer 
 from them that his reforms were only effected with difficulty, 
 and at the cost of much exertion and energy on his part. In 
 truth, the sequel of his narrative also bears testimony to this, as 
 the following incidents show. He found that the Sabbath-rest 
 was not observed faithfully, and that the foreigners in particular 
 profaned it, by carrying on their business on the seventh day, 
 and led the Jews themselves into transgression. Once more 
 Nehemiah spoke about it to the princes of Judah. His reproach- 
 ful words** show what great value he attached to the hallowing 
 of the last day of the week. Nor did he hesitate to put his own 
 hands to the work of removing this abuse. To prevent the 
 breaking of the day of rest, the gates of Jerusalem were closed 
 and guarded by Nehemiah's own servants. When, in spite of 
 this, the foreign merchants returned on the Sabbath and en- 
 
 * Neh. xiii. 4, 5. 
 
 t Vers. 7-9. 
 
 t Ver. 10. 
 
 § Vers. 11—13. 
 
 II Ver. 14. 
 
 H Vers. 22b, 29, 31b, 
 
 ** Vers. 17, 18. 
 
 
 
236 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 camped without the city, he addressed them, and threatened to 
 use force if they did not retire. This frightened them away. 
 But even afterwards the gates of the capital were guarded, and 
 this by the Levites, whom Nehemiah had charged with that 
 duty.* We have not yet reached the end of the list of offences 
 which he had to attack. Contrary to their repeated promises, 
 some Jews had married women of Ashdod, Ammon and Moab ; 
 their children spoke a corrupt dialect, and could not even under- 
 stand the Jewish language. " I contended with them" — Nehe- 
 miah himself tells us — " and cursed them, and smote certain of 
 them, and plucked out their hair." These violent measures were 
 coupled with earnest exhortations. Nehemiah really succeeded in 
 prevailing upon them to put away their strange wives.-f- Those 
 whom he treated in this way were probably simple, humble folks. 
 He did not succeed so easily in convincing another transgressor 
 of his sin. A son of Joiada and grandson of Eliashib the high- 
 priest, had married a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite, one of 
 the chiefs of the Samaritans, the same with whom Nehemiah 
 had had so much trouble during his first governorship.^ He 
 stm refused to part from his wife, and was now compelled to 
 leave the country. § From another source we know — at least 
 we have good grounds for believing — that this priest's name was 
 Manasseh, that he went to his father-in-law and was compensated 
 by him for the loss of his office and its income : the temple of 
 Jahveh on Gerizim— which for about three centuries was to be 
 the rival of the sanctuary at Jerusalem — was built for him.|| 
 But more of this shortly. Nehemiah's exertions were evidently 
 neither easy nor agreeable : Joiada's son did not stand alone, 
 or at all events was protected by his powerful relations. " Ee- 
 member them, my God" — writes Xehemiah — "because they 
 have defiled the priestly office and the covenant of the priests 
 
 * Neh. xiii. 15—22. + Vers. 23—2". 
 
 J Comp. Neh. ii. 10 seq., iv. 1 seq., vi. 1 seq. § Neh. xiii. 28. 
 
 II Josephus, Ant. xi. 7, § 2 ; 8, §§ 2 — 4. But Joseplnis makes this Manasseh a 
 brother of the high-priest Jaddua, and a contemporary of Alexander the Great. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARGHY. 237 
 
 and Levites."* Characteristic words, which show us Neheniiah 
 not exactly from his most amiable side. We surely are not 
 mistaken in believing that he would have been satisfied with 
 his triumph, and would not have invoked .Tahveh's vengeance 
 upon his opponents, if the victory had cost him less effort. 
 
 It will have been perceived already why this narrative of 
 Nehemiah's was inserted here. An important fact, of which 
 no trace was to be found in Neh. viii. — x., is placed in the 
 clearest light by this irrefragable evidence of the very person 
 concerned. In their attempt at reform,, Ezra and Nehemiah — 
 for their aims were entirely the same — met with strong oppo- 
 sition. Could we doubt this after what has just been given, 
 we should only have to glance at the prophecies of Malachi. 
 He too combats the offences, partly of the people, and partly of 
 the priests. Among the people there are some who "marry 
 the daughters of strange gods," and therefore " shall be cut off 
 by Jahveh out of the tabernacles of Jacob." i" Further, many 
 are negligent in the payment of tithes and offerings i not until 
 these gifts flow into the temple, will Jahveh " open the windows 
 of heaven and pour down blessings, so that there shall not be 
 garners enough for it."| But the prophet finds much to censure 
 in the priests as well. " Despisers of Jahveh's name" he calls 
 them.§ They offer polluted bread upon the altar, and do not 
 scruple to sacrifice blind and lame animals, which they would 
 not dare to offer to their governor. || With great zest the prophet 
 paints the priest as he should be, and the inestimable privileges 
 intended for him by Jahveh. He borrows his colours from " the 
 blessing of Moses "IT and from Deuteronomy in general, no doubt 
 in the conviction that the ideal drawn there had once been real, 
 and that thus the present was far excelled by the past.** " My 
 covenant with Levi" — he brings in Jahveh saying — " was life 
 
 * Neh. xiii. 29. t Mai. ii. 11, 12. t Mai. iii. 7—12. 
 
 § Mai. i. 6. II Mai. i. 7, 8. H Comp. Yol. I. pp. 380 sq. 
 
 ** Comp. here also Vol. I. pp. 370 sq. 
 
238 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 and peace, and I gave them to him that he might fear, and he 
 feared me and trembled at my name. A true thorah was in his 
 mouth, and deceit was not found on his lips ; he walked with 
 me in peace and uprightness, and brought back many from sin. 
 For the priest's Lips keep knowledge, and men seek thorah from 
 his mouth, for he is the messenger of Jahveh of hosts." * But 
 so much the more severe on this account are his reproaches : 
 " But ye are departed out of the way and have caused many 
 to stumble by the thorah; ye have corrupted the covenant with 
 the Levites, saith Jahveh of hosts. Therefore I also make you 
 contemptible and base before aU the people, for ye keep not my 
 ways, and regard persons in giving thorah."\ We are tmac- 
 quainted with the particulars which induced Malachi to speak 
 thus. But it is evident that many priests abused their influence 
 and especially their priestly advice ("thorah"), contrary to the 
 ideas which he endeavours to introduce. Now Malachi was of 
 kindred mind with Ezra and Nehemiah : he may have differed 
 from them in a few details, ;|: but it is quite in their spirit that 
 he concludes his admonitions with the exhortation to "remember 
 the law of Moses, Jahveh's servant, commanded unto him by 
 Jahveh on Horeb for aU Israel, with the statutes and judg- 
 ments."§ 
 
 So long as we allow ourselves to be guided in our estimation 
 of the character and aims of this opposition exclusively by the 
 verdict passed upon it by Ezra, Nehemiah, and, with them, 
 Malachi, we cannot but think very unfavourably of it. They 
 look upon their antagonists _ as recalcitrants and foes to the 
 worship of Jahveh. It does not occur to them that perhaps 
 their resistance is prompted by less ignoble motives. Now it is 
 indeed possible that many of their opponents were not wronged 
 by such a verdict. But was it applicable to all without dis- 
 tinction ? Were the " prophetess Noadiah and the rest of the 
 
 * Mai. ii. 5—7. + Mai. ii. 8, 9. 
 
 t Comp. Hh. 0. II. 404, n. 11. § Mai. iv-. 4. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIEBARCEY. 239 
 
 prophets," who resisted Kehemiah in his first governorship, 
 nothing more than cunning impostors, and could they allege no 
 single valid or at least apparent reason for their opposition? 
 This in itself is almost incredible. But we have only to reflect 
 for a moment, to convince ourselves that it was otherwise. 
 Probability is even in favour of the supposition that many noble 
 and upright men ranged themselves among the opponents of 
 Ezra and IsTehemiah from fuU conviction. This was intimated 
 before in a few words,* but now it must be developed more 
 fully, and this can be done, for now we know both the aim and 
 the means of the two reformers. 
 
 First of all, let us not forget that the mode in which they 
 prosecuted their plans gave rise to well-founded criticism and 
 must have prejudiced many against them. We just now heard 
 from Nehemiah's own lips how he attacked the marriages with 
 strange women; we remember that both upon his arrival at 
 Jerusalem and subsequently at the conclusion of the covenant, 
 Ezra displayed a zeal which savours of precipitation. The whole 
 of the work of the two reformers betrays a violent character. 
 This must have displeased many : probably they would not have 
 proved incapable of conviction, but they involuntarily resisted 
 measures which were carried out thus without exemption or 
 delay. It is true, the number of those who were won over by 
 this zeal was much larger : upon the whole, Ezra and Nehemiah 
 promoted their cause by their precipitation more than they 
 damaged it. But this does not remove the fact that from the 
 very first their line of action excited opposition, and this prin- 
 cipally among the more cultivated and discreet of their con- 
 temporaries. 
 
 But the nature of the cause, no less than its form, furnished 
 grounds for reasonable doubts. All will agree that the reformation 
 of Ezra and Nehemiah was a restriction of the liberty hitherto 
 enjoyed. It imposed a heavy burden upon the laity, loaded 
 
 * Above, p. 216. 
 
240 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 them with a number of new duties, and also exacted material 
 sacrifices from them. It was undoubtedly for the interests of 
 the priests and of the temple-servants in general. But at the 
 same time it minutely defined their duties and deprived them 
 of a portion of the authority which they had previously exer- 
 cised : as soon as the law was promulgated, the priest ceased to 
 be the sole interpreter of priestly tradition; the written word ' 
 could be appealed to against him just as well as for him. It 
 was but natural that some priests cared less for the material 
 advantages which they had gained than for the power which 
 they had lost. We must go still further, however. Eestriction 
 of liberty is a misfortune in itself. But it is supportable, and 
 even in a certain sense a blessing, when it is only liberty to do 
 wrong which is restricted. But it was not so in this case. Ezra 
 and Nehemiah assaUed as much the independence of the religious 
 life of the Israelites, which found utterance in prophecy, as the 
 more tolerant judgment upon the heathen, to which many 
 inclined ; their reformation was, in other words, anti-prophetic and 
 anti-universalistic. This double character and the correspondiug 
 opposition deserve to be set forth somewhat more fuUy. 
 
 History teaches us that the reformation of Ezra and Xehemiah 
 nearly coincides in date with the disappearance of prophecy in 
 Israel. Can this be pure accident? Eather is it evident at 
 once that the prophets required a different atmosphere from 
 that which was produced by the measures of these two men. 
 The prophet is the man of inspiration and enthusiasm; his 
 sphere can in no way be measured out and circumscribed ; he is 
 driven to act and speak by what he sees ; the anxious calculation 
 of the consequences of his actions or words is unknown to him. 
 Thus there is no room for him in such a society as Ezra and 
 Nehemiah tried to establish. He is " the man of the spirit,"* and 
 therefore a child of freedom. He must be able to speak as his 
 heart prompts him, upon every subject which seems to him to 
 
 * Hos. ix, 7. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF TBE HIEBABCHr. 241 
 
 concern religion, against all who endanger the spiritual worship 
 of Jahveh. We have no difficulty in discovering in the writings 
 of the prophets before the exile more than one saying which, 
 spoken in Ezra's days, would have been considered high treason. 
 Isaiah would have called the "fear of Jahveh" which Ezra 
 introduced, "taught by the precept of men."* And Jeremiah 
 also might have repeated to him Jahveh's words : " I did not 
 treat with your fathers, when I led them out of the land of 
 Egypt, nor give them commandments concerning burnt offeiings 
 and sacrifices. But this I commanded them, saying. Obey 
 my voice, and I will be your god and ye shall be my people, 
 and walk ye in all the ways that I shall command you, that 
 it may go well with you."-f- Now let it not be thought 
 from this that Ezra and Nehemiah repressed the prophetic 
 preaching by force, or at all events were ready to do so as soon 
 as it appeared, so that it disappeared solely or chiefly through 
 these violent measures or the fear of them. The truth is rather, 
 as is evident from the mere fact that these two men came 
 forward in this manner, that the time of free productiveness 
 was past in Israel, and had changed of itself, as it were, into a 
 period devoted to the collection and preservation of the treasures 
 already produced. Their reformation and the cessation of pro- 
 phecy are not related as cause and effect, but are the two sides 
 of one and the same phenomenon. The prophet makes room for 
 the scribe, or rather becomes himself the scribe, as, it is not 
 incorrectly believed, can be shown, e.g., in Malachi's prophecies. 
 But it was only, natural that there were some who deplored this, 
 and saw in it a reason for opposing the new tendency in religious 
 matters; it was even most natural that the prophetic order of 
 those days was ill-disposed towards Ezra and looked upon his 
 companion Nehemiah with evil eyes.]: Supposing it to be true 
 that some members of that order disgraced their name, conspired 
 with the foreigner and took refuge in deceit — still their prophetic 
 instinct, the spirit that animated them as a class, very justly 
 
 * Isa. xxix. 13. t- Jer. vii. 22, 23. J Above, p. 225. 
 
 VOL. II. K 
 
242 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 rebelled against the efforts of the priest and scrihe from Baby- 
 lonia. Nay, even had they all been unworthy representatives 
 of the title they bore, prophecy vrould still have had grounds 
 for protesting against the new state of affairs which Ezra and 
 Nehemiah were attempting to create. 
 
 We must make similar remarks upon the attitude towards the 
 heathen which the two reformers, by virtue of their fundamental 
 principle, both assumed themselves and imperatively prescribed 
 for all others. Let us begin by admitting that the wall of 
 separation which they buUt between Israel and the heathen was 
 absolutely indispensable at that time : take away their measures, 
 and you would see the small Jewish nation lose itself among 
 its neighbours and vanish without leaving a trace behind. But 
 this did not prevent such a separation from appearing most 
 questionable, not only to the indifferent, but also to many 
 who otherwise were well-disposed. Even before the exile, the 
 Israelitish " wise" men had sought out the points of contact 
 with foreign lands, and, in their own domain, had opposed 
 national particularism.* After the return from Babylonia, their 
 tendency also found advocates, who even developed some literary 
 activity. -f- Their views must gradually have found acceptance 
 with some whom we cannot exactly count among the " wise." 
 Among the sacred writings of the Jews, two have been preserved 
 to us which are regarded with high probability as products of 
 this period, and in which the freer and more charitable views as 
 to the heathen plainly declare themselves. They are the books 
 of Buth and Jonah. 
 
 Upon calling to mind the contents of these writings, it is 
 easy to make out their tendency. Euth, the Moahitish woman, 
 is drawn as the model of a true and affectionate daughter, and 
 in conclusion turns out to have become the ancestress of the 
 great king David, by her marriage with Boaz. " Whither thou 
 goest, I will go, and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy 
 
 * Comp. Vol. I. pp. 333, 387 sq. ; above, pp. 45 eq. 
 + Comp. Eh. 0. III. 101 sqq., 172. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EIERAMOHV. 243 
 
 people is my people, and thy god my god; where thou diest 
 will I die, and there will I be buried."* So she spoke to her 
 mother-in-law Naomi, as it were in the name of all the foreign 
 women who had become closely related to Israel by their mar- 
 riages with laraelitish husbands. The blessing which falls to 
 her lot is the guarantee of Jahveh's approval of such alliances. 
 The book of Ruth is written with great descriptive skill and 
 clearness, and no doubt it took effect. It wUl have made the 
 deeper impression, in that the real point of the story, David's 
 descent from the marriage of one of his ancestors with a 
 Moabitish woman, is undoubtedly taken from popular tradition, 
 and is even probably historical.-f Plainly the author did not 
 belong to those of Ezra's and Nehemiah's way of thinking. 
 He and all who joined him must have condemned — not from 
 irreligion, but from an upright love of Jahvism — their general 
 measures, which were carried out without distinction, and 
 struck the innocent with the guilty. 
 
 From another point of view it will appear that the author of 
 the book of Jonah has done the same. He really handles one, 
 more special question. Objections were made against the credit 
 of the prophecies, upon the strength of the undeniable fact that 
 some of the threats against the heathen had not been fulfilled. 
 The author admits this fact, but considers himself in a position 
 to explain it satisfactorily : in such instances Jahveh's intentions 
 are modified, on account both of the penitence shown by the 
 heathen and of Jahveh's mercy, which extends to all his creatures. 
 The main idea of the book is expressed in the words : " Thou, 
 Jahveh, art a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and of 
 great kindness, and repenfest thee of the evil" (announced or 
 threatened by thee).:j: From the answer which Jahveh gives to 
 
 * Rath i. 16, 17. 
 
 + Com p. -with, the foregoing Geiger, Vrschrift vmd Xlebenetzwngen, pp. 49 — 52. Iti 
 my opinion, the statement (1 Sam. xxii. 3, 4) that David, when fleeing before Saul, 
 placed the members of his family in safety among the Moabites, pleads in favour of the 
 authenticity of the main fact. In David's time, and long afterwards, marriages with 
 Moabitish and other foreign women were by no means rare; comp. Vol. I. pp. 182 sq. 
 
 J Jon. iv, 2. 
 
 k2 
 
244 THE RELIGION OF ISIUEL. 
 
 Jonah, when the latter shows his grief at the fate of the gourd' 
 which had shaded him, it is evident that the author means 
 that these virtues of Jahveh also manifest themselves in his 
 dispensations regarding the heathen world. "Thou" — says 
 Jahveh to his prophet — " thou hast pity on the gourd, for 
 which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it to grow, which 
 was the child of one night and has perished after one night: 
 and should I not have compassion on Mneveh, that great city, 
 wherein are more than one hundred and twenty thousand 
 persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their 
 left hand, and much cattle ?"* The whole of this writing — which, 
 interpreted historically, so justly gives offence — breathes a spirit 
 of benevolence and universal humanity which is very attractive. 
 Can the author of such a narrative as this — can all those who 
 agreed with him, have been perfectly satisfied with the attempts 
 of Ezra and ISTehemiah, which were based upon the recognition 
 of a real and permanent difference between Israel and the 
 heathen, and ended in the implacable enforcement of the bounds 
 which in the book of Jonah are overstepped time after time ?-f 
 
 These remarks upon the opposition to Ezra and Nehemiah 
 would be entirely misconstrued, if they were taken for a picture 
 of the whole of the party which confronted them. The gi'eat 
 majority of their opponents undoubtedly stood much lower. We 
 pointed this out before, J but we may repeat it here. Yet our 
 previous study was not on this account superfluous. If Ezra 
 and Kehemiah had only had the indifferent against them, victory 
 would have cost them but little trouble. The strength of the 
 opposition lay in the principles which were advocated from full 
 conviction by a few, and accepted as a watchword by all. We 
 have now seen what these principles were, and surely do not 
 hesitate to recognize their comparative truth. By their light we 
 
 * Jon. iv. 10, 11. 
 
 t How other details in the book of Jonah, besides those named above, also betray 
 the same tendency, is shown in BTc. 0. II. 412 — 414. 
 
 t P. 216. 
 
ESTABLISBMENT OF THE HIERARCEr. 245 
 
 will now study the reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah somewhat 
 more closely, and try to form a well-grounded judgment of its 
 character and significance. 
 
 Let us begin by assigning to this reformation its proper place 
 in the history of the Israelitish religion. It does not stand 
 alone ; nor is it without antecedents. The name " reforma- 
 tion," by which we indicate it, we also give to. other attempts 
 to better Israel's religious condition; first of all to Hezekiah's 
 measures towards centralizing public worship in the temple 
 at Jerusalem,* but especially to the great revolution brought 
 about by Josiah.^ The reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 agrees with the latter also in this, that it starts from a look of 
 the law and aims at the introduction of the ordinances con- 
 tained in it. 
 
 There are other links as well between the work of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah and the past. The end which they had in view had 
 already been pointed out before their time. Their practice had 
 been preceded by theory. Uzekiel and the author of "the Booh 
 of Origins" were their forerunners. With them they had the 
 priestly tendency in common. 
 
 Thus the reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah by no means 
 lacked due preparation. But this does not diminish the fact 
 that it has a right to the name by which we call it, that it 
 aimed at an essential change in the religious condition of the 
 Jews and accomplished it — although, of course, but gradually. 
 We shall see best wherein that change consisted, if we try to 
 express in a few antitheses the character of the period which it 
 closes and of the epoch which it opens. There the spirit prevails, 
 here the letter; there the free word, here the written word. The 
 prophet represents the time before the reformation ; after Ezra 
 his place is taken by the Scribe, 
 
 Antitheses such as these so easily lead to misunderstanding, 
 that I should consider myself bound to warn my readers against 
 
 ■» Vol. I. pp. 80—82; above, pp. 1 sq. 
 t Above, pp. 9 sq. 
 
246 TKE RELiaiON OF ISRAEL. 
 
 it at once and with all earnestness, did not tlie preceding inves- 
 tigation* plainly show my meaning. We know already that a 
 great wrong would be done to Ezra and Nehemiah, were we to 
 impute to them the intention of forcibly suppressing, or at least 
 very much curtailing, the freedom hitherto enjoyed. They were 
 not at war with their time. They did not attempt \a force upon 
 their people something which was hostile to their wishes and 
 requirements. They did not impose silence upon the prophet, 
 nor forge chains for every man who should dare in the future to 
 speak his mind freely. Independently of them, prophetic inspi- 
 ration had gradually grown weaker ; the number of the prophets 
 was decreasing; their individuality was on the wane; their 
 discourses showed evident signs of exhaustion and decay. All 
 this was connected with the character of the post-exile times. 
 As we have already remarked, the conception of Jahveh had by 
 degrees become more elevated, the distance between him and the 
 Israelite greater; the religious sentiment had no longer that 
 intimacy and confidence which is involved by the relation of the 
 prophet to his sender; the belief that Amos expressed in the 
 words : " Surely the Lord Jahveh does nothing without reveal- 
 ing his counsel to his servants the prophets "+ — this belief had 
 been gradually weakened and at last extinguished. J It was not 
 strange, therefore, that they looked for other means of providing 
 for the want of the times. Or rather, it was no longer necessary 
 for them to seek the means ; the road had been pointed out 
 and levelled for them. The vigorous, but irregular work of the 
 prophets — who now, moreover, began to refuse their services — 
 was to be replaced by the unambiguous commandment of the 
 Law, regularly instituted and strictly administered. The people 
 had a right to know what they ought to believe. They wanted 
 something tangible. If this want were satisfied, men could hope 
 for better results than had been obtained hitherto. The end 
 which the prophets had had in view, but had not reached, would 
 
 * See especially pp. 240 sq. t Am. iii. 7. 
 
 X Comp. Vol. I. p. 66, and atove, pp. Ill sq., 127 sq. 
 
ESTABLISBMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 247 
 
 now be pursued by another road. The time seemed to have 
 arrived for establishing and arranging. 
 
 Looked at in this way, the reformation of Ezra and Kehemiah 
 is not opposed to the existing state of affairs — ^least of all as dark- 
 ness is opposed to light. They merely went a few steps further 
 than the Deuteronomist had gone 180 years before them. Nay, 
 it may be said that he had already aimed at that which they 
 succeeded in introducing. The Deuteronomist had already shown 
 that he perceived that it was not enough to exhort the people to 
 fidelity to Jahveh ; that besides this it was necessary to indicate 
 the forms in which Jahvism was to manifest itself He had also 
 expressly acknowledged the duty of the Israelites to submit to 
 the decision and the thorah of the Levitioal priests.* It was 
 even part of his intention to make the Deuteronomic law re- 
 spected as an unchangeable rule, when it had once been promul- 
 gated : " What thing soever I command you, thou shalt observe 
 and do it ; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."-]- 
 Ezra and Nehemiah could go on building upon this foundation ; 
 they had merely to develop and realize the ideas given and 
 uttered here. As far as the Deuteronomic law was concerned, 
 this last project had never got beyond a rudimentary state. 
 Josiah had left the stage of history far too soon, and had been 
 replaced by kings who did not follow in his footsteps. The 
 Levitioal priests, upon whose co-operation the Deuteronomist 
 had reckoned, had not been disloyal to Jahvism, it is true, but 
 stUl had distinguished themselves much more by their patriotism 
 than by their religious zeal. In the middle of the iifth century 
 B.C. the Deuteronomist's plan could now be again taken in hand, 
 and, with the requisite modifications, could be carried out in 
 such a manner that its success seemed to be beyond doubt. 
 There was no longer a king who, from the fact that his co- 
 operation was at all times uncertain, could endanger the whole 
 undertaking. His power was divided between the Persian 
 governor, who left the Jews alone in the management of their 
 * Comp. above, p. 31. t Deut. xii. 32, comp. iv. 2. 
 
248 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 internal affairs, and the high-priest and the nobles, from whom 
 no opposition was to be feared. The priestly thorah, which in 
 Josiah's days still existed only as oral tradition, and the main- 
 tenance of which was at that time dependent upon the zeal and 
 interest of the priests, was now committed to writing and thus 
 much better guaranteed than before. Hence Ezra and jSTehe- 
 miali were able, on the one hand, to take up what had been 
 purposed and attempted before their time, but also, on the other 
 hand, to avoid the rocks upon which their predecessor had 
 suffered shipwreck. 
 
 The remarks we have just made show us at the same time 
 the relation in which the reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 stood to the priesthood. Perhaps it has surprised some, that 
 we have not laid more stress upon the priestly character of the 
 undertaking of these two men. "Were they not the priestly 
 ordinances which were promulgated through their influence ; 
 the temple and its servants which were first in their thoughts, 
 and whose spiritual and material interests they laboured to pro- 
 mote with unflagging zeal ? This is all perfectly true, and yet 
 it would be wrong to regard the reformation as the work or as a 
 victory of the priesthood. It took place in their spirit and to 
 their interest; it even was effected through the priests, chiefly 
 through Ezra, but also through other men of priestly descent. 
 Still it cannot be looked upon as a triumph or as the exaltation 
 of the pi'iesthood, as such. It was not the priesthood that was 
 raised to supreme power, but the Law. He therefore who most 
 identified himself with the Law, could count upon permanently 
 holding the first rank. In other words, the Scribe stood higher 
 in Ezra's state than the priest, or was at all events destined to 
 overshadow him. "We may not anticipate our subsequent inves- 
 tigations. But it will not surprise us, should it appear hereafter 
 that religion progresses in the direction, not of the temple, but 
 of the synagogue ; not of the extension and strengthening of the 
 hierarchy, but of an increasingly higher estimation of the know- 
 ledge of the Scriptures. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HTERAROHY. 249 
 
 Eeligion " progressing" — but did not Israel, by submitting to 
 the Law,'condemn herself to absolute stagnation ? Many imagine 
 so, but incorrectly. The sequel of our history will furnish proof 
 of this as well. Let it suffice for the present to warn against the 
 error ; the truth will soon be apparent. 
 
 The outcome of the whole of this inquiry can be summed up 
 in a few words. A new period in the history of Israel's religion 
 begins with Ezra and Nehemiah. That which had long been in 
 preparation comes into existence under their influence: Juda- 
 ism is founded. The characteristic of this phase in the develop- 
 ment of the religion of the Israelites lies in this, that it starts 
 from the revealed will of Jahveh, the Law, acknowledges it as 
 the rule of its faith and life, and refers everything to it. 
 
 From the nature of the case, the two reformers could not do 
 more than found Judaism. The ideal which was before their 
 eyes was not capable of being realized in a day. But they laid 
 the foundations, and laid them in such a way that, as history 
 teaches us, men could build on regularly after their design. He 
 who at first was indisposed to join, was forced to submit; he 
 who persisted in his obstinacy, was compelled to quit the land. 
 Probably the grandson of Eliashib was not the only one who 
 sought and found an asylum among the Samaritans.* The 
 attachment to the Jahveh-worship which already existed among 
 that people in the days of Zerubbabel and Joshua,-f- had not 
 diminished since that time. The fugitives were therefore received 
 with open arms, and contributed their share towards insuring 
 the sole power for Jahvism. By degrees the Samaritans became 
 no less zealous Jahveh-worshippers than the Jews themselves, 
 But it did not come to a fusion of the two nations. A constant 
 rivalry and hostility rather prevailed between them. The more 
 the Samaritans identified themselves with Jahvism, the more 
 also did the conviction gain ground among them that they were 
 descended, not in part, but all without distinction, from the 
 
 * Above, pp. 236 sq. t Above, pp. 205 sq. 
 
250 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 former inhabitants of the land, the Ephraimites. But in spite of 
 this they remained distinct, or rather, this belief became a new 
 motive for them to preserve their individuality, for had not 
 Ephraim from the very earliest times refused to submit to Judah? 
 In the mean time the Jews were far in advance of them in 
 religious and intellectual development, so that the Samaritans 
 involuntarily became their disciples, and, excepting the devia- 
 tions which resulted from the nature of the case, followed the 
 track in which the Jews had preceded them. When the five 
 books of Moses had undergone their final redaction — when and 
 how this occurred, wUl appear hereafter — they were also adopted 
 by the Samaritans ; these books merely required an alteration 
 here and there to serve them as holy records and as a canon* 
 Also the interpretation and extension of the Law, which took 
 place among the Jews, found favour among the Samaritans. 
 From time to time we shall find an opportunity of reverting to 
 this subject — but even then we shall confine ourselves to a few 
 remarks. A more special study either of the history or of the 
 ideas of the Samaritans is not required for our purpose. It was 
 merely necessary in connection with this subject to point to the 
 important service which they, quite involuntarily in truth, have 
 shown to Judaism. Had not Samaria stood open to the discon- 
 tented Jews, perhaps the field would not have been cleared 
 and the resistance to the new tendency quelled so speedily. 
 Now that a refuge had been opened to them in the immediate 
 neighbourhood, they could the sooner resolve to give up the 
 struggle — from which they could scarcely hope to come out 
 as conquerors. 
 
 If the foregoing conception of Judaism be not altogether 
 wrong, the narrative of its institution should end in a review of 
 the Mosaic legislation as now introduced. This will form the 
 natural conclusion of the present chapter of our history. Hence- 
 
 * Comp. here Note I. at the end of Chapter IX. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIEBAKCHY. 251 
 
 forward the Pentateuch is the basis of the religious, moral and 
 political life of the Jews. Acquaintance with this canon for 
 faith and conduct alone can enable us to form an exact concep- 
 tion of the further development of the religion * 
 
 The common end which the prophets of Jahveh and the 
 authors of the various collections of laws pursue, is the forma- 
 tion of a holy people — a people dedicated to Jahveh. Perhaps 
 they would not all have expressed that end in these words, but 
 none of them would have refused to subscribe to them. But 
 each one's peculiarities, and thus also the difference between 
 these advocates of Jahvism, would soon have come to light in the 
 interpretation and application of the requirement of " holiness." 
 
 None of them would have approved of the formula employed 
 here more than the authors of the priestly legislation. It is 
 not only in their spirit, but it also agrees with their way of 
 speaking. " Be holy, for I, Jahveh, thy god, am holy," — even 
 in the older portions of the priestly law this idea is constantly 
 expressed,-]- and in the younger laws it is repeated time after 
 time. " I, Jahveh, am thy god ; ye shall therefore sanctify 
 yourselves and be holy, for I am holy .... For it is I, Jahveh, 
 that brought you up out of the land of Egypt, that I might be 
 a god unto you, and that ye might be holy, for I am holy :" 
 so runs the conclusion of the ordinance concerning clean and 
 unclean beasts.J And elsewhere it says, "Ye shall keep my 
 sabbaths ; for this is a sign between me and you throughout 
 your generations, that men may know that I, Jahveh, sanctify 
 
 you."§ 
 
 It is already evident from these few texts that holiness is an 
 attribute of Israel, but one which proceeds from or is based 
 upon an act of Jahveh. Jahveh is holy himself and makes 
 Israel holy, i.e. "separates Israel from the nations," || and dedi- 
 cates her to his service. This making holy begins with the 
 
 * Comp. Tvith some points of this review Note II. at the end of this Chapter. 
 
 + Lev. xix. 2, xx. 7, 26, comp. 24, xxi. 8, 15, 23, xxii. 9, 16, 32. 
 
 X Lev. xi. 44, 45. § Exod. xxxi. 13. II Lev. xx. 24, 26. 
 
252 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 deliverance of the people from the Egyptian bondage* From 
 that time Jahveh is the god of Israel and Israel is Jahveh's 
 people. So, as we saw hefore,f thought also the prophets and 
 the older lawgivers. It is peculiar to the priestly law to conceive 
 and represent tlu establishment of Jahveh in the midst ofIs7-ael as 
 the manifestation of this relation. Of the altar for the tent of 
 assembly it is said : " There I (Jahveh) wUl come to the sons of 
 Israel, that they may be sanctified by my glory. And I wUl 
 sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, and 
 Aaron and his sons will I sanctify, that they may serve me as 
 priests. So shall they know that I, Jahveh, am their god, that 
 brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell 
 in their midst. I, Jahveh, am their god."| 
 
 But it is not necessary to dwell any longer upon this point. 
 The reader will remember from the previous chapter § how the 
 priestly lawgiver, in his description of the Mosaic Israel, repre- 
 sents this dwelling of Jahveh in the midst of his people; he 
 win therefore also comprehend how the sanctification of the 
 tabernacle, the altar and the priesthood, is connected with the 
 setting apart of all Israel to the service of Jahveh. We must 
 now examine how the people, for their part, respond to Jahveh's 
 favour, or, in other words, how the life of Israel and of the indi- 
 vidual Israelite assumes a definite character under the influence 
 of Jahveh's act. In doing so, we will bear in mind that the 
 priestly lawgiver neither could nor woiild create a new state of 
 affairs, but closely annexed himself to what he found in existence. 
 Since the introduction of the Deuteronomic law, the temple at 
 Jerusalem had been regarded as the only place of sacrifice, and 
 the tribe of Levi as exclusively qualified for the priestly office ; 
 the sacrifices and feasts to Jahveh were of much older date ; the 
 difference between " clean" and " unclean" had long been part of 
 the national consciousness, and together with it belief in the 
 purifying and expiatory power of the sacrifices. All this could 
 
 * Comp. Lev. xi. 45, quoted aboTe, and also Lev. xix. 36, &c. 
 
 + Vol. I. p. 39, and elsewhere. J Exod. xxix. 43 — 46. § Above, pp. 166 sq. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 253 
 
 remain in existence, and merely required to be regulated, enlarged 
 and systematized. 
 
 Let us first fix our attention upon the priestly regulation of 
 jpuhlic worship. To this belong both sacrifices and feasts. With 
 regard to sacrifices, the priestly law gives minute directions, 
 which are based upon the distinction between four princij^al 
 kinds — burnt, thank, sin and trespass offerings. Its ordinances 
 relate to the quantity and quality of the offering, which vary 
 according to persons and circumstances ; to the manner in which 
 the sacrifice must be offered ; to the choice between the various 
 sorts of offerings.* To most bloody offerings there belongs a 
 meat-offering, of which again the ingredients and the proportions 
 are minutely prescribed.-|- We shall return to all this shortly. 
 
 The feasts, as was to be expected, are regulated at great length. 
 Krst of all the three yearly feasts, with which we are already 
 acquainted, J are retained, although with a few alterations. Thus 
 the observance of the paschal meal, to which the Deuteronomist 
 had merely alluded, § is described in detail ;|| the first day of the 
 feast of unleavened bread is made a day of rest ; IT and an eighth 
 day is added to the seven days of the feast of ingathering or 
 tabernacles.** Besides this, the priestly lawgiver orders the 
 religious celebration of the new moon on the first day of the 
 month, ff and especially in the seventh month of the year.j]: 
 And finally, with evident partiality, he gives copious directions 
 concerning the day of atonement, to be kept on the tenth day 
 of the seventh month :§§ its meaning will be shown hereafter. 
 It is also noteworthy, that it is expressly prescribed how many 
 and what sacrifices must be offered on each of these feast days. 
 It had always been the custom "not to appear before Jahveh 
 
 * Lev. i. — vii. + Num. xv. 1 — 16. J Above, pp. 27 sq. 
 
 § Pp. 29, 31, comp. 92 sq. || Exod. xii. 1—14. 
 
 IF Exod. xii. 16 ; Lev. xxiii. 7 ; Num. xxviii. 18. 
 
 ** Lev. xxiii. 36; Num. xxix. 35. ++ Num. xxviii. 11 — 15. 
 
 Jt Lev. xxiii. 23—25 ; Num. xxix. 1—6. 
 
 §§ Lev, xvi.| comp. xxiii. 26 — 32 ; Num. xxix. 7 — 11. 
 
254 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 empty"* on the festivals. But the priestly law describes 
 minutely how many and what sort of offerings shall be slaughtered 
 on each occasion in the name of the whole community. It thus 
 regulates the daily morning and evening sacrifice ;■]- the sacrifice 
 on the SabbathJ and the new moons ;§ and finally also the 
 sacrifices on the feasts. |1 It even has its special demands for 
 each day of the feast of tabernacles, which form together an 
 artistically descending series. IT 
 
 In this priestly festival-legislation the method followed by the 
 priests of Jahveh comes clearly to light. It cannot therefore be 
 deemed inopportune if we fix our attention upon it here. "We 
 have already pointed out, that in the course of centuries Jahvism 
 was enriched with ideas and practices which had originally 
 belonged to the service of other gods.** "With the worship of 
 those deities, they had gained admittance either into the whole 
 of Israel or into single Israelitish tribes — and so had gradually 
 been absorbed into the national life. It was no easy problem 
 for the spiritual leaders of the people, what attitude they should 
 assume towards these foreign elements. Nor was there any 
 unanimity among them in this respect. The prophets, who were 
 in general tolerably indifferent to the form of worship, especially 
 condemned the heathen ceremonies without reserve. From their 
 point of view they were right in so doing. But their strictness 
 with regard to these externals was naturally an additional 
 obstacle to the conversion of the nation to the Jahvism which 
 they preached. The great multitude could not give up without 
 some equivalent the customs which time had rendered precious 
 and sacred to them. This the Jahveh-priests perceived. Or 
 rather — for it would be incorrect to ascribe to them intentional 
 
 * Exod. xxiii. 15, xxxiv. 20; Deut. xvi. 16, 17. 
 t Exod. xxix. 38—42; Num. xxviii. 3—8. 
 J Num. xxviii. 9, 10. 
 § Num. xxviii. 11 — 15, xxix. 1 — 6. 
 
 II See the remaining verses of Num. xxviii. xxix., and furtlier Lev. xxiii. 12, 13, 
 18—20. 
 
 II Num. xxix. 12—38. ** Vol. I. pp. 230, 241 sq. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERAEOHY. 255 
 
 adaptation — the Jahvism of the priests stood nearer to- that of 
 the people, and therefore adopted the popular ideas and customs 
 more easily, and, enriched by them, became the more acceptable 
 to the multitude. The position thus assigned to the priests was 
 to mediate between the prophets and the people. They un- 
 doubtedly took this task upon them and attempted to insure 
 the sympathy of the people for Jahvism, especially by their 
 regulations for the -public worship in the temple at Jerusalem. 
 Positive information as to their efforts in this matter is wanting. 
 But the priestly legislation alone could prove that we are 
 justified in forming this opinion of their labours. It shows 
 unmistakably this tendency to increase the splendour and rich- 
 ness of ceremony in the service of Jahveh by including the 
 originally foreign elements, and by so doing to bring it into 
 harmony with the wants and customs of the people. I may 
 content myself here with simply referring to what has already 
 been said about the new moon and the paschal meal.* The 
 originally heathen custom of celebrating the appearance of the 
 Moon-deity with sacrifices has become in the priestly law an 
 element of Jahvism, and thus at the same time harmless and 
 innocent. The manner in which the paschal lamb was killed, 
 prepared and eaten, was connected with the older conception of 
 Jahveh's being, and was undoubtedly derived from the time in 
 which he was still thought of and worshipped as a nature-god. 
 Instead of condemning and opposing this celebration, the priestly 
 law adopts it and elevates it into one of the sacraments of 
 Jahvism. In a previous chapter I called the Mosaic law " a 
 compromise between the popular religion and the Jahvism of 
 the prophets.""!" I ''^'^ ""'^ ^^^ ^'^ *^i® ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ priests 
 who made this compromise. A part of the scheme projected by 
 them is already raised to a law in Deuteronomy ; the priestly 
 portions of the Pentateuch give us the final result of their 
 exertions in this matter. 
 
 * Vol. I. pp. 242, 244, 266 sq. ; above, pp. 30 sq., 93 sq. f Vol. I. p. 230. 
 
256 TEE RELIGION OF ISEJEL. 
 
 We return to the ordinances of the priestly law with regard 
 to public worship. We need scarcely remind our readers that 
 this remained confined to the one sanctuary. The lawgiver had 
 no new regulations to draw up as to the arrangement of that 
 sanctuary ; it was evident that the best course to pursue here 
 was to retain things as they were. The few alterations, which 
 he brings forward in the form of a description of the Mosaic 
 tabernacle,* tend to make the sanctuary completely correspond 
 with the idea that Jahveh dwells in the holy of holies, and may 
 be approached only with the utmost awe, by those who are 
 properly qualified. In connection with this, the ark " of the 
 covenant," or " of the testimony," with the cherubim attached to 
 its lid, is described as Jahveh's throne, but then it further is 
 ordered to be withdrawn from all eyes ^vith the greatest care. 
 The thick curtain which divides the holy of holies from the holy 
 place,-f- had probably been already introduced by the priesthood 
 at the buHding of the temple under Zerubbabel, and now also 
 obtained a place in the law, with the tendency of which such a 
 division agrees much better than the one which was used in the 
 temple of Solomon. It is further decreed that the most holy 
 place* may only be entered once a year, by the high -priest. The 
 right of entry to the holy place, where the altar of incense and 
 the table of shewbread stand, belongs to the priests alone. The 
 Levites and the laity stay outside in the court, where are the 
 great altar of burnt-offerings and the brazen laver. Thus the 
 lines of demarcation between the divisions of the one sanctuary 
 are sharply drawn, and no less sharply the corresponding lines 
 of separation between those who approach Jahveh in the proper 
 sense of the word, the priests, and the subordinate servants of 
 the sanctuary with the laity. 
 
 The lawgiver could also build upon the existing state of 
 affairs with regard to the revenues of the temple and the 
 temple-servants, although he found himself constrained to make 
 
 * See above, p. 167. t Exod. xxvi. 31 seq., and elsewhere. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 257 
 
 more than one new regulation. It will be remembered how, 
 almost 200 years before the time of Ezra and l^ehemiah, the 
 Deuteronomist had been mindful of the interests of the priestly- 
 tribe of Levi.* The matter could not remain as he had arranged 
 it. Circumstances had changed in more than one respect. The 
 king had ceased to exist, the priesthood had become the first 
 power in the state. Also, after Josiah's reformation, the distinc- 
 tion between priests, " sons of Aaron," and Levites had arisen, 
 which the authors of the priestly law not only recognize but 
 also expressly maintain. -f- These things easily account for the 
 fact that other ordinances, more favourable to the staff of the 
 temple, occur in the new legislation in addition to those in the 
 former. In the first place, the priests' share in the sacrifices is 
 increased. They receive the skin of the burnt-offering, + all the 
 flesh of sin and trespass offerings, § and part of the meat- 
 offering. || How far these precepts diverged from the actual 
 practice, we cannot trace ; the probability is that they entirely 
 agreed with it. But with regard to the thank-offerings, a greater 
 portion was now demanded than before : in Deuteronomy the 
 shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw, IT in Leviticus and 
 Numbers the breast and the right shoulder.** In the second 
 place, the gifts which the Israelite formerly dedicated to Jahveh, 
 but ate with his family at sacred meals, are now assigned to the 
 temple-servants. The tithes, not only of corn, must and oil, but 
 also of cattle, fall to the Levites,-)-)- who in their turn have to 
 relinquish a tenth part to the priests. \X The first-born of man 
 and beast become priestly property ; those of oxen and sheep are 
 offered up, and, with the exception of the small portion burnt 
 upon the altar, are eaten by the priests ;§§ the others, the first- 
 
 * Above, p. 26. t Above, pp. 168 seq. t Lev. vii. 8. 
 
 § Lev. vi. 24—26, 29, vii. 6, 7 ; Num. xviii. 9, 10. 
 
 II Lev. vi. 16—18, vii. 9, 10, 14. U Deut. xviii. 3. 
 
 ** Lev. vii. 28 — 34; Num. xviii. 18. 
 
 t+ Num. xviii. 20—24 ; comp. Lev. xxvii. 30 — 33. See, on the other hand. Daut. 
 xiv. 22—29, XV. 19—23, and above, p. 26, u. ||. 
 %t Num. xviii. 25—32. §§ Num. xviii, 17, 18; comp. Lev. xxvii. 26. 
 
 VOL. II. S 
 
258 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 born of men and of unclean beasts, have to be bought off from 
 the priest* And further their right to the first-fruits, already- 
 recognized by the Deuteronomist,-|- is maintained, J and they are 
 assigned all that which is banned (the chererti)^ and, in general, 
 all heave-offerings (therumah) which the Israelites voluntarily 
 give up to Jahveh.|| It can hardly be said that the priests 
 and Levites, if these things really fell to their share, were in bad 
 circumstances. But the lawgiver has not been blind to the fact 
 that it was easier to write out such imposts than to enforce 
 them, and precisely for this reason has pitched his demands 
 higher than would otherwise have been proper. Here and there 
 in the priestly law itself evident traces occur of the ordinances 
 upon this subject having been re-moulded and amplified; after 
 Ezra's time, too, alterations seem to have been introduced, for 
 the purpose of making the Law answer practical wants.lT This 
 does not surprise us : the staff of the temple had not always the 
 same numerical strength, and the readiness to contribute to its 
 support was not always equally great. Still less are we astonished 
 at the command of the priestly law, that 48 cities, with pasture 
 for cattle, shall be ceded by the twelve tribes to the priests and 
 Levites.** For many various reasons the realization of this 
 demand was not even to be thought of. It has been included 
 in the Law partly to guarantee to the temple-servants the 
 landed property which in the course of time they had acquired,tf 
 and partly as a wish for the future, which perhaps might one 
 day, under quite altered circumstances, become a reality. 
 
 The characteristics of the priestly lawgiver come to light in 
 the precepts concerning participation in public worship, admis- 
 sion to Jahveh's presence, even more than in the regulations for 
 public worship itself and in the care for its continuance. The 
 requisite qualifications vary for the laity, the priests and the 
 
 * Num. xviii. 15, 16; comp. Lev. xxvii. 27. + Deut. xviil. 4. 
 
 t Num. xviii. 12, 13. § Num. xviii. U. || Num. xviii. 11, 19. 
 
 ^ Comp. below, Chap. IX. and the Note I. belonging to it. 
 
 ** Above, pp. 171 seq. ft Comp. Deut. xviii. S. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 259 
 
 high-priests. Cleanness is required in all of them. But this 
 conception differs in extent, according as it is applied either to 
 the ordinary Israelite or to the priest. In defining it, the priestly 
 lawgiver goes to work with great diffuseness. Most of his 
 regulations he undouhtedly borrowed from practice. But before 
 his time they had always been delivered orally by the priests, 
 and thus lacked precision and completeness. Upon being written 
 down, they were perfected and trimmed into a system, and at 
 the same time became available for all, whereas formerly only 
 those who asked the priest for instruction (" thorah") had 
 become acquainted with them. Therefore they now acquired 
 greater significance than they had before : the ordinary Israelite 
 constantly came in contact with the precepts concerning " clean" 
 and " unclean," and necessarily perceived from them above aU 
 that a new law had been introduced. Let us then note the 
 demands of this law, and first of all those which it makes upon 
 the laity. 
 
 The fact that only Israelites may take part in religious wor- 
 ship, stands in the foreground. The sign of their admission into 
 the covenant with Jahveh is circumcision, upon which the priestly 
 law emphatically insists.* Whatever may have been the ori- 
 ginal meaning of this act,-f- in the fifth century before our era it 
 had become a purely conventional mark of the Israelite, and was 
 looked upon as such by the priestly law. It is worthy of re- 
 mark here that this law also requires the circumcision of the 
 non-Israelitish slaves, of " him that is born in the house" as 
 weU as of "him that is bought for money." J This amounts to 
 incorporating these strangers with the Israelitish community, 
 and this incorporation is in general thought desirable and pro- 
 moted by the priestly lawgiver. Thus he allows the stranger 
 who is living in Israel — as distinguished from the itinerant day- 
 labourer or temporary inhabitant§ — to participate with his 
 family in the paschal meal, if all who belong to the male sex 
 
 * Gen. xvii. 9—14, 23—27; LeT, xii. 3. + Comp. Vol. I. pp. 238 seq, 
 
 X Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 27. § Exod. xii. 46. 
 
 s2 
 
260 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 consent to be circumcised * " One law shall be to him that is 
 home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you," 
 says the lawgiver upon this and other occasions.^ On the one 
 hand this precept bears witness to a certain inclination towards 
 proselytism, which could easily arise when the voluntary acces- 
 sion of foreigners to the IsraeUtish community occurred from time 
 to time.:|: But on the other hand it proves that the original 
 religious character of Jahveh's commandments was no longer 
 upheld, and that they were now regarded much more than before 
 as measures of policy, as rules of order. When the Deute- 
 ronomist, in agreement with the Book of the Covenant, permits 
 the Israelite to sell to the stranger the flesh of a beast which 
 has died a natural death and which therefore he may not eat 
 himself,§ the religious character of the prohibition ("for thou 
 art an holy people unto Jahveh thy God") remains untouched, 
 whereas the priestly lawgiver relinquishes it or at all events 
 weakens it, by extending this prohibition to the stranger as welL|| 
 The accuracy of this remark wiU. be confirmed more fully in the 
 sequel of our review. 
 
 Having been admitted into the covenant with Jahveh, the 
 Israelite imist guard against all pollution. He must abstain 
 from eating blood,1[ from the flesh of aU clean animals which 
 have died a natural death or have been torn by wild beasts,** 
 and from the flesh of all unclean amm.als.•f-^ He must also avoid 
 contact with a dead body.:]^: 
 
 But it is already necessary to add " as much as possible" to 
 this last precept. There are cases in which touching a dead 
 body is obligatory, when, e. g., a relative has died, or when the 
 carcase cannot be allowed to remain, as in the case of an ox 
 
 * Exod. xii. 44 (comp. Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 27), 48. 
 
 t Exod. xii. 49, comp. verse 19 ; Lev. xvi. 29, xvii. 8, 15, xxiv. 22 ; Num. ix. 14, 
 XV. 29. 
 Z Isa. Ivi. 3, 6, 7. § Deut. xiv. 21 ; comp. Kxod. xxii. 31. 
 
 II Lev. xvii. 15, 16 ; comp. above, pp. 95 seq. 
 U Lev. xvii. 10—14, comp. iii. 17, vii. 26, 27, xix. 26; Gen. ix. 4. 
 ** Lev. ivii. 15, 16, xi. 40. tt Lev. xi. JJ Lev. xi. 39. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 261 
 
 or a sheep falling down dead in the field or the stall. Then, 
 therefore, pollution is unavoidahle. But there are also diseases 
 which make the Israelite unclean ; first of all, leprosy in its 
 various forms, which, according to the ideas of those days, 
 attacked not only men, but houses also ;* and then other dis- 
 eases or natural functions of the human hody.-f- Childbed also 
 pollutes the mother, and this for forty days if she has borne 
 a son, and for eighty days if a daughter.:|: The recognition of 
 such involuntary and unavoidable pollutions as these imposes 
 upon the priestly lawgiver the obligation of making all sorts 
 of other rules respecting the degree and the duration of the 
 uncleanness, and the way in which it may be removed. Precise- 
 ness is absolutely necessary here in the interest of the people 
 and for the maintenance of the principle ; and so we find that the 
 ordinances of the priestly law do, in fact, descend to minute details. 
 
 If the uncleanness be the result of an illness, it lasts as long 
 as the illness itself Thus, e.g., the leper must wait until he is 
 cured and his cure has been certified by the priest, before he 
 can return to society. The law describes minutely how the 
 priest is to set about such an examination. If it has resulted 
 satisfactorily, the priest pronounces the cured patient to be 
 clean. But before he is completely reinstated, an offering must 
 be made as prescribed by the law — two lambs and a sheep one 
 year old, the former for a trespass-offering and a sin-offering, 
 and the latter for a burnt-offering ; to these must be added a 
 certain quantity of fine jlour and oil.§ The healing of other 
 diseases, e.g., of running issues, need not be certified by the 
 priest. Seven days after the malady has ceased the patient is 
 clean ; he then bathes in running water, and on the eighth day 
 offers up two turtle-doves or two young pigeons to Jahveh, as a 
 trespass-offering and a burnt-offering.|| 
 
 If the uncleanness arises from causes of a transitory nature, 
 
 * Lev. xiii. xiv. + Lev. xv. J Lev. xii. 
 
 § Comp. Lev. xiii. 1 — 46 (concerning leprosy itself, and the examination by the 
 priest), xiv. 1 — 32 (concerning the puriBoation of the healed leper). 
 II Lev. XV. 2-15, 25—30. 
 
262 TEE RELiaiON OF ISRAEL. 
 
 whether it be from bodily defilement,* or from contact with a 
 corpse or any unclean man or object, it only lasts a definite time, 
 seven days or even a single day.-)- Purification is then effected 
 by a bath and by washing the clothes. Sometimes an offering is 
 required besides, e.g., from a woman recovered from childbed,]: or 
 another expiation is prescribed, as in the case of those who have 
 polluted themselves by touching a dead body.§ 
 
 It was with a view to such numerous purification-sacrifices 
 that I abstained just now (p. 253) from a more minute descrip- 
 tion and estimation of the offerings enjoined by the priestly law. 
 This is the place to review the lawgiver's whole theory of sacri- 
 fices, and especially to bring to light the meaning of the expia- 
 tory sacrifice — i. e. the sin and the trespass offerings. 
 
 The four classes of bloody sacrifices have already been men- 
 tioned. Their meaning is generally beyond doubt, and while it 
 may have been defined somewhat more exactly by the priestly 
 lawgiver, yet it cannot have been essentially altered by him : 
 in this respect he was bound to the conception which had gradu- 
 ally gained acceptance among the people, under his predecessors 
 in the priestly office. For our purposes a general characteristic 
 of each sort of sacrifice is enough : we can leave the nicer dis- 
 tinctions to those who study this subject by itself, and not, as is 
 the case here, as a subdivision of a larger whole. The hurnt- 
 offering^ then, is an act of homage to Jahveh, a public and solemn 
 recognition of his supremacy and of the relation in which he 
 stands to Israel ; it is the most perfect and the most common, 
 the principal sacrifice, in the true sense of the word ; and there- 
 fore, e.g., the daily morning and evening sacrifice, offered in the 
 temple in the name of the whole community, belongs to this 
 category. The thanlc-offering'f: — as is also indicated by the 
 Hebrew name — is connected with the welfare and the blessings 
 which have issued or are expected from Jahveh. It is distin- 
 
 * Lev. XV. 16—24. 
 
 t See, e. g., Lev. xv. 16—24, xi. 26—28, 31, 39, 40 ; Num. xix. 11—22. 
 
 t Lev. xii. 6—8. § Num. xix. || Lev. i. 1 Lev. iii. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 263 
 
 guished from the burnt-offering in this, among other things, that 
 only a small portion is laid on the altar and is consumed by the 
 flame ; the priest receives his share of what remains,* while the 
 rest is eaten in a sacrificial meal. At sacrificial feasts, national 
 as well as private, thank-offerings are therefore the main thing. 
 The lawgiver also distinguishes between three sorts of thank- 
 offerings: praise-offerings, voluntary-offerings, and vow-offerings,-f- 
 the last two of which are closely connected, and, at any rate in 
 the younger ordinances of the priestly law, are regarded as less 
 sacred than the first.J With respect to the sin-offering and the 
 trespass-offering,^ it must first of all be observed that the expia- 
 tory power which they have is also attributed to the burnt- 
 offering. || Perhaps this is to be explained by the fact that the 
 burnt-offering is the oldest and original sacrifice, and thus was 
 at first offered also in those cases which afterwards required the 
 expiatory sacrifices proper. In the priestly law, however, the 
 sin and trespass offerings are placed independently side by side 
 with the burnt and thank offerings, nay, are even handled with 
 evident partiality ; in the spirit of the law, therefore, the expia- 
 tory power attributed to the burnt-offering must be interpreted 
 as a recommendation of this offering. The sin and trespass 
 offerings have this in common, that a portion is burnt on the 
 altar and the rest is given up to the priest, who must not eat it 
 in his house, but in the holy place ; the sin-offerings, however, 
 which were offered for the whole people or for the anointed (i. e. 
 the high) priest, and the blood of which was sprinkled upon the 
 altar of incense in the holy place and upon the curtain, might 
 not be eaten, but had to be burnt. IT And further, the priest 
 
 * Above, p. 257. 
 
 + Lev. vii. 12 — 15, 16 — 18. Praise-offerings are mentioned in Lev. xxiii. 19; 
 Num. vi. 14. 
 
 J Lev. vii. 15, 16, xxii. 29, 30. In an older law, Lev. xix. 5 — 8, this distinction 
 has not yet been made. Comp. above, p. 84 a. 
 
 § Lev. iv. 1— vi. 7 (Hebr. text, y. 26), vi. 24— vii. 7 (Hebr. text, vi. 17— vii. 7). 
 
 II Lev. i. 3, 4. 
 
 IT Lev. iv. 11, 12, 21, vi. 30, containing the exception; Lev. vi. 25 — 29, vii. 1—7, 
 the rule. 
 
264 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 makes atonement with the blood, both of the sin-offering and of 
 the trespass-offering, for the evU committed by the person who 
 makes the offering, and the result is that lie is forgiven* On 
 the other hand, points of difference between sin and trespass 
 offerings are not wanting. First, the animals offered are not the 
 same. A male animal, usually a ram, is always required as a 
 trespass-offering; in the sin-offering the choice is much wider 
 and it would even seem that female animals are used in prefer- 
 ence.+ But the question how the two sorts of expiatory offerings 
 differ from each other in meaning, is of greater weight and at 
 the same time much more intricate. Notwithstanding the pains 
 which has now for many centuries been bestowed upon the 
 solution of this question, that difference has not yet been clearly 
 shown. Tet this labour has not all been in vain, for it enables 
 us to assert with confidence that the problem is incapable of an 
 entirely satisfactory solution, for obvious reasons. The laws as 
 to expiatory sacrifices are based in part upon practice, which 
 from its very nature is not strictly logical and easily admits 
 slight divergences from the original distinction ; moreover they 
 are not from the same time, much less from one author. The 
 most to which we can attain will therefore be to determine the 
 original difference between sin and trespass offerings, paying 
 attention to the most salient features, and further to explain 
 how and why this difference is not everywhere adhered to. Now 
 the ordinances respecting the trespass- offering ;}: give us the 
 impression that it is to serve to repair a wrong done to Jah- 
 veh or to one of the brethren; one might also saj-, to make 
 good a violation of the right of property. Hence the trespass- 
 offering is subject to the valuation of the priest,§ and compen- 
 
 * Ler. iT. 20, 26, 31, 35, v. 6, 10, 13, 16, 18, vi. 7, where the formula adopted 
 above is constantly employed for both sorts of sacrifices. 
 
 t Lev. iv. 3, 14, 23, 28, f. 6, 7—10, xii. 6, 8, :iiv. 19, 22, xv. 29, 30, kc. 
 
 t Lev. I. 14—19, vi. 1—7, xix. 20—22; Num. v. 5—8. The expression "tres- 
 pass-offering" occurs besides in Lev. xiv. 12 seq.. Num. vi. 12 — to which passages, 
 however, we do not allude above. 
 
 § Lev. V. 15, 18, &c. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 265 
 
 sation for the injury caused is often coupled with it.* The 
 sin-offering is required after every involuntary transgression 
 or act of negligence,-f- and therefore is much more common 
 than the trespass-offering. This explains why it is that the 
 priestly lawgiver prescribes a sin-offering after pollution.^ If 
 in two instances he requires a trespass-offering as well,§ this 
 is not because precisely in these cases a trespass-offering was 
 exacted or indicated, but because a second expiatory sacrifice 
 seemed necessary, and the first and most usual category was 
 prescribed already. 
 
 We will now fix our attention upon the sacrificial ceremony 
 itself The person who presents the offering himself brings the 
 beast which is to be sacrificed into the court, lays his hand 
 upon its head and kills it. This precept applies to all the four 
 sorts of sacrifices, 1 1 and undergoes modification only when doves 
 are offered : the laying on of the hand is then omitted, and the 
 priest kills the bird in a peculiar way which he has acquired 
 by practice ;ir an exception such as this in fact confirms the 
 rule. It follows at once from this rule, that the laying on of 
 the hand cannot possibly indicate the transference of the guilt 
 to the animal sacrificed ; in that case surely it would only apply 
 to sin and trespass offerings, and at all events would not have 
 been prescribed for the thank-offering as well. Let it be rather 
 considered that by this symbolic act the person presenting the 
 offering makes himself known as him who is offering up the 
 animal; he is there in the court not as a spectator, but as an actor; 
 it is his offering which is soon to be placed upon the altar. Inter- 
 
 * Lev. V. 16, vi. 4, 5. t Lev. iv. 1 seq. ; Num. xv. 22 —31. 
 
 X -Lev. xii. 6, 8, xiv. 19, 22, xv. 14 sq., ha. It is always a sin-offering, and never 
 a trespass-offering, that is offered in the name of the whole community, «. g. Lev. iv. 
 13—21, xvi. 9; Num. xxviii. 15, 22, 30, &c. 
 
 § Lev. xiv. 12 ; Num. vi. 12. 
 
 II An example for each of the first three sorts : Lev. i, 4, 5, iii. 2, iv. 24. In the 
 trespass-offering the laying on of the hand is not expressly required, but it is under- 
 stood in the reference in Lev. vii. 7. 
 H Lev. i. 14 seq., and elsewhere. 
 
266 TSE BELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 preted in this way, the laying on of the hand is as appropriate in 
 burnt and thank offerings as in sin and trespass offerings. The two 
 last mentioned kinds possess peculiar characteristics of their own 
 which distinguish them from the first. The chief difference lies 
 in what is done with the blood of the victim. Part of this blood 
 is always sprinkled on the altar by the priest, and the rest is 
 poured out round about the altar,* but besides this the blood of 
 the expiatory oiferings is put upon the horns either of the altar 
 of burnt-offerings or of the altar of incense ; in the latter case 
 the curtain is also sprinkled with the blood seven times.-f After 
 this — it goes on to say — " the priest shall make atonement for 
 him who presents the offering, and it shall be forgiven him."]: 
 How this was done, is not said : the atonement was effected by 
 the blood, so that it was complete as soon as the altar had been 
 smeared with it ; but it is not improbable that the priest now 
 proclaimed that the object of the ceremony had been attained, 
 whether by a verbal notification, or by sprinkling the person 
 offering with the blood in his turn. However this may be, there 
 always remains the question, why such an expiatory power was 
 ascribed to the blood of the animal sacrificed. The priestly 
 lawgiver replies : because the smd (the vital principle) is seated 
 in the blood. " For the soul of the flesh (living being, man or 
 beast) is in the blood : therefore have I, Jahveh, given it (the 
 blood) to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls ; 
 for the blood maketh atonement through the soul (therein con- 
 tained)." § In the meantime this explanation still leaves much 
 unanswered. Is the conception this, that Jahveh accepts the 
 soul of the animal sacrificed instead of that of the sacrificer ? 
 must this animal be therefore considered to have undergone 
 death for him ? or how else are we to conceive the connection 
 between the offering of the blood and the atonement? The 
 simpler the idea which we form of this, the nearer shall we 
 
 * For single examples, see as above, p. 265, n. ||, Lev. i. 5, iii. 2, iv. 25 ; comp., 
 for the trespass-offering, Lev. v. 16, 18, vi. 7, viii. 7. 
 t Lev. iv. 6, 7, 17, 18, 26, 34, &o. t See the passages, p. 264, n. *. 
 
 § Lev. xvii. 11. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 267 
 
 undoubtedly be to the truth. Let it therefore be considered 
 that, according to the Israelite's notion, Jahveh in his clemency 
 permits the soul of the animal sacrificed to take the place of 
 that of the sacrificer. ISTo transfer of guilt to the animal sacrificed 
 takes place : the blood of the latter is clean and remains so, as is 
 evident from the very fact that this blood is put upon the altar ; 
 it is a token of mercy on Jahveh's part that he accepts it ; " he 
 has given it" — as we have heard — " to the Israelites to atone for 
 their souls." Nor can it be asserted that the animal sacrificed 
 undergoes the punishment in the place of the transgressor : this 
 is said nowhere, and therefore, in any case, gives another, more 
 sharply-defined idea than that which the Israelite must have 
 formed for himself; moreover it is irreconcilable with the rule 
 that the indigent may bring the tenth part of an ephah of fine 
 flour as a sin-offering.* " Shall I" — Micah makes one of his 
 contemporaries say-f- — 
 
 " Shall I give my first-born for my transgression. 
 The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul V 
 
 No, answers the priestly lawgiver ; you need not do that : 
 Jahveh allows you to manifest your consciousness of guilt in 
 another way ; he accepts your offering, and especially the blood 
 of your beast, as reparation for the evil which you have done, 
 and couples the forgiveness of your sin with the employment of 
 this means of propitiation which he has ordained. 
 
 Now let it not be imagined that every sin can be atoned for 
 by such an offering. It is only for involuntary transgressions 
 that the Israelite obtains pardon by bringing sin or trespass 
 offerings. " The soul that shaU have done ought with uplifted 
 hand (i.e. with premeditation, with evil intent), whether he be 
 born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth Jahveh : 
 that soul shall be rooted out from among his people; for he 
 hath despised Jahveh's word and broken his commandment; 
 that soul shall surely be rooted out; his sin is upon him.":!: 
 
 • Lev. T. 11—13. + Mic. vi. 7b. X Num. xv. 30, 31. 
 
208 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 " The error,"* for which the expiatory sacrifice is prescribed, 
 or rather is allowed and accepted by Jahveh, is opposed to the 
 " uplifted hand" mentioned here. If, however, we now examine 
 in what cases a sin or trespass offering is required by the priestly 
 lawgiver, it is evident at once that he places a very wide inter- 
 pretation upon the notion of " error." He also places in this 
 category sins committed out of heedlessness, weakness or fear ;■[■ 
 nay, even transgressions done deliberately, if they are followed 
 by repentance and due reparation be made.| This last class 
 is strange enough to justify the inquiry whether the trespass- 
 offering was not originally permitted after an ordinary, wilful 
 violation of the right of property, so that the priestly law had 
 also to call this an " error," because it wished to admit the 
 expiatory sacrifice only for this kind of offence. Be that as it 
 may, it is evident that the only case in which the lawgiver will 
 hear of no offering is when the sin has been committed for the 
 express purpose of insulting Jahveh, and thus bears witness to 
 contempt for Jahveh's word. We by no means impute this 
 clemency to him as a fault. It is the natural consequence of 
 the severity of his punishments : for every transgression which 
 does not fall within the notion of " error," " rooting out" is 
 threatened. § Still it cannot be denied that such a widening of 
 that notion weakens the feeling of responsibility. How easily 
 the transgressor could make himself and others believe that he 
 had not sinned wilfully ! How very likely it was that, with the 
 expiatory sacrifice before his eyes, he would prove less strong in 
 the hour of temptation than would otherwise have been the case ! 
 On the other hand, this danger would have been in great 
 measure averted, if the expiatory sacrifice had always remained 
 a solemn and significant thing in the Israelite's estimation. But 
 we can hardly suppose this to have been the case, when we 
 observe how numerous the expiatory sacrifices were which were 
 demanded by the law. Irrespectively of the sin-offerings which 
 
 * Lev. iv. 7, 22, 27, v. 15, 18, xxii. 14 ; Num. xv. 24—29. + Lev. v. 1—4. 
 J Lev. vi. 1—5. § We shall revert to this below (pp. 275—277). 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 269 
 
 were offered in the name of the whole people on the first day of 
 the month, the paschal feast, the feast of weeks and on each day 
 of the feast of tabernacles,* and of the offerings on the great 
 day of atonement, of which more shortly ; irrespectively also of 
 the sin and trespass offerings which were offered in consequence 
 of definite transgressions — the priestly law requires a sin-offering 
 from the woman recovered from childbed ;-f- a sin and a trespass 
 offering from the leper upon his cure ■,% ^ sin-offering from the 
 man or woman who has suffered from an unclean issue ;§ a sin 
 and a trespass offering from the Nazarite upon each involuntary 
 pollution,|| and a sin-offering at the end of his separation. IT And 
 finally, it also prescribes that any one who has touched a corpse 
 shall be unclean for seven days, and on the third and seventh 
 days must cause himself to be sprinkled with a water of puri- 
 fication, which has been expressly prepared for this purpose and 
 derives its purifying power from being mixed with the ashes of a 
 red cow which has been killed as a sin-offering and then burnt.** 
 All these precepts are based upon the supposition that every 
 pollution, even though it be involuntary, excludes the Israelite 
 from communion with holy Jahveh, and must be expiated by 
 Jahveh's representative, the priest, before the former relation 
 can be considered as restored. Taken together, they are very 
 well fitted to cultivate a deep awe for Jahveh, and it was 
 undoubtedly with this object that they were promulgated. But 
 it is obvious that the lawgiver has overshot his mark. A sin- 
 offering offered without the consciousness of sin is an empty 
 form. But how, in all the cases just mentioned, can he who 
 presented the offering have been conscious of guUt ? how 
 therefore was the offering to be kept from degenerating into a 
 mechanical, spiritless act ? And, granting even that this was 
 possible, must not the expiatory sacrifice offered on account of 
 
 * Num. xxviii. 15, 22, 30, xxix. 16 seq. t Lev. xii. 6, 8. 
 
 J Lev. xiv. 19 seq. § Lev. xv. 14 sq., 29 sq. || Num. vi. 9 — 12. 
 
 II Num. vi. 13, 14. ** Num. xix. 
 
270 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 this or that real transgression, committed consciously, have lost 
 in great measure its awe-inspiring power by feeing placed upon 
 a level with the oiferings of which we are speaking here ? 
 
 It may be remarked in general, that the priestly law threatens 
 to weaken the fear of pollution by multiplying the cases in 
 which uncleanness results. Men must gradually have become 
 accustomed to that " unclean until the evening" which recurs so 
 often. Nay, men can easily have come to accept that sentence 
 and the subsequent washing of body and clothes which it im- 
 posed, if the gain or the enjoyment with which the pollution 
 was connected seemed to outweigh them. In other words, the 
 temporary uncleanness could easily be regarded as a sort of 
 penance, which one only had to undertake to be clear of every- 
 thing. By eating the flesh of a clean animal that had died a 
 natural death, the Israelite became unclean until the evening:* 
 now, if he could afford to be unclean until the evening, there 
 was no need for him to deny himself that food. Who does 
 not perceive that by his minute precepts and distinctions, the 
 lawgiver himself has considerably weakened the sublimity of 
 the precept, "Be holy, for I, Jahveh, am holy"? It is true, 
 a great deal depended upon the character of the Israelite. If he 
 was scrupulously pious, he always continued to regard unclean- 
 ness as a real calamity or as a heavy punishment, and considered 
 himself bound to avoid it as much as possible. But this gave 
 rise to another danger. How could he then be free from 
 uneasiness and petty, anxious precautions? Eeflect that all 
 sorts of clothes, household furniture and food were capable of 
 becoming unclean.f and of polluting, in their turn, any one who 
 touched them. What a life he must have led who feared such 
 pollution and yet could hardly escape it ! 
 
 The lawgiver himself perceived that he must do something 
 to remove this uneasiness. He liad this in view when he 
 appointed the sin-offerings to which we have just referred, in 
 * Lev. xi. 39. t Lev. xi. 31—40, xv. 4—12, 17, 20—24, 26, 27. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARGHY. 271 
 
 the name of the whole community, on the occasions of the new 
 moons and the high festivals. But this purpose is chiefly served 
 by the great day of atonement, the tenth of the seventh month, 
 which can be truly regarded as the crown or the key-stone of 
 the whole priestly system of cleanness. The idea that the land 
 in which the Israelites lived was made unclean by their trans- 
 gressions, and therefore needed purifying, had long existed : the 
 Deuteronomist had already prescribed such a cleansing for 
 certain cases.* Ezekiel went further when he ordered^f that on 
 the first and the seventh days of the first month a young bullock 
 should be killed as a sin-offering, to cleanse the sanctuary " for 
 him that erreth and for him that is heedless," i.e. to wipe out 
 the taints which clung to the temple in consequence of the 
 involuntary transgressions of the Israelites in the midst of whom 
 it stood. This idea is adopted by the priestly lawgiver and 
 worked out in a very exhaustive law,:[: which contains more 
 than one detail at which we must pause for a moment. First 
 of all we remark that from the point of view of the priestly law 
 the day of atonement is pre-eminently the holy day, and that it 
 was quite in conformity with the spirit of the law that the later 
 Jews called it Jama, the day. " The humiliation of the soul," 
 i.e. abstinence from food and drink, is prescribed exclusively 
 for the day of atonement. § On that day alone the high-priest 
 enters the holy of holies. || The solemnities, also, which belong 
 to the expiation, are peculiar and eminently adapted to make a 
 deep impression. The offerings of the high-priest are a young 
 bullock as a sin-offering, a ram as a burnt-offering ; those of the 
 people, two he-goats as a sin-offering, a ram as a burnt-offering. 
 Lots are cast between the two he-goats ; one is " for Jahveh," 
 and the other "for Azazel." After the high-priest has now 
 sacrificed first the young bullock for himself and then the goat 
 
 * Deut. xxi. 1 — 9 ; comp. also vers. 22, 23 ; Lev. xviii. 25. 
 
 + Chap. xlv. 18—20. t Lev. xvi. 
 
 § Lev. xvi. 29, 31, xxiii. 27, 29, 32 ; Num. xxix. 7. 
 
 II Lev. xvi. 2 seq., 12 seq. 
 
272 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 " for Jahveh" for the people as a sin-offering, and has sprinkled 
 the blood of these animals in the holy of holies and the holy 
 place, he takes the remaining goat " for Azazel," " lays his hands 
 upon its head and confesses all the iniquities of the children of 
 Israel and all their transgressions, according to all their sins, 
 and lays them upon the head of the goat, and sends him out 
 into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands ready."* 
 He then cleanses himself and offers the burnt-offerings."f Here, 
 as is expressly stated, a transfer of sins takes place : the goat 
 " for Azazel" takes them upon himself and carries them away 
 into the wilderness. But this does not happen until the young 
 bullock and the goat " for Jahveh" have been killed and their 
 blood has been brought into Jahveh's presence; the sending 
 away of the other goat, laden with the transgressions, is thus a 
 symbol of what the real sin-offerings have already effected, and 
 makes visible, as it were, the result and the fruit of the whole 
 transaction. The contrast between the two goats renders it 
 probable that Azazel is not a common noun, signifying " a 
 sending away," or something of that sort, but a proper name, as 
 weU as Jahveh. Presumably it was used for a wicked spirit or 
 unclean demon, which was believed to live in the wilderness, 
 and to whom the scapegoat was yielded as his prey.j "With 
 regard, finally, to the extent of the atonement which was effected 
 by the ceremony of that day, we have already learned that the 
 lawgiver makes it include " all the iniquities of the children of 
 Israel and all their sins ;"§ he expresses himself elsewhere in 
 terms as general. || We must not, however, be misled by this. 
 He can mean nothing else than the involuntary sins,ir but these 
 he means without any exception, the moral errors, as well as 
 the infractions of the laws of cleanness. From all these both 
 the Israelites themselves and the sanctuary which was defiled 
 by them, were cleansed on the day of atonement. So the law- 
 
 * Lev. xvi. 21. + Lev. xvi. 23—25. J Comp. Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 21. 
 
 § In the passage quoted above. Lev. xvi. 21. Il Lev. xvi. 22, 31. 
 
 H Above, pp. 2lJ7 seq. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 273 
 
 giver met the difficulties which oppressed the consciences of 
 those who accepted his precepts in earnest. The abuse of the 
 forgiveness offered so liberally was undoubtedly opposed to his 
 intention, but — was it unnatural ? 
 
 To complete our review of the ordinances relating to cleanness, 
 we must now examine what was required of the priests and the 
 high-priest. It is they who approach Jahveh, in the true sense 
 of the word. We are not surprised, therefore, that they have to 
 guard against uncleanness much more than the laity. Bodily 
 imperfections render the descendant of Aaron unfit for the priest- 
 hood.* The ordinary priest may only marry a virgin or a widow ;-(- 
 the high-priest only a virgin.^ The priest guards himself as much 
 as possible from contact with a corpse ; he may only show the 
 last honours to his nearest relations ;§ the high-priest even ab- 
 stains from this : " he shall not defile himself for his father or 
 for his mother;" II so entirely must he devote himself to Jahveh, 
 that he realizes in a literal sense what the poet had sung in 
 praise of the tribe of Levi : 
 
 " Who saith of his father and his mother, ' I have not seen 
 them,' 
 
 And his brothers he regardeth not, 
 
 And his sons he knoweth not."1[ 
 
 The priest carefully avoids all unchastity : even in his 
 daughter it is punished with unwonted severity.** Por the 
 obligation of purity lies also upon those who belong to the 
 priest's family, in the same way that, conversely, they enjoy 
 their share of the privileges connected with the priestly office. 
 All the members of his household, including the slaves, those 
 born in the house as well as those bought for money, may par- 
 take with him of the sacred flesh of the sacrificesff — always 
 excepting the flesh of the sin and trespass offerings, which is 
 eaten exclusively by the priests themselves ; j| it is only when 
 
 * Lev. xxi. 16—24. t Lev. xxi. 7, 8. t Lev. xxi. 13—15. 
 
 § Lev. xxi. 1—6. || Lev. xxi. 10—12. t Deut. xxxiii. 9. 
 
 ■*• Lev. xxi. 9. tt Lev. xxii. 10, 11. J{ Lev. vi. 29, vii. 6. 
 
 VOL. II. T 
 
274 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 his daughter has ceased to be a member of his household, by- 
 contracting a marriage, that this privilege is no longer allowed 
 her ; but she again shares in it, if she return childless to her 
 father* In conformity with aH the rules already enumerated, 
 the priest, by every pollution, becomes temporarily disqualified 
 to perform his of6.ce, and also unfit to eat the sacred sacrificial 
 food,-]- and he is unconditionally forbidden to eat of animals 
 that have died a natural death or have been torn.J " Ye shall 
 keep" — so the lawgiver concludes his series of precepts con- 
 cerning the priests — " Ye shall keep my commandments and do 
 them : I am Jahveh. Ye shall not profane my holy name, that 
 I may be hallowed among the children of Israel ; I am Jahveh 
 which hallow you, that brought you out of the land of Eg}'pt, to 
 be a god unto you : I am Jahveh."§ 
 
 The close connection between these commandments and those 
 respecting the laity is easily recognized. The climax is strictly 
 preserved. Upon the highest step, the one nearest to Jahveh, 
 stands the high-priest, the only man who, at least once a year, 
 may enter the abode of his glory; from him, therefore, the 
 strictest separation from all uncleanness is required. It is also 
 worthy of remark, that he is somewhat restricted, it is true, in 
 the choice of a wife and in the discharge of his duties as a son, 
 by virtue of this intimate relation to Jahveh, but otherwise, hke 
 his brethren, he retains perfect liberty to marry. Asceticism — 
 as the sequel of this history wiU. teach us — found a few points 
 of contact in the priestly law, but nothing more than that ; that 
 law did not prescribe or exact it. 
 
 All that we have said thus far of the priestly law, has been 
 directly connected with public worship. And yet this has 
 brought us almost to the end of our review of its precepts. The 
 older laws concerning the civil and domestic life underwent no 
 change when the ritual precepts were annexed to them. The 
 priestly lawgiver could easily rest content with those earlier 
 
 ■* Lev. xxii. 12, 13. t Lev. xxii. 1 — 7. 
 
 X Lev. xxii. 8. § Lev. xxii. 31—33. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EIERARGHr. 275 
 
 regulations. Upon one subject alone, not directly connected 
 with public worship, did he express himself somewhat more 
 fully, viz. lawful and unlawful marriages.* His precepts in this 
 respect, which are also allied in form to those of Ezekiel, appear 
 to be a development and extension of what had already been 
 laid down in Deuteronomy.-|- We refrain from a special dis- 
 cussion of their contents. The Hnk between them and the 
 ordinances relating to cleanness is obvious without farther 
 demonstration. But besides this, the priestly lawgiver gives a 
 few detached rules upon other subjects, by which he either 
 amplifies or alters those of his predecessors in legislation. In 
 most cases it is at once apparent why he expressly regulates 
 just these subjects, and, in doing so, he never disowns his peculiar 
 priestly standpoint. It is but reasonable that we should make 
 ourselves acquainted with these ordinances as well. We do this 
 the more willingly, because at the same time we shall obtain an 
 opportunity of treating at greater length a few particulars upon 
 which hitherto we have only touched. 
 
 We find in the priestly law one ordinance relating to penal 
 enactments, which is peculiar both in contents and in garb.J It 
 is presented in the freely-chosen form of a decision of Jahveh 
 upon a question submitted to him by Moses. The son of an 
 Egyptian man and an Israelitish woman had blasphemed Jah- 
 veh's name in a dispute in the camp. Moses wishes to know 
 what must be done with him. The answer says that the blas- 
 phemer, whether he belongs to those born in the land or to the 
 strangers settled in Israel, must be punished with death.§ Upon 
 
 * Lev. xviii. and xx. Upon the mutual relation of these two chapters, see Graf, 
 die gesch. Biicher des A. T. pp. 76 sq. 
 
 + Comp. Deut. xxiii. 1, xxvii. 20 with Lev. xviii. 8, xx. 11 ; Deut. xxvii. 22 with 
 Lev. xviii. 9, xx. 17; Deut. xxvii. 23 with Lev. xviii. 17, xx. 14; Deut. xxii. 20 with 
 Lev. xviii. 20, xx. 10 ; Deut. xviii. 10 with Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2—5 ; Deut. xxvii. 21 
 with Lev. xviii. 23, xx. 15, 16. 
 
 J Lev. xxiv. 10—23. 
 
 § Lev. xxiv. 14 — 16. Subsequently verse 16 was interpreted differently, as a pro- 
 hibition to utter the name of Jahveh, for which reason the Jews, to this day, in 
 reading the Old Testament, substitute "Grod" or " Adonai" for it. 
 
 t2 
 
276 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 the same occasion— and from this it is evident that the historical 
 circumstance with which the inquiry is connected is fictitious 
 — Jahveh declares that murder must be punished with death, 
 and maintains the older laws of retaliation:* these decrees are 
 also pronounced to be applicable to the stranger as well as the 
 Israelite.-f- and, it would seem, are repeated by the priestly law- 
 giver for this very purpose.^ The only new thing here, there- 
 fore, is the punishment of blasphemy with death. "We can 
 hardly venture to call it severe, when we see the number and 
 the nature of the faults which, according to the same lawgiver, 
 result in " the rooting out of tlie soul " that commits them " from 
 his people." I will not enumerate them all here ; let the reader 
 consult the texts himself.§ It is evident at once, that this 
 punishment is threatened not only for idolatry and for sacri- 
 ficiug beyond the one sanctuary, but for incest, neglect of 
 circumcision, infraction of the laws concerning the sabbath and 
 the high festivals, disregard of the precepts as to cleanness, &c. 
 By far the most of the ordinances of the priestly law, including 
 those of a purely ceremonial nature, are followed by the threat 
 of this punishment— so that at first they even give one the 
 impression of draconic severity and bloodthirstiness. Or have 
 men, perchance, been mistaken in making " rooting out " syno- 
 nymous with death, or at all events believed without reason 
 that the lawgiver would have that punishment to be carried out 
 by the authorities, whereas his meaning is rather that Jahveh 
 will take upon himself the enforcement of his commandments 
 and visit the offender with an extraordinary chastisement ? Both 
 these questions have been answered in the afi^rmati^'e in former 
 and recent times, but the lawgiver's words are absolutely opposed 
 to such a mitigated interpretation of his meaning. On the other 
 
 * Lev. xxiv. 17 — 21. Comp. Exod. xxi. 23 — 25. 
 
 + Lev. xxiv. 22. J Comp. above, pp. 259 seq. 
 
 § Gen. xvii. 14; Exod. xii. 15, 19 (comp. Num. i.x. 13), xxx. 33, 3S, xxxi. 14 
 (c. Num. XV. 32—36); Lev. vii. 20, 21, 25, 27 (c. xvii. 10, 14), xvii. 4, 9, xviii. 6, 20 
 (c. XX. 10, 14, 17-21), 21, 29 (c. xx. 2—5), 23, 29 (c. xx. 15, 16), xix. 8, xx. 6, 
 xxii. 3, xxiii. 29; Num. xv. 30, 31, xix. 13, 20. 
 
ESTABLISEMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 277 
 
 •hand, it is absurd to suppose that immediately after the intro- 
 duction of the priestly law, the authorities considered it their 
 duty to inflict capital punishment on account of all the offences 
 which it pointed out, and made arrangements to that effect. Nor 
 does it escape our notice that it nowhere says how and hy whom 
 the "rooting out" is to be done, while no one can affirm that the 
 manner and the agents were so well known that they did not 
 need to be mentioned? This last observation brings us to a 
 satisfactory solution of the difficulty which here presents itself. 
 The penal ordinances of the priestly law are threats. They 
 express, in a concrete and visible form, the conviction that the 
 violation of the precepts of the law renders the Israelite guilty 
 of death. The lawgiver could not go further; even supposing 
 that he had been willing, he had not the power to execute all 
 those sentences of death. But he cherished the hope that the 
 commandment inculcated with such great emphasis would not 
 be broken, and that thus the infliction of the penalty would not 
 be necessary. In this he had been preceded by the Deuterono- 
 mist,* from whom really he only differs in this, that his ideal 
 is more sacerdotal than ethic-religious, and therefore the penal 
 enactment often seems to us entirely disproportionate to the 
 evil against which it is directed. But the lawgiver himself was 
 so very much in earnest in the realization of his ideal, that he 
 did not hesitate to brand every wilful departure from it as culpa- 
 ble in the highest degree. 
 
 With regard to the places of refuge, the priestly law contains 
 an ordinance which agrees, it is true, in the main with the older 
 regulations, but though very near to them, can in no way be 
 regarded as superfluous.-f- In the first place, it contains some 
 rules, according to which unintentional manslaughter is to be 
 distinguished from wilful murder, and thus tries to prevent the 
 murderer from abusing a privilege which is meant only for the 
 
 * Above, pp. 25, 37 seq. 
 
 t Num. XXXV. 9—34, to be compared with Deut. xix. 1 — 13, iv. 41 — 43 ; Exod. 
 xxi. 13, 14. 
 
278 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 unintentional slayer. The motive which governs the lawgiver 
 in this is clearly stated : " blood defileth the laud, and the land 
 cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the 
 blood of him that shed it;"* this rule maybe departed from, 
 when the bloodshed has been accidental, but then alone ; in any 
 other case the law must take its course, for the sake of the 
 cleanness of the land. This law also enacts that the slayer must 
 stay in the place of refuge " until the death of the high-priest, 
 which was anointed with the holy 0Ll;"t if he ventures beyond 
 the walls of the city before that time, the avenger of blood may 
 kill him with impunity ; after that time the avenger would him- 
 self become guilty of murder by executing his vengeance. The 
 placing of such a limit is a mitigation of the older law, the 
 necessity of which had no doubt been brought to light by 
 experience. Moreover the origin and the age of the law is 
 marked by the fact that the limit is taken from the high-priest, 
 who evidently appears here as the highest authority, which 
 indeed he was — after the Babylonish exile. 
 
 The ordinances with regard to the law of war, also, are of true 
 priestly origin. The romantic account of the expedition against 
 Midian, Numbers xxxi., serves no other purpose than to make 
 visible the effects and the blessed fruits of keeping these laws. 
 Twelve thousand Israelites kOl all the fighting men of the Mi- 
 dianites, burn all their cities, carry away incalculable plunder, 
 then, at Moses' command, murder in cold blood the Midianitish 
 women and the children of the male sex, who at first had been 
 spared, and are aU the while protected so conspicuously by Jah- 
 veh that not a man of them is lostj There are two subjects 
 which the lawgiver wishes to regulate by means of this historical 
 picture. In the first place, he defines which of the enemy's 
 possessions the Israelite may appropriate, and how he should 
 cleanse himself from the uncleanness which, according to his 
 notions, is occasioned by killing the foe and by touching the 
 
 * Num. xxxT. 33. + Num. xxxt. 25, 28, 32. J Num. xxxi. 49. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 279 
 
 slain.* Iq the second place, he gives rules for dividing the 
 spoil. The gold, the silver and the valuables may be kept by 
 whoever seizes them,f although it is a praiseworthy action to 
 give up a portion of the^m voluntarily to Jahveh.+ The spoil of 
 men and beasts is allotted, half to those who went out to battle 
 and half to the whole congregation ; of the former half, -5^ is to 
 be given up to the priests, and -^ of the latter half to the Levites.§ 
 It cannot be said that these demands in favour of the priests 
 and Levites are inordinately large. We cannot accuse the law- 
 giver of avarice on account of this regulation. Yet it is im- 
 possible to deny that he shows himself here in a very unfavour- 
 able light. The cold-bloodedness with which the murder of 
 many thousands of defenceless persons is painted as a religious 
 duty, coupled with the scrupulous anxiety for cleanness and the 
 minute calculation of each one's share in the spoil, is truly 
 repulsive. Fortunately this terrible bloodshed is only committed 
 on paper. 
 
 Equally remarkable are the priestly ordinances concerning 
 the ownership of land. The place which it occupies in the law- 
 giver's system will be more apparent to us, if we first fill in a 
 small gap in our previous researches. In speaking of public 
 worship, I have only mentioned the sabbath in passing. It was 
 scarcely necessary to say that the priestly law retained it. Now, 
 however, I must point out that it clearly attaches great value to 
 it and especially maintains the sabbath-res< most strictly. There 
 are no less than four ordinances on this subject, and several 
 points which we find there deserve our special attention. ||, Pirst 
 of all the vindication of the commandment of the sabbath-rest 
 by referring to the example of Jahveh, who " in six days made 
 heaven and earth, and on the seventh day rested and took 
 breath." IT This motive was also adopted by the priestly law- 
 giver in the " ten words," at all events in the redaction which 
 
 * Verses 14—24. t Terse 53. J Verses 48—52, 54. § Verses 25—47. 
 II Exod. xxxi. 12—17, xxxv. 1—3; Num. xv. 32—36; Exod. xyi. 22—30. 
 IT Exod. xxxi. 17. 
 
280 TEE EELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 occurs in Exodus.* In fact, as we saw before.f the idea that 
 the creation of heaven and earth took place in six days and was 
 followed by a day of rest, is younger than the sabbath, and resulted 
 from the already acknowledged holiness of the latter: both in 
 working and in resting, Jahveh was imagined to be after the 
 likeness of Israel. "We are further struck by the fact that the 
 breaking of the sabbath-rest is erpressly menaced in these laws 
 — for the first time — with death : " Every one that defileth the 
 sabbath shall surely be put to death ; for whosoever doeth any 
 work therein, that soul shall be rooted out from among his 
 people."! In spite of this decree, Nehemiah, as we have already 
 seen,§ had to use force against trading on the sabbath: does 
 not this contain a proof that we were not mistaken just now in 
 our interpretation of the penal threats of the priestly law ? — And 
 finally it is noteworthy, that, when these precepts were drawn 
 up, it was already a question which occupations were to be 
 considered as lawful or unlawful. Absolute idleness of course 
 was impossible. But they tried to get as near to it as possible. 
 Thus, e.g., it is forbidden to kindle a fire ;|] care for the ordinary 
 sustenance of life is confined to the barest necessaries: IT the 
 gathering of sticks is to be punished with stoning.** Under 
 such laws as these, the religious idea upon which the sabbath is 
 based— the hallowing of one day in the week to Jahveh — was 
 almost entirely lost ; scarcely more heed was paid to the humane 
 tendency of the day of rest, which former lawgivers had placed 
 in the foreground ;-f-f on the contrary, the subtle casuistry into 
 which the later scribes plunged, was more than prepared.^ 
 
 But however unattractive the further development of the 
 sabbath-commandment by the priestly lawgiver may seem to us, 
 it undoubtedly shows that he attached much importance to it, 
 
 * Exod. XX. 11. + Comp. Vol. I. pp. 262 seq. J Exod. xxxi. 14. 
 
 § P. 235. II Exod. XXXV. 3. IT Exod. xvi. 22—30. 
 
 ** Num. XV. 32—36. tj- Exod. xxiii. 12 ; Deut. v. 14, 15. 
 
 iX I. a. by the distinction between Korh and servile worlc, with which we meet in 
 Lev. xxiii. 7, 8, &c., and vers. 28, 30, 31. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF TEE HIERAEOEY. 281 
 
 and regarded it with great partiality. We are not astonished, 
 therefore, that he maintains the idea of the sabbath in its closer 
 application as well, and even carries it out more fully. In proof 
 of this we must cite his ordinance respecting the sdblath-year* 
 which is distinguished from the older law-f- in this, that it pre- 
 scribes that the land shall lie fallow every 7th year, whereas 
 the former lawgiver had decreed that the produce of that year 
 should be left for the poor. Here, therefore, we have the same 
 high estimation of rest as such, which pervades the priestly 
 sabbath-commandments. And further, we must notice here the 
 very exhaustive law respecting the year of jubilee, which, on the 
 one hand, must be regarded as the highest development of the 
 sabbath-idea, and, on the other, displays the priestly notions upon 
 the ownership of land.J After every 7x7 years, or seven weeks 
 of years, a year of jubilee must be kept,§ in the following manner. 
 On the 10th day of the 7th month, the great day of atonement, 
 the sound of the trumpet (Jdbel; thence the name "jubilee") 
 shall announce the commencement of that year, shall proclaim 
 "liberty" {derdr). It is a year of rest for the land,|| in the first 
 place, as well as the preceding 49th year. Moreover, "every 
 man returns" in that year "to his possessions and to his family." IT 
 The Israelite who is obliged from poverty to seU his land, does 
 so with the prospect that in the 50th year he wUl again become 
 its owner ; thus he really sells not the ground, but its produce 
 during the years which have yet to elapse before the year of 
 jubilee.** In the same way, the Israelite who has sold himself 
 as a slave gets back his freedom in the 50th year : thus he does 
 not become the bondman, but the hired servant of his brother,-f-j- 
 or of the stranger settled in Israel, whose service he has been 
 compelled by want to enter. j:[: There are other regulations which 
 are connected with these. Every Israelite who has alienated 
 
 * Lev. XXV. 1—7. f Exod. xxiii. 10, 11. J Lev. xxv. 8—55. 
 
 § Verses 8—10. || Lev. xxv. 11, 12. IT Verses 10, 13 seq. 
 
 ** Verses 13—16 tt Verses 39 seq. t% Verses 47 seq. 
 
282 THE RELIGION OF ISliAEL. 
 
 his land, retains the right of redemption : either he himself or 
 his nearest relation, the god, can resume possession at once, 
 upon paying a part, proportionate to the time meanwhile elapsed, 
 of the sum at which it was sold* If he has sold his house in a 
 walled city, he retains the right of redemption for one year; 
 if he does not avail himself of tlris right, the house remains the 
 permanent property of the buyer. -f- Houses in villages stand 
 upon the same footing as fields.]: The Levites who have sold 
 their houses can redeem them at any moment, and they receive 
 them back in the year of jubilee if they have been unable to 
 make use of this privilege; their fields, situated in the space 
 marked out round their towns, they may not part with at all.§ 
 And finally, the Israelite who has sold himself to a stranger as 
 a slave, can also be set at Liberty at any time, on his ransom 
 being paid by a kinsman, or out of the means which he has 
 himself amassed ; the compensation to the stranger for the loss 
 which he suffers, is to be in proportion to the amount of the pur- 
 chase money and the number of years which have yet to elapse 
 before the year of jubilee.[[ 
 
 Before we examine and criticise these precepts more closely, 
 let us fix our attention upon the other ordinances which are 
 intimately related to them. In the form of an account of an 
 historical detail of the Mosaic time, based perhaps upon an 
 old tradition, the priestly lawgiver expresses his conviction that 
 when there are no sons, the landed property of the father should 
 go to the daughters. IT One condition, however, is attached to 
 this law of inheritance : the daughters who inherit must marry 
 men of the tribe to which they themselves belong, in order that 
 the inheritance of that tribe may not be diminished.** If a 
 man die childless, his property goes to his relations in a pre- 
 scribed order. •[-■)- 
 
 * Verses 24—28. + Veraes 29, 30. % Terse 31. 
 
 § Verses 32—34. || Lev. xxv. 48—53. IT Num. xxvii. 1—11. 
 
 ** Num. xxxyi. t+ Num. xxvii. 9 — 11. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 283 
 
 All that relates to the year of jubilee and the liberation of 
 Israelitish slaves, was intended to supersede an old ordinance 
 which was included in the Book of the Covenant* and repeated 
 by the Deuteronomist,-f and according to which the Hebrew 
 slave, if he chose, could get back his freedom after six years of 
 service. The priestly lawgiver's chief object, however, was the 
 maintenance of the hereditary ownership of land. With this in 
 view, he thinks he must confine within very narrow bounds the 
 right of the individual to dispose freely of his property. Or 
 rather, he does not allow the individual any property, in the 
 strict sense of the word. " The land is mine" — he makes Jahveh 
 say j — " for ye are strangers and sojourners with me." By virtue 
 of this right of possession, Jahveh decides that the sale of real 
 property — except houses in cities — may not take place, and that 
 after fifty years each famUy shaU receive back intact the in- 
 heritance allotted to it. Thus the lawgiver makes the religious 
 idea — " Jahveh the owner, the Israelite the usufructuary of the 
 ground" — of service in order to promote the greatest possible 
 stability. But it does not escape our attention, that iu laying 
 down and developing this requirement he troubles himself but 
 little or not at aU about the reality. His ordinance sounds very 
 well in theory, but practically it is impossible. Experience has 
 pronounced judgment here. The sabbath-year, which was not 
 observed before the exile,§ was kept regularly after it. But the 
 year of jubUee never came into practice, and this in spite of the 
 predilection of the priesthood for it, to which Ezekiel|| and the 
 fulness of the priestly law upon this subject bear witness. It 
 is clearly evident, in truth, that we have to do here with a 
 postulate, when we hear the lawgiver lay down separate rules 
 for the Levites' cities, which, we know,ir they never possessed 
 but on paper. Nevertheless, this law, with its two supplements, 
 
 * Exod. xxi. 2—11. t Deut. xv. 12—18. J Lev. xxv. 23. 
 
 § Lev. xxvi. 34, 35, 43. || Chap. xlvi. 17. Comp. atove, p. 191. 
 
 H Above, pp. 171, 258. 
 
284 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 remains most remarkable, both because it throws light upon the 
 theoretical and abstract character of the legislation to which it 
 belongs, and because it shows most plainly the conservative 
 spirit of the priesthood. 
 
 There is stiU one more group of priestly ordinances for us to 
 handle. It is those relating to vows. A separate law is devoted 
 to the vow of the Nazarite ;* another law treats of vows in 
 general, f and is further amplified by regulations as to the vows 
 of women and young girls. J All these precepts are indeed 
 most remarkable. A vow from its very nature is something 
 voluntary, a natural product of religious belief in a certain stage 
 of development. The Israelite is induced by gratitude to promise 
 something which he values to Jahveh, who has loaded him with 
 benefits. Or he connects a vow of this sort with the accom- 
 plishment of a desire upon which his heart is very much set. 
 The terms of his vow vary according to circumstances. He can 
 dedicate himself to Jahveh as a nazir ;^ he can give up to him 
 part of his means ; " banning" (cherem), also, can take place in 
 consequence of a previous vow to Jahveh. |[ Now what does 
 the priestly lawgiver do with this natural product ? He prunes 
 and regulates and assesses it until it is in danger of losing 
 its significance and worth. The Nazarites, in fact, did not fit 
 rightly into the priestly ideal of the Israelitish state, and could 
 even become dangerous to the priestly power. Yet it would 
 not do to forbid them to appear. Therefore the lawgiver 
 adopts an intermediate course, and only recognizes the temjjorary 
 Nazarite vow, with regard to which he gives very detailed 
 instructions.lT His law respecting vows in general is based 
 upon the understanding that the Israelites promised or dedicated 
 to Jahveh not only their real or personal property, but indi- 
 viduals of various ages. The latter always had to be redeemed, 
 according to a fixed rate of prices, which, e.g., places the value 
 
 * Num. Ti. 1 — 21. t Lev. xxvii. J Nam. xxx. 
 
 § Comp. Vol. I. p. 316. II Comp. e.g. Num. xxi. 2, 3. IT Num. vi. 1—21. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY. 285 
 
 of a man between twenty and sixty years at sixty shekels, and 
 that of a woman of the same age at thirty shekels of silver.* 
 With regard to clean and unclean animals, to fields, houses, and 
 other possessions given up by vow to Jahveh, he likewise has 
 his precepts, which regulate, among other things, the application 
 of the law of the year of jubilee, and further display an evident 
 tendency to advance the interests of the sanctuary and the 
 priesthood.f This last is also true of the ordinances relating to 
 the vows of wives and daughters. In Israel too the woman had 
 not the free disposal of her property; it was necessary, therefore, 
 that the general rule should be, that a vow made by her did not 
 bind her husband, or, if she were unmarried, her father. The 
 lawgiver does, in fact, allow this rule to continue in force, but 
 he prescribes that the man's silence must be taken as consent — 
 obviously in the interest of the temple and the priests, who by 
 this means lost what was intended for them, only when the 
 husband or father at once annulled his wife's or daughter's vow. | 
 If the necessity for regulating this subject by law be acknow- 
 ledged, but little objection can be made to these ordinances, or 
 at all events they are as good as others which might be put in 
 their places. But it cannot be denied that by laws of this kind 
 the free utterance of the religious sentiment is fettered, and the 
 real character of the religious action is in great part lost. The 
 same observation has forced itself upon us more than once while 
 considering the priestly ordinances. It is not unnatural, there- 
 fore, that with them we should take leave of the priestly 
 lawgiver. If now, at the end of our survey, we recall to mind 
 once more the contents of the whole, we cannot but own that 
 they were grand and beautiful designs which the lawgiver had 
 in view. He formed broadly the idea of a holy people dedicated 
 to Jahveh, and tried to realize it on a large scale. He embodied 
 it, as it were, in his institutions, and at the same time — no 
 slight merit in truth — preserved it from destruction. But in 
 
 * Lev. xxvii. 3, 4. t Verse 9 seq. J Num. xxx. 
 
286 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 conformity witli the character of the order to which he belonged, 
 in the spirit of the age in which he lived, and — for we must 
 not overlook this either — by virtue of his own individuality, he 
 came of himself, as it were, to circumscribe and regulate every- 
 thing, down to the very details. A free dedication of Israel 
 to Jahveh he could not imagine; the nation's holiness, in his 
 opinion, was bound up with the observance of the traditional 
 practices, and of the new ordinances with which he thought it 
 his duty to supplement and perfect them. The natural conse- 
 quences of this tendency were not long in coming. Liberty 
 never is, and was not in this case, restricted with impunity. 
 Without himself desiring it, the lawgiver, by his endless and 
 minute enactments, reduces his ideas to smaller proportions, and 
 produces a mere outward conception of duties towards Jahveh 
 and an empty formalism. 
 
 The soil was ready for the seed thus strewn; how it then 
 sprang up, the sequel of this history wUl tell. 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 l.—Seep. 224 n.*; p. 228 w.* 
 
 My interpretation of Ezra's work, and especially of his exer- 
 tions to introduce the Mosaic laws, is based in great part upon 
 Neh. viii. — x. Objections, however, are made to the absolute 
 credibility of these chapters, and I am the less able to shut my 
 eyes to these objections, because I myself, now nine years ago, 
 have acknowledged their weight. Comp. my Hist. hrit. Ondcr- 
 zock, Vol. I. 347 — 352. It now seems to me that some of the 
 difficulties put forward there can be cleared away, and that 
 consequently the final verdict upon the whole pericope must be 
 more favourable. 
 
■ NOTES ON CHAPTER VIII. 287 
 
 All the evidence advanced there for the proposition — 1st, that 
 Neh. viii. — x. is not from Nehemiah's hand, and 2nd, that these 
 chapters were written by the redactor of the books of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah {i. e. by the Chronicler)- — retain their full weight. The 
 same opinion is now upheld by Bertheau, Ezra, Neh. u. Est. 
 erkldrt, p. 11, and elsewhere, and by Schrader in de Wette's 
 EM. I. 389. 
 
 With respect, also, to the mutual relation of Ezra ii. 68— iii. 1, 
 and Neh. vii. 70 — 73, 1 must maintain the belief expressed 1. c. 
 pp. 348 sq. Thus the narrative of the reading out of the Law 
 by Ezra begins with the words : " And when the seventh month 
 was come," &c. I was also right in observing there (p. 349) 
 that Ezra iii. 1 seq. and ISTeh. vii. 73 b seq. are from the same 
 author, the Chronicler, and that this explains the great resem- 
 blance between these two narratives. But this remark can now 
 be supplemented by what Schrader has put forward in Stud. u. 
 Krit. of 1867, pp. 482 sqq., and de "Wette's EM. I. 390. 
 According to him, Neh. vii. 73 b seq. has been adopted by the 
 Chronicler from the source upon which Neh. viii. — x. is based, 
 and the same source is followed by him in Ezra iii. 1 seq. This 
 latter narrative is, in the strictest sense of the word, the 
 Chroniclers own work. This also accounts for the conflict 
 between Neh. viii. 16 and Ezra iii. 4. Here, again, the former 
 passage is harrowed from the written original, while the latter is 
 from the Chronicler's own hand ; therefore nothing can be more 
 natural than that in Neh. viii. 16, the feast of tabernacles which 
 Zerubbabel kept according to the Law, should not be noticed at 
 all; the original author was totally ignorant of it; it is even 
 probable that the Chronicler was the first who mentioned it, 
 and that such a feast of tabernacles did not take place imme- 
 diately after the arrival of the exiles. 
 
 The foregoing remarks have already indicated where the dif- 
 ference between my former and my present view of Neh. viii. — ^x. 
 lies. I did not deny, in my Hist. Jcrit. Onderzoek, that the 
 Chronicler, in writing these chapters, consulted and followed an 
 
238 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 older and purely historical account, but I was inclined to assume 
 that he made a very free use of such an account (pp. 350, 
 351 sq.). By this freedom I explained the departures from 
 history, the improbabilities and the exaggeration which I believed 
 I observed in ISTeh. vui. — x. Now, on the contrary, I am of 
 opinion that those departures, &c., are overrated, and that, 
 conversely, I did not formerly give prominence enough to the 
 phenomena which plead for the writer's dependence on his 
 sources. It is these two points which must now be indicated 
 more fully. 
 
 1. The reading out of the Law described in Xeh. vui. — x 
 cannot be regarded as a single episode of Ezra's labours ; much 
 rather is it represented to us as the real irork performed by 
 Ezra; as the execution of the design which he had formed in 
 Babylonia. But if this be so, why did that reading out not 
 talce place tOI after the arrival of Nehemiah ? Formerly I was 
 unable to find a satisfactory answer to this question (p. 350). 
 Xow I consider that the difficulty which it involves is entirely 
 solved by the observations advanced above, pp. 223 sq. and 
 232 sqq. 
 
 Formerly (I.e. p. 351) I believed that it did not appear how 
 Xeh. viiL — x. is to be reconciled both with Ezra ix. x. and with 
 Neh. xui. But this difficulty also disappears at once, if we 
 (1) reflect that after his arrival at Jerusalem Ezra was prevented 
 from proceeding with his reforms, and (2) consider that the 
 subscriling of the covenant is quite a different thing from the 
 faithful observance of it: under the impression made by the 
 assembly at Jerusalem, the heads of the people readily allowed 
 themselves to be persuaded to enter into the engagement proposed 
 to them ; but when the first zeal had cooled down, the execution 
 of the covenant left much to be desired ; this would be the more 
 natural, if they were really 7iew laws which Ezra and Xehemiah 
 introduced : it was only in the course of time that the national 
 life could adapt itself to them. 
 
 The statement that a feast of tabernacles such as that of Ezra 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VIII. 289 
 
 had not been celebrated since the days of Joshua the son of 
 Nun (Keh. viii. 16), formerly appeared to me to be exaggerated, 
 in connection also with Ezra iii. 4 (I.e. p. 351). That notion 
 was wrong. Neh. viii. 16 is fully trustworthy : the feast of 
 tabernacles was really celebrated then for the first time in 
 accordance with the precepts of Lev. xxiii. 39 — 43. Ezra iii. 4 
 must be rejected for so far as it contains anything else. Comp. 
 above, p. 227. 
 
 My objections to the form of E"eh. x. (1. c. p. 351) are not 
 without foundation. But they plead rather against the skiU. of 
 the Chronicler, who wrote the narrative as it now stands, than 
 against the authenticity of the record itself It is especially the 
 joining of the act of the covenant to the prayer of the Levites 
 (chap. ix. 6 — 37) which is open to objection. But if, as is very 
 probable, the Chronicler composed, or at all events worked up 
 and extended, that prayer, then he is responsible for that com- 
 bination as well. 
 
 In chap. viii. — x. Nehemiah plays a subordinate part and 
 Ezra is the principal personage. This may be strictly historical : 
 Nehemiah, a friend of Ezra, may, upon an occasion such as this, 
 have kept in the background and have left the place of honour 
 for Ezra, in the latter's own domain. Should Nehemiah's 
 passive behaviour, however, having regard to his character, be 
 deemed less probable, no one would be justified on that account 
 in denying the fact upon which everything depends, the making 
 of the covenant. One would then merely have to assume that 
 the historian, being himself highly prejudiced in favour of Ezra 
 and his task, placed him too much in the foreground. There is 
 indeed something to be said in favour of this hypothesis. ISTeh. 
 viii. — X. are separated from Ezra vii. — x. by Neh. i. — ^vii., which 
 were taken in their entirety and unaltered from the memoirs 
 of Nehemiah himself Thus the author of Ezra x. — again the 
 Chronicler, who in that chapter gives excerpts from Ezra's 
 memoirs — really takes up his pen again in Neh. viii. Now it is 
 certain — especially on the strength of Ezra vii. 9, 10, 12 — 26 — • 
 
 VOL. II. u 
 
290 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 that that author was very fond of Ezra. Therefore it is far 
 from strange that, the moment he begins to relate again himself, 
 he not only brings that priest and scribe upon the stage, but 
 also displays him in all his glory. 
 
 If the principal arguments against the authenticity of Neh. 
 viii. — X. have been refuted, so much the more weight may 
 
 2. Be attributed to the passages which bear witness to the 
 faithful use of the older documents by the author of those 
 chapters. The principal ones are : 
 
 a. Neh. viii. 16, of which we have already spoken above. The 
 Chronicler himself, writing suo Marte, would never have expressed 
 himself in this way. 
 
 h. ISTeh. viii. 4. The authenticity of this list is very ably 
 defended by Bertheau, l.c. p. 211. In other places the Chronicler 
 does not hesitate to invent such statements. In this instance 
 this is evidently not the case, but then he must have drawn 
 upon contemporaneous information. 
 
 c. Neh. X. 2 — 8, respecting which compare Bertheau, pp. 
 228 — 230. I do not hesitate to regard this list of 21 divisions of 
 priests as strong evidence in favour of the authenticity of the 
 record to which it belongs. It must be taken in connection 
 with Neh. xii. 1 — 7, 12 — 21 (the enumerations of the divisions 
 of priests under the high-priests Joshua and Joiakim). If it 
 entirely agreed with them, it would prove nothing for or against 
 the document in Neh. x. But the agreement is only partial, 
 and there is even comparatively a very great difference between 
 them. This is not unnatural, since some years elapsed between 
 the high-priesthood of Joiakim and Ezra's reformation, and after 
 the exile the divisions of the priests constantly underwent great 
 changes (so that, e.g., the names which are given in 1 Chr. xxiv. 
 7 — 18 for David's time, differ considerably from those in Neh. 
 xii. 1 — 7, 12 — 21). If now we had had a free composition 
 before us in Neh. x,, the author would most probably have held 
 to one of the lists with which he was acquainted. 
 
 d. Neh. X. 29 — 39, the text of the covenant. A more search- 
 
NOTES ON CEAPTER VIII. 291 
 
 ing study of this document has gradually strengthened me in 
 my conviction of its genuineness. Here and there its form 
 presents difficulties, or at any rate shows peculiarities for which 
 we cannot fully account {Hk. 0. I. 351). But on the other hand 
 there is the fact that its contents are so peculiar, and, upon a 
 close examination, agree so little with the prepossessions of the 
 Chronicler, that it becomes almost absurd to ascribe to him either 
 the composition or even the re-writing of the record. With 
 respect to verse 32 (the tax of the third part of a shekel for the 
 temple) and to verse 37 (the tithes of the land), I will refer to 
 Chapter IX. and Note I. at the end of that chapter. Besides 
 this, let attention be paid to the last words of verse 31 (which 
 are difficult to explain, but which at any rate agree with Lev. 
 XXV. 1—7 much less than would be the case, if the Chronicler 
 had edited them; comp. Bertheau, pp. 232 sq.; Graf, die gesch. 
 Biicher, p. 79); to verse 34 (an explanation of the origin of an 
 institution which remained in existence among the Jews and 
 subsequently by degrees assumed the character of a festival ; 
 comp. again Bertheau, pp. 234 sq.); to verse 39 (where "the 
 porters and the singers" are mentioned separately and are appa- 
 rently distinct from " the sons of Levi;" this is in harmony with 
 the language of the older post-exilic documents and with the 
 organization of the staff of the temple at that time ; it is opposed 
 to the ideas of the Chronicler ; comp. above, p. 204, and below. 
 Chapter X.). 
 
 11.— Seep. 251 n.*. 
 
 I have already explained the object of this note above, pp. 
 183, 192. As in Note IIL to Chapter VII. (pp. 192—201), the 
 relation between the priestly and the prophetic narratives is 
 more clearly shown, so we must speak here of the priestly 
 legislation in relation to Deuteronomy and the Book of the 
 Covenant. 
 
 u2 
 
292 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 In the meantime this subject has been handled so fully and 
 minutely by K. H. Graf {Die gesch. Bucher des A. T. pp. 34 — 94), 
 that with regard to by far the most of the points I can simply 
 refer the reader to him. It is true, his treatise has here and 
 there drawn down contradiction, but the latter, in my opinion, 
 does not hit its mark. First of all I wiU attempt to prove this. 
 Then I will handle a few groups of priestly laws, and will 
 endeavour to vindicate the placing of them in the post-exUe 
 times. 
 
 I. In the Studien und Kritiken of 1868, pp. 350 — 379, E. 
 Eiehm published a critique of Graf's treatise which is weU 
 worth reading. Very many of his remarks seem to me to be 
 irrefragable. Thus on pp. 356 sqq. he maintains the ordinary 
 opinion that Gen. xvii. and the priestly laws sprang from a 
 common origin, and were contemporaneous. He also points 
 out (pp. 367 sq.) that several historical portions of the Penta- 
 teuch pre-suppose the priestly legislation, or at any rate cannot 
 be separated from it. In the meantime, nothing more follows 
 from this than that Graf has stopped half-way, and has simply 
 adopted the tradition as to the higher antiquity of the historical 
 elements of the "Grundschrift" (the Book of Origins), without 
 taking into account the conflict between that tradition and the 
 results which he has obtained. He has since seen this himself, 
 and has broken with tradition upon this point as well (comp. 
 above, p. 193). He then at the same time admitted the justice 
 of Eiehm's objection (pp. 353 sq.) that he had been wrong in 
 regarding the Jahvist as the " Erganzer" of the " Grundschrift." 
 Another of Eiehm's difficulties is likewise beyond our main sub- 
 ject : I am no more able than he is (pp. 370 sqq.) to share 
 Graf's opinion as to the autJwr of Lev. xviii. seq., xxvi.; but 
 in spite of this difference it seems to me that the exilic origin 
 of those chapters must be acknowledged, and no less the cor- 
 rectness of Grafs opinion as to the relation in which they stand 
 to the rest of the priestly laws (comp. above, pp. 182 — 192). 
 More weiglit would have to be attached to Eiehm's assertion 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VIII. 293 
 
 tTiat the DeuteroQomist was acquainted with the priestly laws 
 (pp. 358 sqq.), if the evidence upon which it is based contained 
 any proof of this. But that is not the case. We have already- 
 shown that Lev. xi. cannot possibly be older than Dent. xiv. 
 3 — 21 (pp. 94 — 97). Deut. xxiv. 8 is an exhortation to submit 
 to the fhorah of the Levitical priests ; it does not appear that the 
 latter had been committed to writing when the author wrote ; 
 much less that he had precisely Lev. xii. — xv. before his eyes. 
 Eiehm here takes as proved that which had still to be shown. 
 He does the same thing when he borrows objections to Grafs 
 opinion (p. 361) from Deut. xii. 15 sq., 20 — 22, compared with 
 Lev. xvii. 3 seq.; (p. 362) from Deut. xvi. compared with the 
 priestly laws concerning feasts.; and (p. 363) from Deut. x. 1, 
 3, 5, 8, and x. 9, xii. 12, xiv. 27, 29', xviii. 1, 2, compared with 
 the priestly ordinances respecting the ark and the descendants 
 of Aaron and the Levites. His objections prove to my mind 
 that as yet he is unable to detach himself from the traditional 
 arrangement of the elements of the Pentateuch, which was also 
 maintained by his master, Hupfeld. They are not at all con- 
 clusive; and this the less, because he admits at the end (pp. 
 369 sq., 372 sqq.) that the ritual laws were not carried out 
 before the exile : they were included in the " Grundschrift," 
 it is true, but they were not valid in practice, because the kings 
 had proved indisposed to promote their observance and to make 
 them laws of the land. Such a temporary abeyance of the ritual 
 legislation is not inconceivable, but it cannot be admitted unless 
 the much more simple and natural hypothesis which Graf 
 gives us is proved to be absolutely untenable. In other words, 
 it must be shown that the priestly laws were in eodstence, before 
 we can proceed to search for the causes of their latent condition. 
 Eiehm does not furnish this conclusive proof. 
 
 No more does Noldeke {Untersuchungen, &c., pp. 126 sqq.), 
 whose sketch of the character of the " Grundschrift," masterly 
 as it is in many respects, seems to me rather to confirm Graf's 
 hypothesis as to the age of this work. It has already been 
 
294 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 observed (p. 193) that he is right in upholding the unity of the 
 " Grundschrift," and thus in referring the historical documents 
 to the same period as the legislative portions. But he does not 
 succeed in making it clear why the whole " Grundschrift" may 
 not be referred to the exilic and post-exilic period. When he 
 denies all productiveness to those periods, and makes them a 
 " Eestaurationszeit," he certainly conforms to tradition, but — he 
 is opposed to history. Our full consent must be given to that 
 which de Goeje, Gids. 1869, II., has written upon this subject. 
 Noldeke evidently attaches but little value to all the rest that 
 he adduces against Graf. His concession (p. 142), e.g., that no 
 indisputable quotations from the " Grundschrift" exist in the 
 prophets who wrote before the exile, is remarkable. He asserts 
 that the Deuteronomist was acquainted with the " Grundschrift," 
 but he does not prove it. 
 
 Schrader (de Wette's Einl. I. 8e Ausgabe) can still less be con- 
 sidered to have refuted Graf's chronological arrangement. He 
 agrees with Eiehm and Noldeke in acknowledging the unbroken 
 connection between the laws and the narratives of the " Grund- 
 schrift," or, as he expresses himself, " des annalistischen Erzah- 
 lers." But when (pp. 316 — 318) he tries to fix the time in which 
 that writer lived, he pays attention exclusively to a few histo- 
 rical allusions of very doubtful evidentiary value, and leaves 
 out of consideration altogether both the contents of the laws 
 and the character of the narratives — which are so obviously 
 unhistorical. A few pages before this (pp. 297 — 299), he defines 
 the relation of Deuteronomy to the priestly laws, without answer- 
 ing or even mentioning Grafs arguments against the opinions 
 which he there defends. It is evident to my mind that Schrader, 
 convinced on good grounds of the unity of the " Grundschrift," 
 has considered himself entitled to avoid a minute considera- 
 tion of Graf's hypothesis, which in its original form denied that 
 unity. 
 
 II. Without laying the least claim to completeness, I now 
 wish to make a few observations upon the priestly laws, their 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VIII. 295 
 
 relation to the other collections of laws and their age, preferring 
 those remarks which seem to me calculated to lead to the settle- 
 ment of the point in dispute. 
 
 A. It is universally admitted that the laws relating to feasts 
 in Exod. xxiii. 14 — 18 (comp. xxxiv. 18 — 25) are the oldest of 
 all : Knobel's opinion to the contrary, refuted in Hk. 0. I. 142 
 sqq., has deservedly met with no acceptance. The law relating 
 to mazzoth in Exod. xiii. 3 — 10 may be about contemporaneous 
 with those feast-regulations. If now we compare both Deut. 
 xvi. 1 — 17 and the priestly ordinances with these oldest docu- 
 ments, it becomes obvious at once that the Deuteronomist follows 
 the Book of the Covenant, and not the priestly laws : even those 
 who think that he was acquainted with them must admit this, 
 and can find in his writings — as will be more evident directly 
 — but few allusions to those laws. Even of itself this pheno- 
 menon leads us to the presumption that the Deuteronomist 
 precedes the priestly writer : what could have induced him to 
 pass over the much more exhaustive priestly laws and go back 
 to the Book of the Covenant ? No one answers this question 
 satisfactorily. On the other hand, everything is in order, if the 
 author of Deuteronomy was acquainted with nothing more than 
 Exod. xxiii. 14—18, xiii. 3—10. 
 
 This provisional conclusion is confirmed by the points of differ- 
 ence between Deuteronomy and the priestly law. We have 
 already noticed one of these above, pp. 84 sq. Besides this, 
 
 a. according to Deut. xvi. 7, 8, only the seventh, and not the 
 first, day of mazzdth is a feast-day, upon which the people assem- 
 bled in the sanctuary; express permission is even given to 
 return home on the first day, after the paschal meal has been 
 kept on the previous evening. This agrees with Exod. xiii. 7. 
 But in the priestly laws we read (Exod. xii. 16; Lev. xxiii. 7 ; 
 Num. xxviii. 18) that also on the first day of mazzSth there is to 
 be a " holy convocation," and work must be put aside. — Which is 
 most probable : that an addition was made to the feasts and days 
 of rest, or that the Deuteronomist abolished a feast and a day of 
 rest ? 
 
296 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 h. According to Deut. xvi. 13, 15, the feast of tabernacles 
 lasts seven days ; according to Lev. xxiii. 36, 39 ; Num. xxix. 
 35, an eighth day, likewise a feast and a day of rest, must be 
 added to these seven. Here, too, it seems not difficult to decide 
 who has the priority : it is almost inconceivable that the Deute- 
 ronomist should have fixed seven days, if the ritual law with 
 which he was acquainted prescribed eight days. But in this 
 particular case there is no need for us to rest content with proba- 
 bilities. The later origin of the priestly regulation is evident 
 from the testimony of Ezekiel, who (chap. xlv. 25) expressly 
 mentions seven days. But there is something more. Let the 
 reader remember that the feast of tabernacles is celebrated, ac- 
 cording to Deuteronomy, from the 15th up to and including the 
 21st, and according to the priestly laws from the 15th up to and 
 including the 22nd of the seventh month, and let him now com- 
 pare together the two following accounts of a feast of tabernacles 
 kept under Solomon, the first written before Ezra's time, the 
 second from the third century B.C.: 
 
 1 Kings viii. 65, 66. 2 Chron. vii. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 And at that time Solomon And at that time Solomon 
 held the feast, and aU. Israel kept the feast seven days, and 
 with him, a great congregation aU Israel with him, a very 
 from Hamath unto the river of great congregation, from Ha- 
 Egypt, before Jahveh our god, math unto the river of Egypt, 
 for seven days [and seven days, And on the eighth day they 
 even for fourteen days]. On made a solemn assembly, for 
 the eighth day he sent the peo- they kept the dedication of 
 pie away, and they blessed the the altar seven days and the 
 king, &c. feast seven days. And on the 
 
 three-and-twentieth day of the 
 seventh month he sent the 
 people away into their tents, 
 &c. 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VIII. 297 
 
 It is evident at once that the words of 1 Kings viii. 65, which 
 I have placed in [ ], must be omitted ; they have all the appear- 
 ance of a gloss, and moreover are contradicted by the beginning 
 of verse 66, where the fifteenth (and not the eighth) should 
 have been named, if fourteen days (and not seven) had been 
 mentioned just before. Thus Solomon lets the people go home 
 on the eighth day, i.e. on the twenty-second of the seventh 
 month. In other words, the author of this account knows 
 nothing of the priestly regulation which makes the eighth day 
 a feast and a day of rest ; he only knows of the Deuteronomic 
 law, with which his account entirely agrees. With the younger 
 Chronicler it is otherwise. He improves the older account (1) 
 by expressly mentioning the eighth day, and (2) by fixing the 
 departure of the Israelites (not on the twenty-second, but) on 
 the twenty-third day of the seventh month. Is it not as clear 
 as daylight that the priestly law must have been made and 
 promulgated after the author of Kings had written, and before 
 the lifetime of the Chronicler ? And, finally, let there be added 
 to this the evidence in ISTeh. viii. 14 — 17, which we have already 
 pointed out (pp. 226 sq., 289). To me the coincidence of all 
 these indications is an incontestable proof of the accuracy of 
 our chronological arrangement of the various collections of laws. 
 
 I wUl pass over other, subordinate points of difference between 
 the laws concerning feasts. Now what have the advocates of 
 the priority of the priestly legislation to advance against this ? 
 EeaUy nothing more than the assertion that a few expressions 
 in Deut. xvi. 1 — 17 betray acquaintance with the priestly laws. 
 But nothing prevents us from assuming that, conversely, the 
 priestly lawgiver here and there followed the Deuteronomist. 
 The name " feast of tabernacles," Deut. xvi. 13, 16, is certainly 
 younger than "feast of ingathering" (Exod. xxiii. 16; xxxiv. 
 22), but it occurs also in Lev. xxiii. 34; the ordinance in Lev. 
 xxiii. 39 — 44 is not the foundation of that designation, but, con- 
 versely, regulates more minutely the custom which is indicated 
 by that designation. The proposition that the Deuteronomist 
 
298 TBE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 combines the mazzdlh and the passover, which formerly were 
 distinct, and makes one feast of them (Eiehm, 1. c. p. 362), is 
 true only if he is older than the priestly legislation : for do we 
 not find this combination in the latter as well, Exod. xii. 1 — 14, 
 15 — 20 ; Lev. xxiii. 5, 6 ; Num. xxviii. 16, 17 ? The assertion 
 that according to the priestly laws the paschal lamb is killed 
 and eaten by the Israelites (not at Jerusalem, but) in their own 
 cities, has already been refuted above, pp. 87 sq. To my mind, 
 the conclusion is absolutely beyond doubt. We can now pass 
 on to 
 
 B. The ordinances respecting the incomes of the priests and 
 Levites (above, pp. 256 sq.). The difference between the Deute- 
 ronomic and the priestly precepts need not be pointed out afresh 
 (comp. Rh. 0. I. 52 sq.). The only question can be, to which of 
 the two must we ascribe the priority 1 When I was still fully 
 convinced of the higher antiquity of the priestly law, I already 
 thought it probable that its regulations wpon this subject were 
 younger than those of the Deuteronomist (1. c. pp. 147 sq., 
 154 sq.). It is indeed almost absurd to suppose that the demands 
 in favour of the staff of the temple were not increased in the 
 course of time, but moderated ; that, e.g., first the tithes were 
 allotted to the Levites, and it was afterwards decided that they 
 were to be dedicated to Jahveh and thus to be consumed at 
 sacrificial meals. It can by no means be granted to Eiehm (1. c. 
 pp. 364 sq.) that the priestly laws relating to the tithes do not 
 pre-suppose Deut. : the younger lawgiver could hardly quote the 
 regulations of his predecessor at the same moment that he 
 modified them and increased their burden. He pre-supposes 
 them in so far as he builds upon the idea that the tithes belong 
 to Jahveh. But see further Chapter IX. and Note I. at the end 
 of it, where I must revert to this subject. Upon the whole, the 
 question as to the mutual relation of the two legislations can 
 be reduced to another question, namely, which dates first, the 
 religious thought or its introduction into practice to the interest 
 of the priesthood ? We can have the less hesitation in giving 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VIII. 299 
 
 our answer, because it is quite certain that among the Israelites 
 too the priesthood strove to extend its power and increase its 
 revenues. "With regard to this last, compare also Exod. xiii. 13 
 (xxxiv. 20) — which, according to the general opinion, are very old 
 ordinances — with the priestly precepts in Num. xviii. 15, 16; 
 Lev. xxvii. 27. The requirements of the religious idea have 
 been satisfied when the first-born colt of an ass has been killed ; 
 the priestly interests are not satisfied by this, and therefore suh- 
 seqitently the redemption from the priests is demanded. Comp. 
 Ek. 0. I. 34 sq., 159, n. 33. 
 
 C. What we have said on pp. 273 sq., about the rights and 
 duties of the priests and the high-priest, leads us to speak of 
 the legal regulations concerning tlie difference between the servants 
 of the temple in rank and competency. They concern, as is well 
 known, in part the distinction between priests and Levites, and 
 in part the distance between the priests and the high-priest. 
 
 a. "With regard to the first point, compare Vol. I. pp. 337 sq., 
 and above, pp. 26 sq., 116 sq., 168 sq. The main arguments for 
 the later origin of the priestly laws concerning this subject have 
 already been touched upon there, so that here I need merely 
 bring them together and fill them in. Let us first of all observe 
 that a reconciliation of Deuteronomy with Exodus — Numbers is 
 not to be thought of. That the Deuteronomist considers all 
 Levites without distinction qualified to fill the priestly office, is 
 evident not only from the designations, " the Levitical priests," 
 " the priests, sons of Levi," of which he makes use, but also and 
 especially from Dent. x. 8, 9, xviii. 1 — 8, where he expresses 
 himself quite unambiguously. It is equally certain that the 
 difference in competency between "the sons of Aaron" and the 
 Levites in the three central books of the Pentateuch is con- 
 sistently and strictly maintained — so much so even that it may 
 be said to be altogether superfluous to quote passages to prove 
 it. The only question can be, to whom must the priority be 
 allowed, to the Deuteronomist or the priestly lawgiver ? "With 
 respect to this question let it be observed, 
 
300 THE EELIQION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 1st. That a subsequent limitation of the capacity to become 
 a priest is of itself much more probable than the extension of 
 that capacity to persons who had not possessed it before. 
 
 2nd. That omnium consensu the priestly precepts triumphed 
 in the end and ruled in practice: how is this possible, if the 
 Deuteronomic legislation, which makes no distinction between 
 priests and Levites, is the youngest? We can imagine that 
 Deuteronomy remained a part of the Thorah, even after some of 
 its regulations had become obsolete and new precepts had been 
 added. But how can Deuteronomy have been admitted into the 
 Law while at the same time one of its principal rules had been 
 disregarded ? Let it be reflected that the Deuteronomist, if he 
 must be considered to have been acquainted with the laws in 
 Exodus — Numbers, directly contradicts them upon this point, 
 and expressly allows (Deut. xviii. 6, 7) that which according to 
 the priestly lawgiver (Num. xviii. 3) is punished with death. 
 Again, we can conceive that regulations such as those of the 
 Deuteronomist, because they had once been law and were 
 regarded as holy, were allowed to stand ; but how they can have 
 been added to the priestly law already extant and known, 
 without, however, being put into execution, is a mystery which 
 we cannot solve. 
 
 3rd. That there is not a single trace in the prophetic writings 
 of the distinction between priests and Levites. Jer. xxxiii. 18, 
 21, 22, and Isa. Ixvi. 21, agree, even in language, with Deute- 
 ronomy; Zech. xii. 13 mentions "the family of the house of 
 Levi," and nothing more ; even Malachi (chap. ii. 1 — 9, iii. 3), 
 the contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah, still follows the time- 
 honoured words of Deuteronomy. It has been not incorrectly 
 observed that these prophetic instances are few in number. It 
 is true, the prophets trouble themselves little or not at all about 
 public worship in general and the qualifications for the priestly 
 office in particular. But stUl the few allusions which we meet 
 with in their writings do not betray the slightest acquaintance 
 with the demands of the priestly law, and — what removes aU 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VIIl. 301 
 
 doubt — the only prophet who speaks expressly on this subject, 
 Ezekiel, shows clearly that he is acquainted with Deuteronomy 
 and is not acquainted with the priestly laws. See this de- 
 monstrated above, pp. 116 sq. 
 
 4th. That the older historical books (Judges, Samuel, Kings) 
 do not know of the exclusive fitness of the " sons of Aaron," but 
 again agree with the Deuteronomic laws. It is evident from 
 Judges xvii. 7 — 13, that fhz Levites were deemed qualified (not 
 exclusively, it is true, but yet) above others to perform priestly 
 duties. The most probable interpretation of Judges xix. 18 is 
 this, that the Levite referred to here is going to " the house of 
 Jahveh" in order to become a priest there (comp. Deut. xviii. 
 6, 7). "With respect to 1 Sam. ii. 27—36, comp. Thsol. Tijdsohrift, 
 III. 475 seq. In 1 Kings viii. 4, the priests, it is true, are distin^ 
 guished from the Levites, but this is merely in consequence of a 
 clerical error (?), which can be corrected by means of 2 Chron. 
 v. 5 : it originally stood, " And the Levitical priests brought it 
 (the ark) up " (comp. verses 3, 6, 10, where, in conformity with 
 this reading, the priests alone are mentioned. 1 Kiags xii. 31 
 is also very remarkable. The conclusion which may be drawn 
 from this passage with regard to Jeroboam's time, has been 
 pointed out in Vol. I. p. 338, n. §. We have now to give our 
 attention to the historian's views. Judged by the priestly law, 
 he is guilty of gross heresy. Had Jeroboam appointed priests 
 " of the sons of Levi," he would, according to the historian, have 
 acted legally. This is indeed the case — according to Deuteronomy. 
 But this is not the case according to the priestly ordinances, 
 which shut out the Levites in genere, and only acknowledge 
 " the sons of Aaron." For the sake of completeness I will add, 
 that 1 Sam. vi. 15, 2 Sam. xv. 24, also mention Levites. The 
 first of these passages has most probably been interpolated 
 (comp. Vatke, Bihl. Theol. I. 273, n. 4), but neither of the two 
 can be cited in favour of the antiquity of the laws in Exodus — 
 Numbers. 
 
 So much the more numerous — I fully admit — are the passages 
 
302 THE RELiaiON OF ISRAEL. 
 
 in the books of the Chronicles which bear testimony to the 
 existence and the validity of the priestly laws in the pre-exilic 
 times. But it is highly contrary to true criticism to side with 
 the Chronicler in the conflict between his writings and the older 
 historical books. I will abstain from dilating further on this 
 point, referring the reader both to the remarks already made in 
 Vol. I. upon the historical value of the Chronicler's statements 
 and to the sketch of his principles and method in Chapter X. of 
 this work. 
 
 Unless I be altogether mistaken, the time cannot be far off 
 when the priestly law on this subject will be acknowledged as 
 the final result of the whole historical development. Unless it 
 be so, the fortunes of the tribe of Levi are inexplicable. It is 
 not the place here to set forth my ideas about them in fuR ; I 
 shall only touch upon the main points of my interpretation. 
 Levi was one of the twelve tribes from the very first. At the 
 time of the conquest of Canaan it was one of the smallest, 
 probably the smallest, and consequently does not succeed in 
 conquering a territory for itself : the sons of Levi are dispersed 
 throughout Canaan. Moses and Aaron were Levites; Aaron's 
 family discharges the priestly office at the common sanctuary, 
 the depository of the ark of Jahveh ; the idea arises that the 
 fellow-tribesmen of the lawgiver and conductor of the national 
 sacrifices are peculiarly qualified for the priesthood ; the Levites 
 for their part willingly offer themselves, in order the better to 
 provide for their maintenance (Judges xvii. xviii.). Priests of 
 the tribe of Levi minister in the temple of Solomon and at most 
 of the " high places :" it gradually becomes an established con- 
 viction that they alone are fit to do so. " The blessing of 
 Moses," Deut. xxxiii. (Vol. I. pp. 380 sq.). The Deuteronomic 
 laws recognize that exclusive fitness of the Levites (above, 
 pp. 26 sq.). Their regulations concerning the equalization of all 
 the Levites are not carried out (2 Kings xxiii. 9 ; above, pp. 116 
 sq., 168 sq.) ; the distinction between priests and priest-servants 
 ^arises, is justified and maintained by Ezekiel, remains in existence 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VIII. 303 
 
 diiring the exile, and is finally made a genealogical distinction 
 and established for good by the priestly law. At a later date 
 all the officers of the temple, even the singers and the porters, 
 are included in the tribe of Levi (above, p. 204, and below. 
 Chapter X.). 
 
 Into this sketch fits admirably one of the priestly narratives 
 of the Pentateuch to which I have not yet referred : the account 
 of the rebellion of Korah, which, linked and partly fused with 
 an older narrative about Dathan and Abiram (comp. Deut. xi. 6), 
 lies before us in Num. xvi. xvii., and serves as an introduction 
 to the ordinances relating to the priests, the Levites and their 
 revenues in Num. xviii. Of late years much care and acumen 
 has been spent upon the critical analysis of Num. xvi. xvii., by 
 Knobel, Graf (1. c. pp. 89 sq.), Land and Oort {Godg. Bijdragen of 
 1865, pp. 997 seq. ; 1866, pp. 205 seq., 416 seq.). The result of 
 their investigations seems to me to be this, that the narrative 
 of Dathan and Abiram has been worked up twice, first for the 
 purpose of upholding the rights of the Levites against the rest 
 of the tribes, and secondly to show the exclusive fitness of the 
 " sons of Aaron." I will not work out this opinion further here ; 
 on this point I agree almost entirely with Oort. It is obvious at 
 once that it is in perfect harmony with the course of the his- 
 torical development which has just been sketched. 
 
 5. In investigating the degrees in rank of the priests them- 
 selves, and especially the difference between the priests and 
 the high-priest, we must again start from the evidence of the 
 elder historical books, and leave the Chronicler out of considera- 
 tion for the present. That older evidence is meagre, incidental 
 and fragmentary ; therefore we are not surprised that it is found 
 to be insufficient to give us an idea of the development of the 
 offices connected with the temple. On the other hand, it leads 
 us to an incontrovertible negative result : prior to the Babylonish 
 exile the ordinances of the priestly law were not observed, and 
 there existed amongst the priests at Jerusalem degrees of rank 
 which lie quite outside the regulations of that law. The prin-. 
 
304 THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 cipal passages are : 2 Sam. viii. 17, 18, xx. 25, 26 ; 1 Kings iv. 
 6, ii. 24 seq. (comp. Theol. Tijdschrift, III. 472—474); 2 Kings 
 xii. 11, xxii. 4, 8, xxiii. 4, and xxv. 18 = Jer. lii 24 (from which 
 passages it appears that one of the priests, who bore the title of 
 KohAn hagaddl [" the high-priest"] or KoMn rSsch [" the head- 
 priest"], at any rate from the days of Jehoash, stood at the head 
 of the Jerusalem priests); 2 Kings xxiii. 4, xxv. 18 = Jer. lii. 
 24 (from which we gather that this high-priest had a deputy, of 
 which office the priestly law is altogether ignorant); 2 Kings xii. 
 10, xxii. 4, xxiii. 4, xxv. 18 = Jer. lii. 24 (where the door-keepers, 
 three in number, are mentioned ; their post was evidently held 
 in high honour, and, according to 2 Kings xii. 10, was one of 
 trust); Jer. xx. 1, comp. 1 Chr. ix. 11 ( = ]sreh. xi. 11); 2 Chr. 
 xxviii. 7, xxxi. 13, xxxv. 8 (which passages teach us that one 
 of the priests superintended the temple, or, in other words, kept 
 order there, in which duty he was of course assisted by others ; 
 it follows from 2 Kings xi. 18, xii. 12, Jer. xxix. 26, that this 
 post was instituted by Jehoiada, the contemporary of king 
 Jehoash); 2 Kings xix. 2 (where "the elders of the priests" 
 occur, as in 2 Chr. xxxvi. 14, " the chief of the priests," and 
 in 1 Chr. xxiv. 5, Isa. xliii. 28, " the chief of the sanctuary"). 
 
 With respect to the divergent accounts of the Chronicler, comp. 
 Theol. Tijdschrift, III. 469—472. 
 
 There is a wide difference between the actual state of affairs 
 to which the passages quoted bear testimony, and the precepts 
 of the priestly legislation. Upon reading and weighing these 
 precepts in their mutual connection, one receives an impression 
 that the high-priest is much more than the temporal head of 
 the officiating priests. He has a distinct dress (Exod. xxviii. 
 1 — 39, xxxix. 1 — 27, 30, 31) and is thereby exclusively qualified 
 to consult Jahveh by means of the urim and thummim (comp. 
 Vol. I. pp. 96 sq.); on this account Lev. xxi. 10, Num. xxvii. 21, 
 attach great value to that dress. He alone is anointed with the 
 sacred anointing-oil ; " the crown of the anointing-oil of his god 
 is upon his head ;" gomp. Lev. xxi. 10, 12, iv. 3, 5, 16, vi. 13, 15, 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VIII. 305 
 
 viii. 12, xvi. 32 ; Exod. xxix. 7 ; Num. xxxv. 25. It is true that, 
 according to the priestly laws and accounts, Aaron's sons are 
 also anointed (Exod. xxx. 30, xl. 13, 15 ; Lev. vii. 36, x. 7 ; 
 N"um. iii. 3), but not in the same manner as their father and his 
 successors in the high-priestly office; it was in harmony with 
 the lawgiver's intention that the Jewish tradition confined the 
 anointing to the high-priest (comp. Kalisch, Hist, and Grit. Com- 
 mentary on the 0. T., Leviticus, Part I. 574 sq.). He has more- 
 over, as we were reminded above, pp. 273 sq., his own rights 
 and duties. In a word, the high-priest of the ritual legislation 
 occupies a special place in the theocracy ; he is its head and 
 representative; as he is the mediator between Jahveh and the peo- 
 ple, so his sin re-acts upon the people and the people bear the 
 guilt of it (Lev. iv. 3). If these notions had existed before the 
 exile, would not some trace of them occur here or there ? Do they 
 not, moreover, carry with them, in their exaggeration, the proof of 
 their later origin ? Is not Ezekiel's silence as to the high-priest 
 an insoluble riddle, if in his days that dignity was already 
 looked upon in the light in which it is now described in the 
 priestly law ? It is asserted (comp. p. 293) that that law existed 
 before the exile, but was not put into execution ; therefore we 
 must also assume this with regard to its ordinances on this 
 head. But how comes it, then, that the priest Ezekiel entirely 
 ignores them ? Can admissible reason be given for this silence 
 on his part other than — the later origin of the priestly regula- 
 tions ? 
 
 D. Let the following remarks serve to elucidate what has 
 been said, pp. 281 sq., about the saihath-year and the year of 
 jubilee. 
 
 The Book of the Covenant decrees (1) the liberation of the 
 Hebrew slaves after six years' service, Exod. xxi. 2 — 11 ; (2) 
 the giving up of the produce of every seventh year to the poor 
 and to the beasts of the field, Exod. xxiii. 10, 11 (comp. Hk 0. 
 I. 143). 
 
 There are two ordinances in Deuteronomy which correspond 
 
 VOL. II. X 
 
306 TEE RELIGION OF ISRAEL. 
 
 to these two laws, namely (1) chap. xv. 12 — 18, a repetition in 
 an abridged form of Exod. xxi. 2 — 11, with the addition of an 
 exhortation to give liberal presents to the slave who receives 
 back his freedom (verses 13 — 15) ; (2) chap. xv. 1 — 11 (comp. 
 xxxi. 10), an ordinance concerning the release (Hbr. sjemittah) 
 in every seventh year : in that year the debtor is not to be com- 
 pelled to discharge his debt, but must be left in peace ; the 
 Israelite must not be deterred by the prospect of this year from 
 lending to the needy. It is clear that this law corresponds 
 to Exod. xxiii. 10, 11. It relates to the seventh or sabbath-year; 
 besides this, the word " release " is borrowed from Exod. xxiii. 
 11. But the contents of the two ordinances are not the same: 
 the Deuteronomist does not speak of the giving up of the pro- 
 duce of the land ; for this he substitutes — because it had been 
 found that the people would not observe it ? — a law which could 
 be more easily carried out and was equally to the interest of the 
 needy. 
 
 The priestly law also contains two corresponding regulations, 
 namely, (1) Lev. xxv. 1 — 7, relating to the rest of the land in 
 every seventh year ; and (2) Lev. xxv. 8 — 55, relating to the 
 year of jubUee (comp. pp. 281 sq., upon the contents of this ordi- 
 nance). In the latter law the decree respecting the Israelitish 
 slave in verses 39 — 48 is parallel with Exod. xxi. 2 seq., Deut. 
 XV. 12 seq., but at the same time is quite irreconcilable with it : 
 the release, which according to the Book of the Covenant and 
 Deuteronomy is to take place after six years' service, is here 
 placed in the year of jubilee (comp. Hk. 0. I. 35). 
 
 Now it is very evident that these three groups of laws follow 
 each other chronologically in the same order in which they are 
 enumerated here. It will not do to insert Lev. xxv. between 
 the Book of the Covenant and Deut. How could the Deuterono- 
 mist, if he had known that law, have (1) omitted to mention the 
 rest in the seventh year, and (2) retained the release after six 
 years' service ? Selfishness was strongly opposed to. the execu- 
 tion of the precept to that effect. Thus we are not surprised 
 
NOTES ON CHAPTER VIII. 307 
 
 to learn from the prophet Jeremiah (chap, xxxiv. 8 seq.) that 
 hitherto it had been altogether disregarded, and that it was not 
 till Zedekiah's reign that the first steps were taken to carry out 
 the release. Yet — according to the hypothesis which I contest 
 — the Deuteronomist left that law unaltered, and this notwith- 
 standing that an ordinance already existed, Lev. xxv. 39 — 43, 
 which was much easier to carry out, since it followed from it 
 that by far the majority of the IsraeUtish slaves died before the 
 year of their liberation arrived ! In addition to this there are the 
 arguments taken from the form and the contents of Lev. xxv.: 
 the prolixity, the theoretical and abstract character of the pre- 
 cepts given here, the reference to the law concerning the day of 
 atonement (verse 9) and to the precepts relating to the cities of 
 the Levites (verses 32 — 34). 
 
 Upon Ezek, xlvi. 17, see above, pp. 191 seq. 
 
 Printed by C. Gkeen & Sou, 178, Stkanb. 
 
14, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London ; 
 
 20, South Frederick Street, Edinburgh. 
 
 CATALOGUE OF SOME WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NORGATE. 
 
 Agnostic's Progress, An, from the Known to the Unknown. 268 pp. 
 Crown 8vo. cloth 5^ 
 
 Atlantis, the New ; or. Ideals Old and New. Emanating from the 
 
 Masters of Man belonging to the Great Races, who conducted the past Course 
 of the Civilization, Culture and Education of Humanity. By « Disciple of 
 Buckle.. Crown 8vo. cloth 4s 6d 
 
 Baur (F. C.) Church History of the First Three Centuries. Trans- 
 lated from the third German Edition. Edited by the Rev. Allan Menzies. 
 2 vols. 8vo. 21S 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Baur (F. C.) Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, his Life and Work, 
 his Epistles and his Doctrine. A Contribution to the Critical History of 
 Primitive Christianity. Edited by E. Zeller. Translated by Rev. Allan 
 Menzies. a vols. Svo. cloth 21s 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Beard (Rev. Chas.) Lectures on the Reformation of the Sixteenth 
 Century in its Relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge. Hibbert 
 Lectures, 1883. Svo. cloth. (Cheap Edition, 4$ 6(f) los 6d 
 
 Beard (Rev. Chas.) Port Royal, a Contribution to the History of 
 
 Religion and Literature in France. Cheaper Edition, 2 vols. Crown Svo. 12s 
 
 Beard (Rev. Dr. J. R.) The Autobiography of Satan. Crown Svo. 
 
 cloth ys 6d 
 
 Bible for Young People. A Critical, Historical, and Moral Hand-book 
 to the Old and New Testaments. By Dr. H. Oort and Dr. J. Hooykaas, 
 with the assistance of Dr. Kuenen. Translated from the Dutch by the Rev. 
 P. H.. Wicksteed. Vols. I. to IV., Old Testament, 19^; V. VI., New 
 Testament, 1 2i. Maps. 6 vols. Crown Svo. cloth 3ti 
 
 Bleek (F.) Lectures on the Apocalypse. Edited by T. Hossbach. 
 Edited by the Rev. Dr. S. Davidson. Svo. cloth io.y 6d 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
Catalogue of some Works 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) The Hopes of the Human Race, Hereafter and 
 Here. Essays on the Life after Death. With a Preface having special 
 reference to Mr. Mills' Essay on Religion. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 
 cloth 5^ 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P,) Darwinism in Morals, and (13) other Essays. 
 (Religion in Childhood, Unconscious Cerebration, Dreams, the Devil, 
 Auricular Confession, etc. etc.) 400 pp. 8vo. cloth (pub. at 10s) ^s 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) The Duties of Women. A Course of Lectures 
 delivered in London and Clifton. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. cloth 5* 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) The Peak in Darien, and other Riddles of Life 
 and Death. Crown Svo. cloth 7^ 6d 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Broken Lights. An Inquiry into the Present 
 Condition and Future Prospects of Religious Faith. Third Edition. Crown 
 Svo. cloth jj 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Dawning Lights. An Inquiry concerning the 
 Secular Results of the New Reformation. Svo. cloth e^s 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Alone to the Alone. Prayers for Theists, by 
 several Contributors. 1 hird Edition. Crown Svo. cloth, gilt edges ^s 
 
 Corvichen (R.) The Philosophy of all Possible Revelation, &c. Post 
 Svo. cloth 7'' ^^ 
 
 Davids (T. W. Rhys) Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religionj 
 as illustrated by some Points in the History of Indian Buddhism. Hibbert 
 Lectures, 1 8S I. Svo. cloth los 6d 
 
 Echoes of Holy Thoughts : arranged as Private Meditations before a 
 First Communion. Second Edition, \y\\h a Preface by the Rev. J. Hamilton 
 Thom, of Liverpool. Printed with red lines. Cro^^Ti Svo. cloth is 6d 
 
 Evolution of Christianity, The. By Charles Gill. Second Edition, 
 with Dissertations in answer to Criticism. Svo. cloth 12s 
 
 Ewald (Professor H.) Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Tes- 
 tament. Translated by the Rev. J. Fred. Smith. Vol. I. Yoel, Amos, 
 Hozea, and Zakharya, 9-11. Vol. IL Yesayah, Obadya, Micha. Vol. IIL 
 Nahum, Sephanya, Habaqquq, Zakharya, (12-14) Yeremiah. Vol. IV. 
 Hezekiel, Yesaya (40-46) with Translation. Vol. V. Haggai, Zakharya, 
 Malaki, Jona, Baruch, Appendix and Index. Complete in j vols. Svo. 
 cloth each los 6d 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Ewald (Professor H.) Commentary on the Psalms. (Poetical Books 
 of the Old Testament. Part i.) Translated by the Rev. E. Johnson, M.A. 
 2 vols. Svo. cloth each 10s 6d 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
Published by Williams and JSorgate. 
 
 Ewald (Professor H.) Commentary on the Book of Job. (Poetical 
 Books, Part 2.) Translated by the Rev. J. Frederick Smith. 8vo. 
 cloth los 6d 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Gould (S. Baring) Lost and Hostile Gospels. An Account of the 
 
 Toledoth Jesher, two Hebrew Gospels circulating in the Middle Ages, and 
 extant fragments of the Gospels of the first three Centuries of Petrine and 
 Pauline origin. By the Rev. S. Baring Gould. Crown 8vo. cloth. 7^ 6d 
 
 Hanson (Sir Richard) The Apostle Paul and the Preaching of 
 Christianity in the Primitive Church. By Sir Richard Davis Hanson, 
 Chief Justice of South Australia, Author of " The Jesus of History," " Let- 
 ters to and from Rome," etc. 8vo. cloth (pub. at 12^) ■js 6d 
 
 Hausrath. History of the New Testament Times. The Time of 
 
 Jesus, by Dr. A. Hausrath, Professor of Theology, Heidelberg. Translated, 
 with the Author's sanction, from the second German edition by the Revs. 
 C. T. PoYNTiNG and P. Quenzer. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth 21s 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Hibbert Lectures, vide Beard, Davids, Kuenen, Miiller, Pfleiderer, 
 
 Renan, Renouf, Reville. 
 
 Home (Rev. W.) Religious Life and Thought. By William Horne, 
 
 M. A., Dundee, Examiner in Philosophy in the University of St. Andrews; 
 Author of " Reason and Revelation." Crown 8vo. cloth ^s 6d 
 
 Jones (Rev. R. Crompton) Psalms and Canticles, selected and pointed 
 for Chanting. i8mo. cloth is 6d 
 
 Anthems, with Indexes and References to the Music. i8mo. cloth is 3d 
 
 The Chants and Anthems, together in one vol. 2s 6d 
 
 A Book of Prayer in 30 orders of Worship, for public or private Devotions. 
 
 i2mo. cloth 2s 6d 
 
 The same with the Chants. i8mo. cloth ^s 
 
 Keim's History of Jesus of Nazara, considered in its connection with 
 the National Life of Israel, and related in detail. Translated from the German 
 by A. Ransom and the Rev. E. M. Geldart. In 6 vols. 8vo. cloth 
 
 each los 6d 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Kuenen (Dr. A ) The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish 
 
 State. By Dr. A. Kuenen, Professor of Theology at the University, Leyden. 
 Translated from the Dutch by A. H. May. 3 vols. 8vo. cloth 31s 6d 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Kuenen (Professor A.) Lectures on National Religions and Universal 
 Religions. Delivered in Oxford and London. By A. Kuenen, LL.D., D.D., 
 Professor of Theology at Leyden. Hibbert Lectures, 1882 los 6d 
 
Catalogue of some Works 
 
 Macan (Reg. W.) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. An Essay 
 in Three Chapters. Published for the Hibbert Trustees. 8vo. cloth <,s 
 
 Mackay (R. W.) Sketch of the Rise and Progress of Christianity. 
 8vo. cloth (pub. at los 6d) 6s 
 
 Martineau (Rev. Dr. James) Religion as Affected by Modem Material- 
 ism ; and Modern Materialism : its Attitude towards Theology. A Critique 
 and Defence, 8vo. 2s 6d 
 
 The Relation between Ethics and Religion. Bvo. is 
 
 Ideal Substitutes for God considered. Bvo. u 
 
 Mind : a Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy. Contri- 
 butions by Mr. Herbert Spencer, Professor Bain, Mr. Henry Sidgwick, Mr. 
 Shadworth H. Hodgson, Professor Flint, Mr. James Sully, the Rev. John 
 Venn, the Editor (Professor Croom Robertson), and others. Vols. I. to X., 
 1876-85, each I2S. Cloth, 13s 6d 11s per annum, post free 
 
 Miiller (Professor Max) Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, 
 as illustrated by the Religions of India. Hibbert Lectures, 1878. 8vo. 
 cloth SOS 6d 
 
 Oldenberg (Prof. H.) Buddha: his Life, his Doctrine, his Order. 
 Translated by William Hoey, M.A., D.Lit., Member of the Royal Asiatic 
 Society, Asiatic Society of Bengal, &c., of H.M. Bengal Civil Service. Cloth, 
 gilt 18s 
 
 Peill (Rev. G.) The Three-fold Basis of Universal Restitution. 
 Second Edition. Crown 8vo. cloth 34 
 
 Perrin (R. S.) The Religion of Philosophy ; or, The Unification of 
 Knowledge : A Comparison of the Chief Philosophical and Religious Systems 
 of the World, made with a view to reducing the Categories of Thought, or 
 the most general terms of existence, to a single principle, thereby establishing 
 a true conception of God. 8vo. cloth i6s 
 
 Pfleiderer (O.) Paulinism. An Essay towards the History of the 
 Theology of Primitive Christianity. Translated by E. Peters, Esq. 2 vols. 
 8vo. cloth 21* 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Pfleiderer (Professor O.) Lectures on the Influence of the Apostle 
 Paul on the Development of Christianity. Translated by the Rev. J. Frederick 
 Smith. Hibbert Lectures, i 885. 8vo. cloth los 6d 
 
 Poole (Reg. Lane) Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought, 
 in the Departments of Theology and Ecclesiastical Politics. 8vo. cloth los 6d 
 
 Protestant Commentary, A Short, on the New Testament, with 
 General and Special Introductions. From the German of Hilgenfeld, Holtz- 
 mann, Lang, Pfleiderer, Lipsius, and others. Translated by the Rev. F. H. 
 Jones, of Oldham. 3 vols. 8vo. cloth each 105 6d 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
Published by Williams and Norgate. 
 
 Renan (E.) On the Influence ot the Institutions, Thought and Culture 
 of Rome on Christianity, and the Development of the Cathohc Church. 
 Translated by the Rev. C. Beard, of Liverpool. Hibbert Lectures, 1880. 
 (Cheap Edition, 2s 6d) 8vo. cloth 10s 6d 
 
 Renouf (P. Le Page) Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, 
 as illustrated by the Religion of Ancient Egypt. Hibbert Lectures, 1879. 
 Second Edition. Svo. cloth 10s 6d 
 
 Reville (Prof. Albert) Prolegomena of the History of Religions. 
 By Albert Reville, D.D., Professor in the College de France, and 
 Hibbert Lecturer, 1884. Translated from the French. With an Introduc- 
 tion by Professor F. Max Muller. 8vo. cloth 10s 6d 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Reville (Prof. Albert) Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, 
 
 as illustrated by the Native Religions of Mexico and Peru. Translated by the 
 Rev. P. H. Wicksteed, M.A. Hibbert Lectures, 1884. Svo. cloth los 6d 
 
 Samuelson ( Jas.) Views of the Deity, Traditional and Scientific ; a 
 
 Contribution to the Study of Theological Science. By James Samuelson, 
 Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Founder and Former Editor of 
 the Quarterly Journal of Science, Crown 8vo. cloth 4f 6d 
 
 Savage (Rev. M. J.) Beliefs about the Bible. By the Rev. M. J. 
 Savage, of the Unity Church, Boston, Mass., Author of " Belief in God," 
 " Beliefs about Man," &c., &c. Svo. cloth 7^ 6d 
 
 Schrader (Prof. E.) The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testa- 
 ment. Translated with Additions by the Author, by the Rev. O. C. White- 
 house. Vol. I. with a Map. Svo. cloth 10s 6d 
 
 Schurman (J. G.) Kantian Ethics and the Ethics of Evolution. A 
 Critical Study, by J. Gould Schurman, M.A., D.Sc, Professor of Logic 
 and Metaphysics in Acadia College, Nova Scotia. Published by the Hibbert 
 Trustees. 8vo. cloth ^s 
 
 Seth (A.) The Development from Kant to Hegel, with Chapters on 
 the Philosophy of Religion. By Andrew Seth, Assistant to the Professor 
 of Logic and Metaphysics, Edinburgh University. Published by- the Hibbert 
 Trustees. Svo. cloth ^s 
 
 Sharpe (S.) History of the Hebrew Nation and its Literature, with 
 an Appendix on the Hebrew Chronology. Fourth Edition. 487 pp. Svo. 
 cloth 7^ 6d 
 
 Sharpe (S.) Bible. The Holy Bible, translated by Samuel Sharpe, 
 being a Revision of the Authorized English Version. Fourth Edition of the 
 Old Testament ; Eighth Edition of the New Testament. Svo. roan 4s 6d 
 
 Sharpe (S.) The New Testament. Translated from Griesbach's 
 Text. 14th Thousand, fcap. Svo. cloth is 6d 
 
Catalogue of some Works 
 
 Smith (Rev. J. Fred.) Studies in Religion under German Masters. 
 
 Essays on Herder, Goethe, Lessing, Franck, and Lang. By the Rev. J. 
 Frederick Smith, of ^Mansfield. Crown 8vo. cloth t^s 
 
 Spencer (Herbert) Works. The Doctrine of Evolution. 8vo. cloth 
 First Principles. Sixth Thousand ids 
 
 Principles of Biology. 2 vols. 34^ 
 
 Principles of Psychology. Fourth Thousand. 1 vols. '^(>s 
 
 Principles of Sociology. Third Edition. Vol. I. 2ij 
 
 Ceremonial Institutions. Principles of Sociology. Vol. II. Part r 75 
 
 Political Institutions. Principles of Sociology. Vol. II. Part 2 I2.t 
 
 Ecclesiastical Institutions. Principles of Sociology. Vol. II. Part 3 5s 
 The Data of Ethics. Principles of Morality. Fourth Thousand. Part i 85 
 
 Spencer (Herbert) The Study of Sociology. Library Edition (being 
 the Ninth), with a Postscript. 8vo. cloth los 6rf 
 
 Education (Cheap Edition, Seventh Thousand, 2^ 6rf) 6s 
 
 Essays. 2 vols. Third Edition xds 
 
 Essays (Third Series). Third Edition 8j 
 
 Spencer (Herbert) The Man versus the State, u ; or on better 
 paper, in cloth 2s 6d 
 
 Spencer (Herbert) The Philosophy of M. Comte — Reasons for 
 Dissenting from it. (Republished from " The Classification of the 
 Sciences," &c., 1864) 6d 
 
 Spinoza. Four Essays, by Professors J. Land, Kuno Fischer, 
 Van Vloten, and Ernest Renan. Edited, with an Introduction, by 
 Professor W. Knight, of St. Andrews. 8vo. cloth 51 
 
 Stokes (G. J.) The Objectivity of Truth. By George J. Stokes, 
 B.A., Senior Moderator and Gold Medallist, Trinity College, Dublin; late 
 Hibbert Travelling Scholar. Published by the Hibbert Trustees. 8vo. cloth 51 
 
 Strauss (Dr. D. F.) New Life of Jesus, for the People. The 
 
 Authorized English Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth 24s 
 
 Taine (H.) English Positivism. A Study of John Stuart Mill. 
 Translated by T. D. Haye. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. cloth is 
 
 Talmud of Jerusalem. Translated for the first time into English by 
 Dr. MosES Schwab, of the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. Vol. I. The 
 Treatise of Berakhoth (Blessings). Foolscap 4to. 95 
 
 Tayler (Rev. J. J.) An Attempt to Ascertain the Character of the 
 Fourth Gospel, especially in its relation to tlie first three. New Edition. 
 Svo. cloth ^s 
 
 Ten Services of Public Prayer, taken in Substance from the " Common 
 Prayer for Christian Worship," -^vith a few additional Prayers for particular 
 Days. Crown Svo. cloth, 2^ 6af ; with Special Collects 3* 
 
 32mo. Js ; with Special Collects is 6d 
 
 Psalms and Canticles. (To accompany tlie same.) Crown Svo. is 6d 
 
 With Anthems 2d 
 
8 Catalogue of some Works published by Williams and Norgate. 
 
 PAMPHLETS. 
 
 Athanasian Creed. Two Prize Essays. By C. Peabody and C. S. Kenny is 
 
 Bastard (T. H.) Scepticism and Social Justice is 
 
 Beaumont (Rev. G.) Science and Faith. A Discourse is 
 
 Beard (C.) William Ellery Channing. In Memoriam. A Sermon. i2mo. 6d 
 
 Beard (C.) The Kingdom of God. A Sermon 6d 
 
 Beard (C.) The House of God, and two Sermons by Rev. R. A. Armstrong is 
 Bennett (W.) Popular Contributions towards a Rational Theology is 6d 
 
 Butler's Analogy : A Lay Argument. By a Lancashire Manufacturer is 
 
 Carpenter (Prof. J. Estlin) The Church of England during the Middle Ages is 
 Drummond (Prof. J.) Philo and the Principles of the Jewish-Alexandrine 
 
 Philosophy is 
 
 Drummond (Prof. J.) Religion and Liberty is 
 
 Gordon (Rev. A.) Gospel Freedom. A Sermon 6d 
 Hopgood (Jas.) Disestablishment and Diseudowment of the Church of 
 
 England 6d 
 
 Hopgood (Jas.) An Attempt to Define Unitarian Christianity 6d 
 
 Howe (Rev. C.) The Athanasian Creed. Two Discourses is 
 
 Infinite Love. A Meditation is 
 
 Jesus of Nazareth and his Contemporaries is 
 
 Journey to Bmmaus. By a Modern Traveller 2j 
 Lisle (L.) The Two Tests : the Supernatural Claims of Christianity tried by two 
 
 of its own Rules. Cloth is 6d 
 
 Marriage of Cana, as read by a Layman 6d 
 Martineau (Rev. Dr. James) New Affinities of Faith ; a Plea for free Christian 
 
 Union. 1 2mo. is 
 
 Must God Annihilate the Wicked ? A Reply to Dr. Jos. Parker is 
 
 Odgers (J. Edwin) Our Church Life : its Significance and Value 6a! 
 
 Reasonable Faith, A, the Want of our Age i* 
 Sharpe (S.) Journeys and Epistles of the Apostle Paul is 6d 
 
 Sidgwick (H.) The Ethics of Conformity and Subscription is 
 
 Tayler (Rev. J. J.) Christianity : What is it ? and What has it done ? is 
 
 The Recent Prosecutions for Blasphemy is 
 
 Who was Jesus Christ ? 8vo, sewed 6d 
 
 Wicksteed (Rev. P. H.) The Ecclesiastical Institutions of Holland. 8vo. is 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 
 
 U, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GAKDEN, LONDON; 
 AND 20, SOUTH PEEDERICK STREET, EDINBUEGH. 
 
FRAGILE DOES NOT 
 CIRCULATE 
 
 PHASED 
 MM CASE DETERIORATION 
 

 l\ f 
 
 S "■■-