{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_41704/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_41704","id":"gutenberg_41704","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41704","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Antiquities","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Excavations (Archaeology) -- Palestine","Palestine -- Antiquities","Palestine -- Religion"],"text":"[Illustration: Cover]\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n  RELIGION OF ANCIENT\n  PALESTINE\n\n  IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM B.C.\n\n  _In the Light of Arch\u00e6ology and the Inscriptions_\n\n\n  By\n\n  STANLEY A. COOK, M.A.\n\n\n  EX-FELLOW, AND LECTURER IN HEBREW AND SYRIAC, GONVILLE AND CAIUS\n  COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; AUTHOR OF 'A GLOSSARY OF THE ARAMAIC\n  INSCRIPTIONS,' 'THE LAWS OF MOSES AND THE CODE OF\n  HAMMURABI,' 'CRITICAL NOTES ON OLD\n  TESTAMENT HISTORY,' ETC.\n\n\n\n\n  LONDON\n  ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & CO LTD\n  1908\n\n\n\n\n{v}\n\nPREFACE\n\nThe following pages deal with the religion of Ancient Palestine, more\nparticularly in the latter half of the Second Millennium, B.C.  They\ntouch upon the problem of the rise and development of Israelite\nreligion; a problem, however, which does not lie within the scope of\nthe present sketch (pp. 4, 114 _sq._).  The Amarna tablets, Egyptian\nrecords, and the results of recent excavation form the foundation, and\nthe available material has been interpreted in the light of comparative\nreligion.  The aim has been to furnish a fairly self-contained\ndescription of the general religious conditions from external or\nnon-biblical sources, and this method has been adopted partly on\naccount of the conflicting opinions which prevail among those who have\ninvestigated the theology of the Old Testament in its relation to\nmodern research.  Every effort has been made to present the evidence\naccurately and fairly; although lack of space has prevented discussion\nof the more interesting features of the old Palestinian religion and of\nthe various secondary problems which arose from time to time.  {vi}\nSome difficulty has been caused by the absence of any more or less\ncomprehensive treatment of the subject; although, from the list of\nauthorities at the end it will be seen that the most important sources\nhave only quite recently become generally accessible.  These, and the\nfew additional bibliographical references given in the footnotes are\nfar from indicating the great indebtedness of the present writer to the\nworks of Oriental scholars and of those who have dealt with comparative\nreligion.  Special acknowledgements are due to Mr. F. Ll. Griffith,\nM.A., Reader in Egyptology, University of Oxford; to the Rev. C. H. W.\nJohns, M.A., Lecturer in Assyriology, Queen's College, Cambridge, and\nKing's College, London; and to Mr. R. A. S. Macalister, M.A., F.S.A.,\nDirector of the Palestine Exploration Fund's excavations at Gezer.\nThese gentlemen enhanced their kindness by reading an early proof, and\nby contributing valuable suggestions and criticisms.  But the\nresponsibility for all errors of statement and opinion rests with the\npresent writer.\n\nSTANLEY A. COOK.\n\n_July_ 1908.\n\n\n\n\n{vii}\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAP.\n\nI. INTRODUCTORY:\n\nThe Subject--Method--Survey of Period and Sources--The Land and People,\n. . . 1-12\n\n\nII. SACRED SITES:\n\nThe Sanctuary of Gezer--Other Sacred Places--Their Persistence--The\nModern Places of Cult, . . . 13-23\n\n\nIII. SACRED OBJECTS:\n\nTrees--Stones--Images and Symbols, . . . 24-32\n\n\nIV. SACRED RITES AND PRACTICES:\n\nGeneral Inferences--Disposal of the Dead--Jar-burial--Human\nSacrifice--Foundation Sacrifice--Importance of Sacrifice--Broken\nOfferings--'Holy' and 'Unclean'--Sacred Animals, . . . 33-49\n\n\nV. THE WORLD OF SPIRITS:\n\nAwe--Charms--Oracles--Representatives of Supernatural Powers--The\nDead--Animism--The Divinity of Kings--Recognised Gods, . . . 50-65\n\n\n{viii}\n\nVI. THE GODS:\n\nTheir Vicissitudes--Their Representative Character--In Political\nTreaties and Covenants--The Influence of Egypt--Treatment of Alien\nGods, . . . 66-82\n\n\nVII. THE PANTHEON:\n\nAsiatic Deities in Egypt--Sutekh--Baal--Resheph--\nKadesh--Anath--Astarte--Ashirta Sun-deity--(Shamash)--Moon-god (Sin)\n--Addu (Hadad)--Dagon--Nebo--Ninib\n--Shalem--Gad--'Righteousness'--Nergal --Melek--Yahweh (Jehovah), . . .\n83-97\n\n\nVIII. CONTEMPORARY THOUGHT:\n\nMiscellaneous Ideas--The Underlying Identity of Thought--Influence of\nBabylonia--Conclusion, . . . 98-115\n\n\nPRINCIPAL SOURCES AND WORKS OF REFERENCE, . . . 116\n\nCHRONOLOGICAL TABLE, . . . 118\n\nINDEX, . . . 119\n\n\n\n\n{1}\n\nTHE RELIGION OF ANCIENT PALESTINE\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\n+The Subject.+--By the Religion of Ancient Palestine is meant that of\nthe Semitic land upon which was planted the ethical monotheism of\nJudaism.  The subject is neither the growth of Old Testament theology,\nnor the religious environment of the Israelite teachers: it anticipates\nby several centuries the first of the great prophets whose writings\nhave survived, and it takes its stand in the second millennium B.C.,\nand more especially in its latter half.  It deals with the internal and\nexternal religious features which were capable of being shaped into the\nforms with which every one is familiar, and our Palestine is that of\nthe Patriarchs, of Moses, Joshua, and the Judges, an old land which\nmodern research has placed in a new light.\n\nSuccessive discoveries of contemporary {2} historical and arch\u00e6ological\nmaterial have made it impossible to ignore either the geographical\nposition of Palestine, which exposes it to the influence of the\nsurrounding seats of culture, or its political history, which has\nconstantly been controlled by external circumstances.  Although\nPalestine reappears as only a small fraction of the area dominated by\nthe ancient empires of Egypt and Western Asia, the uniqueness of its\nexperiences can be more vividly realised.  If it is found to share many\nforms of religious belief and custom with its neighbours, one is better\nable to sever the features which were by no means the exclusive\npossession of Israel from those which were due to specific influences\nshaping them to definite ends, and the importance of the little land in\nthe history of humanity can thereby be more truly and permanently\nestimated.\n\n\n+Method.+--Although Palestine was the land of Judaism and of\nChristianity, and has subsequently been controlled by Mohammedanism, it\nhas preserved common related elements of belief, which have formed, as\nit were, part of the unconscious inheritance of successive generations.\nThey have not been ousted by those positive religions which traced\ntheir origin to deliberate and epoch-making {3} innovators, and they\nsurvive to-day as precious relics for the study of the past.  Indeed,\nthe _comparative method_, which investigates points of resemblance and\ndifference among widely-severed peoples, can avail itself in our case\nof Oriental conservatism, and may range over a single but remarkably\nextensive field.  From the arch\u00e6ology and inscriptions of Ancient\nBabylonia to Punic Carthage, from the Old Testament to the writings of\nRabbinical Judaism, from classical, Syrian, and Arabian authors to the\nobservations of medieval and modern travellers, one may accumulate a\nstore of evidence which is mutually illustrative or supplementary.  But\nit would be incorrect to assume that every modern belief or rite in\nPalestine, for example, necessarily represents the old religion: there\nhave been reversion and retrogression; some old practices have\ndisappeared, others have been modified or have received a new\ninterpretation.  This warning is necessary, because one must be able to\ntrace the paths traversed by the several rites and beliefs which have\nbeen arrested, before the religion of any age can be placed in its\nproper historical perspective.  Unfortunately the sources do not permit\nus to do this for our period.  The Old Testament, it is true, covers\nthis period, and its writers frequently {4} condemn the worship which\nthey regard as contrary to that of their national God.  But the Old\nTestament brings with it many serious problems, and, for several\nreasons, it is preferable to approach the subject from external and\ncontemporary evidence.  Although its incompleteness has naturally\nrestricted our treatment, the aim has been to describe, in as\nself-contained a form as possible, the general religious conditions to\nwhich this evidence points, and to indicate rather more incidentally\nits bearing upon the numerous questions which are outside the scope of\nthe following pages.\n\n\n+Survey of Period and Sources.+--Many different elements must have\ncoalesced in the history of Palestinian culture from the days of the\nearly palaeolithic and neolithic inhabitants.  It is with no\nrudimentary people that we are concerned, but with one acquainted with\nbronze and exposed to the surrounding civilisations.  The First\nBabylonian Dynasty, not to ascend further, brings with it evidence for\nrelations between Babylonia and the Mediterranean coast-lands, and\nintercourse between Egypt and Palestine dates from before the invasion\nof the Hyksos.[1]  With the expulsion of {5} these invaders (about 1580\nB.C.), the monarchs of Egypt enter upon their great campaigns in\nWestern Asia, and Palestine comes before us in the clear light of\nhistory.  The Egyptian records of the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties\nfurnish valuable information on the history of our period.  Babylonia\nand Assyria lie in the background, and the rival parties are the\nkingdom of the Nile and the non-Semitic peoples of North Syria and Asia\nMinor ('Hittites') whose influence can probably be traced as far south\nas Jerusalem.  Under Thutmose III. (fifteenth century) Egypt became the\nqueen of the known world and the meeting-place of its trade and\nculture.  But the northern peoples only awaited their opportunity, and\nfresh campaigns were necessary before Amenhotep III. (about 1400 B.C.)\nagain secured the supremacy of Egypt.  His successor, the idealist\nAmenhotep IV. (or Ikhnaton), is renowned for his temporary religious\nreform, and, at a time when Egypt's king was almost universally\nrecognised, he established in Egypt what was practically a universal\ngod.  Meanwhile, amid internal confusion in Egypt, Hittites pressed\ndownwards from Asia Minor, seriously weakening the earlier Hittite\nkingdom of Mitanni (North Syria and Mesopotamia).  The cuneiform\ntablets discovered in 1887 {6} at El-Amarna in Middle Egypt contain a\nportion of the diplomatic correspondence between Western Asia (from\nBabylonia to Cyprus) and the two Amenhoteps, and a few tablets in the\nsame script and of about the same age have since been unearthed at\nLachish and Taanach.  It is at this age that we meet with the restless\nKhabiri, a name which suggests a connection with that of the 'Hebrews.'\nThe progress of this later Hittite invasion cannot be clearly traced;\nat all events, Sety I. (Sethos, about 1320 B.C.) was obliged to\nrecommence the work of his predecessors, but recovered little more than\nPalestine.  Ramses II., after much fighting, was able to conclude a\ntreaty with the Hittites (about 1290), the Egyptian version of which is\nnow being supplemented by the Hittite records of the proceedings.\nNevertheless, his successor, Merneptah, claims conquests extending from\nGezer to the Hittites, and among those who 'salaamed' (_lit._ said\n'peace') he includes the people (or tribe) Israel.\n\n\n[1] For approximate dates, see the Chronological Table.\n\n\nThe active intercourse with the Aegean Isles during this age can be\ntraced from Asia Minor to Egypt (notably at El-Amarna), and movements\nin the Levant had accompanied the pressure southwards from Asia Minor\nin the time of the Amenhoteps.  A similar combination was defeated by\n{7} Ramses III. (about 1200); among its constituents the Philistines\nmay doubtless be recognised.  But Egypt, now in the Twentieth Dynasty,\nwas fast losing its old strength, and the internal history of Palestine\nis far from clear.  Apart from the sudden extension of the Assyrian\nempire to the Mediterranean under Tiglath-pileser I. (about 1100 B.C.),\nno one great power, so far as is known, could claim supremacy over the\nwest; and our period comes to an end at a time when Palestine,\naccording to the Israelite historians, was laying the foundation of its\nindependent monarchy.\n\nPalestine has always been open to the roaming tribes from Arabia and\nthe Syrian desert, tribes characteristically opposed to the inveterate\npractices of settled agricultural life.  Arabia, however, possessed\nseats of culture, though their bearing upon our period cannot yet be\nsafely estimated.  But a temple with an old-established and\ncontemporary cult, half Egyptian and half Semitic, has been recovered\nby Professor Petrie at Serabit el-Khadem in the Sinaitic Peninsula, and\nthe arch\u00e6ological evidence frequently illustrates the results of the\nexcavations in Palestine.  Excavations have been undertaken at Tell\nel-Hesy (Lachish), at various sites in the lowlands of Judah (including\nTell es-S\u0101fy, perhaps Gath), at {8} Gezer, Taanach, and Tell\nel-Mutesellim (Megiddo), and, within the last few months, at Jericho.\nMuch of the evidence can be roughly dated, and fortunately the age\nalready illuminated by the Amarna tablets can be recognised.  Its\nculture associates it with North Syria and Asia Minor, and reveals\nsigns of intercourse with the Aegean Isles; but, as a whole, it is the\nresult of a gradual development, which extends without abrupt gaps to\nthe time of the Hebrew monarchy and beyond.  Chronological\ndividing-lines cannot yet be drawn, and consequently the arch\u00e6ological\nevidence which illustrates the 'Amarna' age is not characteristic of\nthat age alone.\n\n\n+The Land and People.+--For practical purposes a distinction between\nPalestine and Syria is unnecessary, apart from the political results of\ntheir contiguity to Egypt and Asia Minor respectively.  Egypt at the\nheight of its power was a vast empire of unprecedented wealth and\nsplendour, and the imported works of art or the descriptions of the\nspoils of war speak eloquently of the stage which material culture had\nreached throughout Western Asia.  Even the small townships of Palestine\nand Syria--the average city was a small fortified site surrounded by\ndwellings, {9} sometimes with an outer wall--could furnish rich booty\nof suits of armour, elegant furniture, and articles of gold and silver.\nThe pottery shows some little taste, music was enjoyed, and a great\ntunnel hewn out of the rock at Gezer is proof of enterprise and skill.\nThe agricultural wealth of the land was famous.  Thutmose III. found\ngrain 'more plentiful than the sand of the shore'; and an earlier and\nmore peaceful visitor to N. Syria, Sinuhe (about 2000 B.C.), speaks of\nthe wine more plentiful than water, copious honey, abundance of oil,\nall kinds of fruits, cereals, and numberless cattle.  Sinuhe was\nwelcomed by a sheikh who gave him his eldest daughter and allowed him\nto choose a landed possession.  Life was simpler and less civilised\nthan in Egypt, but not without excitement.  He led the tribesmen to\nwar, raiding pastures and wells, capturing the cattle, ravaging the\nhostile districts.  Indeed, 'lions and Asiatics' were the familiar\nterror of Egyptian travellers, and the turbulence of the petty\nchieftains, whose intrigues and rivalries swell the Amarna letters,\nmade any combined action among themselves exceptional and transitory.\nWe gather from these letters that foreign envoys were provided with\npassports or credentials addressed to the 'Kings of Canaan,' to ensure\ntheir speedy and safe passage {10} as they traversed the areas of the\ndifferent local authorities.  Such royal commissioners are already met\nwith in the time of Sinuhe.\n\nEgyptian monuments depict the people with a strongly marked Semitic\nphysiognomy, and that physical resemblance to the modern native which\nthe discovery of skeletons has since endorsed.  We can mark their dark\nolive complexion; the men with pointed beards and with thick bushy\nhair, which is sometimes anointed, and the women with tresses waving\nloosely over their shoulders.  The slender maidens were admired and\nsought after by the Egyptians, and later (in the Nineteenth Dynasty) we\nfind the men in request as gardeners and artisans, and some even hold\nhigh positions in the administration of Egypt.  The script and language\nof Babylonia were still in use in the fifteenth century, although the\nsupremacy of that land belonged to the past; they were used in\ncorrespondence between Western Asia and Egypt, also among the Hittites,\nand even between the chieftains of Palestine.  Apart from the tablets\nfound at Lachish and Taanach, several were unearthed at Jericho,\nuninscribed and ready for use.  But the native language in Palestine\nand Syria was one which stands in the closest relation to the classical\nHebrew of the {11} Old Testament, and it differed only dialectically\nfrom the Moabite inscription of Mesha (about 850 B.C.), the somewhat\nlater Hamathite record of Ben-hadad's defeat, and the Phoenician\ninscriptions.\n\nThe general stock of ideas, too, was wholly in accord with Semitic, or\nrather, Oriental thought, and the people naturally shared the\nparadoxical characteristics of the old Oriental world:--a simplicity\nand narrowness of thought, intensity, fanaticism, and even ferocity.[2]\nTo these must be added a keen imagination, necessarily quickened by the\nwonderful variety of Palestinian scenery, which ranges from rugged and\nforbidding deserts to enchanting valleys and forests.  The life of the\npeople depended upon the soil and the agricultural wealth, and these\ndepended upon a climate of marked contrasts, which is found in some\nparts (_e.g._ the lower Jordan valley) to be productive of physical and\nmoral enervation.  In a word, the land is one whose religion cannot be\nunderstood without an attentive regard to those factors which were\nunalterable, and to those specific external influences which were\nfocussed upon it in the entire course of the Second {12} Millennium\nB.C.  We touch the land at a particular period in the course of its\nvery lengthy history; it is not the beginnings of its religion, but the\nstage it had reached, which concerns us.\n\n\n\n[2] See Th. N\u00f6ldeke, _Sketches from Eastern History_ (London, 1892),\nchap. i., 'Some Characteristics of the Semitic Race.'\n\n\n\n\n{13}\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nSACRED SITES\n\n+The Sanctuary of Gezer.+--Of the excavations in Palestine none have\nbeen so prolific or so fully described as those undertaken by Mr.\nMacalister on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund at Gezer.  This\nancient site lies about eighteen miles W.N.W. of Jerusalem, and,\nbetween its two knolls, on a commanding position, one of the most\nstriking which Palestine can offer, were found the remains of a\nsanctuary whose history must have extended over several centuries.\nGezer itself has thrown the strongest light upon the religion of the\nland, and a brief description of its now famous 'high-place' will form\na convenient introduction to the cult and ritual of the period.\n\nLooking eastwards we face eight rough monoliths, which stretch in a\nslightly concave line, about 75 feet in length, from north to south.\nThey are erected upon a platform of stones about {14} 8 feet wide; they\nvary from 5-\u00bd ft. to 10 ft. in height, and have uniformly a fairer\nsurface on the western (front) than on the eastern side.  Number 1, on\nthe extreme right, is the largest (10 ft. 2 in. high, and 4 ft. 7 in.\nby 2 ft. 6 in.).  Next (No. 2), stands the smallest (5 ft. 5 in. high,\n1 ft. 2 in. by 1 ft. 9 in.), whose pointed top with polished spots on\nthe surface speaks of the reverent anointing, stroking and kissing\nwhich holy stones still enjoy at the present day.  No. 7, the last but\none on our extreme left, is of a limestone found around Jerusalem and\nin other districts, but not in the neighbourhood of Gezer.  Under what\ncircumstances this stone was brought hither can only be conjectured\n(see p. 80).  The pillar (7 ft. 3 in. high, 2 ft. 10 in. by 1 ft. 3\nin.) bears upon its front surface a peculiar curved groove; No. 1, too,\nhas a groove across the top, and four in all have hollows or cup-marks\nupon their surfaces.  Nos. 4 and 8 are more carefully shaped than the\nrest, and the latter stands in a circular socket, and is flanked on\neither side by the stumps of two broken pillars.  Yet another stone lay\nfallen to the south of No. 1, and there is some reason to suppose that\nthis and the unique No. 2 belonged to the earliest stage in the history\nof the sanctuary.  In front of Nos. 5 {15} and 6 is a square stone\nblock (6 ft. 1 in. by 5 ft. by 2 ft. 6 in.), with a cavity (2 ft. 10\nin. by 1 ft. 11 in. by 1 ft. 4 in.); a curved groove runs along the\nfront (the western side) of the rim.  It is disputed whether this stone\nheld some idol, stele, or pillar; or whether it was a trough for ritual\nablutions similar to those which Professor Petrie recognised at Serabit\nel-Khadem, or whether, again, it was a sacrificial block upon which the\nvictim was slain.\n\nIn the area behind (east of) these monoliths are entrances leading to\ntwo large underground caverns which appear to have been used originally\nfor habitation; their maximum diameters are about 40 ft. and 28 ft.,\nand they extend nearly the whole length of the alignment.  The caverns\nwere connected by a passage, so short that any sound in one could be\ndistinctly heard in the other, so small and crooked, that it is easy to\nimagine to what use these mysterious chambers could be put.  In the\nlarger cave a jar containing the skeleton of an infant rested upon a\nstone, and close by were the remains of an adult.  Further behind the\npillars was found a bell-shaped pit containing numerous animal and\nhuman bones.  In a circular structure in front of pillars Nos. 7 and 8,\nthe bronze model of a cobra lay amid {16} potsherds and other debris.\nA little distance to the south in a bank of earth were embedded several\nbroken human skulls, cow-teeth, etc.; the heads had evidently been\nsevered before burial, and there was no trace of the bodies.  Below the\nwhole area, before and more particularly behind the pillars, several\ninfants were found buried head-downwards in large jars; they were\nmostly new-born, and two, as also two older children, bore marks of\nfire.  Finally, throughout the debris that had accumulated upon the\nfloor of the sanctuary were innumerable objects typical of\nnature-worship, representations in low relief of the nude\nmother-goddess of Western Asia, and male emblems roughly made of\nlimestone, pottery, bone, and other material.\n\n\n+Other Sacred Places.+--Scarcely fifty yards to the south of these\npillars was a rock-surface about ninety feet by eighty, covered with\nover eighty of the singular cup-marks or hollows which we have already\nobserved.  One little group surrounded by small standing-stones was\nconnected by a drain which led to a subterranean cave.  Here, too, was\nanother almost concealed chamber, and the discovery of a number of\nbones of the swine (an animal seldom found elsewhere in Gezer) gave\n{17} weight to the suggestion that mysterious rites were practised.\n\nAlthough the monoliths of Gezer do not appear to have lost their sacred\ncharacter until perhaps the sixth century B.C., they were not the only\nplace of cult in the city.  Above, on the eastern hill, were the\nremains of an elaborate building measuring about 100 ft. by 80 ft..\nIts purpose was shown by the numerous religious emblems found within\nits precincts.  In two circular structures were the broken fragments of\nthe bones of sheep and goats--devoid of any signs of cooking or\nburning.  Jars containing infants had been placed at the corners of\nsome of the chambers; and below an angle of a courtyard close by, a pit\nunderneath the corner-stone disclosed bones and potsherds, the latter\nbearing upon them the skull of a young girl.\n\nAt the north-east edge of the plateau of Tell es-S\u0101fy the\nexcavations brought to light a building with monoliths; in the debris\nat their feet were the bones of camels, sheep and cows.  At the east\nend of the hill of Megiddo, Dr. Schumacher found pillars with cup-marks\nenclosed in a small building about 30 ft. by 15 ft.; a block of stone\napparently served as the sacrificial altar.  Besides several amulets\nand small idols, at one of the {18} corners were jars containing the\nskeletons of new-born infants.  The structure belonged to a great\nseries of buildings about 230 ft. long and 147 ft. broad.  At the same\nsite also was discovered a bare rock with hollows; it was approached by\na step, and an entrance led to a subterranean abode containing human\nand other bones.  At Taanach, Dr. Sellin found a similar place of\nsacrifice with cavities and channel; the rock-altar had a step on the\neastern side, and close by were a number of flint-knives, jars with\ninfants (ranging up to two years of age), and the remains of an adult.\n\nContinued excavation will no doubt throw fuller light upon the old\nsacred places, their varying types, and their development; even the\nrecent discovery of a small pottery model of the fa\u00e7ade of a shrine is\nsuggestive.  It represents an open fore-court and a door-way on either\nside of which is a figure seated with its hands upon its knees.  The\nfigure wears what seems to be a high-peaked cap; it is presumably\nhuman, but the nose is curiously rounded, and one recalls the quaint\nguardians of the temple-front found in other parts of Western Asia.\n\n\n+Their Persistence.+--Whether the choice of a {19} sacred place was\ninfluenced by chance, by some peculiar natural characteristic, or by\nthe impressiveness of the locality, nothing is more striking than its\npersistence.  Religious practice is always conservative, and once a\nplace has acquired a reputation for sanctity, it will retain its fame\nthroughout political and even religious vicissitudes.  The history of\nGezer, for example, goes back to the neolithic age, but the religious\ndevelopment, to judge from the arch\u00e6ological evidence, is unbroken, and\nalthough there came a time when the city passed out of history,\nPalestine still has its sacred stones and rock-altars, buildings and\ntombs, caves and grottoes, whose religious history must extend over\nuntold ages.  At both Gezer and Tell es-S\u0101fy a sacred tomb actually\nstands upon the surface of the ground quite close to the site of the\nold holy places.\n\nAt Serabit the caves with their porticoes had evolved by the addition\nof chambers, etc., into a complicated series sacred to the\nrepresentative goddess of the district and to the god of the Egyptian\nminers.  It is estimated that the cult continued for at least a\nthousand years.  In the neighbourhood of Petra several apparent\n'high-places' have been found.  They are perched conspicuously to catch\nthe rays of the morning {20} sun or in view of a holy shrine; and the\nfinest of them is approached by two great pillars, 21 to 22 feet high.\nAlthough as a whole they may be ascribed to 300 B.C.-100 A.D., their\naltars, basins, courts, etc., probably permit us to understand the more\nimperfect remains of sanctuaries elsewhere.[1]  But independently of\nthese, from Sinai to North Syria an imposing amount of evidence\nsurvives in varying forms for the history of the sacred sites of\nantiquity.  In the rock-altars of the modern land with cup-marks and\noccasionally with steps, with the shrine of some holy saint and an\nequally holy tree, sometimes also with a mysterious cave, we may see\nliving examples of the more undeveloped sanctuaries.  For a result of\ncontinued evolution, on the other hand, perhaps nothing could be more\nimpressive than the Sakhra of the Holy Temple at Jerusalem, where, amid\nthe associations of three thousand years of history, the bare rock,\nwith hollows, cavities, channels, and subterranean cave, preserves the\nprimitive features without any essential change.[2]\n\n\n\n[1] G. Dalman, _Petra und seine Felsheiligt\u00fcmer_ (Leipzig, 1908).\n\n[2] R. Kittel, Studien zur Hebr\u00e4ischen Arch\u00e4ologie und\nReligionsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1908), chap. i.  Chap. ii. illustrates\nprimitive rock-altars of Palestine and their development.\n\n\n+The Modern Places of Cult.+--Notwithstanding {21} the religious and\npolitical vicissitudes of Palestine, the old centres of cult have never\nlost the veneration of the people, and their position in modern popular\nbelief and ritual affords many a suggestive hint for their history in\nthe past.  Although Mohammedanism allows few sacred localities, the\nactual current practice, in Palestine as in Asia Minor, attaches\nconceptions of great sanctity to a vast number of places.  The shrines\nand sacred buildings dotted here and there upon elevated sites form a\ncharacteristic feature of the modern land, and there is abundant\ntestimony that they are the recipients of respect and awe far more real\nthan that enjoyed by the more official or orthodox religion.  Although\nthey are often placed under the protection of Islam by being known as\nthe tombs of saints, prophets, and holy sheikhs, this is merely a\ndisguise; and although it is insisted that the holy occupants are only\nmediators, they are the centre of antique rites and ideas which\northodox Mohammedanism rejects.  Their power is often rated above that\nof Allah himself.  Oaths by Allah are freely taken and as freely\nbroken, those at the local shrines rarely (if ever) fail; the coarse\nand painful freedom of language, even in connection with Allah, becomes\nrestrained when the natives visit their holy place.\n\n{22}\n\nThe religious life of the peasants is bound up with the shrines and\nsaints.  There they appeal for offspring, healing, and good harvests;\nthere they dedicate the first-fruits, firstlings, and their children,\nand in their neighbourhood they prefer to be buried.  No stranger may\nintrude heedlessly within the sacred precincts, and one may see the\nworshipper enter barefooted praying for permission as he carefully\nsteps over the threshold.  The saint by supernatural means is able to\nprotect everything deposited in the vicinity of the tomb, which can\nthus serve as a store or treasure-house.  He is supreme over a local\narea; he is ready even to fight for his followers against the foe; for\nall practical purposes he is virtually the god of the district.  Some\nof the shrines are sacred to a woman who passes for the sister or the\ndaughter of a saint at the same or a neighbouring locality.  Even the\ndog has been known to have a shrine in his honour, and the animal\nenters into Palestinian folk-lore in a manner which this unclean beast\nof Mohammedanism hardly seems to deserve.  As a rule the people will\navoid calling the occupant of the shrine by name, and some\ncircumlocutionary epithet is preferred: the famous sheikh, father of\nthe lion, rain-giver, dwarf, full-moon, or (in case of {23} females)\nthe lady of child-birth, the fortunate, and the like.\n\nThe shrines are the centres of story and legend which relate their\norigin, legitimise their persistence, or illustrate their power.  In\nthe course of ages the name of the saint who once chose to reveal\nhimself there has varied, and the legends of earlier figures have been\ntransferred and adjusted to names more acceptable to orthodoxy.  Some\nof the figures have grown in importance and have thus extended their\nsphere of influence, and as difference of sect is found to be no\nhindrance to a common recognition of the power of the saint, the more\nfamous shrines have been accepted by worshippers outside the original\ncircle.  In course of time, too, isolated figures have gained\nsupremacy, and have superseded earlier distinct authorities, with the\nresult that the same name will be found under a number of locally\ndiverging types.  Most conspicuous of all are St. George and the\never-youthful prophet Elijah, who have inherited numerous sacred places\nand their cults, in the same manner as St. George has become the\nsuccessor of Apollo in the Greek isles.  Similarly the Virgin Mary, in\nher turn, has frequently taken the place formerly held by the female\ndeities of antiquity.\n\n\n\n\n{24}\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nSACRED OBJECTS\n\nThe modern holy places, under the care of some minister, dervish, or\npriestly family, are the scenes of periodic visits, liturgical\nunctions, processions, the festal display of lights, etc., and although\nin the course of their lengthy history there have been certain\nmodifications, it is to them that one must look for the persisting\nreligion which underlay the older official cults.  The rocks with\ncup-marks and channels, the gloomy caves and grottoes, the mountain\nsummits, the springs or fountains which still receive the offerings of\nworshippers, the holy trees, the sacred sacrificial stones--these form\nthe fundamental substructure of the land's religion, and whatever be\nthe true origin of their sanctity, they continue to be visited when\nsuperhuman aid is required.\n\n\n+Trees.+--It is not the shrines alone which are sacred on the ground\nthat some saint had once {25} revealed his presence there; there are\ntrees (the terebinth, and more especially the oak) which are inviolable\nbecause spirits have made them their abode, or which owe their\nsupernatural qualities to some holy being who is currently supposed to\nhave reclined beneath them.  Such trees are virtually centres of\nworship.  Incense is burned to them, and they receive sacrifices and\nofferings; they are loaded with food, gifts, and (on special occasions)\nwith lamps.  They give oracles, and the sick sleep beneath their shade,\nconfident that a supernatural messenger will prescribe for their\nailments.  They are decked with rags, which thus acquire wonderful\nproperties; and the worshipper who leaves a shred as a pledge of\nattachment or, it may be, to transfer a malady, will take away a rag\nwhich may serve as a charm.  Sacred trees were well known to early\nwriters, and according to the Talmud there were some beneath which\npriests sat but did not eat of their fruit, remains of heathen\nsacrifice might be found there, and the Jew who sat or passed in its\nshade became ceremonially impure.  It is unnecessary, however, to\nmultiply examples of a feature to which the Old Testament also attests;\npopular belief has universally associated religious and superstitious\nideas with those beneficent objects which appear {26} to be as much\nimbued with motion, animation, and feeling as man himself.\n\nThe sacred tree tends to become conventionalised and is replaced by the\ntrunk or post.  As the home of a powerful influence there is an\ninclination to symbolise it, and to identify it with the supernatural\nbeing, with the deity itself.  The development of the image (not\nnecessarily female) from an aniconic wooden post can be illustrated by\nthe pillars representative of Osiris, by the head of Hathor of Byblos\n(p. 75 _sq._) upon a pillar in Egypt (Nineteenth Dynasty), and by the\nvotive tablets at Serabit bearing the head of Hathor mounted upon a\npole, which stands upon a base, or is flanked by a tree on either side.\nSome tree-like post is evidently intended by the _ash\u0113rah_ of the\nOld Testament, a common object at the 'high-places' during the\nmonarchy.  In this case, the relation between the tree and deity is\nabsolute, and we shall meet with a goddess of this name (see below, p.\n87).\n\n\n+Stones.+--The inanimate stone is partly commemorative, partly\nrepresentative.  In Palestine we see it marked with the curious hollows\nwhich, when found upon the bare rock, served, amid a variety of\npurposes, for libations and for the blood {27} of the sacrifices.  The\nerect pillar appears to be secondary, but dates, at least in Serabit,\nfrom before our period.  The hollows upon such stones are equally\nadapted for offerings, although, when they are lateral, it is probable\nthat they were smeared or anointed like the door-posts of a modern\nshrine.  These holes are also transferred to slabs or are replaced by\nvessels, while the stone itself is not merely 'the place of sacrificial\nslaughter' (the literal meaning of 'altar' in the Old Testament), but\nembodies the power whose influence is invoked.  It is practically a\nfetish, the tangible abode of the recipient of veneration.  At Serabit\nProfessor Petrie discovered before a stele a flat altar-stone which\nbore cavities (Twelfth Dynasty), and even in Abyssinia at Aksum have\nbeen observed great monoliths, at whose base stood stone blocks with\nvessels and channels.  Similar combinations have been found at\nCarthage.  Throughout, neither the stone nor the significance attached\nto it remains the same.  The sacred stone may lose its value and be\nsuperseded, and it by no means follows that the number of pillars\nimplies an equal number of in-dwelling beings.  While the stone\ndevelops along one line as an object of cult and becomes an altar, it\ntakes other forms when, by an easy confusion of sentiment, {28} it\ncomes to represent a deity (of either sex).  It is then shaped or\nornamented to depict the conceptions attached to the holy occupant, and\nwhen this deity is anthropomorphic, the pillar becomes a rude image,\nand finally the god in human form.  It is now clothed and decked with\nornaments.  Thus, one finds the groove along the top or the bifurcation\nsuggestive of early steps towards the representation of the horns of an\nanimal; or, as among the pillars at Gezer, one perceives two (Nos. 4\nand 8) which assume some resemblance to a _simulacrum Priapi_.\n\nThe growing wealth of cult, the influence of novel ideas, and the\ntransformation of the attributes of a deity make the history of the\nevolution of the objects of cult extremely intricate.  At the same\nplace and time they may be found in varying stages of development, and\nif the interpretation of the several features as they appealed to\nworshippers is often obscure to us, the speculations of the\ncontemporary writers cannot always be accepted without careful inquiry.\n\n\n+Images and Symbols.+--Thutmose III. relates that he carried off from\nMegiddo and the Lebanon a silver statue in beaten work; also some\nobject [words are lost] with a head of gold, {29} the staff having\nhuman faces, and a royal image of ebony wrought with gold, the head of\nwhich was adorned with lapis lazuli.  Although no sacred statues of\nAncient Palestine have as yet come to light--if they escaped the zeal\nof later iconoclasts--it would seem that they were of no mean\nworkmanship, and it may be inferred that they did not differ radically\nfrom the gods and goddesses whose outward appearance can be observed on\nthe monuments of Western Asia.  This inference is supported by the\nrepeated discovery, in course of excavation, of representations of a\ngoddess who was evidently the embodiment of life and fertility.  A few\nfigurines and numerous small 'Astarte-plaques,' with moulds for their\nmanufacture, prove the prevalence of a mother-goddess and patroness of\nnature, essentially identical with that familiar in the old Oriental\nreligions.  The plaques, which are about 6 to 7 inches in length, offer\na large variety of types from the coarsest exaggeration of sexuality to\nhighly conventionalised forms.  The goddess is generally nude, but a\nbronze figurine from Taanach gives her a conical head-dress and a thin\nrobe reaching down to her ankles.  The characteristic type at this\ncity, however, depicts a striated crown, rings on neck and feet, and is\n{30} generally suggestive of Babylonian influence.  Otherwise, when\ndepicted with bracelets, necklace and lotus-flowers, she resembles the\nEgyptian Hathor; indeed she is often marked with the Egyptian uraeus.\nA specimen from Tell es-S\u0101fy curiously combines an Egyptianised form\nof the goddess with typical Babylonian five- and six-rayed stars.  Yet\na fourth variety with huge and disfiguring earrings finds its parallels\nin North Syria and Cyprus.  The occurrence and combination of elements\nof different origin are instructive for the culture and religion of\nPalestine.  This fourth type has sometimes a bird-like head, which\nrecalls a curious example from Lachish with large ears and hooked nose\nor beak.  A small bronze image of the goddess, which was found at\nGezer, among broken lamps and pottery within the area of the pillars,\ngives her horns which coil downwards like those of a ram.  It is\nthrough such development and modification that the horns of the great\ngoddess could come to be regarded as the representation of a crescent\nmoon when philosophical speculation busied itself with the heavenly\nbodies.  The traces of animal attributes take another form in various\nrude and almost shapeless objects of bronze which have been\ninterpreted, thanks to a more realistic {31} specimen from the Jud\u00e6an\nTell Zakariya, as models of an amphibious creature with human head and\nthe tail of a fish.  Here it is natural to see the famous Derceto or\nAtargatis, well known later as a deity of the Astarte type, and, as an\nillustration of the evolution of symbols, it may be added that a\nsplendid Carthaginian sarcophagus of a priestess represents a woman of\nstrange beauty with the lower part of the body so draped as to give it\na close resemblance to a fish's tail.[1]\n\n\n\n[1] Mabel Moore, _Carthage of the Phoenicians in the Light of Modern\nExcavation_ (London, 1905), p. 146 _sq._ and frontispiece.\n\n\nThe manifold representations of the Palestinian 'good goddess' extend\nover a lengthy period, and vary in taste and nuance from the crudest of\nspecimens to veritable artistic products of the Seleucid age.  They\nindicate that the fundamental religious conceptions agreed with those\nof Western Asia as a whole, and it may be assumed that the conclusions\nwhich can be drawn from the figurines and plaques of this deity would\napply, _mutatis mutandis_, to others.\n\nAmong other objects which hardly belong to public cult, but were\nprobably for household or private use, may be noticed the small idols;\n_e.g._ one from Megiddo in the clumsy 'snow-man' {32} technique,\nanother from Jericho with the head of a bull.  Numerous small phalli\nhave also been unearthed.  Some are roughly carved in human shape,\nothers approximate the form of a fish.  They do not necessarily belong\nto the cult of any male deity, but the true significance of these and\nother small emblems is often uncertain.  As with the many small models\nof the heads of bull, cow, or serpent, or the two small conical stones\nfrom the temple at Serabit, each with a groove along the base, it is\noften difficult to distinguish the fetishes and symbols, which involve\nideas of some relationship with a supernatural being, from the charms,\namulets, and talismans, wherein other religious ideas are involved.\nThe possibility that some of the objects are really toys cannot be\nexcluded.\n\n\n\n\n{33}\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nSACRED RITES AND PRACTICES\n\n+General Inferences.+--That the old places of cult had their duly\nordained officials may be taken for granted; even the smallest of them,\nlike those of to-day, must have had appointed attendants.  The Amarna\nletters mention the wealthy temple of Byblos with the handmaidens of\nthe goddess of the city, and in Merneptah's reign we hear of a man of\nGaza who is described as a servant of Baal.  We may be sure, also, that\nthe rites and festivals were similar to those usually prevalent among\nagricultural peoples.  The nature-worship of the age can be realised\nfrom a survey of the old cults of Western Asia, and from the\ndenunciations of the Old Testament, which prove the persistence of\nolder licentious rites.  Popular religion often continues to tolerate\npractices which social life condemns, and the fertility of crops,\ncattle, and of man himself, was co-ordinated {34} by an uncontrollable\nuse of analogy in which the example was set by the 'sacred' men and\nwomen of the sanctuaries (_k\u0101desh_; Deut. xxiii. 17, R.V. marg.).\nSympathetic magic--the imitation of the cause to produce a desired\neffect--underlay a variety of rites among a people whose life depended\nupon the gifts of the soil, whose religion was a way of life.  Here,\nhowever, we are restricted chiefly to some miscellaneous evidence which\nthe excavations suggest.\n\n\n+The Disposal of the Dead.+--Incineration or cremation had been\noriginally practised by a people physically distinct from that among\nwhom inhumation prevailed.  The latter innovation has been ascribed to\nthe invading Semites.  Subsequently, in Carthage, cremation is found to\nre-enter, presumably through foreign influence; but the two practices\nco-exist, even in the same family, and it is probable that there, at\nall events, cremation was only followed in special circumstances.  A\nlarge burial-cave at Gezer with a thick layer of burnt ash proves the\nlengthy duration of the earlier custom.  The same cave was afterwards\nutilised by those who inhumed their dead, and thenceforth there is\nlittle evolution in the history of early Palestinian burial.  No\nparticular {35} orientation predominates; the dead are placed upon a\nlayer of stones, or within cists, or in pits in the floor of the\ncaverns.  Both the contracted or squatting and the outstretched\nattitude occur.  From the story of Sinuhe (p. 9), it would seem that\nburial in a sheep-skin was also customary.  The needs of the dead are\nsupplied by vessels of food, which occasionally show traces of burning;\ndrink was more important, and the large jars sometimes contain small\ncups for the convenience of the thirsty soul.  In the case of a jug\nwith two mammillary projections one is reminded of a type usually\nassociated at Carthage with the burial of infants.  A variety of\nmiscellaneous objects provided for other needs: weapons, jewels,\nostrich eggs, seals, scarabs, amulets, small figures in human or animal\nform, etc.  Especially characteristic of the later tombs are the\nabundant deposits of lamps.\n\nThe abode of the dead being one of the centres of the religion of the\nliving, the tomb always possesses sanctity.  The internal arrangements,\nwith platforms or hewn benches, will often suggest some burial-ritual.\nThe cup-marks, which frequently appear near or even in the tomb itself,\nlike those still to be seen upon Palestinian dolmens, could serve for\nsacrifices or libations, {36} or to collect the refreshing rain for the\nsoul of the deceased.  Or, again, later usage will suggest that they\nwere planted with flowers which, like the 'Gardens of Adonis,'\nsymbolised the mysteries of death and revival.  Often, the dead are\nburied beneath the streets (if the narrow windings deserve that name),\nor within the houses, under circumstances which preclude the\nfoundation-sacrifices to be noticed presently.  This feature is\nscarcely accidental; it is well known elsewhere, and was probably\nintended to keep the spirit of the dead near its former abode, over\nwhich it could continue to exercise a benevolent influence.\n\n\n+Jar Burial.+--It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between an\nordinary burial and some sacrificial ceremony.  The burial of new-born\nor very young infants in jars, in or near some sacred locality (p. 16\n_sq._), points very strongly to the sacrifice of the first-born to\nwhich the Old Testament bears witness (Micah vi. 7).  But where the\ncircumstances make this view less probable, the special treatment of\nthose who died in early infancy needs consideration.  In inhumation and\nthe return of the dead to the ground we are in the midst of ideas\nassociated {37} with 'mother-earth,' the begetter of all things.  The\nburial in a contracted or squatting position might naturally represent\nthe usual crouched posture of the individual as he sat in life-time\namong his fellows; it might also point to a belief in the re-birth of\nthe soul of the dead.  The jar-burials, where the infant is inserted\nhead downwards, are more suggestive of the latter, and evidence from\nAfrica and Asia shows that provision is sometimes made for the re-birth\nof still-born or very young babes on the conviction that at some future\noccasion they will enter again into a mother's womb.  The numerous\nemblems of nature-worship and the mother-goddess, especially at Gezer,\nraise the presumption that the deities of the place were powers of\nfertility and generation; and, just as the shrines of saints to-day are\nvisited by would-be mothers who hope for offspring, it is not\nimprobable that in olden times those who had been prematurely cut off\nfrom the living were interred in sacred sites venerated by the women.\nThis view, which has been proposed by Dr. J. G. Frazer, will not apply\nof course to those jar-burials where human-sacrifice is clearly\nrecognisable.[1]\n\n\n[1] _Adonis, Attis, Osiris_, pp. 77 _sq._, 82 _sq._.\n\n\n{38}\n\n+Human Sacrifice.+--A gruesome discovery was made in a cistern at Gezer\nwhere, together with a number of adult skeletons, lay the upper half of\na young girl about sixteen years of age.  Near the mouth were the\ndecapitated heads of two girls.  In another case at Gezer (described as\na 'foundation deposit') the upper half of the skeleton of a youth had\nbeen placed with two adults.  Perhaps we should here include the cases\nwhere only a few bones of the deceased were preserved, _e.g._ in one\ntomb the skull and certain other bones were missing.  Vessels, also,\nwere found containing only one or two human bones: the patella of an\nadult, the calvaria of a skull; but in the majority of instances they\nbelonged to infants.  Partial burial of this character has been\nexplained on the theory of cannibalism; this practice, often based on\nthe idea of absorbing the attributes of the deceased, has left\nscattered traces among the Semites.  But the dismemberment of the dead\n(known at Susa, Egypt, and common to many savage races) admits of other\nexplanations, whether, for example, we observe the use of bones as\namulets (p. 51 _sq._), or recall the story of the severed Osiris.  In\nthe latter, however, it may be suspected that a sacrifice for magical\npurposes underlies an aetiological {39} legend.[2]  The bank of skulls\nsouth of the monoliths of Gezer (p. 16) may perhaps recall the mound\n(or pillar?) of heads which certain Assyrian kings erected in front of\nthe cities they conquered (_e.g._ Ashur-nasir-pal I.).  Such a deed,\nlike their holocaust of children after a victory, was no unmeaning\nferocity; religion entered profoundly into ancient life, and every war\nwas a 'holy war.'  The horrid rites in honour of the gods who fought\nfor their followers are to be traced in Egypt, Assyria, and the Old\nTestament, and even as late as 307 B.C. the Carthaginians after their\ndefeat of Agathocles slew the choicest prisoners 'before the altar in\nfront of the holy tent.'\n\n\n[2] J. G. Frazer, Adonis, etc., pp. 273 _sq._, 321, and especially 331\n_sqq._  Here one may perhaps refer to the tradition that the prophet\nIsaiah was sawn in half, hidden as he was in a tree (comp. also Ep.\nHebrews, xi. 37).\n\n\nThe widespread custom of _Foundation Sacrifice_ survives in Palestine\nwhen popular opinion requires that blood shall be shed at the\ninauguration of every important building, at the breaking-up of\nunoccupied land, or at the opening of a new well.  Thus, a sheep was\nsacrificed at the building of a jetty for the landing of the German\nEmperor at Haifa in 1898.  The rite is a propitiation to the _numen_ of\nthe place.\n\n{40} Mohammed in his day tried to prohibit such sacrifices to the\n_jinn_, but the inveterate sentiment is summed up in the words of a\nmodern native: 'every house must have its death, either man, woman,\nchild, or animal.'  The animal-victim is recognised as a substitute,\nand vulgar superstition still associates with the foundation of\nbuildings some vague danger to human life--if not its loss.  Traditions\nof human sacrifice are recorded by medi\u00e6val and older writers, and\nexcavation has disclosed authentic examples.  At Gezer the skeleton of\nan adult female had been placed under the corner of a house, and the\nbones of infants were often found in or under the walls of houses down\nto the later Israelite period.  At Megiddo, a young girl of about\nfifteen was laid across a foundation-stone, and a victim at the foot of\na tower in Taanach was a child scarcely in its teens.  A jar with the\nremains of a new-born infant rested upon a platform in the Gezer\ncrematorium, and the evidence allowed the inference that it was a\ndedicatory sacrifice when the cave was taken over and used for\ninhumation.  Infants buried in jars were found, together with bowls and\nlamps, under the foundations in Gezer as late as the latter part of the\nIsraelite monarchy, although a modification had already been {41}\nintroduced in the simple deposits of lamps and bowls, usually at the\ncorners of houses or chambers or under the jambs of doors.  If the\nbowls represent the sacrificial offerings, the significance of the\nlamps is uncertain.  The victim in the rite had not been burned, but\nprobably buried alive, and it may be conjectured that the\nidentification of life and light (familiar from the Old Testament)\nunderlies the symbolical lamp.  The modern Palestinian custom of\nhanging lights in shrines, etc., in cases of sickness possibly involves\nthe same association of ideas.  On the other hand, the lamps found in\ntombs naturally recall the widespread custom of lighting the soul on\nits dark journey, or of kindling a lamp in the home to enable it to\nretrace its steps on the anniversary.  These purely burial lamps are\nvery well known (_e.g._ in Carthage), and they survive in Palestine to\nthe Christian age, when they are inscribed with such distinctive\nmottoes as 'Christ is my light,' or 'the light of Christ shines for\nall.'\n\n\n+The Importance of Sacrifice+ makes itself felt at every sacred site\nfrom the enormous quantities of burnt ash before the caves of Serabit\nto the similar accumulations upon the summit of Mount Hermon.  The\nworshipper believes that the rite {42} brings him into contact with the\npowers who are to be nourished, invoked, or recompensed.  Its\nprevalence vividly indicates man's dependence upon them throughout the\nseasons of the year and on the great occasions of life: birth,\ncircumcision (already practised in our period), marriage and death.\nUnderlying the sacrifice is the profound significance of blood.  It is\nthe seat of existence; it has potent virtues whether for protection,\nexpiation, or purification; and the utmost care is taken to dispose of\nit according to established usage.  The fat, too, has no less its\nliving qualities, and since the oldest unguents were animal\nfats--modern usage is often content with butter--it is probable that\nanointing originally had a deeper meaning than would at first appear.\nWanton bloodshed called for vengeance, and when a Babylonian king\ndemanded that Ikhnaton should slay the Canaanites who had killed his\nmerchants, and thus 'bring back their blood' and prevent retaliation,\nthe inveterate blood-revenge of primitive social life finds an early\nillustration.  But as a sacrifice, the slaughter of human victims,\nthough perhaps not regular, was at least not exceptional, and the\nfrightful bloodshed which the Old Testament attests emphasises the\ndifficulties which confronted those teachers {43} of Israel who would\ndisassociate their national God from an inveterate practice (Ezek. xvi.\n20 _sq._, xx. 31).\n\nFor a striking illustration of the diffusion and persistence of human\nsacrifice we may refer to Carthage where the distress caused by\nAgathocles in 310 B.C. was attributed to the wrath of the god to whom\nthe rich had been offering purchased children instead of their own.\nBut there is a general tendency in religion to soften crude rites, save\nwhen a particularly efficacious offering is felt necessary in the midst\nof some grave crisis, and of the changes in that background of cult\nwhich has survived throughout the history of Palestine, the\nsubstitution of the animal for the human victim is the most\nsignificant.  Yet, as we have seen, the idea of human sacrifice has not\nentirely disappeared (p. 40).  The animal is still recognised as a\n'ransom,' and in the present rite of that name loss of human life is\naverted by the sacrifice of some animal, and it is explained that the\nsacrifice will combat and overcome the cause of the impending danger.\nIt would be only logical, therefore, to proceed on the assumption that\nthe greater the danger the more powerful and efficacious must be the\nsacrifice.  Current beliefs thus {44} afford suggestive hints for\nearlier usage, and when we learn that to-day a natural death finds\nconsolation in the thought that it may have been the ransom for\nanother, we meet with an idea that could be put into practice: it is no\ngreat step to the ceremonies (observed in Africa) which give effect to\nthe conviction that a man's life may be prolonged or his old age\nrecuperated by the actual sacrifice of another human being.  It is\nessentially the same idea when Egyptian kings, like Amenhotep II. and\nRamses II. slew the prisoners of war that they themselves or their name\n'might live for ever.' (On the _name_, see below, p. 60.)\n\nSacrificial rites were never irrational, however difficult it may be to\nperceive their object, and from a survey of comparative custom one can\nsometimes picture the scenes by which they were accompanied.  It is\nonly by such means that one can conjecturally explain the discovery\nnear the temple-area at Gezer of animal bones, sliced, hacked, and\nbroken into fragments, with no signs of having been cooked.  One is\ntempted to refer to a rite practised by the Arabs of the Sinaitic\ndesert towards the close of the fourth century A.D.  The old ascete,\nNilus, describes a solemn procession of chanting worshippers {45} who\nmove around an altar of rude stones upon which is bound a camel.  The\nbeast is stabbed, and the leader drinks of the gushing blood.  At once\nthe assembly hack the victim to pieces, devouring it raw until the\nwhole is consumed--the entire ceremony begins with the rise of the\nmorning star (in whose honour it was performed) and ends with the\nrising sun.  Was some rite of this kind practised in Palestine?  It\nmust be a matter for conjecture; the least that can be said is that the\nscene is not too barbaric for our land and period.\n\n\n+Broken Offerings,+ _e.g._ figurines, models, and other articles, when\nfound deposited in tombs, have been explained in the light of\ncomparative custom as destroyed or 'killed' to the end that their\n'soul' may accompany that of the deceased.  But other ideas are\nevidently involved when the area of the sanctuary at Serabit proved to\nbe covered with a mass of pottery, plaques, bracelets, wands, sistra,\netc., so fragmentary that no single specimen could be pieced together.\nAt Gezer, also, although the plaques of the goddess were fairly tough,\nall had been broken, and apparently with intention.  We may compare the\nmodern custom of breaking pottery in fulfilment of a {46} vow, an\ninteresting illustration of which was furnished by the late Professor\nCurtiss from Bludan on the road from Zebedany to Damascus.  At a spot,\nfamiliarly known as the 'mother of pieces,' is a rock-platform with\ncave, shrine, sacred grove and hereditary ministers.  Hither come the\nwomen to break a jar when they have gained their one wish, and it is\nsingular to observe that the traditions which are attached to the\ncustom include the belief that a girl, the patroness of the shrine,\nlies buried there.  The likeness to the suggested rites at Gezer will\nbe noticed (p. 37).  But the stories do not elucidate the peculiar\ntreatment of the offerings, and the usage finds its most probable\nexplanation in the persuasion that things once dedicated or put to a\nsacred use are 'holy,' and cannot be used for ordinary purposes.  We\ntouch upon a fundamental institution embodying a series of apparently\nparadoxical ideas--the universal 'tabu.'\n\n\n+'Holy' and 'Unclean.'+--The terms Holy or Sacred (comp. the Latin\n_sacer_) are not to be understood in the ethical or moral sense.  A\nholy thing is one which has been set aside, dedicated, or restricted;\nit is charged with supernatural influence which is contagious;\neverything {47} that comes in contact with it also becomes holy.  In\nsome cases it is provided that this inconvenient sanctity may be\npurged; in others, the thing has to be destroyed.  When the Talmud says\nthat a Canonical Book of the Old Testament 'defiles' the hand, it means\nthat the very sanctity of the book demands that the hand should be\nceremonially purified or cleansed before touching anything else.  'Holy\nand unclean things,' to quote Robertson Smith, 'have this in common,\nthat in both cases certain restrictions lie on men's use of and contact\nwith them, and that the breach of these restrictions involves\nsupernatural dangers.  The difference between the two appears, not in\ntheir relation to man's ordinary life, but in their relation to the\ngods.  Holy things are not free to man, because they pertain to the\ngods; uncleanness is shunned, according to the view taken in the higher\nSemitic religions, because it is hateful to the god, and therefore not\nto be tolerated.'\n\n\n+Sacred Animals,+ in the light of the above, are those associated with\ncults which might be regarded as illegitimate.  An example is afforded\nby the pig which enters into the rites and myths of Adonis, Attis,\nNinib, and Osiris.  In a cavern south of the monoliths of Gezer a\nnumber of {48} pig-bones lay underneath a shaft which led to the\ncup-marked surface above (p. 16); the circumstances recall the\nThesmophoria, the caves and vaults in the Greek area connected with\nDemeter and Proserpine, and the use of the pig in mystic rites of\nchthonic and agricultural deities.  In Palestine and Syria the animal\nwas used in certain exceptional sacrifices which were recognised as\nidolatrous (Isaiah lxv. 4; lxvi. 17), and it was an open question\nwhether it was really polluted or holy.  If, as the excavations\nsuggest, the sacrifice of the swine dates from the earliest inhabitants\nof Gezer, with whom it was also a domestic animal, it is interesting to\nobserve the persistence of its character as a proper sacrificial animal\nfrom pre-Semitic times by the side of the apparently contradictory\nbelief that it was also unclean.\n\nThe camel bones at Tell es-S\u0101fy, also, are of interest since\nRobertson Smith has shown that the animal (which became 'unclean' to\nthe Israelites), though used by the Arabs for food and sacrifice, was\nassociated with ideas of sanctity, and its flesh was forbidden to\nconverts to Christianity.  The model of a bronze cobra found in a\ntemple-enclosure (p. 15) might be conjecturally explained, but it will\nsuffice to remember that {49} serpents were and still are connected\nwith spirits both benevolent and malevolent.  The recurrence of models\nof the animal-world, the numerous representations upon seals of deer,\ngazelles, etc. (animals connected with Astarte), or the predilection\nfor the lion upon objects discovered at Megiddo need not have any\nspecific meaning for the religious ideas.  On the other hand, the\nanimal-like attributes which appear upon some plaques of the\nmother-goddess are scarcely meaningless.  There is no ground for the\nassumption that Palestine was without the animal-deities and the\ndeities with special sacred animals, which have left their traces in\nthe surrounding lands, and it would be misleading to suppose that the\nmyths and legends which have grown up around these features account for\ntheir origin.  The conviction that man was made in the likeness of the\ngods (who are therefore anthropomorphic) implies certain conceptions of\ntheir nature, the development of which belongs to the history of\nreligion, and in turning next to the spirit-world of Ancient Palestine\nit is necessary that we should be prepared to appreciate a mental\noutlook profoundly different from our own.\n\n\n\n\n{50}\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE WORLD OF SPIRITS\n\n+Awe.+--A fundamental sense of awe was felt in the presence of anything\nunusual or contrary to experience, and man's instinctive philosophy\nshaped his ideas from the suggestions of daily life, accounting for all\ncases of causation by assimilating them to the intentional acts of\nvoluntary agents like himself.  There was no doubt of the existence and\ninfluence of surrounding unseen powers; they must be cajoled, appeased,\nbribed and rewarded.  Some were inevitably malevolent; with others man\ncould enter into relations which were mutually beneficial.  Even at the\npresent day there is no clear distinction between what we should call\nthe natural and the supernatural; a demon or a saint can appear in\nhuman or animal form; and the marvel or miracle is that which happens\nto lie outside the intellectual horizon of the individual.  The modern\nphenomena can be traced back through {51} early sources and appear now\nin grosser and now in more elevated forms; even the presence of any\nadvanced material culture, or of more spiritual conceptions of the\nGodhead does not annihilate that lower supernaturalism which flourishes\nuncontrolled among more rudimentary races.  It would be unreasonable to\nsuppose that the religion of our period was more free from imprecision\nthan that of more progressive peoples: the whole routine of life\nbrought the individual into constant contact with unseen agencies, and\nthe world of spirits involved a medley of beliefs, more embarrassing to\nthe modern inquirer who seeks to systematise them, than to the Oriental\nmind which has always been able and willing to accept the incredible\nand the contradictory.\n\nMan's relations with the spirits whom he shuns or seeks are illustrated\nin magical practices; _e.g._ incantation, symbolic magic (p. 34).\n+Charms,+ on the other hand, possess a magical virtue which is\neffective without interference on the part of the possessor.  Many\nlittle objects of this character have been unearthed: pendants of red\ncoral (still a prophylactic against the evil eye), beads (still\nsupposed to possess curative properties), small articles cut out of\nbone {52} (especially the heads of human femora, sawn off and\nperforated).  Here may be included the occasional jewels (_e.g._ a\nsilver pendant crescent)--amulets and ornaments were closely\nassociated, and the latter continue to convey ideas which could be\nregarded as idolatrous (compare Gen. xxxv. 4).  The representations of\nEgyptian gods and the 'Horus-eyes' should also be mentioned here.\n'Eyes' are still on sale in the East, they are expected to be on the\nwatch for evil influences.  But the anxiety to avert evil and to\nprocure favour need not involve an intelligent interest in the means\nemployed, and some of the objects (when not originally possessed by\nEgyptian settlers) may have as much bearing upon the question of\nEgyptian influence upon the religion of Palestine as the use of foreign\n(Phoenician?) formul\u00e6 in Egyptian magical texts.\n\n\n+Oracles+ are obtained at those places where supernatural beings have\nmanifested themselves, or from their symbols or their human\nrepresentatives.  In the stone enclosures at Serabit Professor Petrie\nwould recognise the sacred places visited by those who worked the mines\nand hoped for useful dreams.  The value attached to visions of the\nnight needs no telling, and when the {53} Egyptian king Merneptah saw\nin his sleep the god Ptah offering him the sword of victory, or when\nthe god Ashur directed the Lydian Gyges to 'lay hold of the feet' of\nAshurbanipal (_i.e._ place himself under his protection), we perceive\namong relatively advanced societies important factors in the growth of\nall religions.  Divine advice and help could be granted by the statues\nof the gods: a cuneiform tablet from Taanach refers to an omen given by\nthe finger of the goddess Ashirat, and the writer asks for the sign and\nits interpretation.  As in the 'nodding' of the gods in Egyptian\nrecords the _modus operandi_ must not be too closely examined.  Some of\nthe old caverns of Palestine were certainly used for magical or\nreligious purposes, and when we find them connected by small and curved\npassages, it is not improbable that they were the scenes of oracles,\ntheophanies, and the like (p. 15 _sq._).  As Mr. Macalister has\nobserved, apropos of such caverns in the lowlands of Judah and at\nGezer, mysterious responses and wonders could be easily contrived, and\nwould be as convincing to the ignorant as the Miracle of the Holy Fire\nis to the modern Russian pilgrim in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at\nJerusalem.  The association of caves and other hidden resorts with the\n{54} worship of deities and oracles is well-known in other fields\n(_e.g._ Greece).  Susa also had a god of oracles who dwelt in secret\nretreats, and other deities whose remote haunts were burned by\nAshurbanipal when he carried them off.\n\n\n+The representatives of the supernatural powers+ include prophets,\npriests, and even kings; they are also the possessors of supernatural\nqualities, the one involved the other.  Between the modern Palestinian\n_majn\u016bn_ ('possessed by the jinn') and fakir, and the prophet of\nold--contemptuously called 'madman'--the difference is one of degree.\nThe frenzied utterer is capable of incalculable good or harm, and often\nenjoys a respect out of all keeping with his merits.  His very sanctity\nplaces him in a class by himself, and he is allowed a licence which\nwould not be tolerated in others.  An early example of inspiration\nappears in the story of Wenamon of Egypt who visited Zakarbaal of\nByblos, probably in the reign of Ramses XII. (about 1100 B.C.).\nAlthough the envoy had with him the statue of the great Egyptian god\nAmon, for nineteen days he received scant courtesy and was unable to\nobtain the desired interview.  At length, as the king was sacrificing\nto his gods, one of his noble youths {55} was seized with ecstasy which\nlasted the whole night, and in this state he demanded that 'the\nmessenger of Amon' be summoned (for the sequel see below, p. 74 _sq._).\nProphecy, as Dr. Frazer has shown, by means of numerous examples, is 'a\nphenomenon of almost world-wide occurrence,' and it is important to\nremember that the relations between man and the spirit-world are not to\nbe estimated in the light of modern preconceptions.  There were\northodox and unorthodox relations, legitimate and illegitimate\ncommunion, true and false representatives of the supernatural powers;\ndistinctions were maintained although the evidence is often\ninsufficient for us to appreciate older standpoints.  Broadly speaking,\nit may be affirmed that the test lay in the communal aspect of religion\n(whether of clan, tribe, or people) which was opposed to practices\nwhich were private or independent of the official cult.\n\n\n+The dead,+ in their turn, depart into the mysterious unseen which\nlooms so largely in the thoughts of the living, and burial and mourning\nrites are shaped by many different principles depending upon theories\nof the nature of spirits, affection for the dead, the safety of his\nsoul, fear of malignant influences, etc.  But the {56} interpretation\nof the religious rites which attended every crisis in life becomes\nunusually difficult when the community suffer a loss, and perhaps no\nother study stands so much in need of careful 'comparative' treatment.\nUnfortunately Palestine has furnished no funerary texts, and little\ndirect evidence; the dead 'go to their fate,' the king of Mitanni fasts\non the day he hears of the death of Amenhotep III., and Zakarbaal of\nByblos offers to show Wenamon the tomb where the members of a former\nembassy sleep (_lit._ lie, or pass the night).  A people accustomed to\nthe annual death and revival of nature might easily formulate theories\nof the survival of the dead, and care is accordingly taken to provide\nfor the needs of the deceased (p. 35).  But the same thoughts are not\nnecessarily symbolised by the same rites.  Thus, cremation, the earlier\ncustom, may have been intended to sever the soul from the body, to\ndestroy the haunting spirit, or to prevent contamination and contagion.\nHowever, the subsequent use of the Gezer crematorium by those who\npractised inhumation involved a continuity of thought, albeit with some\nadaptation and adjustment, since identical conceptions of death and the\ndead scarcely encircled the two distinct customs.  This is instructive\nfor the growth of {57} complex ideas, and the subsequent prohibition in\nPalestine of certain mourning rites may find a probable explanation in\ntheir association with cults which were regarded as illegitimate.\n\nThe attitude of the living towards the dead raises the problem of\nancestor-worship and the relation between deified ancestors and gods.\nIn the absence of contemporary evidence from Ancient Palestine, we may\nnotice the inscription of King Panammu of North Syria (eighth century),\nwhere he acknowledges his indebtedness to his gods, especially Hadad,\nto whose honour he erects a colossal statue of the deity.  The text\ninvokes the god's blessing upon the successor to the throne, provided\nthat the latter when he sacrifices makes mention of Panammu's soul with\nHadad or prays that Panammu's soul may eat and drink with the god.\nShould these duties be neglected, Hadad is besought not to accept the\nsacrifices, to refuse his requests; and sleeplessness and other\ntroubles are called down upon the unfilial descendant.  It appears from\nthis, therefore, that while the dead relies upon the attentions of the\nliving, and it was necessary that his name should be kept fresh; the\ndead could only exert an indirect influence, and the soul or vital\nprinciple, apart from the body, could be {58} regarded as potent only\nthrough its companionship with the deity.  This may be supplemented\nfrom Egypt in the account of the relations between Ramses II. and his\ndead father, Sety I.  The latter is reminded of the benefits which his\nson had conferred upon him, his statue, and his _ka_ or vital force.\nThese he may still continue to enjoy, and, since he now has the\ncompanionship of the gods, Ramses beseeches him to influence them to\ngrant him a long reign.  The deceased king acknowledges the bread and\nwater which had been regularly offered to him; and relates that he has\nbecome a god more beautiful than before; he now mingles with the great\ngods, and he declares that he has successfully interceded on his son's\nbehalf.\n\nThe dead relied upon his descendants and upon the benevolence of future\ngenerations, and Egyptian kings (at least) hoped to partake of the food\noffered to the recognised deities.  Religious and other works were\nundertaken that the 'name' might 'live.'  Promises and threats were\nfreely made to ensure due attention, and were usually respected by the\nliving; but the frequent acts of desecration would indicate that fear\nof the dead was not necessarily a predominating or lasting feeling, at\nall events outside a man's {59} own family.  The above-mentioned\nPanammu and Ramses are somewhat exceptional cases since individuals,\ndistinguished by rank, sanctity, or even more ordinary qualifications,\nreadily acquire distinguished positions in after-life.  Moreover,\nRamses, at all events, was already a god, in his life-time, in\naccordance with Egyptian belief, and all those who had had the\nadvantage of being representatives of the supernatural powers scarcely\nlost this relative superiority.  The protection afforded by famous\ntombs and the virtues of the dust taken from such sacred spots are\nrecognised to the present day.  The venerated shrines regularly found\ntheir justification in the traditions which encircled the illustrious\noccupant: to violate them was not merely an insult, it struck a blow at\none of the centres of cult and prosperity.  Unfortunately for the\nproblem, by the side of the tendency to elevate an illustrious ancestor\nmust be placed the very human and inveterate weakness of tracing for\noneself a noble ancestry.  Like the claim of the modern Palestinian\npeasant to be descended from the alleged occupant of the local shrine\nwhich he venerates, every apparent case of ancestor-worship stands in\nneed of a critical examination.  As in most problems of religion,\nambiguity of terminology (viz. 'worship') {60} is responsible for much\nconfusion.  It must be admitted that there would be a natural\ninclination for every individual to regard his dead ancestor in the\nspirit-world as more powerful and influential than himself.  If this\nwere so even when there were recognised gods, it is obvious that\nallowance must be made for the crucial stages, before the deities\ngained that recognition, and after they had lost it.\n\nSpace prevents any adequate reference to the part which +animism+ has\nheld in the history of Palestinian religion; without a recognition of\nthis fundamental factor in all religions much of our evidence would be\nunintelligible.[1]  When we take the ideas which are associated with\nthe _name_, we find that it has magical powers, its use enlists or\nconfers protection or possession; it is the nature or essence of the\nthing which bears it--indeed, almost identical with it (comp. Is. xxx.\n27).  Hence the meaning of names is always instructive.  The\nsupposition that the child who bears an animal-name will acquire\nsomething of the quality of the animal in question (whatever be the\noriginal {61} motive) preserves more than metaphor, and indicates a\nstage when man saw little difference between animals and himself.  Even\nat the present day it is still believed that the soul of an ancestor\ncan reappear in an animal (comp. p. 50).  In like manner, the personal\nnames of our period which denote kinship with a deity point to a belief\nin a physical relationship as natural as the conviction of the modern\nnative when he refers to Allah in terms which imply that man is in\nevery detail the literal image of the Almighty.  A difference between\nhuman and superhuman is scarcely recognised at the present day.  The\nwomen of the land continue to visit the holy sites to obtain offspring,\nand it is freely acknowledged that welis and spirits of the dead can be\nphysical fathers.  This absence of any clear dividing-line between\nnatural and supernatural is inveterate.  The Egyptian Pharaoh of old\nwas both a god and the son of a god, and a record is preserved of the\nvisit of the god Amon to queen Ahmose in the form of her husband.  The\nhalo of divinity was perhaps not so distinct as in earlier times, but\nin their king the people still saw the earthly likeness of the deity.\n\n\n[1] It must suffice to refer to works dealing with primitive religion,\nsee E. Clodd, _Animism, the Seed of Religion_ (London, 1905), A. C.\nHaddon, _Magic and Fetishism_ (1906), in this series.\n\n\n+The Divinity of kings+ was a fundamental belief {62} which reveals\nitself in a variety of forms through Western Asia and Egypt.  The\ninscriptions of Gudea, the code of Khammurabi, the Assyrian records and\nthe praises of the Pharaohs reflect conceptions which are materialised\nnow in the insignia of the kings, and now in their costume and toilet.\nIn a Babylonian myth the royal ornaments lay before the supreme god\nawaiting the monarch; in Egypt the king is the god's _ka_, his\nfirst-born; chosen, created and crowned by the divine father.  The\nkings stood in the closest relationship to the gods; they were not only\nthe heads of the state, they were also (in early Assyria) priest-kings,\nand in Egypt theoretically all offerings for the living and the dead\nwere made by the Pharaoh.  All this was neither mere empty formality\nnor an isolated eccentricity.  It is quite in accordance with the\npowers commonly ascribed to divine representatives, that the control of\nthe rain and storm is held to depend upon the influence of Ramses II.\nwith the weather-god.  It is equally intelligible (from anthropological\nevidence) when the same king caused the gods to take up their abode in\nthe images which had been prepared for them!\n\nKhammurabi could declare that he carried in his bosom the people of\nSumer and Akkad, and {63} the Pharaoh could call himself the husband of\nEgypt, while Egypt was 'the only daughter of Re (the sun-god) whose son\nsits upon the throne.'  Not only was he the incarnation and the son of\nthe deity (or of all the recognised deities), but he was the cause of\nthe land's fruitfulness, prosperity, and protection.  The Pharaoh, 'the\ngod of all people' (as he is once called), received the adoration of\nhis subjects, and one could sometimes believe that he was more\nessentially a deity than the gods themselves, were it not that the\nsubordinate gods always maintained their hold upon the people locally.\nWith all allowance for the difference between conventional and\npractical religion, the fundamental relations between land, people,\nruler and the deity persisted in many related though varying forms,\nwhich are extremely interesting in any consideration of the social\nchanges at the rise of a monarchy and after its downfall.\n\nThis digression is necessary, because, although the practical working\nof such beliefs as these may perplex us, the fact remains that they\nwere shared in Palestine.  The petty rulers in the Amarna letters\nthoroughly recognise the divine nature of the king who was a god and\nhad the god for his father (see p. 78 _sq._).  Later, when Palestine\nhad its {64} own king, the 'Lord's anointed' was almost as the deity\nhimself (Ex. xxii. 28, cp. 2 Sam. xiv. 17); king and cult were one\n(Hos. iii. 4), and the king's death could be regarded as the extinction\nof the nation's lamp (2 Sam. xxi. 17).  Not to mention other details,\nthe Messianic ideals of the divinely-begotten son and of the ruler\nwhose origin was of aforetime preserve the inveterate belief in the\ndivine ancestry of rulers, an honour which in other lands continued to\nbe conferred upon rather than claimed by them.\n\n\n+Recognised gods.+--It is very important to find that the\nrepresentatives or possessors of divine powers are the worshippers of\ntheir deity in life and his inferiors in death.  The recognised gods\nhave their definite circles of clients, and if their human\nrepresentatives are subsequently worshipped or even deified, this is a\nnot unnatural development, especially as the official deities are apt\nto be at the mercy of political and religious changes.  The older gods\ncan be degraded and sink to the rank of demons (from newer\nstand-points), but the petty deities and the lower supernatural beings\nare as little influenced by external vicissitudes as the lower ranks of\nhumanity with whom they always stand in closer relationship.  {65}\nTheir persistence in popular belief is as typical as the descent of the\nmore august beings, although even the latter are understood to retain\nan influence which those of more recent introduction have not yet\nacquired or are unable to exert.  While the general fundamental\nconceptions remain virtually unchanged, they are shaped by the social\nand political institutions, for religious and political life formed\npart of the same social organism.\n\n\n\n\n{66}\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE GODS\n\n+Their vicissitudes.+--The deities were not originally personifications\nof any one power of nature; like the secular heads of small local\ngroups they were the supreme patrons of their little circle.  They were\nusually nameless, but were known by an epithet, or were styled 'god'\n(_el_) or 'lord, owner' (_baal_), with the corresponding feminine form.\nEach might be distinguished by the name of its locality.  The 'god' of\nSidon was otherwise the 'Baal' of Sidon, the 'goddess' of Byblos was\nknown as the 'Baalath' of the city; the Baal of Tyre was called\nMelkart, _i.e._ simply 'king of the city'; the proper-name of the Baal\nof Harran was Sin (the moon-god); the Baal of Heaven, according to\nPhilo of Byblos, was the Sun.  When Baal and El were used as generic\nterms, their application was perfectly intelligible locally; and when\nthey occur in forty or more place-names, and numerous old personal\nnames {67} in Palestine, it is unnecessary to suppose that they\nrepresent two distinct and definite deities.  From the old Palestinian\nnames we learn that the deity is high, great and good; he opens,\nbuilds, heals, sows, gathers; he remembers, hastens, helps, protects,\nblesses, etc.[1]  Such conceptions would be generally true of all; the\npower of each was not unlimited, but it extended to all that man\nusually desired.\n\n\n[1] Apart from names whose meaning is uncertain (_e.g._ Jacob-el, God\nsupplants?), the list could be easily enlarged; a number of names of\nwestern (as opposed to the usual Babylonian) type can be gleaned from\nthe records of the First Babylonian Dynasty.\n\n\nFrom the general resemblance subsisting between the distinct local gods\nit was possible to regard them as so many forms of a single god; and\nwhen groups combined and individual gods were fused, multiplicity of\ntypes ensued.  The status of a local tutelary was affected when\ncommercial intercourse widened the horizon of both the traveller and\nthe native; and in the growth of political power and the rise of a\nkingship the conceptions entertained of the deity's attributes and\npowers were elevated.  Through the extension of authority the way lay\nopen to groups of gods who could not be fused, and equally to the\nsuperiority of one national patron deity over the rest.  {68} Political\nor other changes led to the promotion of this or the other god, and\nprominent or specialised deities in superseding others acquired fresh\nattributes, though local divergencies were again necessarily retained.\nThis does not complete the vicissitudes of the gods or the intricacies\ncaused by assimilation or identification.  A popular epithet or\nappellative could appear by the side of the proper deity as a new\ncreation, or the deity was sub-divided on cosmical and astral theories.\nThe female deity (whose name may be without the usual distinguishing\nmark of gender) could even change her sex; the specific name could also\nbecome employed as a common term for any deity, and the plural 'gods'\ncould be applied to a single being as a collective representation of\nthe characteristics it embodied.\n\nAmid the intricate careers of the great names, the local deities\nobstinately survived in popular religious life.  They have found their\nparallel in the welis or patrons, saints and holy sheikhs of the modern\nshrines (see _pp._ 21 _sqq._).  The modern analogy is instructive in\nmany points of detail, particularly when we observe the vicissitudes\nwhich the occupants of the shrines have experienced.  It is natural to\nask for the ancient counterparts of the Allah, the supreme god in the\n{69} official religion, who, as we have said, is vague and remote in\nthe practical religious life of the peasant of to-day.  A series of\nwell-defined historical events made him pre-eminent over all other gods\nand goddesses and established Mohammedanism; internal and external\ncauses shaped the varying conceptions of his nature, and gave birth to\nnumerous sects.  All the Oriental religions have this twofold aspect:\nthe historical circumstances which affected the vicissitudes of the\ndeities, and the more subtle factors which have influenced forms of\nbelief.  But we have no direct information upon the rise of the general\nconditions in Palestine during our period, and such problems as the\norigin of the term El 'God' (common to all the Semitic peoples) belong\nto the pre-historic ages.\n\n\n+Their representative character.+--When the gods reign like feudal\nprinces over their principalities their sphere is limited and other\ndistricts or kingdoms belong to other gods.  Residence in an alien land\nbrought one under the influence of alien gods, whose reality was not\ndenied, though their power could be variously estimated.  At Serabit,\nfor example, the Egyptians had combined the worship of their god Sopdu\nwith that of the {70} local 'lady of turquoise,' whom they identified\nwith their Hathor, and the caves and temples of both stood side by\nside.  The Egyptian inscriptions there refer to 'the gods and goddesses\nof this land,' and an officer, probably of the Twelfth Dynasty,\nencourages a cult which was largely utilitarian: 'Offer ye to the\nmistress of heaven, appease ye Hathor; if ye do it, it will be\nprofitable to you; if ye increase to her, it shall be well among you.'\nSome centuries later, we read that Ramses III., desirous of the\nprecious treasures, sent clothes and rich presents to his 'mother'\nHathor, 'lady of the turquoise.'\n\nThe relationship between countries and their respective national gods\n(cp. Judges xi. 24) is frequently illustrated.  When Tushratta, king of\nMitanni, writes to Amenhotep III., he ascribes a victory to the\nweather-god Teshub (if that was the native name), and trusts that his\nlord Teshub will never permit him to be angry with his 'brother' the\nking of Egypt.  Similarly, he prays that the sun-god (Shamash) and the\ngoddess Ishtar may go before his daughter and make her in accord with\nthe king's heart.[2]  On {71} the other hand, it is 'the gods,' or\nTeshub and Amon (of Egypt),[3] who will make the present alliance a\nlasting one, and his gods and those of his 'brother,' or Ishtar, 'lady\nof ladies,' and Amon who will guard the damsel on the journey and give\nher favour with the king.\n\n\n[2] In the names in chapters vi. and vii., the more familiar Astarte is\nemployed for Ashtart (Old Testament, Ashtoreth).  Where cuneiform\nevidence is used the Babylonian form (_e.g._ Shamash, Ishtar) is\nusually retained.\n\n[3] Amon, the predominant god of Egypt, owed his rise from an obscure\nlocal deity of Thebes to the political growth of the city.  He was then\nassimilated to Re (the solar-orb) of Heliopolis.\n\n\nTowards the close of the reign of Amenhotep III.  Tushratta despatched\nto Egypt, Ishtar of Nineveh 'lady of lands, lady of heaven,' in\npursuance to her oracle 'to the land that I love I will go.'  She was\ndoubtless sent to exercise her powers in Egypt, and Tushratta expresses\nthe hope that the king may revere her tenfold more than on the occasion\nof a previous visit.  He also invokes a hundred thousand years and\ngreat joy for his 'brother' and himself.  There is a parallel to this\nin the late popular story where Ramses II. sent one of the images of\nKhonsu (moon-god and god of healing) to cure a Hittite princess, the\nsister of his queen, of an evil spirit.  The god accompanied by a\npriest was received with all reverence, the demon was expelled and\nallowed to depart in peace to the place he desired, and a great feast\nwas celebrated.  Indeed, the {72} Hittite chief kept the useful god\nwith him for nearly four years, when, frightened by a vision of the god\nflying upwards towards Egypt, he restored it to its rightful soil.  The\nvery human limitations of the deities render it necessary that some\nrepresentation or emblem should be employed when their help is required.\n\n\n+In political Treaties and Covenants+ the representative gods of the\nrespective countries are invoked as witnesses, and their curses are\nexpected to fall upon the defaulter.  It was generally felt that curses\nas well as blessings had a very real potency, and the thrilling\ndenunciations at the end of Khammurabi's Code of Laws and contemporary\nexamples from Egypt threaten desolation, hunger, thirst, flaming fire,\nand the avenging pursuit of the gods.  Political treaties are\ninstructive for the light they throw upon the ruling powers.  In\nEsarhaddon's treaty with Baal, king of Tyre (677-6 B.C.), the gods of\nthe latter are Baal-shamen (Baal of heaven), two other specified Baals,\nMelkart of Tyre, Eshmun and the goddess Astarte.  Later, in Hannibal's\ncovenant with Philip of Macedon, the Carthaginian gods are enumerated\nin two triads, then follow the gods who took part in war, and finally,\nsun, moon, earth, {73} rivers, harbours (?) and streams.  But the most\nilluminating example is the Egyptian version of the treaty (about\n1290), between Ramses II. and the Kheta (Hittites), the two great rival\ninfluences over the intervening lands.  Here the representative heads\nof Egypt and the Kheta are respectively the sun-god Re and Sutekh\n(_i.e._ Set, the Egyptian equivalent of a weather- or storm-god whose\nnative name can only be conjectured).  Formerly, we learn, '[the] god\nprevented hostilities' between the two lands by treaty, and this new\npact is made for 're-establishing the relations which Re made and\nSutekh made for the land of Egypt with the land of Kheta' to prevent\nfuture warfare.  The thousand gods male and female both of the Kheta\nand of Egypt are called to witness.  Those of the former are\nparticularly interesting, they comprise the sun-god lord of heaven, the\nsun-god of the city of Ernen (also called 'lord of every land'), Sutekh\nlord of heaven, Sutekh of Kheta, Sutekh of the city of Ernen, and the\nSutekh of various specified cities, Antheret (probably Astarte) of the\nland of Kheta, nine gods and goddesses of certain named cities.  Next\ncome 'the queen of heaven; gods, lords of swearing; the mistress of the\nsoil, the mistress of swearing, Teshker, the mistress of the {74}\nmountains, and the rivers of the land of Kheta,' and, finally, the gods\nof a North Syrian ally of Kheta.  On the Egyptian side are Amon, the\nsun-god, Sutekh (here an Egyptian deity, see p. 83), the male and\nfemale gods of the mountains and the rivers of Egypt, of the heavens,\nthe soil, the great sea, the wind and the storms.  The treaty also bore\na representation of the king of the Kheta and his queen embraced\nrespectively by Sutekh the ruler of the heavens, and a goddess whose\nname is lost.  To the gods of Palestine there is no reference;\nPalestine did not enjoy political independence.\n\n\n+The Influence of Egypt.+--Our latest source is the Egyptian account of\nthe visit of Wenamon to Byblos to procure cedar-wood from Lebanon for\nthe sacred-barge of Amon-Re, King of Gods (about 1100).  The human\nmessenger took with him the divine messenger in the shape of a statue\nof 'Amon-of-the-Way,' reputed to confer life and health; a sacred image\nupon which no common eye might gaze.  When at length Zakarbaal granted\nan interview (see p. 54), he was inclined to ignore the political\nsupremacy of Egypt, although he appears to allow that Amon had\ncivilised Egypt and thence all lands, and that {75} artisanship and\nteaching had come from Egypt to his place of abode.  Wenamon, for his\npart, showed that former kings not only sold cedars to Egypt, but spent\ntheir lives sacrificing to Amon.  Even the evidence of 'the journal of\nhis fathers' did not remove the king's reluctance.  But the envoy urged\nthe claim of Amon to be lord and possessor of the sea and of Lebanon,\nand solemnly warned Zakarbaal: 'wish not for thyself a thing belonging\nto Amon-Re, yea the lion loves his own.'  Ultimately the king sent the\nwood, and he commemorated his obedience to Amon-Re by an inscription\nwhich was likely to be profoundly beneficial.  For, as the envoy\nobserved, should Byblos be visited by Egyptians who were able to read\nthe stele with his name (the all-essential adjunct), he would 'receive\nwater in the West (the world of the dead where the sun-god descended\nnightly) like the gods who are here' (presumably at Byblos).\n\nAlthough the narrative is written from an Egyptian standpoint, the\nconviction which is ascribed to Zakarbaal finds a parallel in the\nfamiliar story of the journey of Osiris, the founder of Egyptian\ncivilisation, from the Delta to Byblos.  Even before the Hyksos period\nEgyptian women named themselves after the Baalath of Byblos {76} whom\nthey identified with Hathor and evidently regarded as an appropriate\npatroness.[4]  The connection between Egypt and the port of Lebanon may\nhave been exceptionally close, but there were Egyptian settlements at\nGezer, Megiddo, and the north at an equally early age.  Under the\nconquerors of the Eighteenth Dynasty, the daughters of the small\ntributaries were taken into the royal harem, and the sons were removed\nas hostages and safely guarded in Egypt.  Some of the latter settled\ndown, others were appointed in due course to the thrones of their\nfathers, after having received the necessary anointing-oil from the\ngreat king.  One of the latter recalls in the Amarna letters how he had\nserved the king in Egypt and had stood at the royal gate, and from the\ngrave-stone of a Palestinian soldier at El-Amarna we may see how\nsettlement upon Egyptian soil had led to the acceptance of Egyptian\nideas of the other world.\n\n\n[4] A. Erman, _Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache_, xlii. p. 109.\n\n\nMeanwhile Palestine and Syria were under the direction of Egyptian\nauthorities, to whose presence the Amarna letters frequently allude,\nand one of the writers quaintly likens the solicitude of a certain\nofficial on his behalf to that of a {77} mother or a father.  Where\nthere were Egyptians or where princes had been in Egypt, some trace of\nthe national religion may be expected, and it is probable that every\nmilitary garrison possessed some kind of sanctuary.  Moreover, Thutmose\nIII. had dedicated three cities in the Lebanon district to Amon; later,\nEgyptian gods 'dwelt' in the north at Tunip.  A stele, a few miles\nsouth of Tell 'Ashtarah (cp. the name Ishtar) in Bashan represents Sety\nI. offering a libation to Amon, and the pure Egyptian workmanship\npoints to a strong foreign influence in the locality.  Ramses II. set\nup a statue of his majesty in Tunip, and a city in South Lebanon was\ncalled after his name.  Still descending, we read that cities were set\napart for Amon-Re in the reign of Ramses III., and this king built in\nCanaan 'a mysterious house like the horizon of heavens which is in the\nsky' (_i.e._ the abode of the sun-god), with a great statue of\n'Amon-of-Ramses-ruler-of-Heliopolis,' to which the natives brought\ntribute, 'for it was divine.'\n\nElsewhere, Ramses III. asserts that he built strongholds in Asia in\nhonour of Amon, taxing them year by year to bring their offerings to\nthe _ka_ of the 'lord of gods.'  Accordingly, down to the first half of\nthe twelfth century the cult of Amon followed the extension of Egyptian\n{78} supremacy, and although the subsequent political history is\nobscure, the story of Wenamon would indicate that some sixty or seventy\nyears later the prestige of the god's name was not entirely lost.\nWenamon's claim corresponds to the explicit recognition (in the Amarna\nletters) that the land belonged to Egypt's gods; it was the natural\ncorollary of political extension.  Like Zakarbaal and his ancestors,\nall the tributary princes were expected to acknowledge the suzerainty\nof Egypt's king and his deity.  To refrain from sacrificing to the\nconqueror's gods was one of the signs of open revolt, as we know from\nAssyria and Babylonia.  The king identified himself with the sun, like\nthe contemporary Hittite king Subbiluliuina and other monarchs, from\nKhammurabi 'the Sun of Babylonia' who 'caused light to go forth over\nthe lands of Sumer and Akkad' to the Assyrian Shalmaneser II.  Although\nthe result is confusing, the subordinate chiefs of Palestine and Syria\nwere accustomed to the thought.  They address the king as their gods,\ntheir Sun, the son of the Sun whom the Sun loves, the Sun in heaven,\nthe Sun of the lands, or the everlasting Sun.  This deified Sun or\nShamash (to retain the Babylonian form) answers to the Egyptian Re or\nAmon.  So Abimilki (Abimelech) of Tyre writes, {79} 'My lord is the Sun\nwhich goes up over the lands daily according to the decision of the Sun\n(Shamash) his gracious father.'  And again, 'I have said to the Sun,\nthe father of the king, my lord, \"when shall I see the face of the\nking, my lord?\"'  Another writer ascribes his victory to the king's\ngods and Sun which went before his face.  The chief of Megiddo, in a\nletter interesting for its glosses in the native language, announces\nhis intentions should the king's gods assist him, and other writers\ninvoke the god or gods of the king and acknowledge the might of\nShamash.  Nevertheless, the identification of the Egyptian and the\nAsiatic sun-god would not, and probably did not, prevent them from\nbeing regarded as two deities, and a private tablet at Taanach not only\nrecognises the god Amon and the weather-god Addu, but even appears to\nadd Shamash.  It is natural to suppose from the identification of the\nking, the sun, and the national sun-god Amon (or Shamash) that many\napparently ordinary rites had a deeper significance, whether it was the\nanointing of a vassal or the fasting for a dead monarch (p. 56).  The\ncustom of offering sacrifices on behalf of kings is well attested, and\nit is possible that the position of divine kings throws light upon the\nfact that {80} the king of Cyprus has to explain his failure to send a\nrepresentative to Egypt when Amenhotep was celebrating a sacrificial\nfeast.\n\n\n+The Treatment of Alien Gods+ depends largely upon political relations\n(cp. _pp._ 69 _sqq._).  New settlers might add the established deities\nof the soil to their own.  A conqueror might recognise the deities of\nthe district to which he laid claim.  The gods of a defeated land were\nnot invariably deposed, although the Assyrian kings would sometimes\ndestroy them or present them to their own deities.  Mesha king of Moab\n(about 850 B.C.) records that he brought before his god certain\ncaptured objects of cult, and it is possible that the pillar at Gezer\nwhich is not of local origin had a history of this kind (p. 14).  The\nPhilistines were dismayed at the 'mighty gods' which the Hebrews, in\naccordance with a familiar custom, took with them into battle, and, on\nanother occasion, their own gods, left behind in their flight, were\ncarried away by David (1 Sam. iv. 8, 2 Sam. v. 21).  The mere capture\nof the gods was sometimes enough to lead to overtures for peace.  But\nan Assyrian king would even repair the dilapidated captive deities, and\nhaving inscribed upon them the 'might' of his god and {81} the 'writing\nof his name' would restore them to a trusted vassal.  In Palestine the\npetty rulers enjoyed considerable freedom provided they paid their\ntribute, and supported their suzerain.  We do not learn that Egypt\nsought to amalgamate subdued peoples and make of them 'one folk'\n(_lit._ mouth), as was claimed by Tiglath-Pileser I. and other Assyrian\nkings.  Nor do we find that the Egyptian king sent skilled emissaries\nto teach (as Sargon II. says) 'the fear of God and the king,' although,\nif the reference be merely to the promulgation of the official cult,\nthis was probably the chief results also of Egypt's supremacy.\n\nOn the other hand, a Syrian prince who had recaptured his Sun-god from\nthe Hittites besought Amenhotep III. (whom he addresses as 'Son of\nShamash') to put his name upon it as his fathers had done in the past.\nThe text is somewhat obscure, but the recognition of the Asiatic\nShamash is clear, and intelligible on the identification of Shamash and\nAmon-Re.  So, also, when the king of Byblos asserts that 'the gods,\nShamash, and the Baalath' of the city had brought about the king's\naccession, we have to remember that the goddess had long before been\nidentified with the Egyptian Hathor.  At a later date, a stele found\nnorth of Tell 'Ashtarah depicts Ramses II.  {82} paying homage to a\ndeity whose crown, horn, and Semitic title prove him (or her) to be a\nnative deity whom the king evidently respected.[5]  Respect for alien\ngods ceases when they are found to be powerless; but Egypt was\nconstantly troubled by her warlike Asiatics, and so far from their gods\nbeing ignored or rejected, they entered Egypt and found an extremely\nhospitable reception (see Chapter vii).  Asiatic conquerors in Egypt\nappear to have been less tolerant.  The Hyksos ruled 'in ignorance of\nRe,' and their god (Sutekh) was planted in the land; and, later, during\nthe brief period of anarchy when a Palestinian or Syrian chief held\nEgypt until his overthrow by Setnakht, the upstarts 'made the gods like\nmen and no offerings were presented in the temples.'  We may assume\nthen that the religion of our land remained practically unchanged\nduring Egyptian supremacy except in so far as this involved the\nofficial recognition of the Egyptian national god and his\nrepresentative upon the throne.\n\n\n[5] _Zeitschrift des Deutschen Pal\u00e4stina-Vereins_, xiv. p. 142, xv. p.\n205.  The stele, known as the 'stone of Job,' has entered into the\nworship of a Moslem place of prayer, and is appropriately connected\nwith a story of the patriarch, many traditions of whom are current in\nthis part of Hauran.\n\n\n\n\n{83}\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE PANTHEON\n\nUntil the necessary evidence comes to light it is scarcely possible to\ndo more than collect a few notes upon some of the gods and goddesses of\nour period.  The most important sources are from Babylonia, Assyria,\nand Egypt; but some additional information can be gleaned from\nPalestinian names, allowance being made for the fact that a personal\nname compounded with that of a deity is not enough to prove that the\nbearer was its worshipper.\n\n\n+Asiatic Deities in Egypt+ date from before the age of the Hyksos\ninvasion, as can be gathered from the history of the mixed cult at\nSerabit and from the introduction of Baalath of Byblos (p. 75).\nApophis, a Hyksos king, has left an altar dedicated to his 'father\nSutekh,' who had set all lands under his feet, and after the expulsion\nof the Hyksos, this foreign deity, {84} Egyptianised as Set (or\nSutekh), became firmly established.  Both SUTEKH and BAAL were regarded\nas essentially gods of battle, and the latter often occurs in\ndescriptions of the prowess of the Pharaohs of the Nineteenth and\nTwentieth Dynasties.  Thus, the king is like Baal in the lands, mighty\nin strength, far-reaching in courage, strong-horned; he is like Sutekh\ngreat in might.  He is the equal of Baal, 'his real son for ever,' and\nhe is as Baal in his hour (_i.e._ of manifestation).  When he appears\nupon the battlefield like Baal, his flame consumes the foe, and Amon-Re\nannounces to Ramses III., 'I overthrow for thee every land, when they\nsee thy majesty in strength, like my son, Baal in his wrath.'  Baal is\nin his limbs; his roaring is like Baal in heaven, and his enemies fall\ndown in fear of him like Baal.  Baal was virtually identical with\nSutekh who is represented as a foreign god and is sometimes horned\n(_e.g._ at Serabit).  A curious scarab shows a winged Sutekh with\nhorned cap and long streamer standing upon a lion.\n\nAnother foreigner is RESHEPH, lord of heaven, lord of eternity, or\ngovernor of the gods; he is the warrior, the god of fire and lightning\n(subsequently identified with Apollo).  Valiant Egyptian officers are\nlikened to him.  He appears on {85} the Egyptian monuments with Semitic\nprofile, and conical hat (or otherwise a fillet) from which projects\nthe head of a gazelle; he holds a lance and shield in the left hand,\nand in his right a club.  According to a magical text his consort was\n'_-t-m_, a deity who seems to be combined with Shamash in an old North\nPalestinian place-name, and may recur in the familiar Obed (servant of)\n-Edom.  In Egypt Resheph also formed a triad with Min (the old\nharvest-deity and god of reproduction) and the goddess KADESH ('holy').\nThe last, whose name suggests the sacred licentious rites of Asiatic\ncults (p. 33 _sq._), is called lady of heaven, mistress of the gods,\nthe eye of Re, etc.  She was assimilated to Hathor, and stands nude\nupon a lion with lotus flowers in her right hand and a serpent in her\nleft; her head framed with heavy tresses of hair is sometimes\nsurmounted by the sun-disk between two horns.  Among foreign\nwar-goddesses Egypt had ANATH, well known from Palestinian place-names.\nHer priesthood at Thebes is mentioned under Thutmose III., and the\nfavourite daughter of Ramses II. was named 'daughter of Anath.'  The\ndeity is represented sitting clothed upon a throne with lance and\nshield in the right hand and battle-axe in the left; or holding instead\nthe papyrus sceptre and {86} the emblem of life she stands erect clad\nin a panther-skin; her feathered crown sometimes has a pair of horns at\nthe base.  She is called lady of heaven, or of the world, daughter of\nthe sun, mother, etc., and is often paired with Astarte.\n\nASTARTE found a place in several Egyptian temples.  We also hear of her\nprophets, and a fragmentary myth apparently describes how, as daughter\nof Ptah, she entered the pantheon of Memphis.  Here, as we learn from\nanother text, Egyptian and foreign deities met together, and among the\nlatter is a Baalath Saphun (B. of the North?), whose male counterpart\nappears in Baal-Zephon near the Red Sea (Ex. xiv. 2) and the equivalent\nBaal-Sapun, one of the gods of king Baal (see p. 72).  The Egyptians\ndepict Astarte with the head of a lioness, driving her quadriga over\nthe foe; and as goddess of war she is 'mistress of horses and lady of\nchariots.'  But that both Anath and Astarte were also dissolute\ngoddesses is recognised in a text which ascribes their creation to Set.\nThe prevalence of the cult of the goddess of love and war in Palestine\nis well known from the references in the Old Testament to Ashtoreth (an\nintentional perversion to suggest _b\u014dsheth_ 'shame'), from the\nplace-names, and from the plaques which {87} indicate numerous minor\nlocal types (p. 29).  In the Amarna tablets Astarte (or rather the\nBabylonian Ishtar) coalesces with ASHIRTA who is sometimes written in\nthe plural (Ashrati).  Like the place-names Anathoth (the Anaths) and\nAshtaroth (the Astartes), the different conceptions of the goddess in\nall her local forms seem to be combined in one term.  Ashirta appears\nto have been essentially the goddess of the west.  In a text of the\nFirst Babylonian Dynasty she is paired with Ramman as 'bride of the\nking of heaven, lady of exuberance (or vigour) and splendour'; later,\nshe is called the consort of the 'lord of the mountain,' an appellative\ncorresponding to the Baal of Lebanon.  In old Arabia she was the wife\nof the moon-god, and the masculine form Ashir, on cuneiform Cappadocian\ntablets of our period, seems to be no other than the great god Ashur\nhimself.  Her name cannot be severed from the _Ash\u0113rah_, but it is\nnot clear whether it was transferred to or derived from the object of\ncult (see p. 26).  The intricacy of the history of the divine-names\nwill be understood when the Assyrian equivalent of Beth (house of) -El\nbecomes the name of a deity, or when the plural of Ishtar is used of\ngoddesses in general, or when Resheph (above) in Hebrew denotes a\nspark, {88} flame, or fire-bolt.  But the career of the goddess of love\nand war is even more complicated.  The phonetic equivalent of Ishtar in\nold Arabia was a god (so perhaps also in Moab, ninth century), and\nIshtar herself appears in Assyria with a beard and is likened to the\ngod Ashur, thus finding a later parallel in the bearded Aphrodite\n(Astarte, Venus) of Cyprus.\n\nThe sex of the sun-deity SHAMASH is equally confusing, for, although he\nwas lord of heaven (p. 73), and kings of Egypt and the Hittites\nidentified themselves with him, the deity was female in old Arabia,\namong earlier Hittite groups, and probably once, also, in Palestine and\nSyria.[1]  Place-names compounded with Shemesh attest the prevalence of\nthe deity, and around the district of Gezer lie Beth-Shemesh and the\nstories of Samson (sun) wherein solar elements have been recognised.\nAmong pastoral and agricultural peoples, however, the moon is more\nimportant.  To the prominence of new-moon festivals and the probable\nconnection between the lunar body and the name Jericho we must add the\nmoon-god SIN, in Sinai and the desert of Sin {89} in the south of\nPalestine, and in the north at Harran, where his worship survived to\nthe Christian era.  At Hamath, in N. Syria, about 800 B.C., Shamash and\nthe moon-god find a place by the side of the supreme 'Baal of heaven.'\nLater, at Nerab near Aleppo the moon-god is associated with his wife\n_N-k-l_ (Nin-gal 'the great lady'), Shamash, and Nusku (fire-god,\nmessenger of Bel).  Specific Assyrian influence might be expected at\nthis date, but the consort's name appears in an Egyptian magical text,\nnot later than the Twentieth Dynasty, as the wife of 'the high god'\n(here, the Sun?).[2]\n\n\n[1] H. Winckler, _Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_\n(Berlin, 1907), No. 35, p. 53; _id._, Amarna Tablets, No. 208, 1. 22\n(Knudtzon, No. 323).\n\n[2] A. H. Gardiner, _Zeit. f. Aeg. Spr._, xliii. p. 97.\n\n\nQuite as prominent as the sun was the weather-god, god of storm,\nlightning and thunder.  Known as Teshub (p. 70), Hadad, Ramman (comp.\nthe Biblical Rimmon), Adad, Dad, Bir, etc., the form ADDU, which was\nrecognised as the god's 'Amorite' designation, is adopted here in\npreference to the more familiar Aram\u00e6an HADAD.  This is supported by\nthe spelling of the name of Rib-Addi, king of Byblos.  The interchange\nof Baal and Addu in certain names in the Amarna letters shows that Addu\ncould naturally be called Baal, and to the Egyptians he was apparently\n_the_ Baal.  The importance of {90} the weather-god in the religion of\nagricultural and pastoral peoples may be illustrated from one of\nKhammurabi's curses: 'May Adad, lord of abundance, regent of heaven and\nearth, my helper, deprive him (_i.e._ the disobedient) of the rain from\nheaven and the water-floods from the springs; may he bring his land to\ndestruction through want and hunger; may he break loose furiously over\nhis city and turn his land into the heap left by a storm.'  The gifts\nof Addu preserved men from dearth and starvation; a too plenteous\nsupply brought flood and ruin.  Thus the god had a twofold aspect, and\nhis thunder in the heavens, his fiery darts, in fact the destructive\nside of his character made him an appropriate war-god.  This aspect of\nthe nature-deity was especially cultivated by warlike peoples.\n\nBabylonian and Hittite sculptures depict the god brandishing a hammer\nwith his right hand, while the left holds up a triad of\nlightning-flashes or thunder-bolts.  On an inscription from North Syria\n(eighth century) Hadad has horns, and with this agrees the association\nof the bull with the god.  Like all predominant gods he includes a\nvariety of attributes, and we may conjecture that the small heads of\nbulls unearthed by the excavations are connected with his worship (p.\n32).  {91} The inscription in question (see also p. 57) places Hadad at\nthe head of a small pantheon with El, Resheph, R-k-b--el (steed,\nchariot, or charioteer of El) and Shamash.  In the Amarna letters one\nwriter calls the king of Egypt his Addu, and Abimelech of Tyre, who\nlikens him to both Shamash and Addu, addresses him as 'he who gives his\nthunder in the heavens like Addu.'\n\nTogether with this combination it is to be noticed that while\nKhammurabi 'the Sun of Babylonia' calls himself the mighty bull who\ngores the enemy, old Egyptian scenes actually represent 'the strong\nbull' breaking down fortresses with its horns or expelling the\ninhabitants.  The Pharaoh was symbolised by the bull, and even the\nEgyptian sun-god is styled 'the bull of the gods.'  The animal is\ndoubtless typical of generative force and of strength, while the union\nof the attributes of Shamash and Addu are intelligible since to the sun\nand weather man owed the necessaries of life.  It is noteworthy that\nthe two deities are prominent in the Hittite treaty, where each is\ncalled 'lord of heaven' (p. 73), and, as early as the nineteenth\ncentury, the Assyrian compound-name Shamshi-Adad indicates that they\ncould be easily combined.  The name is borne by two kings; one a\n'priest-king' {92} of the god Ashur, the other a son of Ishme-Dagan\n('D. hears').\n\nDagan (DAGON) has left his traces in place-names and in the ruler,\n'Dagan is strong' (Amarna letters).  The deity seems to have been of\nAssyrian or Mesopotamian rather than of Babylonian origin.  It is\npossible that he was a corn-god.  The Babylonian NEBO, the 'teacher,'\ncan only be recovered from place-names in Judah and Moab.  NINIB\n(native form is uncertain), both sun- and war-god, appears in the\nAmarna letters in two place-names (one in the vicinity of Jerusalem),\nand in the personal-name 'Servant of Ninib.'  The swine was sacred to\nNinib, as also to Tammuz and the Phoenician Adonis; but neither of the\nlatter can be traced in our period.\n\nSHALEM, in Jeru-salem (Uru-salim in the Amarna letters), has been\nidentified (on the analogy of Jeru-el) with a god who is known later in\nPhoenicia, Assyria, and North Arabia, and who is perhaps combined with\nResheph on an Egyptian stele of our period.  He was perhaps identified\nwith Ninib.  The antiquity of GAD, the deity of fortune, can be assumed\nfrom place-names.  In a disguised form the goddess, 'Fortune' was the\nguardian-deity of the cities in the Greek age, and allusion is made in\nthe Talmud to the couch {93} reserved for the 'luck of the house.'  A\ndeified 'Righteousness' (_sedek_) has been inferred from a name in the\nAmarna age; it would find a parallel in 'Right' and 'Integrity' the\nsons of the Assyrian god Sham ash, and both 'Integrity' and\n'Righteousness' find a place in the Phoenician cosmogony which, in\nspite of its late dress, preserves many old features which recur in\nHebrew myths.\n\nThe Babylonian NERGAL, god of war, burning heat and pestilence, and\nruler of Hades, the deity with whom was identified Saturn (and also\nMars), should find a place in the pantheon.  A seal from Taanach\ndescribes its owner as 'servant of Nergal' (p. 110), and the king of\nCyprus reports to Egypt the desolation caused by the god's hand.  Even\nas late as the third century B.C. we hear of a Phoenician who was his\nhigh-priest.  As a solar fire-god he had in the west the name Sharrab\nor Sharraph with which the familiar Seraph may be identified.  The god\nEl of later Phoenician myth (the Greek Kronos; Saturn) was depicted\nwith six-wings like the Seraphim.  He was the god to whom children were\nsacrificed, whence the story that he had set the example by killing his\nown.  If infants had been slain to Sharrab in Palestine, this would be\nin harmony with Nergal's character, and it may {94} be noticed that\nNusku, who is sometimes associated with Nergal, was symbolised by a\nlamp (cp. above, p. 41).  In the Old Testament the grim rites belong to\nMolech (properly Melek), but there are independent reasons for the view\nthat the latter was the proper-name of the Phoenician El.[3]  However\nthis may be, the name MELEK, although really an appellative ('king'),\npasses over into a true proper-name; but it is not clear whether this\nis the case in our period where we meet with the personal names\n'servant of Melek' (or, the king), 'El is Melek,' etc.\n\n\n[3] M.-J. Lagrange, _\u00c9tudes sur les Rel. S\u00e9mitiques_, p. 107 _sq._\n\n\nIt is uncertain whether there is external evidence for the name YAHWEH\n(Jehovah), the national God of the Israelites.  Unambiguous examples\noutside Palestine appear in North Syria in the eighth century in the\nform Yau (Yahu), which in one name interchanges with El.  Cuneiform\nevidence for the name in the First Babylonian Dynasty has been adduced,\nand in the abbreviated Ya it possibly occurs in 'house of Ya,' a\nPalestinian town taken by Thutmose III.  Further, in Akhi-yami (or,\nyawi), the author of a cuneiform tablet from Taanach, an identification\nwith Akhiyah (the Biblical Ahijah) is not improbable, although other\nexplanations are possible.  While {95} other writers salute Ishtar (or\nAstarte)-Washur, the governor of Taanach, with: May Addu, or may the\ngods preserve thy life, Ahijah (?) invokes 'the lord of the gods.'  In\nthe course of his letter he asks whether there is still lamentation for\nthe lost cities or have they been recovered, and continues: 'there is\nover my head some one (who is) over the cities; see, now, whether he\nwill do good with thee; further, if he shows anger, they will be\nconfounded, and the victory will be mighty.'  It is not clear whether\nthese words refer to the divine Pharaoh or to a deity, the supreme god\nwhom he invokes.  If the latter view be correct, it is difficult to\ndecide whether the reference be to the Sun-god, patronised by the\nruling powers (whether Egyptian or Hittite), or the great Addu who\nwould be quite in keeping with the allusions to war and victory.  Some,\nhowever, would recognise a Providence, or, from their interpretation of\nthe writer's name, Yahweh himself.  But a single tablet has little\nevidential value and we can merely mention the possibilities.\n\nThe preceding paragraphs touch only the fringe of an important\nsubject--the Palestinian pantheon in and after the Amarna age.\nEgyptian supremacy involved the recognition of Amon-Re, but it is\ndifficult to determine to what extent this deity {96} differed from the\nPalestinian Shamash.  Excavations illustrate the result of intercourse,\nespecially in the southern part of the land, but the numerous\ncharacteristic scarabs, and the representations of Osiris, Isis, Ptah,\nSebek, Anubis, and the ever-popular Bes (with moulds), need have no\nsignificance for the gods of Palestine.  They may not always be\nspecifically Egyptian; Bes, for example, appears to be of non-Egyptian\nancestry.  Further, a number of the names in the Amarna letters are\nneither Egyptian nor Semitic, but of northern origin, and the name of\nthe king of Jerusalem, 'servant of Khiba,' introduces a goddess of the\nearlier 'Hittite' peoples whose influence upon Palestine is to be\ninferred upon other grounds.[4]\n\n\n[4] H. Winckler (_Mittheil._, No. 35), p. 48.\n\n\nIn Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria numerous deities of varying rank were\nvenerated by the people.  Bes, himself, in spite of his subordinate\nposition in the pantheon was a favourite among all Egyptians outside\nthe more elevated classes.  The popular beings, like the popular\nreligious ideas, are not to be found in royal inscriptions or\ntemple-hymns.  The state and the priesthood often refused to recognise\nthem, but they are to be found not rarely among the {97} personal names\nof ordinary individuals.  This probably holds true also of Palestine,\nand consequently we must not suppose that the influence of foreigners\nupon the _popular_ cults of the land is to be ignored or that the more\nhonourable names which we have been noticing were the sole claimants to\nthe worship of the peasantry.[5]\n\n\n[5] Comp. M. Jastrow, _Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens_, i. p. 164\n_sq._; H. P. Smith, 'Theophorous Proper Names in the Old Testament,' in\n_O. T. and Semitic Studies in memory of William Rainey Harper_, i.\n_pp._ 35-64 (Chicago, 1908).\n\n\n\n\n{98}\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nCONTEMPORARY THOUGHT--CONCLUSION\n\n+Miscellaneous Ideas.+--Although the native literature of our period\nconsists almost entirely of the begging-letters and reports in the\nAmarna Tablets, yet even from the language addressed to the human\nrepresentative of the Sun-God, we may gain some idea of the\nintellectual environment, some hints, it may be, suggestive of the\nreligious thought of the age.[1]  The Egyptian monarch is addressed not\nonly as king of lands, king of battle but as a god (pp. 63, 78).  His\ncommands are as powerful as the Sun (Shamash) in Heaven; he is like the\nSun which rises over the lands every day, and, as for the rising of the\nSun in Heaven, so the writers await the words which come from his\nmouth.  They keep the king's command day and night and acknowledge that\nthe king will curse {99} the man who does not serve him.  He who\nhearkens not to the word of the king, his lord, his city and house go\nto ruin, and his name will not be in the land for ever; but (says the\nwriter, the king of Tyre) the servant who hearkens to his lord, his\ncity and house flourish, and his name is unto eternity, 'for thou art\nthe Sun which rises over me and the wall of bronze which is lifted up\nfor me.'\n\n\n[1] It need hardly be remarked that the paragraphs classifying the more\ninteresting ideas in the letters from Palestine and Syria have been\nmade as literal as possible.\n\n\nThe vassals do obeisance seven and seven times; they prostrate\nthemselves upon breast and back.  (Both attitudes are illustrated in\nthe rather later tomb of Harmheb.)  They call themselves the throne on\nwhich the king sits, his footstool, the dust of his feet and of the\nsoles of his sandals.  They are the ground upon which he treads, the\ndirt over which he walks; his yoke is upon their neck and they bear it.\n'Whether we mount up to heaven or descend to earth, our head is still\nin your hand,' writes one, and he makes the following striking\nacknowledgement: 'I look here and I look there and there is no light,\nbut I look to my lord the king and there is light; and though a brick\nmove away from under its coping, I will not move away from under the\nfeet of my lord.'  These phrases, which were evidently popular, are\nused by two {100} other writers.  A vassal thus declares his fidelity:\n'I have not sinned in aught against the king my lord, I have not\nsinned; may the lord my king know his evil-doers.'  Another seeks the\nway to his lord, and from his lord deserts not.  A confident vassal\nprays the king not to take anything to heart; let not thy heart be\npained, he writes.  One writer asks if he is a dog that he should not\nobey the royal commands, and a second emphasises his remarks by a\nrepetition of the oath 'as the king, my lord, liveth.'\n\nThe king of Byblos, who calls his city the king's faithful handmaid,\ncomplains of a deed against his city which had not been done since\neternity; the dogs (_i.e._ his adversaries) act after their hearts and\ncause the king's cities to go up in smoke.  The fields are like a wife\nwithout a husband through lack of sustenance.  He himself is caught\nlike a bird in a cage.  Again, he is old and stricken with disease; the\ngods of Byblos are enraged, and the illness is very severe, but, he\ncontinues, 'I have opened (confessed) my sins to the gods.'  He\ndeclares that since the day he received favour from the king his heart\nhad not changed, his face is (fixed) to serve him; if the king's heart\nis for his city (or, elsewhere, if it is on his heart) let him send\nhelp.\n\n{101}\n\nThe vassals write that they stretch out their hand to the king's feet,\nor pray that the king may extend his hand unto them.  The citizens of\nTunip assert: 'thy city weeps and its tears flow; there is no seizing\nof the hand (help) for us.'  The ruler of Beirut trusts that the royal\ntroops may shatter the heads of the king's enemies, while his servant's\neyes gaze (_i.e._ with pleasure) upon the king's life.  The elders of a\ncity entreat: 'May the king our lord hearken to the words of his true\nservants, and give a present to his servants, while our enemies look on\nand eat the dust; let not the king's breath depart from us.'  The king\nis the breath of his vassals' lives; they rejoice when it reaches them,\nfor without it they cannot live.  The thought was a common one, and in\nan Egyptian text the defeated Hittites are represented as saying to\nRamses II. 'in praising the Good God (_i.e._ the king) \"Give to us the\nbreath that thou givest, lo, we are under thy sandals.\"'  Equally\ninteresting are the words of the prince of Sidon on the receipt of\ntidings from the king, 'my heart rejoiced, my head was uplifted and my\neyes shone.'\n\nFinally, the king of Jerusalem in his letters to his god, his Sun,\nprotests that one has slandered him (_lit._ eaten the pieces).  While\nother writers {102} disclaim guilt or sin (_khitu_), _i.e._ rebellion,\nhe asserts that he has been loyal (_saduk_) in his dealings.  He\nacknowledges that neither his father nor his mother appointed him in\nhis place, the king's strong arm has set him up in his father's house,\nhe has 'put his name upon Jerusalem for ever,' therefore he cannot\nabandon its territory.  Indeed, his recognition of Pharaoh's supremacy\nis unique, and in one of his communications to the king his Sun, after\nthe usual obeisance ('at the feet of my lord, seven times and seven\ntimes I fall'), he declares that his lord 'has put his name upon the\nEast and upon the West.'\n\n\n+The Underlying Identity of Thought+ throughout the old Oriental world\nshows itself alike in Egyptian texts and in Hittite tablets from\nBoghaz-keui.  The literature of Babylonia, Assyria, and often, too, of\nEgypt so frequently has analogies and parallels in the Old Testament,\nthat we may assume that similar points of contact would be found, had\nwe some of the religious writings of the Palestine of our period.\nThough we do not know how the Palestinian addressed his gods, the\nevidence whether direct or indirect partially enables us to fill the\ngap.  Even the simplicity and poverty of Oriental pastoral life have\nnever {103} been accompanied by a corresponding inferiority of\nexpression or dearth of religious reflection.  An unbiased examination\nof the external religious literature shows the position which the\ndeities held in the thoughts of their groups of worshippers.  Religion\nwas quite part of life, and the same fundamental conceptions underlay\nthe manifold social-religious systems whether tribal or monarchical.\nTo their head each group looked for all the gifts of nature and also\nfor protection and succour; him they were loyally prepared to sustain,\nand they expected a corresponding loyalty on his part.\n\nA topical example of the identity of thought is furnished by a hymn of\nthe monotheist Ikhnaton in honour of Aton.  The deities are largely\nwhat circumstances make them; the extension of Egypt's empire extended\nthe supremacy of the national-god, the situation encouraged the\nconception of a world-god.  Now, this domesticated and somewhat weak\nmonarch, holding himself aloof from politics, endeavoured to found a\ncult of the sun-disc which was characteristically devoid of the usual\nassociation of the sun with the destructive aspect of the storm- or\nweather-god.  Like other individual faiths, it was stamped with a\nprofound spirit of humanity.  Ikhnaton's deity {104} was the sole god,\nbeside whom there was no other; the beginning of life, the creator of\n'the countries of Syria, Nubia, the land of Egypt'; the maker of all\nmankind diverse in speech, and of all that is upon the earth and on\nhigh.  It was a despotic and ill-timed monotheism.  It introduced a\ncult which was too far from ordinary worship, one which threatened to\noverthrow the old-established deities.  What was probably more\nimportant was the fact that the deity had not the forceful and\ndominating attributes of the old sun-god.  He was not a god of war,\nand, from the current standpoint, would be of no avail in the political\nstorms which were beating upon the Egyptian empire in Asia.  But this\nremarkable attempt at a reform claims attention especially because the\ncult was as little upon traditional and specifically Egyptian lines as\nwas the idea of the beneficent life-giving sun whose rays were not\nconfined to Egypt alone.  As Professor Breasted has observed, the hymn\nis especially interesting for its similarity in thought and sequence\nwith the late Psalm civ.  There is no evidence, however, that any\neffort was made to spread Ikhnaton's cult over the Egyptian dominions\nin Western Asia, and the possibility of Asiatic influence upon the\nshaping of the cult cannot be altogether excluded.  We quote a {105}\nfew lines from Professor Breasted's translation to illustrate\nIkhnaton's conceptions of the sun-god, whose worship was one of the\nmost popular in Babylonia and Assyria, who, indeed, was regarded there\nnot merely as an illuminator but as a supreme and righteous judge, the\ngod of truth and justice.\n\n  'When thou risest in the eastern horizon of heaven,\n  Thou fillest every land with thy beauty.\n      *      *      *      *      *\n  When thou settest in the western horizon of heaven,\n  The world is in darkness like the dead.\n      *      *      *      *      *\n  Bright is the earth when thou risest in the horizon,\n  When thou shinest as Aton by day.\n  The darkness is banished, when thou sendest forth thy rays.\n      *      *      *      *      *\n  How manifold are all thy works,\n  They are hidden from before us,\n  O thou sole god, whose powers no other possesseth,\n  Thou didst create the earth according to thy desire,\n  While thou wast alone.\n      *      *      *      *      *\n  The world is in thy hand,\n  Even as thou hast made them.\n  When thou hast risen, they live.\n  When thou settest, they die.\n  For thou art duration, beyond thy mere limbs,\n  By thee man liveth,\n  And their eyes look upon thy beauty,\n  Until thou settest.'[2]\n\n\n[2] See further the appreciative account of the reform by J. H.\nBreasted, _History of Egypt_, _pp._ 355-378.\n\n\n{106}\n\n+The Influence of Babylonia.+--The fact that Palestine used the script\nand language of Babylonia suggests that it shared other features of its\nculture.  Among the Amarna Tablets were Babylonian mythological texts\nwhich had been carefully studied or used for reading-exercises in\nEgypt.  One, the myth of Eresh-ki-gal and Nergal, narrating the descent\nof the latter into Hades, recalls the story of Persephone.  Another,\nthe myth of Adapa, tells how the hero who refused the food and water of\nlife in heaven was denied the gift of immortality.  It is inconceivable\nthat Palestinian speculation did not turn to the mysteries of life and\ndeath, or that a people should acknowledge Nergal--or any other\ndeity--without some formal beliefs.  May we assume, therefore, that\nPalestinian thought was pre-eminently Babylonian?  The question is as\nimportant for our period as for the Old Testament, and, in the absence\nof texts wherewith to institute a comparison, we conclude with a brief\naccount of the bearing of the available evidence upon the problem.\n\nThe formulated beliefs, the theology, and the mythology which all races\npossess to some degree or other have grown up from that primitive\nphilosophy of man which seeks to explain all that he saw about him.\nThe old question: {107} 'What mean ye by this service?' (Exod. xii. 26)\nis typical of the inquiry which ritual (and indeed all other) acts\ninvariably demand; the danger lies in our assuming that the proffered\nexplanations necessarily describe their origin, and in confusing the\nessential elements with those which are accidental and secondary.  The\nexcavations at Gezer suggest an illustration.  What rites were\npractised in its caves or in the great tunnel which leads to the\nsubterranean spring cannot be asserted, but there is a living tradition\nthat the waters of the flood burst forth in the neighbourhood.  Similar\nflood-stories can be localised elsewhere.  In Hierapolis water was\npoured into a chasm below the sanctuary twice a year, and according to\nthe Pseudo-Lucian it was here that the waters of Deucalion's flood were\nabsorbed--hence the rite!  But Melito reports that water was emptied\ninto a well in the city in order to subdue a subterranean\ndemon--evidently some earlier chthonic deity.  Similar water-rites were\nknown in Palestine and Syria as a 'descent' or _Yer\u012bd_, and it may\nbe presumed that an echo of the term survives in _'Ain Yerdeh_ at the\nfoot of Gezer.  We do not reach the root of the matter, but we can\nnotice the diverse explanations of the same rite (which probably\noriginated in a charm {108} to procure rain), the ubiquity of certain\ntraditions, their persistence, and the ease with which they adjust\nthemselves.  Further, it is instructive to observe how the rite has\nbeen shaped in the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles and has been dressed in\naccordance with specific religious beliefs (cp. Zech. xiv. 16 _sq._).\n\nSome arch\u00e6ological details may next be summarised.  An altar at\nTaanach, with protuberances suggestive of horns, bore in bold relief\nwinged animals with human faces, lions, a tree with a goat on either\nside, and a small human figure clutching a serpent.  Though it may\nbelong to the eighth or seventh century, similar scenes recur upon\nseals and other objects of all dates.  Animals (especially of the deer\nor gazelle kind) are common, either alone or in conjunction with trees\nor men.  Man-headed bulls with wings, sphinxes, and scenes of combat\nalso appear.  The ubiquitous myth of the dragon-slayer finds a parallel\nin the Egyptian scene of a foreign god (Sutekh) piercing the serpent\nwith his spear, or in the later grandiose representations of the sturdy\nboy at Petra who grips the dragon.[3]  One {109} seal shows a\nseven-branched tree grasped by two men with the sun and moon on one\nside and two stags on the other.  In a second, a human figure stands\nbefore a kind of pillar which is surmounted by an eight-rayed star.  A\nthird had been impressed upon a tablet from Gezer which bore nineteen\ndistinct objects, including sun, moon, star, serpent, fish, crab,\nanimals, etc.  Some of the signs were at once recognised as zodiacal,\nand less elaborate specimens from Gezer and Megiddo furnish parallels.\nBut inscribed Babylonian boundary-stones of our period bear analogous\nsymbols; they are the emblems of the deities whose powers are thus\ninvoked by the inscription should the land-mark be damaged or removed.\nThe more gods, the more powerful the charm.\n\n\n[3] The former is given by F. L. Griffith, _Proceedings of the Society\nof Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, xvi. p. 87, the latter by A. Jeremias, _Alte\nTest._, etc., p. 456 _sqq._, fig. 151.\n\n\nSuch objects with all their Babylonian associations may in certain\ncases have been imported or copied from foreign originals; the scenes\ncould have been absolutely meaningless or even subject to a new\ninterpretation.  But it is as difficult to treat every apparently\nforeign object as contrary to Palestinian ideas, as it is to determine\nhow sacrificial and other scenes would otherwise have been depicted.\nReligion found its expression in art; art was the ally of idolatry, and\nthe later uncompromising attitude of Judaism towards {110} display of\nartistic meaning implies that the current symbolism, etc., reflected\nintelligible religious conceptions.  But it does not follow that these\nconceptions were everywhere identical.\n\nAgain, when a scimitar from a tomb at Gezer resembles that which a\npriest holds in a sacrificial scene upon a Gezer seal, we may suppose\nthat the seal represents a familiar Palestinian ceremony.  But the same\ntype of weapon is found in Assyria and Egypt in the age of the\nNineteenth Dynasty, and it is therefore impossible to treat it or the\nscene as _distinctively_ Palestinian.  The ubiquity of the\ndragon-conflict, too, warns us that the same underlying motive will\npresent itself in a great variety of external shapes, and it is\ninteresting to find that the idea of the slayer as a _child_ actually\npoints away from Babylonia.  Features which find their only parallel in\nthe accumulation of Babylonian evidence are not inevitably of\nBabylonian origin.  Our land was exposed to diverse influences, an\nillustration of which is afforded by certain seals with cuneiform\ncharacters.  The owner of one is styled a servant of Nergal (see p.\n93); it bears Egyptian symbols (those of life and beauty), and a scene\nof adoration, partly Egyptian and partly Babylonian in treatment.  It\nhas been ascribed to the First Dynasty of Babylon.  Later {111} come\nthe seals of the Sidonian Addumu 'beloved of the gods (?)' and his son;\non one is an Egyptianised representation of Set, Horus, and Resheph.\nYet another combines two conventional scenes, the priest leading a\nworshipper before a deity (Babylonian), a king slaying a kneeling enemy\n(Egyptian).[4]  In the presence of such fusion the problem becomes more\ncomplex.  If, in the Greek age, it is found that Adonis and Osiris or\nAstarte of Byblos and Isis resembled each other so closely that it was\nsometimes difficult to determine which deity was being celebrated, the\nrelation between the Baalath of Byblos and Hathor, or between Shamash\nand Amon-Re could have been equally embarrassing in our period.  In\nfact, as Palestine continues to be brought into line with other lands\nthe task of determining _specific_ external influences becomes more\nintricate.\n\n\n[4] See (_a_), Sellin, _Tell Ta'annek_, fig. 22, _pp._ 27 _sq._, 105\n(Vincent, _Canaan_, fig. 117, p. 170 _sq._); (_b_) Winckler,\n_Altorient. Forschungen_, iii. p. 177 _sq._; and (_c_) E. J. Pilcher,\n_Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, xxiii. p. 362.\n\n\nFinally, whatever was the true effect of the early Babylonian\nsupremacy, both Palestine and Syria, when not controlled by Egypt, were\ninfluenced by the northern power of Mitanni and by the Hittites who\npreserve distinctive features {112} of their own.  According to\nProfessor Sayce most of the seals we have been noticing are Syrian\nmodifications of the Babylonian type, and 'the more strictly\narch\u00e6ological evidence of Babylonian influence upon Canaan is\nextraordinarily scanty.'[5]  It is obvious that one must allow for the\ndirect influence exerted upon the religious conditions from a quarter\nof which very little is known as yet.  The fact that Babylonian was\nused in Palestine and among the Hittite peoples clearly does not allow\nsweeping inferences.  Indeed, so far from the script or language having\nbeen imposed from without, the people of Mitanni apparently borrowed\nthe cuneiform script and adapted it to their own language; while, in\nthe Amarna Tablets, the native tongue of Palestine and Syria has left a\ndistinct impress upon the Babylonian.[6]  This individuality repeats\nitself in Palestinian pottery, which has neither originality of concept\nnor fertility of resource.  But it has vigour and vitality, and has not\ndeveloped into the superior art with which it came into contact.  In\ngeneral the arch\u00e6ological evidence shows very {113} clearly that\nPalestine was not absorbed by Babylonian culture, still less by that of\nEgypt.[7]\n\n\n[5] A. H. Sayce, _Arch\u00e6ology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions_ (London,\n1907), _pp._ 151 _sq._\n\n[6] For Mitanni, see Sayce, _op. cit._, p. 167; and for the dialect of\nthe Amarna letters, Zimmern, _Keilinschr. u. d. Alte Test._, p. 651.\n\n[7] Cp. Vincent, _op. cit._, p. 341 (also p. 439 and note 1).\n\n\n+Conclusion.+--Recent research gives us a glimpse of the Religion of\nAncient Palestine which becomes more distinct as it is found to be in\ngeneral harmony with Oriental religions.  The picture, as we see it, is\nneither Egyptian nor Babylonian, and if the latter colours it, this was\ninevitable, partly through the still obscure relations under the First\nBabylonian Dynasty, partly (though indirectly) through the influence of\nthe northern peoples, and again partly because both (as opposed to\nEgypt) are Semitic.  The picture, nevertheless, has distinctive traits\nof its own.  By the side of sacred places of cult and rites often cruel\nand gross appear those indications of loftier elements which prove that\nwe have no mere inchoate nature-worship.  This co-existence need cause\nno surprise.  The institutions which combine to make civilisation do\nnot necessarily move at the same rate or in parallel lines, either with\neach other or with the progress of religious thought.  A variety of\nstages of development--such as can be observed in a single province of\nmodern India--could have been easily found amid {114} conflicting\npolitical groups, or in the presence of foreign mercenaries or\nsettlers.  One may also assume that then, as now, there were the usual\ncontrasts between the exposed sea-ports and the small inland townships,\nbetween the aristocracy and the peasantry, between the settled\nagriculturists and the roaming sons of the desert.\n\nThe fundamental religious conceptions have from time to time been\nelevated and ennobled by enlightened minds; but what European culture\nwas unable to change in the age of Greek and Roman supremacy,\ninfluences of Oriental origin could not expel.  Official cults,\niconoclastic reforms, new positive religions have left the background\nsubstantially unaltered, and the old canvas still shows through the\ncoatings it has received.\n\nOur evidence has taken us down through the age of Egyptian supremacy,\nwhich can be traced to the time of Ramses III., if not to the days of\nWenamon and Zakarbaal (1100 B.C.).  With the decay of Egypt we reach\nthe close of a period which corresponds broadly to that wherein\nIsraelite history has placed the Patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, and the\nJudges.  The picture which the external sources furnish was not effaced\nat a stroke.  But the transformation from Egypt's suzerainty to an\nindependent Israelite monarchy, {115} from the polytheism of the Amarna\nage to the recognition of a single God does not belong to these pages.\nThe rise of Yahweh as the national God, and the development of\nconceptions regarding his nature must be sought in the native Israelite\nrecords themselves, and in such external evidence as the future may\nproduce.  Our task is finished when we point out that the external\n(arch\u00e6ological) evidence does not reveal that hiatus which would have\nensued had there been a dislocation of earlier conditions by invading\nIsraelite tribes; earlier forms are simply developed, the evolution is\na progressive one.[8]\n\n\n[8] Cp. R. A. S. Macalister, 'Excavation of Gezer,' _Quarterly\nStatements_, 1904, p. 123; 1907, p. 203; Sellin, _op. cit._, p. 102;\n_id._, _Der Ertrag der Ausgrabungen in Orient f\u00fcr die Erkenntnis der\nEntwicklung der Religion Israels_ (Leipzig, 1905), _pp._ 33, 36 _sq._,\n39 _sq._, see, in general, Vincent, _op. cit._, _pp._ 19 _sq._, 147\n_sqq._, 199-204, 225, 345, 352 _sq._, 463 _sq._, and S. A. Cook,\n_English Historical Review_, 1908, _pp._ 325 _sq._\n\n\n\n\n{116}\n\nPRINCIPAL SOURCES AND WORKS OF REFERENCE\n\nFor the Excavations: R. A. S. Macalister, 'Reports on the Excavation of\nGezer,' in the _Quarterly Statements_ of the Palestine Exploration Fund\n(October 1902-October 1905; July 1907-July 1908); _id._, _Bible\nSide-lights from the Mound of Gezer_ (London, 1906, numerous\nillustrations); Ernst Sellin, 'Tell Ta'annek,' in the _Denkschriften_\nof the Vienna Academy (1904-5); W. M. Flinders Petrie, _Researches in\nSinai_ (London, 1906); Hugues Vincent, _Canaan d'apr\u00e8s l'Exploration\nRecente_ (Paris, 1907; a valuable account, from the arch\u00e6ological\nstandpoint, of the results of excavation contained in the above works\nand elsewhere); G. Schumacher, _Tell el-Mutesellim_ (Leipzig, 1908),\nvol. i., text and plates.\n\nEvidence from Babylonian or Assyrian Texts: H. Winckler, _The\nTell-el-Amarna Tablets_ (London, 1896); new edition by J. A. Knudtzon,\n_Die El-Amarna-Tafeln_ (Leipzig, 1907-8; Parts i.-x.); H. Zimmern, _Die\nKeilinschriften und das Alte Testament_ (Berlin, 1903; pp. 345-643); A.\nJeremias, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients_ (Leipzig,\n1906); M. Jastrow, _Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens_ (Giessen,\n1905--).\n\nEgyptian Sources: W. M. M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa nach Alt-\u00e4gyptischen\nDenkm\u00e4lern_ (Leipzig, 1893); {117} J. H. Breasted, _History of Egypt_\n(London, 1906); _id._, _Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents_\n(1906-7); _Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache_, etc. etc.\n\nOf general works, W. R. Smith, _Lectures on the Religion of the\nSemites: the Fundamental Institutions_ (London, 1894), is naturally\nindispensable.  Important, also, are G. A. Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic\nOrigins, Social and Religious_ (New York, 1902); Marie-Joseph Lagrange,\n_\u00c9tudes sur les Religions S\u00e9mitiques_ (Paris, 1905); J. G. Frazer,\n_Adonis, Attis, and Osiris: Studies in the History of Oriental\nReligion_ (London, 1907).  For Modern Semitic Religion there is a large\nmass of scattered evidence; the most illuminating works are those of C.\nM. Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_ (Cambridge, 1888); S. I. Curtiss,\n_Primitive Semitic Religion To-day_ (London, 1902); A. Jaussen,\n_Coutumes des Arabes au Pays de Moab_ (Paris, 1908).  For the history\nof the period may be consulted the works of G. Maspero (_Histoire\nAncienne_; Paris, 1904, etc.), or the popular account, with typical\nillustrations, by G. Cormack, _History of Palestine in Early Times_\n(forthcoming).\n\nFor those unacquainted with modern comparative study in the field of\nreligion, one of the most serviceable introductory books is J. A.\nMacculloch's _Comparative Theology_ (Churchman's Library, London, 1902).\n\n\n\n\n{118}\n\nCHRONOLOGICAL TABLE\n\nThe following dates are based upon the latest researches, but are to be\nregarded as provisional.  Some Biblical dates are added for comparison,\nthose marked with an asterisk follow the margin of the Authorised\nVersion.\n\n\n  FIRST BABYLONIAN DYNASTY (the\n    'Khammurabi age') between  . . . . . . . . . . . . 2060-1800 B.C.\n\n  TWELFTH EGYPTIAN DYNASTY, began about  . . . . . . . 2000.\n  Abram enters Canaan  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1921*.\n  Descent of Jacob into Egypt  . . . . . . . . . . . . 1706*.\n  Hyksos invasion of Egypt, about  . . . . . . . . . . 1680.\n\n  EIGHTEENTH EGYPTIAN DYNASTY  . . . . . . . . . . . . 1580-1350.\n  Thutmose III.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1500.\n  Exodus of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1491*.\n  Invasion of Palestine  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1451*.\n  Amenhotep III.   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1411.\n  Amenhotep IV. (Ikhnaton) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1375.\n\n  NINETEENTH EGYPTIAN DYNASTY  . . . . . . . . . . . . 1350-1200.\n  Sety I.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1320.\n  Ramses II. (? Pharaoh of the oppression,\n    Exod. i. 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1310.\n  Merneptah (? Pharaoh of the Exodus;\n    defeats Israel in Palestine) . . . . . . . . . . . 1244.\n\n  TWENTIETH EGYPTIAN DYNASTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200-1090.\n  Ramses III. (first mention of Philistines) . . . . . 1200-1169.\n  Ramses XII. (? age of Eli) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118.\n  Tiglath-pileser I., about  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100.\n  Saul, King of Israel (? 1025)  . . . . . . . . . . . 1095*.\n  David, King of Judah (? 1010)  . . . . . . . . . . . 1056*.\n  Solomon, about . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970.\n\n\n\n\n{119}\n\nINDEX\n\n\nADDU, weather-god, 79, 89 _sq._, 95.\n\nAdonis, 36, 47, 92, 111.\n\nAegean isles, 6, 8.\n\nAgriculture, 7, 9 _sq._, 11, 33 _sq._, 88, 90.\n\nAllah, 21, 61, 68.\n\nAltar, 18 _sqq._, 27, 39, 108.\n\nAmarna tablets, 6 8, 10, 33, 63, 76, 78, 92, 96, 98 _sqq._, 106, 112,\netc.\n\nAmenhotep II., 44.\n\nAmenhotep III., 5 _sq._, 56, 70 _sq._, 81, 118.\n\nAmenhotep IV.  _See_ Ikhnaton.\n\nAmon, the god, 54 _sq._, 61, 71, 74 _sqq._, 77 _sq._, 81, 95, 111.\n_See_ Re.\n\nAmulets, 17, 32, 35, 38, 51 _sq._\n\nAnath, goddess, 85.\n\nAncestor-worship, 57 _sqq._\n\nAnimals, 22, 30 _sq._, 39_sq._, 43 _sqq._, 47 _sqq._, 50, 61, 85, 108\n_sq._\n\nAnimism, 60.\n\nAnointing, 14, 27, 42, 64, 76, 79.\n\nAnubis, 96.\n\nAnthropomorphism, 28, 49.\n\nApollo, 23, 84.\n\nArabia, 7, 87 _sq._, 92.\n\nArch\u00e6ology, 2, 7 _sq._, etc.\n\nArts, 8 _sq._, 112 _sq._\n\n_Ash\u0113rah_, 26, 87.\n\nAshirat, Ashirta, goddess, 53, 87.\n\nTell 'Ashtarah, 77, 81.\n\nAshur, the god, 53, 87 _sq._, 92.\n\nAssyria, 5, 7, 39, 62, 78, 87 _sqq._, 92, 102.\n\nAstarte, 29 _sq._, 45, 49, 70, 73, 86 _sq._\n\nAtargatis, 31.\n\nAton, 103 _sqq._\n\n\nBAAL (title 'lord'), 66 _sq._  _See_ Heaven.\n\nBaal (proper name), 33, 84, 89.\n\nBaalath (title 'lady'), 66, 86.  _See_ Byblos.\n\nBaal-Zephon, 86.\n\nBabylonia, 4 _sq._, 10, 30, 62, 70, 87, 90 _sqq._, 94, 102, 106 _sqq._,\n110 _sqq._, 118.\n\nBes, 96.\n\nBlood-revenge, 42.\n\nBludan (near Damascus), 46.\n\nBroken offerings, 45 _sq._\n\nBull, 32, 90 _sq._\n\nBurial, 15, 17 _sq._, 36 _sq._, 40.  _See_ Dead.\n\nByblos, 66, 74 _sq._, 83, 100.  _See_ Zakarbaal.\n\n\nCAMEL, 17, 45, 48.\n\nCannibalism, 38.\n\nCarthage, 3, 27, 31, 34 _sq._, 39, 41, 43, 72.\n\nCaves, 15 _sq._, 19 _sq._, 24, 34, 38, 41, 46, 53, 107.\n\nCharms, 32, 38, 51 _sq._, 107, 109.\n\nCobra, model of, 15, 48.\n\nCremation, 34, 40, 56.\n\nCup-marks, 14, 16, 20, 26, 35 _sq._\n\nCurse, 72, 90, 98.\n\n\nDAGON, 92.\n\nDead, disposal of, 22, 34 _sqq._; in religion, 55 _sqq._, 58 _sqq._, 75.\n\nDemons, 50 _sq._, 64, 71.\n\nDerceto, 31.\n\nDog, 22, 100.\n\nDreams, 25, 52 _sq._\n\n\nEGYPT, historical sketch, 4 _sqq._; influence of national cult, 74\n_sqq._, 95 _sqq._; received Asiatic gods, 83 _sqq._, etc.\n\nEl (title 'god'), 66 _sq._, 69.\n\nEl (proper name), 91, 93 _sq._\n\nEmblems, 32, 72, 109.\n\n\nFETISH, 27, 32.\n\nFish, 31 _sq._, 109.\n\nFoundation sacrifice, 39 _sq._, 43.\n\n\nGAD (the god), 92.\n\nGaza, 33.\n\nGezer, 6, 8 _sq._, 13 _sqq._, 17, 19, 28, 30, 34, 37 _sqq._, 44 _sqq._,\n76, 80, 88, 107, 109 _sq._\n\nGods.  _See_ chaps. vi. and vii.; gods and animals, 47 _sqq._; demons\nand spirits, 50, 64; kinship with men, 61 _sqq._; their human\nrepresentatives, 54 _sq._, 57, 59, 62 _sqq._; their vicissitudes, 66\n_sqq._; subordinate gods, 68, 69 _sq._, 96 _sq._; national gods, 64\n_sq._, 67 _sqq._; lord or king of gods, 74, 77, 84, 95.  _See_ Saints.\n\nGudea, 62.\n\n\nHADAD, 57, 89 _sq._  _See_ Addu.\n\nHathor, 26, 30, 70, 76, 81, 85, 111.\n\nHeaven, king or lord of (title), 66, 72 _sqq._, 84, 87 _sqq._, 91; lady\nor mistress of, 70 _sq._, 73, 85 _sq._\n\nHittites, 5 _sq._, 71, 73 _sq._, 78, 81, 88, 90 _sq._, 96, 101 _sq._,\n111 _sq._\n\nHoly, sacred, 34, 46 _sqq._, 85.\n\nHorus, 111.\n\nHorus-eyes, 52.\n\nHuman sacrifices, 38 _sqq._, 42 _sq._\n\nHyksos invasion, 4 _sq._, 82 _sq._, 118.\n\n\nIDOLS, 17, 26, 28 _sq._, 31 _sq._, 49, 53 _sq._, 71 _sq._, 77.\n\nIkhhaton, 5, 42, 103 _sqq._, 118.\n\nInfant burial or sacrifice, 15 _sqq._, 36 _sqq._, 93 _sq._\n\nIshtar, 70 _sq._, 87 _sq._, 95.\n\nIsis, 96, 111.\n\nIsrael, Israelite religion, 1 _sqq._, 6, 8, 10 _sq._, 17, 33 _sq._, 36,\n39 _sqq._, 42 _sq._, 47 _sq._, 64, 80, 86, 88, 94, 102, 104, 106, 108\n_sq._, 114 _sq._\n\n\nJEHOVAH.  _See_ Yahweh.\n\nJericho, 8, 10, 32, 88.\n\nJerusalem, 5, 14, 20, 53, 92, 96, 101 _sq._\n\n_Jinn_ (demon, _q.v._), 40, 54.\n\n\n_K\u0101d\u0113sh_ ('holy'), 34, 85.\n\nKhammurabi, 62, 72, 78, 90 _sq._, 118.\n\nKhiba, 96.\n\nKhonsu, 71.\n\nKings, divinity of, 59, 61 _sqq._, 78 _sq._, 98; their breath or\nspirit, 101.\n\nKinship with supernatural beings, 60 _sq._, 62 _sq._, 83 _sq._\n\n\nLACHISH, 7, 30.\n\nLamps, 25, 35, 40 _sq._, 94.\n\nLebanon, 28, 77, 87.\n\nLegends, 23, 49.  _See_ Myths.\n\nLion, 49, 84.\n\nLoyalty (_s-d-k_), 102 _sq._\n\n\nMAGIC, 34, 38, 51, 53, 55.\n\nMegiddo, 8, 17, 28, 31, 40, 49, 76, 79, 109.\n\nMelek (king), 94.\n\nMerneptah, 6, 33, 53, 118.\n\nMesha, king of Moab, 11, 80.\n\nMessianic ideals, 64.\n\nMitanni, 5, 70, 111 _sq._\n\nMohammedanism, 21 _sq._, 40, 68 _sq._  _See_ Palestine.\n\nMolech, 94.\n\nMonotheistic tendencies, 5, 23, 67 _sqq._, 72 _sq._, 81, 95 _sq._, 103\n_sq._\n\nMoon god, 88 _sq._\n\nMurder, 42.\n\nMyths, 49, 62, 86, 106 _sqq._, 110 _sq._\n\n\nNAME, 44, 57 _sq._, 60, 81, 99, 102.\n\nNebo, 92.\n\nNergal, 93, 106, 110.\n\nNin-gal, 89.\n\nNinib, 47, 92.\n\nNusku, 89, 94.\n\n\nOATH, 21, 100.\n\nOracles, 25, 52 _sq._\n\nOriental thought, 11, 102, 113.\n\nOrnaments, 52.\n\nOsiris, 26, 38, 47, 75, 96.\n\n\nPALESTINE, history, 4 _sqq._; land and people, 8 _sqq._; modern\nreligion, 21 _sqq._, 25, 37, 39 _sqq._, 43 _sq._, 46, 50, 53, 59, 68\n_sq._; its gods, chaps. vi. _sq._; thought, 98 _sqq._; chronology, 118.\n\nPetra, 19 _sq._; 108.\n\nPhilistines, 7, 80.  _See_ Dagon.\n\nPhoenician gods, 72, 92 _sq._\n\nPillars, 13 _sqq._, 26 _sq._, 109.\n\nPolitics and religion, 64 _sq._, 67 _sq._, 72, 78, 80.\n\nProphets, 54 _sq._, 86.\n\nPtah, 53, 96.\n\n\nRAM, 30.\n\nRamman, 87, 89.\n\nRamses II., 6, 44, 58, 62, 71, 73, 77, 81, 85, 101, 118.\n\nRamses III., 7, 70, 77, 114, 118.\n\n'Ransom,' the, 43 _sq._\n\nRe, 63, 71, 73.  _See_ Amon.\n\nResheph, 84 _sq._, 87, 92, 111.\n\n\nSACRIFICE, 15 _sqq._, 22, 25, 27, 36, 38 _sqq._, 41 _sqq._, 79.\n\nes-S\u0101fy, 7, 17, 19, 30.\n\nSaints (welis, etc., in modern Palestine); virtually local gods, 21\n_sqq._, 24 _sq._; their vicissitudes, 23; resemble those of the gods,\n67 _sq._; appear in animal form, 22, 50; physical fathers, 59, 61.\n_See_ Gods, Tombs.\n\nSamson, 88.\n\nSanctuaries, 13 _sqq._, 77; their persistence, 19 _sqq._; in modern\nreligion, 21 _sqq._, 24, 37.\n\nSeals, 93, 108 _sqq._\n\nSebek, 96.\n\nSerabit el-khadem (Sinaitic peninsula), 7, 15, 19, 26 _sq._, 32, 41,\n45, 52, 69, 84.\n\nSeraph, 93.\n\nSerpents, 15, 32, 48, 108.\n\nSet.  _See_ Sutekh.\n\nSety I., 6, 58, 77, 118.\n\nShalem, 92.\n\nShamash, sun (-deity), 70 _sq._, 78 _sqq._, 88 _sqq._, 93, 95 _sq._,\n98, 111.  _See_ Sun.\n\nShamshi-Adad, 91.\n\nSin, 55, 100, 102.\n\nSin (the god), 66, 88 _sq._\n\nSinuhe, 9, 35.\n\nSoul, the, 37, 41, 45, 57.\n\nSpirits, 50 _sqq._\n\nStones, 13 _sqq._, 26 _sq._, 32.\n\nSun-god.  _See_ Amon, King, Re, Shamash.\n\nSusa (in Elam), 38, 54.\n\nSutekh (Set), title and proper-name (cp. Baal, El), 73 _sq._, 82, 84,\n108, 111.\n\nSwine, 16, 48, 92.\n\nSymbols.  _See_ Emblems.\n\n\nTAANACH, 8, 18, 29, 40, 53, 93 _sq._, 108.\n\nTeshub, 70 _sq._, 89.\n\nThought, Oriental, 11, 102 _sqq._\n\nThutmose III., 5, 9, 28, 77, 85, 94, 118.\n\nTiglath-pileser I., 7, 81, 118.\n\nTombs, 19, 21 _sqq._, 35 _sqq._, 46, 59.\n\nTrees, 25 _sq._\n\nTushratta (King of Mitanni), 56, 70 _sq._\n\n\nUNCLEAN, 47 _sq._\n\n\nVOWS, 46.\n\n\nWAR, 22, 39, 72, 80, 82, 84 _sqq._, 90, 93, 95, 104.\n\nWater-rites, 107 _sq._\n\nWeli (patron).  _See_ Saint.\n\nWenamon.  _See_ Zakarbaal.\n\n\nYAHWEH, 94 _sq._  _See_ Israel.\n\n\nZAKARBAAL, 54, 56, 74 _sq._, 78, 114.\n\nTell Zakariya, 31.\n\n\n\n\nPrinted by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty\n  at the Edinburgh University Press\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRELIGIONS: ANCIENT AND MODERN.\n\n\nANIMISM.\n\nBy EDWARD CLODD, Author of _The Story of Creation_.\n\n\nPANTHEISM.\n\nBy JAMES ALLANSON PICTON, Author of _The Religion of the Universe_.\n\n\nTHE RELIGIONS OF ANCIENT CHINA.\n\nBy Professor GILES, LL.D., Professor of Chinese in the University of\nCambridge.\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF ANCIENT GREECE.\n\nBy JANE HARRISON, Lecturer at Newnham College, Cambridge, Author of\n_Prolegomena to Study of Greek Religion_.\n\n\nISLAM.\n\nBy SYED AMEER ALI, M.A., C.I.E., late of H.M.'s High Court of\nJudicature in Bengal, Author of _The Spirit of Islam_ and _The Ethics\nof Islam_.\n\n\nMAGIC AND FETISHISM.\n\nBy Dr. A. C. HADDON, F.R.S., Lecturer on Ethnology at Cambridge\nUniversity.\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF ANCIENT EGYPT.\n\nBy Professor W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE, F.R.S.\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.\n\nBy THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, late of the British Museum.\n\n\nBUDDHISM. 2 vols.\n\nBy Professor RHYS DAVIDS, LL.D., late Secretary of The Royal Asiatic\nSociety.\n\n\nHINDUISM.\n\nBy Dr. L. D. BARNETT, of the Department of Oriental Printed Books and\nMSS., British Museum.\n\n\nSCANDINAVIAN RELIGION.\n\nBy WILLIAM A. CRAIGIE, Joint Editor of the _Oxford English Dictionary_.\n\n\nCELTIC RELIGION.\n\nBy Professor ANWYL, Professor of Welsh at University College,\nAberystwyth.\n\n\nTHE MYTHOLOGY OF ANCIENT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.\n\nBy CHARLES SQUIRE, Author of _The Mythology of the British Islands_.\n\n\nJUDAISM.\n\nBy ISRAEL ABRAHAMS, Lecturer in Talmudic Literature in Cambridge\nUniversity, Author of _Jewish Life in the Middle Ages_.\n\n\nSHINTO. By W. G. ASTON, C.M.G.\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF ANCIENT MEXICO AND PERU.\n\nBy LEWIS SPENCE, M.A.\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE HEBREWS.\n\nBy Professor JASTROW.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's notes:\n\nPlus signs (+) denote +bolded+ characters.\n\nUnderscores (_) denote _italics_.\n\nPage numbers are shown in curly braces, e.g. \"{4}\".\n\nFootnote numbers are shown in square brackets, e.g. \"[4]\".","title":"The Religion of Ancient Palestine in the Second Millenium B.C.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":26312}